PSUTE

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Threads
15
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
6,998
Location
Western Maryland
Vehicle(s)
Sierra
Your Bronco Model
Base
Topography matters. Same Chevy Trax AWD that I get 24-25 out of commuting at 80 at home in the mountains netted 30-31 doing 80 on a recent trip to Florida through flat coastal areas... Your experiences may vary...


Advertisement
 

da_jokker

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Threads
93
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
4,884
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JKU
Your Bronco Model
Wildtrak
Clubs
 
The exact same Badlands 2.3/auto is rated higher. Most people buy manuals (one reason) for the improved MPG. It's like the textbook definition of ironic.
There was a time this was true. A 4 or 5 gear manual would get better gas mileage than a 3 speed automatic. It has also been said that autos lose like 20% due to their fluid dynamics vs a manual's 100% engagement.

But today, it is just not the case necessarily. With 8 and 10 speed automatics, locking torque converters, and low shift points, an automatic can easily get the same MPG if not better.

Not saying that a manual isn't fun to drive or makes one feel more "connected" but real world driving...MPG doesn't have much value in the debate.
 

indio22

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
5,300
Location
Chicagoland, USA
Vehicle(s)
1972 Land Rover, 1985 CJ-7, 1998 TJ, 2014 BRZ
Your Bronco Model
Base
Vehicle Showcase
1
MT buyers have been buying economy cars because that's what manufacturers generally put MTs in. This is pretty well understood.
I'll vouch for that. Last year when shopping for a compact car, my wife insisted on a manual transmission. But for some models, a manual trans was only offered on the most basic of versions.

As soon as you wanted some features or even a decent color selection, then you had to go with an auto trans. It's no wonder most people go auto trans, given you often can't get any features on the manual model.

We ended up going with a manual trans Kia anyway (in pearl white which actually is a nice shade of white). It's very basic - even has an old school key with no fob. Wife loves it - so I'm happy.
 

dgorsett

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Threads
19
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
5,418
Location
colorado
Vehicle(s)
F250, Mustang, Explorer
Your Bronco Model
Big Bend
Clubs
 
Yep. Ford could have given us the same economy at less complexity and expense. It may have been at the expense of max power, but that just shows they are trying to win a marketing race, hype, not produce the best vehicle for the customer. They want to win short term customers, and higher profits.
Yep, I agree with you and jackwise, I'd have gladly paid less for more simplicity same mpg and a bit less high end power. A NA V-6, 3.5L would have worked for me. But we lost this argument (at least with Ford) a long time ago. Ford marketing loves big HP numbers, it is what it is. I could also do without a lot of the tech stuff, they are not marketing to boomers like me, but ironically, they are selling to boomers like me.
 

TheWoo

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Threads
3
Messages
678
Reaction score
1,705
Location
Manhattan, KS
Vehicle(s)
2021 Gladiator Mojave
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
I don’t understand how the 2.3 auto BL gets LESS mpg at highway then city. I also fail to see why they bothered to offer four and six cylinder engines when both basically get the same mileage. Yeah I realize there is a small hp and ft lb difference, but will the majority of drivers ever realize that small difference? It has to be something to satisfy some government over reach.
The point has been made several times in this and other threads, but the reason the heavier models (BD and Badlands) get poorer hwy mileage than city with the 2.3L is almost certainly due to the 2.3L having to work harder and therefore spooling the turbos much more often than, say, the 2.7L. That's why on the Badlands the city and hwy are flipped. You can get a mpg more in city driving out of the 2.3, but the 2.7 actually gets better mileage at hwy speeds because it doesn't have to work as hard to create the power needed to cruise at 70mph.

Tires aren't getting enough talk in this thread, either. Size, tread patterns, rubber make a lot of difference.
 

Advertisement

indio22

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
5,300
Location
Chicagoland, USA
Vehicle(s)
1972 Land Rover, 1985 CJ-7, 1998 TJ, 2014 BRZ
Your Bronco Model
Base
Vehicle Showcase
1
The point has been made several times in this and other threads, but the reason the heavier models (BD and Badlands) get poorer hwy mileage than city with the 2.3L is almost certainly due to the 2.3L having to work harder and therefore spooling the turbos much more often than, say, the 2.7L. That's why on the Badlands the city and hwy are flipped. You can get a mpg more in city driving out of the 2.3, but the 2.7 actually gets better mileage at hwy speeds because it doesn't have to work as hard to create the power needed to cruise at 70mph.

Tires aren't getting enough talk in this thread, either. Size, tread patterns, rubber make a lot of difference.
Shouldn't it be the opposite in that case though? Meaning the weight penalty should be greater during acceleration, which occurs more in city driving, where the vehicle is constantly starting/stopping.

Compared to on the highway where, other than the initial acceleration, the vehicle is at a more steady-state speed, and weight should not be as much a factor (unless hitting a lot of hills).

For the above reasons, I would expect the BD/Badlands additional weight to hit harder in city driving mpg than highway. (Although I'm no engineer, I just play one on TV.)
 

ChetC

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
74
Reaction score
332
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Vehicle(s)
2022 Big Bend
Your Bronco Model
Big Bend
Glad to see the effects of adding the Sasquatch pkg has a negligible effect on MPG.
The Sasquatch pkg will definitely effect MPG. It doesn't show up in dyno testing because you're not seeing the effects of wind resistance. Lift a vehicle, put larger tires on it and you're guaranteed to see a noticeable drop in MPG, even when geared correctly. This difference will definitely grow in the real world and then we'll see many of those who ordered the Sasquatch package complaining that Ford misled them with the projected MPG.
 

MudHorse

Badlands
Member
First Name
Rod
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Threads
3
Messages
17
Reaction score
5
Location
Detroit, MI
Vehicle(s)
66 Mustang Convertible, 2012 Audi Q7
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
They are actually quite good all things considered. We borrowed my mom's 2010 Pilot a few years ago for a roadtrip and averaged 17.9 on the highway. 17 with a sas. and 2.7 is mighty impressive really. The problem is the 350 mile range.
I am sure someone will come up with an aftermarket tank.
 

TheWoo

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Threads
3
Messages
678
Reaction score
1,705
Location
Manhattan, KS
Vehicle(s)
2021 Gladiator Mojave
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Shouldn't it be the opposite in that case though? Meaning the weight penalty should be greater during acceleration, which occurs more in city driving, where the vehicle is constantly starting/stopping.

Compared to on the highway where, other than the initial acceleration, the vehicle is at a more steady-state speed, and weight should not be as much a factor (unless hitting a lot of hills).

For the above reasons, I would expect the BD/Badlands additional weight to hit harder in city driving mpg than highway. (Although I'm no engineer, I just play one on TV.)
Overall, that's right, which is why both city and hwy mileage suffers with BD and BL builds. But the speed/weight combo is a problem at hwy speeds.
 

WyoBronc

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
First Name
Kerry
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
1,366
Reaction score
5,799
Location
Wyoming
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ranger, 2021 Bronco BB, 2006 Saturn Vue
Your Bronco Model
Wildtrak
The Sasquatch pkg will definitely effect MPG. It doesn't show up in dyno testing because you're not seeing the effects of wind resistance. Lift a vehicle, put larger tires on it and you're guaranteed to see a noticeable drop in MPG, even when geared correctly. This difference will definitely grow in the real world and then we'll see many of those who ordered the Sasquatch package complaining that Ford misled them with the projected MPG.
To start with, I don’t think a lot of people will be complaining to Ford. If I’m spending $60k on an off road 4x4 I’m not concerned about whether it gets 17 MPG or 15, and if it’s a big enough concern then don’t buy it and buy something better on gas. Secondly, you are correct that those are not real world numbers, but they are relative to each other…..in other words, if the advertised MPG on a non-Sasquatched Bronco is 18 MPg and a Sasquatched Badlands is 17, then they will both be dropping in real world driving, not just the Sasquatched rig. And until we have real world numbers it’s a premature discussion anyways.
 

Advertisement

ccameron511

Badlands
Active Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Threads
4
Messages
37
Reaction score
85
Location
San Francisco, CA
Vehicle(s)
None
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Unfortunately these figures led me to purchase a 4xe. I wasn't expecting much, but was expecting closer to Wrangler figures. With gas prices, especially in CA, it's just non sensical to have a car that gets mileage like this in 2021. Someone in NorCal is going to be very very lucky and will have the opportunity to purchase a 4D Badlands High package next month!

Side note: the 4xe has been a blast thus far. Still wary of potential issues, but getting 35+ blended MPG (and all electric in the city) in a torquey Rubicon monster truck has been amazing. Saving me hundreds in gas money only a month in. And the $9k in govt rebates is a plus as well...
 

indio22

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
2,549
Reaction score
5,300
Location
Chicagoland, USA
Vehicle(s)
1972 Land Rover, 1985 CJ-7, 1998 TJ, 2014 BRZ
Your Bronco Model
Base
Vehicle Showcase
1
Unfortunately these figures led me to purchase a 4xe. I wasn't expecting much, but was expecting closer to Wrangler figures. With gas prices, especially in CA, it's just non sensical to have a car that gets mileage like this in 2021. Someone in NorCal is going to be very very lucky and will have the opportunity to purchase a 4D Badlands High package next month!

Side note: the 4xe has been a blast thus far. Still wary of potential issues, but getting 35+ blended MPG (and all electric in the city) in a torquey Rubicon monster truck has been amazing. Saving me hundreds in gas money only a month in. And the $9k in govt rebates is a plus as well...
Dang, that's a nice mpg. Although as a guy who typically hangs onto vehicles untill grim death, the added complexity of hybrid having both ICE and electric gives me pause. I wonder about issues and costs down the road, for long term or secondary owners. Nice option though especially when newer.

I'm "amped" about EV because it gets rid of all the ICE stuff that can break and cause issues. But for me EV isn't there yet, at least for long trips that include off-roading.
 

TheWoo

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Threads
3
Messages
678
Reaction score
1,705
Location
Manhattan, KS
Vehicle(s)
2021 Gladiator Mojave
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
I'm "amped" about EV because it gets rid of all the ICE stuff that can break and cause issues. But for me EV isn't there yet, at least for long trips that include off-roading.
I can't wait - I fully anticipate trading my MY21 for a MY24 or 25 plug-in hybrid or even fully electric Bronco. I'd have strongly considered a plug-in hybrid now if available, though I won't mind another year or two of development there before going that way.
 

ChetC

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
74
Reaction score
332
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Vehicle(s)
2022 Big Bend
Your Bronco Model
Big Bend
To start with, I don’t think a lot of people will be complaining to Ford.
You say that but when the Ranger came out and people weren't seeing 23 MPG there was a class action lawsuit filed against Ford. The F-150 was involved in a MPG class action as well. I don't think anything came of either, but still...
 

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Threads
37
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
1,134
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 84 LTD 331 w/Vortech, 86 Capri 5.0 turbo, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
That's why so many people want a V8, what's the difference if you're going to get the same mileage anyway. Well, the difference is where/when in the rpm range you'll have how much power. Put a small motor on a 5000 lbs truck and wonder why it doesn't move until you mash the pedal and are in full boost. It's going to use a lot of fuel.
Oh, now you went and did it. The NO REASON FOR A V-8 crowd are going to have a cow. Everyone knows you either get Eco or Boost, never both. Probably should have just made the 2.7 std on the 4 door (although then no manual). The 8's drop off in mileage on a really built up 4 door would have been way less than either of the ECO's are going to be. That and almost no power drop off on a 5.0 between 87 and 93 (like 7 HP IIRC).
Advertisement

 

 
Top