Bronco MPG, Respectable

[Philvis77]

2-dr Badlands, 2.7l. I'm averaging about 16.5 mpg. Most of my driving is around town. Thank God I don't have to commute to work!

Sponsored

 

[markregel]

Its amazing how this thread has degraded into so called real world MPG. EPA ratings are d

haha yeah should have clarified that statement. I had a mazda6, before my bronco. When I would fill it with premium instead of 89 I noticed 2-4 mpg better per tank. So from my limited experience, turbo engines really do like premium gas lol

Agree and it makes sense. Alcohol also lowers MPG (less energy). I think small turbo engines like in the Bronco offer both the opportunity to save and to suck like crazy. Punch it at stop lights and its going to use a lot of gas. Most people underestimate the difference it can make, or think if they are not racing they are driving to save gas. I have a 2012 Mazda6 with the base 2.5L. Its been a great car with zero issues so far. I purchased it as a last year model before the next generation and for $5000 less than what I could get a Camry for. No regrets!

 

[SPITmadFIRE]

I would say the Bronco is pretty darn respectable!

Cries in CA gas prices and Badlands 7MT 4.70 gearing -- I just paid $87 to fill up with 91 this morning 🥲

 

[markregel]

naw everyone rides my ass until I get up to the speed limit

I will take your word for it. There is definitely something about jeeps and aggressive driving however. Hopefully Bronco drivers are a little smarter than Jeep drivers lol

 

[DWood]

4dr 2.3 auto BD MIC all stock expect a 1” level. Always in “normal mode” and 87 octane. North Florida mostly rural driving some city.

 

[amccue90]

I will take your word for it. There is definitely something about jeeps and aggressive driving however. Hopefully Bronco drivers are a little smarter than Jeep drivers lol

Well my word goes down the drain when I get an itch for that sport mode

 

[SPITmadFIRE]

haha yeah should have clarified that statement. I had a mazda6, before my bronco. When I would fill it with premium instead of 89 I noticed 2-4 mpg better per tank. So from my limited experience, turbo engines really do like premium gas lol

The higher the compression ratio, the more an engine will benefit from higher octane fuel. The main reason you want to use higher octane fuel in high compression engines is to prevent damage -- using lower octane like 87 in an engine with a tune that requires 91 octane can genuinely cause the engine to pre-detonate and blow itself to pieces from the inside out.

Thankfully, it seems like our Bronco tunes from the factory can adjust to various octane levels from 87 up to 93. The marketing material around this implies the engine will "make more power" with higher octane fuel, which is correct, and we could also somewhat assume the engine will run more efficiently with higher octane. Whether or not that minor efficiency gain makes the cost of higher octane fuel worth it in the long run, MPG wise? Who knows. Whether or not using lower octane fuel will add a bit of extra engine wear, and cause more repair bills in the long run? Also, who knows. Depends on how good Ford's knock adjustment is in their factory tunes.

 

[cricex]

I've been getting 18.x highway (long 3-hr trip) and 16.x around town. 2.7L 4 door squatch

 

[Big Boss]

The higher the compression ratio, the more an engine will benefit from higher octane fuel. The main reason you want to use higher octane fuel in high compression engines is to prevent damage -- using lower octane like 87 in an engine with a tune that requires 91 octane can genuinely cause the engine to pre-detonate and blow itself to pieces from the inside out.

Thankfully, it seems like our Bronco tunes from the factory can adjust to various octane levels from 87 up to 93. The marketing material around this implies the engine will "make more power" with higher octane fuel, which is correct, and we could also somewhat assume the engine will run more efficiently with higher octane. Whether or not that minor efficiency gain makes the cost of higher octane fuel worth it in the long run, MPG wise? Who knows. Whether or not using lower octane fuel will add a bit of extra engine wear, and cause more repair bills in the long run? Also, who knows. Depends on how good Ford's knock adjustment is in their factory tunes.

Makes sense. That's why I run 89 typically and every so often throw a couple tanks in a row of 93. Haven't used 87 in one of my vehicles for a long time

 

[Hambone08]

4DR. BIG BEND , 1,568 MILE, 22.6 MPG. Central Mississippi, drive to and from work everyday ......

 

[SPITmadFIRE]

Makes sense. That's why I run 89 typically and every so often throw a couple tanks in a row of 93. Haven't used 87 in one of my vehicles for a long time

Most of the additional wear (if any) that lower octane fuel would cause isn't anything that running higher octane later on would remedy. It's not an issue of carbon buildup or anything like that. Think of octane as a measure of how "consistent" or "predictable" a fuel is. Think of 101 octane fuel as being very, very consistent -- the ECU can tell almost exactly how and when that fuel is going to ignite, every time, and can optimize for it with tons of extra oxygen at the right moment. A fuel with 87 octane can ignite much earlier or much later than the ECU expects it to, however. Each ignition is different, because the fuel is less consistent.

If fuel ignites later than expected, this usually just creates extra noise (backfires) and less power. The real concern is when fuel ignites too early (pre-detonation) that causes extra wear on your connecting rods, bearings, etc. Once these parts wear, you can't really undo that wear without replacing the parts. If the wear gets bad enough, you can cause engine knock. Once you hear knock, you know Uncle Rodney will be meeting you soon.

Edit: this isn't to say lower octane will have any adverse affect on these engines -- it's really up to the engine tune to decide how it should adapt to lower/higher octane fuels. Given there's no 91+ octane requirement on either of these engines, it's safe to assume running a lower octane won't have any long term effect, maintenance wise. The same 2.3L engine (with a different spec of turbo components, engine tune, etc.) is used in the Focus RS which 100% requires 91+ octane fuel. The performance tune on that spec of the 2.3L engine will cause serious issues if you use lower octanes.

 

[blanchardsbronco]

Black Diamond, non sas, 33" tires, 2.7.... slow driving 18.5. reg driving (which is fun) 17.2...... : (

 

[UncleBuck]

2.3 4Dr BB on 33” tires with mostly suburban driving = 17.5 mpg after 1400 miles. Unsure how to even whiff 20 mpg lol.

I've got 800 miles on my 2.7 4d BL Sas and I'm averaging 17.3. I'll take it.

 

[SPITmadFIRE]

I've got 800 miles on my 4d BL Sas and I'm averaging 17.3. I'll take it.

I'm curious if any Badlands 7MT owners have figured out the mysteries of 6th gear yet -- I want these MPG numbers on my manual, but for the life of me I can't figure out what gear it wants at highway speeds of 65-75mph

 

[markregel]

Makes sense. That's why I run 89 typically and every so often throw a couple tanks in a row of 93. Haven't used 87 in one of my vehicles for a long time

The EPA City mileage for a badlands Sasquatch is 16 miles per gallon. This thread is about comparing the base Bronco with other base four-wheel drive trucks. All that hardcore off-road hardware isn't free to buy and it's not free in gas. It also is nonsensical to compare that with less capable vehicles. Bottom line is the Bronco is comparable and even better than some of its contemporaries AKA Tacoma and 4Runner. Real real world mileage? You can argue that all you want it's meaningless whose numbers are you going to use? A well-known magazine rated Jeep diesel at 10 miles per gallon under EPA on their 75 mph route. I don't take that as gospel either too many variables. EPA may not always be correct but I'm pretty sure they attempt to rate all vehicles under the same guidelines. Just my two cents. No gas or diesel 4x4 truck is a vehicle to buy for a gas mileage.

Sponsored