Fuel range concerns with 2 door Sasquatch

[Southern Girl]

I have been pretty set on getting a base 2 door with the Sasquatch package due to the value. However, since the fuel tank size is 16.9 gallons on the two door and the EPA mpg ratings are not out yet, I'm worried the fuel range may be low. If the Sasquatch get 15 to 16 mpg (based on some rough numbers from similar vehicles and 35's), the range may only be 250 to 270 miles. I have no problem with 15 mpg but it would probably get old having to fill up every couple of days. Anyone else worried about the potential range of a 2 door with Sasquatch?

It's a legit concern. My son has a TJ and he had to stop for gas 7 times between Ohio and Florida.

On the other hand, my F150 can go close to 550 miles without having to fill-up. I'm a tad concerned about the fuel storage, myself.

Sponsored

 

[Toccoa]

I have about a 70 mile round trip commute. I'd be looking at around 3 days before having to fill up with these estimates assuming I'm not running it to empty. I don't mind the lower mpg's, just don't want to regret having to fill up so often. I just used to being able to commute all week on one tank in my pickup.

That's a hell of a commute! Let's hope for higher MPGs to at least get you to a one week cycle again.

 

[AcesandEights]

It's a legit concern. My son has a TJ and he had to stop for gas 7 times between Ohio and Florida.

On the other hand, my F150 can go close to 550 miles without having to fill-up. I'm a tad concerned about the fuel storage, myself.

Is that a lot?

 

[tyrobronco]

The 2.0 in the sport is 21/26 MPG. I think we'd be lucky to see Wrangler numbers on the regular bronco.

2011 "F150 w/V8 and 6 speed (3.73 gears) gets 16.5 combined (mostly city).

I think the Bronco will be able to do at least the same and maybe a little better.

 

[Doc Rocket]

My current ride has a 21 gallon tank and gets about 15 mpg normally. However, the yellow "fill up now, idiot" light comes on with about 5 gallons to go, so I am normally filling up at about the 225-240 mile mark. I'll live with it. And remember, mileage goes with how much power you use--you use the 270 (or 310) horsepower a lot, your mileage will reflect it.
Efficiency is how much power you get out, compared to the flow rate of fuel in. Semi-trucks and Top-Fuel dragsters are both very efficient, but the mileage is pretty low. Mileage is a performance number. a 1990 Geo Metro is not that efficient, but the mileage is quite high, it gets high mileage because it weighs nothing and has a small, gutless engine. Mileage is no less a performance number than 0-60 times. In either case, you need to drive in a fashion that takes advantage of the performance potential to see it.

 

[Hoofnmouth]

It aint built for long hauling! ,one of the worst accidents i ever saw was a jeep rear ended with a jerry can on back dont do it,met lots of pretty girls at the gas station filling up.
Take your time stop get some gas ,a pack of beef jerky and relax ?sorry it wont go from alaska to baja in one trip for that you need a mr. Fusion.

 

[Stitches1974]

2011 "F150 w/V8 and 6 speed (3.73 gears) gets 16.5 combined (mostly city).

I think the Bronco will be able to do at least the same and maybe a little better.

The Wrangler is 19/24 21 combined. I'll bet money the bronco is going to be pretty close to that.

https://www.chrysler.com/hostd/windowsticker/getWindowStickerPdf.do?vin=1C4HJXDG5MW573656

 

[calgecko]

15 mpg!?! That would be horrible. It has to be better than that. These ecoboost engines are supposed to be efficient.

I've got a 2.3 Ecoboost in my 2016 Mustang - My overall average for the 4.5 years and 84k miles I've put on it, is 18.8 MPG.. blend of city and highway driving. I don't drive like a grandpa, but I am also not flooring it everywhere. I fully expect my 4 door Sasquatch with 2.7 to get an average of about 15 mpg or so (I'm thinking 12-14 mpg around town, and maybe 18 on the highway).. it's built with the aerodynamics of a barn, with big (heavy) tires... it's NOT going to be fuel friendly

 

[lowmpg]

Think this is all doom and gloom (par for the forum)...the 2020 Expedition weigh a hair more than the Bronco running a 3.5 and gets 17/23 mpg, seriously doubting the Bronco with a 2.7 is coming in at 15mpg, but time will tell.

 

[VictoryLights]

I have been pretty set on getting a base 2 door with the Sasquatch package due to the value. However, since the fuel tank size is 16.9 gallons on the two door and the EPA mpg ratings are not out yet, I'm worried the fuel range may be low. If the Sasquatch get 15 to 16 mpg (based on some rough numbers from similar vehicles and 35's), the range may only be 250 to 270 miles. I have no problem with 15 mpg but it would probably get old having to fill up every couple of days. Anyone else worried about the potential range of a 2 door with Sasquatch?

The impracticalities of the 2-door just stack up too high for me. The 4-door gives you an extra 4 gallons which is an underappreciated benefit.

 

[BigFootie]

My previous second use vehicle was a 1995 F-150 White Lightning. Had two 17 gallon tanks and got 10 mpg around town. 250 - 300 between filling up in town. Could eek 15 mpg down hill with a tailwind on the highway. Thinking the Bronco will be great compared to that even with 35 inch tires and 4.7 rear end.

 

[BuckinT29]

Not the car for you if MPGs are a concern.

 

[Atomicdog]

My previous second use vehicle was a 1995 F-150 White Lightning. Had two 17 gallon tanks and got 10 mpg around town. 250 - 300 between filling up in town. Could eek 15 mpg down hill with a tailwind on the highway. Thinking the Bronco will be great compared to that even with 35 inch tires and 4.7 rear end.

I had an ‘89 150 4x4 custom 5 speed with dual tanks which was convenient until the rear tank started leaking from rust. I just used the front instead of repairing it. That beast gave me 9-12 mpg

 

[BigFootie]

I had an ‘89 150 4x4 custom 5 speed with dual tanks which was convenient until the rear tank started leaking from rust. I just used the front instead of repairing it. That beast gave me 9-12 mpg

Yes, filling up with premium when it got up to 4.00+ Per gallon was painful especially after draining both tanks! Only filling up a 16.9 gallon tank will be fine for me.

 

[AcesandEights]

The 2020 Ford Ranger gets 20 - 24mpg per fuel economy dot gov (official EPA rating). It has a curb weight of 3,922 lbs. - 4441 lbs. and has a GVWR of 6050 lbs.

The 2021 Explorer has a much closer curb weight to the Bronco, at 4,345 lbs. With the same engine, in AWD (closest to 4WD), it gets 20 - 27 mpg.

The 2021 Ford Bronco 2D curb weight is 4319 - 4977 lbs with the same 2.3L (GVWR isn't listed). So, the Bronco is roughly ten percent heavier than the Ranger, and shaped differently.

Makes me think the Bronco will be closer to 18 - 25mpg with the 2.3L and less with the 2.7L

Interestingly enough, the Ranger has a max tow rating of 7,500 lbs, the Explorer 5,300 and the Bronco is 3,500.

Another interesting thing that I found, which I didn't realize EPA reported was E85 numbers. Fuel mileage for the Explorer is 30% lower with E85. All, except premium, has ethanol where I live. Even if it's 10% ethanol that could mean 20% lower mileage (10% lower per 5% ethanol, assumed from E85 providing 30% less mileage). That would mean a vehicle's mileage in a state that has ethanol could be rated at 18 - 25 mpg and one could realistically expect 14.5 - 20 mpg. Quite a dramatic difference.

I found this on the US Energy Information site:

"The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than pure gasoline. The impact of fuel ethanol on vehicle fuel economy varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added to the ethanol. The energy content of denaturant is about equal to the energy content of pure gasoline. In general, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by about 3% when using E10 relative to gasoline that does not contain fuel ethanol."

I think they missed a zero after the "3", because the EPA ratings of mileage are more similar to 18mpg down to 14mpg using E85 (as a real example), which is 22%, not 3%.

Sponsored