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

[Ksjrb03]

There is no way they are confirmed

they are literally impossible

Time to come back to reality there space cadet.

Sponsored

 

[Broncofan1]

How are they impossible?

They seem quite reasonable if it were a V8, and being that the smaller engines will likely spend their lives in boost it makes sense to a degree that MPG would be in the high teens.

They are not impossible because they are low, they are impossible because the are so close together.

an f150 crewcab with the 2.7 10speed is rated at 19/24

you guys think a smaller and lighter bronco is going to be 17/17????

The bronco is officially the only non hybrid car ever to be rated by the epa to have the same city and highway mpg.

 

[atonge40]

They are not impossible because they are low, they are impossible because the are so close together.

an f150 crewcab with the 2.7 10speed is rated at 19/24

you guys think a smaller and lighter bronco is going to be 17/17????

The bronco is officially the only non hybrid car ever to be rated by the epa to have the same city and highway mpg.

It's shaped like a brick. Ford spends way more time. effort, and money on the F150. The 2.7TT F150 gets better real world fuel economy than the Ranger.

 

[NCOBX]

They are not impossible because they are low, they are impossible because the are so close together.

an f150 crewcab with the 2.7 10speed is rated at 19/24

you guys think a smaller and lighter bronco is going to be 17/17????

The bronco is officially the only non hybrid car ever to be rated by the epa to have the same city and highway mpg.

F150 has tiny 255 tires, 3.15 gearing, active aero shudders, air dams out the arse, plastic cladding under the truck directing air flow, the tires are tucked into the body and air is directed away from them, the truck has tons of little things that add up.

The Bronco doesn’t have those things because they impede off-roading.

At 70MPH your still turning larger tires with steeper gears, and thanks to Fords insistence on turbos those engines are working under load and in boost at those speeds.
On the opposite end the steeper gears get the truck moving faster and easier at low speeds.

My truck is on 37s and 4.56s, it gets 13MPG both in city and Highway. So this makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Broncofan1]

They are not impossible because they are low, they are impossible because the are so close together.

an f150 crewcab with the 2.7 10speed is rated at 19/24

you guys think a smaller and lighter bronco is going to be 17/17????

The bronco is officially the only non hybrid car ever to be rated by the epa to have the same city and highway mpg.

F150 has tiny 255 tires, 3.15 gearing, active aero shudders, air dams out the arse, plastic cladding under the truck directing air flow, the tires are tucked into the body and air is directed away from them, the truck has tons of little things that add up.

The Bronco doesn’t have those things because they impede off-roading.

At 70MPH your still turning larger tires with steeper gears, and thanks to Fords insistence on turbos those engines are working under load and in boost at those speeds.
On the opposite end the steeper gears get the truck moving faster and easier at low speeds.

My truck is on 37s and 4.56s, it gets 13MPG both in city and Highway. So this makes perfect sense to me.

ok maybe that explains the highway mpg

but not the city

the base bronco is what 1200-1300lbs lighter real world than an f150crew cab.
The base bronco probably has smaller and lighter tires than the f150.
It should murder the f150 in city mpg. There are no tricks to city mpg. It takes x energy to move y inertia.

 

[NCOBX]

ok maybe that explains the highway mpg

but not the city

the base bronco is what 1200-1300lbs lighter real world than an f150crew cab.
The base bronco probably has smaller and lighter tires than the f150.
It should murder the f150 in city mpg. There are no tricks to city mpg. It takes x energy to move y inertia.

F150 weighs between 4-5,000 lbs, the Bronco is between 4-4,500lbs. Base Bronco and what they put on most F150s have about the same tire size. So yes probably 1,000lbs from each extreme.

I don’t disagree with what your hitting at. Maybe Ford is being conservative with their ratings. It’s quite a bit more expensive for them to be too high than to be a little low.

Base truck at 20City/22Highway really is quite good in my opinion and I’m far from a Ford fanboy or loyalist for that matter.

 

[MOBroncoSTL]

I thought this was a pretty interesting perspective from mpgillusion.com Right or wrong it helps me rationalize and justify getting a basesquatch over a base base.

http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html
What is the MPG Illusion?

Test your understanding of fuel efficiency with this interactive quiz.

Go here for the original Science article.

The Problem with MPG

What is the problem with MPG? Consider a decision between two cars--a current vehicle and a new vehicle that is more efficient. Which improvement will save the most gas over 10,000 miles?

A) An improvement from 10 to 11 MPG
B) An improvement from 16.5 to 20 MPG
C) An improvement from 33 to 50 MPG

Surprisingly, all save about the same amount of gas over 10,000 miles: About 100 gallons.

The way to calculate the amount of gas used is to divide distance by MPG. A quick check of the numbers above will confirm the following gas usage over 10,000 miles:

10 MPG = 1000 gallons

11 MPG = 900 gallons

16.5 MPG = 600 gallons

20 MPG = 500 gallons

33 MPG = 300 gallons

50 MPG = 200 gallons

We want to emphasize that a higher MPG car is always more efficient than a lower MPG car for a given distance. We are not saying that a car that getst 11 MPG is somehow better than a car that gets 50 MPG -- to the contrary, we encourage all drivers to buy the most efficient vehicle they can. What we are saying is that MPG can be confusing when thinking about the benefits of improving MPG. The bottom line is that equal increases in MPG are not equal in gas savings.

As the examples above shows, small MPG improvements on inefficient cars can save a lot of gas. Of course, most people look at an improvement from 10 to 11, or 16 to 20, and think, why bother? But replacing an inefficient car with a car that is more efficient -- even by just a few miles per gallon -- is valuable in both gas savings and greenhouse gas reductions. Every 100 gallons saved reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 1 ton.

In short, you cannot simply look at an MPG increase from one vehicle to another to know the gas savings. Also, when a family thinks about its average fuel consumption, it cannot simply take an average MPG levels of two vehicles. Given two cars that are driven the same distance, the combination of 18 MPG and 50 MPG uses more gas than the combination of 28 MPG and 30 MPG. Direct comparisons of MPG is what leads to illusions. In each case, you have to convert MPG to know the amount of gas used.* We describe this step next.

 

[VoltageDrop]

They are not impossible because they are low, they are impossible because the are so close together.

an f150 crewcab with the 2.7 10speed is rated at 19/24

you guys think a smaller and lighter bronco is going to be 17/17????

The bronco is officially the only non hybrid car ever to be rated by the epa to have the same city and highway mpg.

While I have my doubts about these published numbers, the city=highway is certainly not unprecedented.

 

[DC9atnight]

I thought this was a pretty interesting perspective from mpgillusion.com Right or wrong it helps me rationalize and justify getting a basesquatch over a base base.

http://www.mpgillusion.com/p/what-is-mpg-illusion.html
What is the MPG Illusion?

Test your understanding of fuel efficiency with this interactive quiz.

Go here for the original Science article.

The Problem with MPG

What is the problem with MPG? Consider a decision between two cars--a current vehicle and a new vehicle that is more efficient. Which improvement will save the most gas over 10,000 miles?


Surprisingly, all save about the same amount of gas over 10,000 miles: About 100 gallons.

The way to calculate the amount of gas used is to divide distance by MPG. A quick check of the numbers above will confirm the following gas usage over 10,000 miles:







We want to emphasize that a higher MPG car is always more efficient than a lower MPG car for a given distance. We are not saying that a car that getst 11 MPG is somehow better than a car that gets 50 MPG -- to the contrary, we encourage all drivers to buy the most efficient vehicle they can. What we are saying is that MPG can be confusing when thinking about the benefits of improving MPG. The bottom line is that equal increases in MPG are not equal in gas savings.

As the examples above shows, small MPG improvements on inefficient cars can save a lot of gas. Of course, most people look at an improvement from 10 to 11, or 16 to 20, and think, why bother? But replacing an inefficient car with a car that is more efficient -- even by just a few miles per gallon -- is valuable in both gas savings and greenhouse gas reductions. Every 100 gallons saved reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 1 ton.

In short, you cannot simply look at an MPG increase from one vehicle to another to know the gas savings. Also, when a family thinks about its average fuel consumption, it cannot simply take an average MPG levels of two vehicles. Given two cars that are driven the same distance, the combination of 18 MPG and 50 MPG uses more gas than the combination of 28 MPG and 30 MPG. Direct comparisons of MPG is what leads to illusions. In each case, you have to convert MPG to know the amount of gas used.* We describe this step next.

I love Bronco6G. You can read in depth threads about GPM, gallons per mile, in one thread and adjustable 8112 springs in another, you just have to wade through a bunch of cup holders, better buy a Prius and you should cancel your order

 

[lrtexasman]

Regular unleaded is now over $3 a gallon and I imagine with inflationary conditions over the next 3-5 years (stimulus, pipeline cancellations, and increased overseas dependency) we will see $4 by summer 2022. I don’t think $2 a gallon is much of an inconvenience but $5 takes a hit as everything else (food, manufacturing logistics, ect) go up as well.

 

[NCOBX]

Regular unleaded is now over $3 a gallon and I imagine with inflationary conditions over the next 3-5 years (stimulus, pipeline cancellations, and increased overseas dependency) we will see $4 by summer 2022. I don’t think $2 a gallon is much of an inconvenience but $5 takes a hit as everything else (food, manufacturing logistics, ect) go up as well.

I filled up a 32 gallon H2 that at the time only achieved 10.5MPG (pre regear) the whole way through that $3.50/gal phase.

Getting 17MPG is a humongous increase, should feel like a Prius.

My only two complaints with the MPG are the lack of a V8 that would likely do just as good on fuel economy as the 6 and the tiny fuel tank size.

Though I did enjoy the last couple years paying ~$1.75 a gallon.

 

[Sherminiator]

What I got out of this is that the Bronco will weigh almost as much as my SHO does and will get slightly better around the town MPGs then it. The vast majority of my driving is around town, so that works for me.

I'd get the 2.3L Hybrid that is rumored for the next gen Ranger for the Bronco if they offered it outside of the Warthog (but I'm going with that getting the 3L Hybrid).

 

[Winkydee]

Dude! I was literally going to post the exact same screen shot I just took.

I cannot imagine that the 2.3 2dr Badlands with MT could be THE worst fuel economy than all other trims and Squatches.

 

[stm378]

Apologies if this has been covered already and I just didn't see it, but anyone have any idea of what the impact will look like on the swap on OBX to the rear locker? As far as I can understand the stock for OBX is 3.73 ratio (so presumably that's the numbers that are on page 1 of this post), but the change to the locker (for non SAS) looks like it's 4.27. I'm sure that would impact MPG in some way shape or form, but I don't know enough about this stuff to know how much.

 

[markregel]

No. It is not. Ford EcoBoost products tend to not meet their official MPG. I expect every Bronco to have real world fuel economy below the 18.7 MPG real world fuel economy of my Ranger.

Maybe the 2.3T 7 speed will beat the 18.7. That's the only exception.

I have always exceeded "official" numbers including Ford products. How it is driven makes all the difference and highway driving is not all the same. I know plenty of drivers always modulating the throttle, they come up on traffic cut in & out and and floor it. Then complain about not making official numbers. City driving If you accelerate hard when the light turns green only to slam on your brakes at the next light you're mileage is going to suck. EcoBoost engines are powerful driving style is going to make more difference than your 130HP 4-banger.

Sponsored