Not sure if anyone has seen this post by Motortrend

[Cryztus]

Based on what I have seen all over this forum I would assume this is estimate is laughable:

from
https://www.heritagefd.com/research...rd Bronco Gas Mileage,city and 26 mpg highway.

I would expect the 2.7T Bronco with the 10R to get anywhere between 15-18 real world. However, I don't think the 2.7T will have much of a mileage penalty over the 2.3T with 10R. The 2.3T is thirsty for a four pot.

Sponsored

 

[atonge40]

I expect my bronco to get similar mpg as the F-150. If the bronco doesn't get at least 21-23 mpg combined or better I'd be pretty surprised.

I would be very surprised if I got 21-23 MPG in a Bronco. Especially since my Ranger has never gotten close. FWIW, I get better real world MPG with an F150 with the 3.5TT than I do my Ranger with the 2.3T. I drove my FILs F150 Platinum for a month and got 22 MPG.

 

[ChrisD]

I think it really comes down to use cases... The 392 Jeep is really going to be a niche market. For most of my driving, torque is more of a concern. I rarely drive fast off road... When I owned a Challenger SRT8, the engine was rated at 470 lb-ft of torque at the flywheel. The Bronco with the v6 is what, 400 lb-ft, and a lot lighter. There are going to be times when more torque and weight is desirable, but not often.

From my perspective, the 392 engine made sense on the Challenger or the Charger, or even the Jeep Grand Cherokee, but for something Wrangler or Bronco sized, I am not tracking the advantage, at least for my needs. I've had three Jeep Wranglers, a couple of Cherokees, and several Ram trucks over the years, but for the kind of driving I'm going to be doing in the western deserts, that V6 is going to serve me well.

 

[OJ Simpson]

Jeep screwed the pooch on the pricing of the 392 Rubicon. Loaded it's $77K

 

[Kos]

V6 Fuel Economy on the EPA website. I'm expecting the same official #'s on the Bronco, real world probably a MPG or two less.

 

[Kos]

Jeep screwed the pooch on the pricing of the 392 Rubicon. Loaded it's $77K

The guys doing Hemi swaps now are putting $100K into their rigs easily. Jeep is just getting a bigger chunk of the pie.

Also, they've opened it up to the people who just have too much money burning a hole in their pocket.

 

[abe]

Damn! So this is what I can expect?
Hope for the best prepare for the worst. I do not think the monthly gas cost will be much different from when I had my Mercedes. I don't expect to drive much daily unless I am hitting a trail.

I averaged 20ish in my 2.7 F150. I'm expecting 18 or 19 on the Bronco.

 

[Jr87mustang]

I didn't know these beasts took premium fuel to boot. Getting 13 mpg around town in a 392 would not be something I would sign up for. My uncle ordered one about a month or so ago so when it comes I will get pics and other reports back here.

 

[ferbm]

I actually think the whole V8 thing is a novelty. "We" want it because it cannot be had. So it becomes the coveted item to attain status and exclusivity. My personal belief is that Jeep wont sell a ton of these and will simultaneously weaken significantly the aftermarket demand for V8 Jeeps. It's no longer exclusive, and if you have to have one, you can pick it up from the factory cheaper and with a warranty. Ultimately this is a lose-lose proposition for V8 Jeeps.

It's a market killer.

 

[rtsherry73]

FCA doing FCA things... faced with waning interest in their tired products, and justified criticisms of slow evolution and technological advancement, they just crammed a bigger motor into an existing product.

Big engine + existing small car = worked just fine in the Muscle Car days...But cost $3,500, not $75,000

 

[ZackDanger]

Big engine + existing small car = worked just fine in the Muscle Car days...But cost $3,500, not $75,000

Also, there's been 50+ years of engineering and design advancement since those "Muscle Car days."

 

[Wanted33]

The 392 Wrangler is just a conversation piece. No one needs that engine for off roading, and no one in the right mind would buy it for that. When faced with competition the first thing FCA does is take an old platform, and throw a huge engine at it. It will be a niche marker at best.

My Wrangler JL with the 3.6L does everything it's supposed to do without grumbling. So, there's no need for a 392 unless I'm going to enter a d%^k measuring contest.

 

[BigHoof]

Jeep screwed the pooch on the pricing of the 392 Rubicon. Loaded it's $77K

The Warthog will be there too and it will not have a V8. A loaded Badlands is already at $60k.

 

[TeocaliMG]

The bigger the tire, the more power needed to turn it. That's why people running 37"+ tires have been doing hemi swaps on their jeeps and other off road vehicles for years.

Or gearing, almost always gearing. Horsepower will let you do stuff faster but that was never the point of crawling. One glance at a tractor and you can see the emphasis on gearing over power.

 

[Top Mach]

I remember my first post.......nobody else does.

Sponsored