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

[Axe]

Still getting it, no question...but I guess I thought since Im getting 17 around town and 20-21 hiway with the Ram with the 5.7, it would be better. Not being a Ford fanboy - is the "eco" in ecoboost just all marketing bs that people fall for?
I could live with 10mpg if they gave us a tank size that had some range.

Sponsored

 

[long_road]

I've bounced back and forth among trims for a year now. Originally, I was thinking Big Bend since it seemed most practical. Then I was onto Black Diamond for a while. Then I finally convinced myself to just splurge for Badlands and get the "best" one.

Now that I've seen the mpg numbers... I might be back down to Big Bend! Ha.

It's not that far off from what I expected, but 16/18 for a 2.3 manual badlands is pretty bad... I doubt I'd use the extra offroad capability often enough to warrant the mpg hit. The 20/22 in a big bend is much more palatable and I'm sure a BB with some knobbier tires would get me anywhere I need to go...

 

[Ksjrb03]

I don't understand why 2.3 and 2.7 have practically the same MPG on Sasquatch and Badlands, and why does Badlands 2.3 Auto on 33in tires has worst MPG than Sasquatch 2.3 Auto?

Everybody's opinion I have read the last few months here was that 33in would have 1-2 better MPG than 35, and that 2.3 would have 2mpg higher than 2.7. Definitely not the case here.
You can have a 2.7 Sasquatch and have the same MPG as a 2.3 Badlands on 33s. Weird.

Gearing/RPM and boost are the limiting factors on all these numbers.

Pretty obvious the 2.3 is going to live in the boost on the highway.

 

[Wanted33]

Kinda funny how MPG is separating the men from the boys in a vehicle made to go off-roading.

If you've ever spent anytime in a non-aerodynamic, heavy vehicle with this kind of gearing and big tires, you would know these are actually decent numbers.

If you want better numbers, the Bronco Sport is now waiting for you at your local dealer.

If that were true explain to me why my Wrangler unlimited gets better numbers than the comparable 4 door OBX in standard dress. If the all derided FCA can get those numbers one would think the all knowing, all great Ford could get close. It's easy to spout drivel like the "men from boys" statement, when that has nothing to do with the subject.

If I was ordering mine with the SAS package I'd be fine with those numbers, but I'm not. So, 20 mpgs is quite disappointing to me.

 

[Ranger6G]

2.3 MT at 70mph must be over 3000rpm horrible mpg for a tiny engine.

 

[markregel]

Dunno why anyone expected better MPG. It’s a heavy rectangular box on large wheels. I’m not even sure why anyone would own this as a commute car. Personally MPG was not even on my consideration list when evaluating the Bronco. Fun factor is #1!

A lot of people own similar SUVs and even full size trucks for commuter cars. The non SAS Base and Big Ben at 22 MPG is typical SUV numbers.

 

[Seacat]

Not buying it for gas mileage, and hey, it gets better MPG than my Jeep with 35s.

 

[Dads_bronze_bronco]

I'm not getting a Jeep Rubicon but just for the sake of MPG comparison:

2021 4 door
Wrangler JL Unlimited Rubicon 4x4

• Cylinder configuration: V-6
• Drive type: four-wheel
• Engine liters: 3.6
• Engine location: front
• Front locking differential
• Fuel economy city: 17mpg
• Fuel economy combined: 19mpg
• Fuel economy highway: 23mpg
• Fuel tank capacity: 21.5gal.
• Horsepower: 285hp @ 6,400RPM
• Limited slip differential: brake actuated
• Number of valves: 24
• Rear locking differential
• Recommended fuel: Regular Unleaded
• Sequential multi-point fuel injection
• Torque: 260 lb.-ft. @ 4,800RPM
• Transmission: 6 speed manual
• Variable valve control

• Alloy wheels
• Front anti-roll bar
• Front tires: 285/70SR17.0C
• Power steering
• Rear anti-roll bar
• Rear tires: 285/70SR17.0C
• Tires: all-terrain
• Wheel size: 17"

JL Combined 19MPG. So my Bronco @ 17 Combine MPG is a bit off but not much when you consider the Bronco has larger 35" tires....... If they could have designed the Bronco to be lighter, towed more and carried more fuel that would have been great, but we are pushing technology & engineering.... with these heavy bricks. I'm sure teh Bronco will be better than the JL so that is still King!

I mean, I get 14-1/2 now with a 3.8 Rubicon on 34s (on stock 32 M/Ts is was rated for 15-19). I’ll take 17 average on a Badlands, but was hoping with the EcoBoost Ford would have a competitive advantage here. Guess the advantage is in HP and Torque. I am underwhelmed compared to modern JLs nonetheless.

It is sort of amazing that with a newer design, newer frame steel, aluminum body panels, no SFA, etc. the Bronco is kind of a pig in both weight and fuel mileage.

Agree with others: if the turbos don’t buy me mileage, I’d prefer the simplicity of a V8.

 

[Tricky Dick]

2.3 MT at 70mph must be over 3000rpm horrible mpg for a tiny engine.

A hair under 2200 at 70 for a BL MT. The ratio numbers are published, just have to do the calcs.

 

[Scott2373]

These numbers pretty much justify me buying a 4Runner, instead...However, the numbers for the Jeep are complete BS! Myself and my wife have owned multiple Jeeps and those numbers aren't even close to real world!

 

[GToddC5]

I've bounced back and forth among trims for a year now. Originally, I was thinking Big Bend since it seemed most practical. Then I was onto Black Diamond for a while. Then I finally convinced myself to just splurge for Badlands and get the "best" one.

Now that I've seen the mpg numbers... I might be back down to Big Bend! Ha.

It's not that far off from what I expected, but 16/18 for a 2.3 manual badlands is pretty bad... I doubt I'd use the extra offroad capability often enough to warrant the mpg hit. The 20/22 in a big bend is much more palatable and I'm sure a BB with some knobbier tires would get me anywhere I need to go...

Some of it is likely due to the 4.7 gearing and the 33s, but also the extra weight. So slap on some 34s or 35s, and ditch some of the sliders, bash plates, maybe a lighter bumper? That's where my head's at. It's easy enough to put back on, should you plan an excursion.

 

[LSBronco13]

Via Bronco Nation

The competition

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

Soooo when does the "Lightning" Bronco come out ? lol

 

[Lakelife36]

Forgive me for not wading through 15 pages here so this may already be discussed. There is a huge difference between the number on the 2.3L manual Base & BB vs. BD. As far as I recall the axle ratios are the same between them all with the only substantive difference being much higher curb weight on the BD. Would it really make that much difference, or is there something else going on?

 

[NCOBX]

What did you think that video was going to demonstrate?

Because it shows a 60ft-lb spike in less than 500rpm, just like I keep saying.

Yes - if you want a vehicle that is slower, less responsive, heavier, and gets worse mpg, pine for the V8.

You're right! Every number you've posted has proven my point, but you keep posting numbers for some reason?

60HP in 500 RPM is hardly a spike

A dressed 5.0L weighs less than a dressed 2.7L

The 5.0l by nature of being lighter will be more responsive.

Fuel economy should be equal if not better since it wouldn’t need constant boost roaming around the upper/mid end of the RPM range where these trucks will rest.

And by god the 2.7L is a dog, I have almost 70k miles under my belt in a 2.7L F150 and I can’t imagine living with that as my only vehicle.

Keep em coming.

 

[Tdifonzo]

Well, now I know what personalized plate to get:

GLURK

As in glurk, glurk, glurk is the sound it makes while guzzling the juice.

Why not FILMEUP? Lol

Sponsored