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

[Lakelife36]

21 combined for 2.3 auto OBX is better than I expected.

How about that manual OBX!?!?

Sponsored

 

[buzpro]

If 20 MPG on a non-squatch 2.7L is the average, you can rest ASSURED its one BIG FKNG EXAGGERATION.

 

[NeighborDave]

Via Bronco Nation

The competition

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

Via Bronco Nation

The competition

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

I saw this and at first thought, "maybe I won't get the Sasquatch afterall. Then I did some math. Assuming 10k miles a year, likely more than I'll drive, and gas at $3.50, there is an additional cost per year of $392 for the 2.7SAS vs. a 2.3 Non-SAS. That's barely over a dollar day. For my purposes, most likely I'd never go beyond a base Bronco's limits, but SAS looks cooler, and in the off chance I ever need it, it'd be there. To me, totally worth 1-2 beers a week for the Sas.

 

[stras27]

This whole list is suspect

 

[Spooled]

Pretty much what I expected. Not looking forward to such a short fuel range.

 

[LIKEABOSS]

Pretty much what I expected. Not looking forward to such a short fuel range.

At least it takes a couple minutes to fill up instead of being at a charging station for a half hour or more.

 

[Big Boss]

Good luck getting the claimed MPG with a turbo. What you "can" get and what you "will" get are not the same thing. But it will be fun talking to people at the gas station.

haha. This is true. My last tank of gas in my Mazda I put a max effort into getting the best gas mileage possible, and I got almost 34MPG. Normal driving I get 30-31 and if I am slightly aggressive on the throttle 27-29

While im happy the numbers are not officially dumpster shit 15mpg

with these numbers there is OFFICIALLY no reason that ford should not put the 5.0 coyote in the car

none

at all

the whole "eco" ford thing is out the window. Its a performance off road car now give us the v8

I'll touch on this below

I was shot down repeatedly when Ford revealed the engine options for stating just this.
An off-road vehicle is exactly where you want a naturally aspirated engine, you want to be able to have steep gearing and predictable linear power curves, all of which are better suited to naturally aspirated options, like wise naturally aspirated engines with decent displacement are going to be more efficient when they’re not idling around.
The NA 3.3L and 5.0L were the better engine options imo, now I’ll quietly await my execution for that blasphemous statement.

I will admit I am a complete newb when it comes to off road vehicles so just take this as some outside perspective from the mustang world. Don't you typically want lots of low end torque in a off road vehicle? In the F150 the 5.0 doesnt make peak torque till 4250RPM and doesn't make peak power till 6,000RPM. The 5.0 is an engine that loves to be wound up in the higher part of the power band, that doesn't seem like a good set up for offroading from what I have learned so far.

 

[1TNgirl]

At the SCE our driver was tracking with road, off roading, and idling a lot. He stated it was doing great and expected hwy to be at least 20. So, anyones guess and in my house it depends on the driver.

 

[Wanted33]

While im happy the numbers are not officially dumpster shit 15mpg

with these numbers there is OFFICIALLY no reason that ford should not put the 5.0 coyote in the car

none

at all

the whole "eco" ford thing is out the window. Its a performance off road car now give us the v8

I agree. And, I really don't think the standard gearing needs to be 3.73. My '19 3.6L Sahara has 3.45's, and they do the job quite well. Those 3.73's loses quite a few mpgs at highway speed, and also starting from a dead stop. Makes no sense to me why Ford did this.

I'm just hoping that since this is from Bronco Nation these numbers are as screwed up as the entire forum.

 

[JamesC]

Tanks sizes
2dr 16.9
4dr 20.8 Gallons

Range at ~280mi for a manual badlands 2dr assuming no offroad loss is going to be interesting in some parts of Big Bend Country in Texas.

 

[Toaster]

For those comparing to a 3.6L JL RUBICON I can personally say I’ve never seen anything better than 17mpg. I usually average around 15mpg even with highway driving. So I’m happy with these numbers.

 

[Nickp]

While im happy the numbers are not officially dumpster shit 15mpg

with these numbers there is OFFICIALLY no reason that ford should not put the 5.0 coyote in the car

none

at all

the whole "eco" ford thing is out the window. Its a performance off road car now give us the v8

Packaging is the big reason. The rumored pushrod mustang engine may be a bit better fit down the line if Jeep decides to just throw V8’s at all the wranglers though.

 

[jaruss01]

Hmmm sas highway. Looks like they technically test it at 80 MPH now, not 65. So that explains it. Maybe 17 city goes up a little bit at ~65 mph, then back down to 17 at 80 mph. Same could be said for the non sas badlands. Any bit of lift starts to play more into the aerodynamics at the 80 mph testing speed. and hwy #s match city

The video last week where the guy was getting low/mid 16 MPG real-time on the gauge when driving ~50 MPH (with two passengers), so the 17 advertised makes sense. I was thinking 16 city / 18 highway to back into the 17 mixed (that we saw on the canadian sticker yesterday). I guess 17/17/17 is 1 mpg better for me, since i drive 75/25 city/highway.

 

[BrentLee71]

Wonder which GOAT mode was utilized for this. Normal? ECO?

 

[toughtoaster]

Is it official if the EPA website doesn’t have it listed though?

Sponsored