Official MPG figures: 2021 Bronco 2.3L and 2.7L fuel economy

[lakesinai]

Via Bronco Nation

The competition

More reference points / technical specs chart for comparing the trims / models:

So in 1980, I had a really 1976 nice, pale green International Scout with a 6 cyl, auto trans, and actual air conditioning. It got 16 mpg on the highway. I had put "L" sized Radial (a new thing) tires on it to drive on the Cape Cod beaches. I started commuting to school in Boston, and we were coming out of the Carter-era gas crisis. I sold the Scout and bought a Volvo to get better gas mileage.

41 years later, I've signed up to buy a new-fangled Bronco that gets 4 mpg better gas mileage and costs $51,500. 20 mpg gas mileage, 41 years later? What am I doing?

By the way, the Scout was $6,250 new in 1976!

Sponsored

 

[lakesinai]

The low gearing isn't hurting anything too bad. Auto/4.70/35s works out to 2046 rpm at 70mph.

So, if you can do those calculations, by what percentage would it improve mpg to put 33" tires on my OBX with the 4.27 axle?

 

[Chrism81]

On the other hand, you can get 60MPG+ with the plug in hybrid Pacifica and you can fit an entire mattress in the back for your overlonding adventures:

yea but it looks like a small minivan.

 

[Gamecock]

So in 1980, I had a really 1976 nice, pale green International Scout with a 6 cyl, auto trans, and actual air conditioning. It got 16 mpg on the highway. I had put "L" sized Radial (a new thing) tires on it to drive on the Cape Cod beaches. I started commuting to school in Boston, and we were coming out of the Carter-era gas crisis. I sold the Scout and bought a Volvo to get better gas mileage.

41 years later, I've signed up to buy a new-fangled Bronco that gets 4 mpg better gas mileage and costs $51,500. 20 mpg gas mileage, 41 years later? What am I doing?

By the way, the Scout was $6,250 new in 1976!

The 2.3 has more than double the horsepower of that v6 Scout...AND better gas mileage. I’d call that a win.

 

[DC9atnight]

I don't see BD 2.7 listed. I think it's the only one not listed.

Maybe due to the effective gearing of 32" and 4.46 vs 35" and 4.7?

There seems to be a typo in the Ford/Bronco Nation document. Originally Badlands is on the 2.7 spreadsheet twice but if you go to Bronco Nation website it is revised and under 2.7 the non Sas BD is now grouped with the Base. BB and OBX in 2.7 mpg.

 

[Aviationtech101]

I’m willing to bet that the 2.3 #’s won’t be that much better than the 2.7. I had a ranger for a rental car for about a week. It was an Fx4, got about 17 city and 19 Hwy the way I drive. I’m assuming the bronco 2.3 will be the same. It did drive really strong and was surprisingly torquey.

We also have a 2014 H4 outback that is supposed to get 30mpg. For some reason it gets about 24mpg city and 23hwy. No idea why city is better. Mpg just tanks at 65-70 mph with the gearing and AWD. We wish we would’ve got the 6 cylinder. Much more power/performance, same mpg probably.

 

[North7]

The 2.3 has more than double the horsepower of that v6 Scout...AND better gas mileage. I’d call that a win.

Without all the emissions garbage on those year vehicles you did not need the extra horsepower.

Of course everything is a tradeoff, LA skys were like...

 

[Philvis77]

Time to check out what aerodynamic packages JC Whitney has for this beast!

 

[deznut]

Aftermarket will sell a bunch of Jerry can mounts that replace the spare tire...fire up the CAD machine and the waterjet...need to buy a new welder!

 

[da_jokker]

Well this does suck a bunch (pun intended) so maybe I'll have to crunch some insurance numbers and see if it's worth keeping my current car for the commute.

But thanks to all those Jeep folks that have posted. Sounds like if I bought a jeep and put 35s to match Sasquatch, I'd be getting just as bad mpg...so I guess gas pumps are just part of the lifestyle.

Of course I was thinking about the Rubicon Diesel

 

[Gamecock]

Without all the emissions garbage on those year vehicles you did not need the extra horsepower.

Of course everything is a tradeoff, LA skys were like...

The 330/300hp numbers today are inclusive of the emissions equipment...not before it. In reality the way it is measured today, the 1976 number is actually more inflated. That engine would be the weakest engine by far available in any SUV made today....including the effect of emissions equipment (which of course is factored into HP ratings, they don't measure it without it and then add it on). Even the V8 only pushe dthat thing to 60 in 10 seconds...the 6 significantly slower. A complete dog by today's standards.

 

[Ipe]

On the other hand, you can get 60MPG+ with the plug in hybrid Pacifica and you can fit an entire mattress in the back for your overlonding adventures:

Yes, but in a Pacifica who would want to sleep with you?

As far as SAS getting 17mpg.... well that is freaking awesome! My JKUR on 37s gets about 13.5. Anything more than that is cause for celebration. When asked what sort of mileage it gets my typical answer is: yes, it gets mileage

 

[Toccoa]

So in 1980, I had a really 1976 nice, pale green International Scout with a 6 cyl, auto trans, and actual air conditioning. It got 16 mpg on the highway. I had put "L" sized Radial (a new thing) tires on it to drive on the Cape Cod beaches. I started commuting to school in Boston, and we were coming out of the Carter-era gas crisis. I sold the Scout and bought a Volvo to get better gas mileage.

41 years later, I've signed up to buy a new-fangled Bronco that gets 4 mpg better gas mileage and costs $51,500. 20 mpg gas mileage, 41 years later? What am I doing?

By the way, the Scout was $6,250 new in 1976!

If it makes you feel any better, with inflation, that Scout would be $29,094.57 today. Given how spartan the interior of that Scout properly was, that lines up pretty well with the Base Bronco.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The 330/300hp numbers today are inclusive of the emissions equipment...not before it. In reality the way it is measured today, the 1976 number is actually more inflated. That engine would be the weakest engine by far available in any SUV made today....including the effect of emissions equipment (which of course is factored into HP ratings, they don't measure it without it and then add it on). Even the V8 only pushe dthat thing to 60 in 10 seconds...the 6 significantly slower. A complete dog by today's standards.

Not really a complete dog, they ran those 304's and 354's in grain trucks and dump trucks too. Even combines. They were not really intended to be a passenger vehicle engine which is why they had a reputation for being overbuilt powertrain wise... and why the shifter had like 4' of travel like a big truck of the day.

My great grandfather had a '67 1100 with a 304 and 4 speed, super cool old truck... which had a D44 rear axle like a new Bronco!

 

[L8apex]

Okay, I’m surprised as well for the dismal 2.3 numbers on my Badlands. Yes, it’s a heavy brick. But we all really should have seen this coming - Ford has been featuring those Jerry cans forever…

I mean the "closest" 2.3 comparison we have is the AWD RS. Given the Bronco's heavy ass wheels / general shape - all in all I think it's pretty good relative.

Sponsored