Yeah, I've seen that, theres no way lol. That's gotta be a programming thing that hasnt been finished up yet. Let's say we get 20mpg, to go 1000 miles would be a 50 gallon tank, which they have already published, is not the case.
When your paycheck comes between fuel ups, a smaller tank definitely helps. The bronco would be better suited for a hybrid setup if extra range was ever on the table as an option.
Yeah... a lot of the stuff on those Broncos were confirmed as fake or one off. It was likely just random numbers. Much like the Brown leather, white accent package, trail doors, etc.
If your concerned about the cost of fuel being a factor your buying the wrong vehicle.
Dude, I’m talking about driving an OBS with gas at $3.75/gallon as a kid. Get your kicks somewhere else. If you venture “so far” away from gas stations frequently maybe a new 30-60k vehicle with UNKNOWN range isn’t for you? BTW, if you have anxiety when you’re two hours from a gas station maybe just hunt for roadkill instead
Have you never bought gas before? The shit changes daily
Whoa buddy, calm down. I daily drove an OBS bronco for years, I know how much it hurts to fill the mammoth tank. The second fuel tank or large tank would be nice, but not a deal breaker. And I dont have anxiety over it lol, I learn the range of my vehicles, and prepare accordingly, just thought it would be nice to have more capacity/more range. Would make for less frequent trips into town is all. I do it now in my 94 bronco, with its mammoth tank and less fuel efficiency, it would be nice to have the same capacity, with better economy.
And? Doesn’t matter if gas is $1.72 like I paid today or $3.20 like I paid 10 years ago, the cost of fuel is irrelevant to the majority of people. Having a bigger tank doesn’t cost me any more than a smaller tank.
And burning more gas going to the gas station.....hmm. maybe a bigger tank is more economical.
Exactly, I see no downside, other than lowering payload capacity, to raising the fuel capacity.
I can’t agree that you know what the majority of people would say is or isn’t relevant when discussing disposal of income. Differences aside; yes, lots of range would be ideal for numerous reasons. I simply disagree that the additional weight, size, and expense of an extra fuel tank is the best option.
sorry in advance but now that it all written might as well post it!
Yeah, I generally dont need to tow much, if I go real far, I usually tent camp, and pack relatively light, so the capacity isn't too huge of an issue for me. It will still have plenty of towing capacity for my boat, or even a small trailer should I ever acquire one. My concern is I gas up, drive all the way out and have less time before I have to come back for fuel. Again, not a deal breaker, just wish it had a little better range.You actually have a nice idea , but I don't think it would be feasible, Your request is more range, so we all think bring fuel canister and voila! but there is a problem at the horizon. I am starting to think more and more that the Bronco with the advertise spec as of now is not a vehicle to use for outdoors activity such as hunting and fishing on long trips. Before we all rage quit I just took the last hour to actually calculate the weight load of such a trip, and I am very very close to the limit. Bring Trailer, ATV,canoe, food, fuel, propane, base camp and hunting gear and you get close to the limit fast. In the event you get lucky and bring back a moose! In other words it's not a truck .. It's not designed to tow. And unlike a F150 it wont have the range. Many post here complaining both sides yes tow no tow. I am not saying it's good or bad.. I am just making an assessment of capability.
I will still buy a Bronco. Ill just have to adapt. I read your post before posting mine and I realize that I am off topic ... you mentioned long trip hunting! It started me on the topic but the question was just fuel range..
