Official EPA MPG Mileage for 2021 Bronco posted on fueleconomy.gov

[Lakelife36]

I feel it's a bit ironic the manual Badlands gets the worst MPG.

Badlands Sas with 2.7 getting better MPG than Badlands manual. Nice lol.

how so? automatics are programmed to get better mpg all the time. manual doesn't have programmed shift points to optimize fuel.

Manuals have less parasitic losses. A smart driver can also cruise them in high gear more reducing rpms as long as they keep momentum up.

Everyone remember that there is a bigndifference between EPA numbers and real-world. AFAIU modern autos are programmed for the EPA test, then do a lot of learning as you drive them. Manuals on the other hand are tested with given shift points and don't benefit from "teaching to the test" like autos.
I like to think that the EPA numbers for manuals may be worse than for autos, but your real-world numbers will be a lot closer to the EPA's. Only long-term driver-reported numbers will tell us what the actual mileage difference is between them.

Sponsored

 

[King Luis]

Everyone remember that there is a bigndifference between EPA numbers and real-world. AFAIU modern autos are programmed for the EPA test, then do a lot of learning as you drive them. Manuals on the other hand are tested with given shift points and don't benefit from "teaching to the test" like autos.
I like to think that the EPA numbers for manuals may be worse than for autos, but your real-world numbers will be a lot closer to the EPA's. Only long-term driver-reported numbers will tell us what the actual mileage difference is between them.

back in the day autos were worse because they were programmed by throttle input, rpm, and speed. Now it's watching many more factors on when to shift. like what you said, the learning as you drive them.

 

[Lakelife36]

back in the day autos were worse because they were programmed by throttle input, rpm, and speed. Now it's watching many more factors on when to shift. like what you said, the learning as you drive them.

It would be interesting to see an auto take the same EPA test after learning how normal people drive for a couple of years. I am guessing that the results would be quite different.

 

[Tricky Dick]

I feel it's a bit ironic the manual Badlands gets the worst MPG.

Tied for the worst with 3 other configurations, while a manual non-BL is tied for the best even with a significant gearing penalty.

 

[Waynepa9]

Not thrilled or saddened by these numbers. Just wish the gas tank was bigger.

Exactly. 2DR BL @ 17 mpg= 287 mile range. Might as well get the EV.

 

[Vigor]

You're looking at the wrong part of my question. I can easily accept that extra weight of the Black Diamond or even the different gearing leads to lower MPG. That makes sense, what then doesn't is that the 2.7L Black Diamond apparently gets same MPG as the 2.7L BB, Base, OBX.

Ahhh I'm following you now.
Perhaps the 2.7 is more efficient idk

 

[MayhemMike]

My 2011 F150 Lariat crew 4x4 5.0 auto weighs in at 5700 lbs and it gets 19 to 23 depending on drive type and load.

 

[Joker352]

17 across the board (theoretically) for 2.7 sas. Still better than what my 98 Tacoma with 262k miles gets these days...I average about 11-12 in city driving, but amazing get about 18-19 if I do nothing but hwy for a day.

 

[MayhemMike]

If they just allowed me to get the MGV in an OBX, or the High package in the BD, all my worries would be over.

 

[AKBronc49]

how so? automatics are programmed to get better mpg all the time. manual doesn't have programmed shift points to optimize fuel.

Just in the fact that the 4 cylinder manual Badlands is rated at 16 mpg city, the least of any bronco. Just looking at face value, it's kind of funny and ironic, that's all.

 

[buzpro]

The official 2021 Bronco EPA Fuel Economy mileage numbers have been posted online.

What's the point of these TINY fkng engines with such HORRIBLE MPG? its no wonder why Ford was trying to hide these numbers until the very last moments.

 

[2.3BigBend]

So, can we assume that real world numbers are going to be less than this?

So, the 2.7 getting combined 19 will be more like 17 combined?

I personally have not had an issue achieving EPA in any of our EcoBoost engines. 2.7,2.3 or 2.0. They are less forgiving than a naturally aspirated engine if you are in the boost 24/7 maybe?

Still don't understand how the 2.3L Black Diamond gets significantly less mileage than the BB, Base, and OBX; yet throw a 2.7L in and they all perform the same.

Agreed. That bumper must weigh 1,2oo lbs.

Badlands Sas with 2.7 getting better MPG than Badlands manual. Nice lol.

Yeah none if makes sense to me. I honestly think Ford just underestimated them to get EPA approval quicker. You know, because they were gonna be flying off the assembly line by now. That and the numerous class action lawsuits on various EcoBoost vehicles for not being able to achieve the EPA ratings. They know that "some" people will be out there wheeling a lot and crying about 10 mpg??

 

[AcesandEights]

Do the knobby tires on the Sas contribute to the lowest MPG? It seems the right gearing is in place, so is it strictly the 35" tires causing the lower MPG or tread pattern or both? Will switching to a smoother tread pattern help?

The best MPG combo seems to be 2.3 and manual. 20/22 is not that bad considering for example my 97 TJ with the 4.0 has only 180 HP and nets between 16 and 18 MPG. So having 270 HP and a whole lot more torque on tap and increased MPG is nice. Has me thinking to cancel my Sas order and get base 2.3 with manual.

I will add that in most all of my vehicles with manual transmission I far exceed the EPA for mileage (exception only my current Wrangler). So I am really liking the manual more even if it means having small tires if I can squeeze out say 25 or 26 MPG.

No, the "knobbies" aren't the cause.

25-26mpg, BWAHAHAH!!!!

 

[AcesandEights]

What's the point of these TINY fkng engines with such HORRIBLE MPG? its no wonder why Ford was trying to hide these numbers until the very last moments.

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.

 

[2.3BigBend]

What's the point of these TINY fkng engines with such HORRIBLE MPG? its no wonder why Ford was trying to hide these numbers until the very last moments.

Yeah it doesn't make sense. Ford started this trend well before turbo's tho, with the Triton engines being smaller than their predecessors. 5.0 to a 4.6, 5.8 to the 5.4 etc. Then even newer engines, 3.7 going to a 3.5 and then a 3.3L. I think it's just to pacify the government? Looks better to some politician that these smaller engines produce less emissions, when it's just not reality. It's like between 2008-2012 when they upped MPG requirements for the future while simultaneously requiring a higher ethanol blend which hurts mpg. Sounded like getting your cake and eating it to someone in DC. Too good to be true? Absolutely.

Sponsored