MPG Difference Between the 2.3 and 2.7?

Rick Astley

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Rick
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Messages
3,329
Reaction score
12,811
Location
Seattle, WA
Vehicle(s)
2-stroke unicycle
Bronco
Badlands
We averaged 26.5 mpg on the highway to/from Montana in a 2019 Ranger that had approximately 10k miles on the clock. This done with a tonneau cover. Over the full 2,000 trip we netted 23.6 mpg.

Around town we're getting about 20-22 depending on terrain.
Advertisement

 

Mustang_75_99

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jason
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
173
Reaction score
257
Location
Northern Illinois
Vehicle(s)
2014 Ford F150, 2005 Mustang GT
Bronco
Badlands
I have a 2WD 17 Explorer with the 2.3L (so approximately the same weight as an Bronco). According to the onboard computer we average 22.1 mpg overall. Which could be better but neither my wife nor I drive conservatively.
 

Broncomputer

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
244
Reaction score
499
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
GTI
Bronco
Badlands
Whatever it is, I'm hoping around 20 combined for the 2.3.

I don't care what the 2.7 gets because theres no manual.
 

VictoryLights

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
2,900
Location
Pittsburgh
Vehicle(s)
2018 Honda Pilot
Bronco
Badlands
Clubs
 
Not a big enough difference to justify getting the weaker engine.
 

ramblinwreck

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
431
Reaction score
909
Location
Georgia
Vehicle(s)
Porsche Cayenne, Jeep Rubicon
Bronco
Wildtrak
What were ya getting on average before the lift and 35s?
I didn’t drive it long they way, but around 16-18 before. It was a noticeable drop, particularly at speed.

I personally don’t think a lifted vehicle with 35 MTs on it is appropriate for a daily driver if you are at all worried about road noise or gas mileage.
 

Treeza61

Well-Known Member
First Name
Richard
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
714
Reaction score
674
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2017 F250, 2019 4Runner TRD Pro, 2013 FJ
Bronco
Undecided
We averaged 26.5 mpg on the highway to/from Montana in a 2019 Ranger that had approximately 10k miles on the clock. This done with a tonneau cover. Over the full 2,000 trip we netted 23.6 mpg.

Around town we're getting about 20-22 depending on terrain.
Which engine?
 

Pancho Kornwallace

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Pancho
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
1,347
Reaction score
3,634
Location
Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
Bronco
Base
Gas engines are most efficient (thermodynamically, i.e. chemical energy to mechanical energy) near wide open throttle (WOT); the more closed the throttle, the more throttle losses and the higher the specific fuel consumption (SFC=fuel burned per unit power produced). A smaller engine operated with a more open throttle will generally be more efficient at low-load conditions (i.e. highway cruising). At high RPMs, these throttle losses are near-zero, but the friction losses are high, so the sweet spot is usually cruising at ~2300 RPM in top gear with the throttle mostly open. This, combined with the lower weight of the 2.3L vs. the 2.7L will probably work out to a ~10% longer highway range with the 2.3L.

Diesels don't have a throttle, which is why they are such efficient highway cruisers (combined with diesel just having more hydrogen molecules per gallon of fuel than gas AND diesels having high compression ratios). They are most efficient sitting at low-load conditions.
But about about the "Turbo"? A bizarre thing about the V6 v. 4 Cylinder Mustangs is the V6 naturally aspirated had a torque curve that enabled it to get better MPG and more power than the 4 Cylinder with 87 octane (in real world conditions), though I think both efficiency and power went up with higher octane.

What about the 30s on the base model with no options v. the 35s on a Sasquatch?
What makes more of a difference in MPG: 2.3 v. 2.7 or 30s v. 35s?
 

mrcx

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Messages
241
Reaction score
685
Location
Grapevine, TX
Vehicle(s)
'67 Camaro
Bronco
Badlands
Whatever it is, it will be a whole lot better than my current vehicle. It might need to be measured in gallons/mile instead of miles/gallon. Don't care though, I'm happy every time I drive it.
I expect the Bonco will make me just as happy, just in a different way.
 

Mattwings

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Matthew
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
5,891
Location
Northville, MI
Vehicle(s)
2018 F150
Bronco
Badlands
Vehicle Showcase
1
Clubs
 
I don’t have direct experience with the current 2.3l, but my actual, long term average with the 2.7l in my F150 Crew Cab 4x4 with 3.55 gears is just under 20. (19.6). I would say I drive somewhat aggressively (not by MI standards). Highway speeds average 78. I got 21.6 combined on my 400 mile trip to the cottage this weekend. Ford is notorious for needing break in time to achieve better economy and my 2.7 has been the same. At Around 15-18k the mileage stabilized at the 19.8 range. Prior it was at The hi 17 to low 18 range. I would expect if you concentrate on economy the 2.3 and manual could deliver 23 or 24 in the same driving loop, based on my reading several reviews and users posts and the 2.7 could do 21 or 22. The 2.7 creates and addictive thrust that I must experience regularly, so not exactly sure how good it could be ?? your mileage may vary:)
We now have a 2.3l Ranger FX4 in the family stable. We have done hwy and trail running trips with both vehicles and the Ranger regularly nets about 10% better fuel economy. The most interesting part, in roll on acceleration comparison, the Ranger is not very far off the F150. As speeds increase, the 2.7 F150 adds distance, but it is much closer than I would have guessed by “seat of the pants” feel or by comparing HP and weight. The 2.3l should improve slightly with break in as well. I would have no hesitation with the 2.3l and either of the higher gearing options. I expect it will maintain the 10% better economy, all things being equal (not towing, not fully loaded).
 
Last edited:
Advertisement

 
fifteen52
Advertisement
Top