markregel

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Oct 2, 2020
Messages
477
Reaction score
652
Location
Lincoln, NE
Vehicle(s)
Pont Vibe
Bronco
Base
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.
Advertisement

 

markregel

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Oct 2, 2020
Messages
477
Reaction score
652
Location
Lincoln, NE
Vehicle(s)
Pont Vibe
Bronco
Base
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.
It only makes sense lower gearing and big tires are significant factors when it comes to mileage. SAS tires are heavy folks and the energy it takes to turn them isn't free. This is why the lower trim levels are rated 20 - 22 and SAS 17-17, a significant difference in my option.
 

markregel

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Oct 2, 2020
Messages
477
Reaction score
652
Location
Lincoln, NE
Vehicle(s)
Pont Vibe
Bronco
Base
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.
Who says Ford spends way more time and effort on the F150? Considering industry analysts are saying this is the most important vehicle for Ford and its future I doubt there is any truth to it. Its shaped like a brick because that is what customers want, not because Ford is withholding time and effort, that is nonsensical.
 

markregel

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Oct 2, 2020
Messages
477
Reaction score
652
Location
Lincoln, NE
Vehicle(s)
Pont Vibe
Bronco
Base
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.
The 17/17 is a result of huge heavy tires and low gearing. The 20-22 rating for non-SAS pretty respectable when compared to any 4WD truck.
 

stm378

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
182
Reaction score
291
Location
Maryland
Vehicle(s)
Highlander
Bronco
Badlands
It only makes sense lower gearing and big tires are significant factors when it comes to mileage. SAS tires are heavy folks and the energy it takes to turn them isn't free. This is why the lower trim levels are rated 20 - 22 and SAS 17-17, a significant difference in my option.

Maybe I didn't ask that correctly, If I took the OBX and just swapped the locking axle (which is an $800 option, but I'm assuming doesn't change the tires) That would change the gear ratio, but not the wheels/tires. My question is the normal OBX (with 2.3 auto) is rated 20/22/21, I'm assuming that just changing to that different gear ratio with the rear locker (4.27 as compared to 3.73 standard for that model) would impact the MPG, but presumably not as much as say, going full on SAS with the bigger tires and the 4.7 (which would be 18/18/18).
 

markregel

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Oct 2, 2020
Messages
477
Reaction score
652
Location
Lincoln, NE
Vehicle(s)
Pont Vibe
Bronco
Base
Seriously wtf are we going to do about range? I'm not surprised by the poor mileage but am surprised that any automaker is releasing a new vehicle with less than 300 mile range. For my planned for use, my likely range for my 2 door badlands is 250 miles. That is unacceptable in Utah and much of the west.

Where/how can I carry a gas can? How likely is an aftermarket aux tank?

This could be a deal breaker for me...
Going full on rock crawler comes with compromises. If you need more range and better MPG drop the SAS and go with a lower trim level 4-door. A Jeep Wrangler 2-door is about the same.
 

Nickp

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
3,638
Reaction score
17,917
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER THAT GEICO SPENT $14K FIXING
Bronco
Base
I would be very curious to do a fair comparison test between a JLU on 35’s vs a Bronco on 35’s as far as mileage is concerned. Just doing some research on the JL forums about half of people say that 35’s don’t affect the mileage too much, and half the people say they start getting 15-16 MPG. Would be interesting to see the difference.
 

da_jokker

Wildtrak
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
3,785
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler JKU
Bronco
Wildtrak
Clubs
 
I would be very curious to do a fair comparison test between a JLU on 35’s vs a Bronco on 35’s as far as mileage is concerned. Just doing some research on the JL forums about half of people say that 35’s don’t affect the mileage too much, and half the people say they start getting 15-16 MPG. Would be interesting to see the difference.
Would love a valid comparison as well.

Unfortunately the only way to get valid would mean those that added 35s would have to of had their speedo recalibrate or the MPG calc is not correct. Both their distance and their speed are wrong.
 

TimmH

Outer Banks
Active Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2021
Messages
44
Reaction score
61
Location
Florida
Vehicle(s)
Jeep JLUS
Bronco
Outer Banks
I live in the KC area so it’s pretty flat roads. You have the 4dr too right with steel bumpers? I’m surprised you’re able to get that because I’ve never seen anything higher than 17mpg on a tank.

Me as well.. 2018 4dr Sahara with 3.6L on 33" KO2s I average 17.5 mostly driving 50-60mph

Get on the interstate down here doing 75-80 it drops to 15
 

orveezy

Badlands
Active Member
First Name
Billy
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
200
Location
temecula, ca
Vehicle(s)
Rapid Red Ford Bronco Sport Outer Banks
Bronco
Badlands
It would kinda cool if some dealers offered some sort of deal with a CPO/used daily driver with significantly better MPG to go along with the purchase of the big bronco. For instance, I'm getting a 2 door Wildtrak and it would be nice if I could get a discount on a Fiesta for my daily driver. Ehh, I don't know, I have my doubts the more I think about it :/
 

harpo

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
510
Location
na
Vehicle(s)
not as many as I thought
Bronco
Undecided
Going full on rock crawler comes with compromises. If you need more range and better MPG drop the SAS and go with a lower trim level 4-door. A Jeep Wrangler 2-door is about the same.
Don't have sas and if I could select options alacarte I likely wouldn't have the badlands....

Range is a concern. If you saw a 260 mile range on an ev would you think it was satisfactory? Would you just say, "well going full ev has it's compromises".

You might say that, but for me any vehicle with a range less than 300 has a problem.
 

navi

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Navi
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
Messages
416
Reaction score
665
Location
CA
Vehicle(s)
73 Bronco
Bronco
Base
Don't have sas and if I could select options alacarte I likely wouldn't have the badlands....

Range is a concern. If you saw a 260 mile range on an ev would you think it was satisfactory? Would you just say, "well going full ev has it's compromises".

You might say that, but for me any vehicle with a range less than 300 has a problem.
yeah, they really blew it with the small tank here. If you're going 75 the range probably drops below 260. Driving from SF to LA I would have to fill up twice. 😂
 

harpo

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2020
Messages
267
Reaction score
510
Location
na
Vehicle(s)
not as many as I thought
Bronco
Undecided
yeah, they really blew it with the small tank here. If you're going 75 the range probably drops below 260. Driving from SF to LA I would have to fill up twice. 😂
80 is the legal speed limit in much of Utah. Even on my 20 mile commute in SLC I usually cruise at 80 with traffic but in the city the speed limit is 65 or 70 so you are breaking the law at that speed.
 

Mpatient1

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Mel
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
410
Reaction score
622
Location
FLORIDA
Vehicle(s)
mustang
Bronco
Black Diamond
Clubs
 
yeah, they really blew it with the small tank here. If you're going 75 the range probably drops below 260. Driving from SF to LA I would have to fill up twice. 😂
Ford just looking out for our health. We shouldn't be sitting for more than 2 hours so we have to stop to stretch our legs at the gas station :ROFLMAO:
 

navi

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Navi
Joined
Feb 15, 2021
Messages
416
Reaction score
665
Location
CA
Vehicle(s)
73 Bronco
Bronco
Base
80 is the legal speed limit in much of Utah. Even on my 20 mile commute in SLC I usually cruise at 80 with traffic but in the city the speed limit is 65 or 70 so you are breaking the law at that speed.
Hell, if I go 80, I'll have to fill up every hour! 😂
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top