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

[Norderwurm]

As someone who ordered a squatched 2.3, what is the point? Why did I choose this engine if it's only 1 mpg better than the V6? Why even offer the 2.3 with the squatch package? I'm really curious.

I feel like I'm sitting in the corner with a dunce hat with my choice

Sponsored

 

[Gamecock]

As someone who ordered a squatched 2.3, what is the point? Why did I choose this engine if it's only 1 mpg better than the V6? Why even offer the 2.3 with the squatch package? I'm really curious.

I feel like I'm sitting in the corner with a dunce hat with my choice

I would assume you ordered it to save money....

 

[Rick Astley]

How does the manual get worse mileage than the auto? There's no torque converter

Owning a vehicle with that 10-speed in it (2019 Ranger Lariat FX4), I can easily see why it gets an extra emm pee gee compared to the manual.

Shift order is 1-3-4-7-9-10. And you'll be in 10th gear before you get to 40 MPH. From there it's alllll smooth sailing in 10th. No sane human being would drive in the gear that the 10-speed will be putting you in. I'm guessing the MPG rating will drop by at least 2 just by putting it in sport mode and going through the gears sequentially with enough revs that it doesn't feel like crap.

If you're on the highway and try to pass somebody it will do the cringe worthy 10-6 money shift. At any time it needs to engage 2nd gear you've got a 50/50 shot of that reassuring feeling and sound of a piston leaving the block, except it's the transmission slamming into a gear it never likes.

The 10-speed is an acquired taste much in the same way that being punched in the face is an acquired taste. If you're into that numb feeling of accomplishment, then you're going to love the "sport" of driving this transmission.

 

[Norderwurm]

I would assume you ordered it to save money....

On a nearly 60k build? No.... I thought in some strange universe the 4 with a single turbo would be more than 1 mpg better than the twin V6. I know I'm not buying a civic or a Prius. But if Ford knew these numbers to begin with, I feel like I got a bait and switch

 

[Rick Astley]

As someone who ordered a squatched 2.3, what is the point? Why did I choose this engine if it's only 1 mpg better than the V6? Why even offer the 2.3 with the squatch package? I'm really curious.

I feel like I'm sitting in the corner with a dunce hat with my choice

I would assume you ordered it to save money....

As somebody who ordered a non-squatch 2.3 Badlands with Manual Transmission, I am actually very excited about pairing the 2.3 with a proper manual and having the vastly superior crawl gear for off-road situations. The only thing wrong with the 2019 Ranger that I drive is the god forsaken transmission of stupidity.

The 2.3 is more than enough motor for this vehicle and everything that 99.99% of owners will be doing with it.

Regardless of what motors were offered, you can't lose with the Bronco engine choices. However, when it comes to transmissions, you can absolutely lose (only taken from the perspective of somebody who enjoys driving and a manual transmission is a must-have item for any new car I buy).

If the 2.7 was available with a manual and the normal $1,700 up-charge, i'd still pick the 2.3/MT. I don't' see the 2.7 as enough of an upgrade to justify the cost of entry. I get it though, this is Amurika and you must buy the largest engine available to fill your sack........ But a 2.7 is a tiny motor and the dual turbos with integrated manifolds are prone to needing replacement. It's not as much of an advantage over the 2.3 as many on here believe it to be.

FYI: My build was $44K so i'm not sure where everybody is getting these $50-60K quotes from. Going full-frontal-nudity on the build sheet will get you into the $60's, but you certainly don't need to be anywhere near there to have a potent rig.

 

[Gamecock]

On a nearly 60k build? No.... I thought in some strange universe the 4 with a single turbo would be more than 1 mpg better than the twin V6. I know I'm not buying a civic or a Prius. But if Ford knew these numbers to begin with, I feel like I got a bait and switch

Gotcha. Most people seemed to be estimating only a 1-2mpg difference which seemed about right, so I couldn’t think of a reason other than the $ difference...I always thought it was crazy to get the 2.3 unless it just maxed out your budget. The 2.7 is a better engine all around. I’m surprised people thought there was going to be a big difference in fuel economy.

 

[wbrainbow]

I'm assuming the fuel mileage is calculated in "Normal" goat mode. I wonder how much difference ECO mode makes. If the engine and transmission characteristic are tailored to more economic operation using this mode on the highway will be the way to go.

 

[Bronco4]

As somebody who ordered a non-squatch 2.3 Badlands with Manual Transmission, I am actually very excited about pairing the 2.3 with a proper manual and having the vastly superior crawl gear for off-road situations. The only thing wrong with the 2019 Ranger that I drive is the god forsaken transmission of stupidity.

The 2.3 is more than enough motor for this vehicle and everything that 99.99% of owners will be doing with it.

Regardless of what motors were offered, you can't lose with the Bronco engine choices. However, when it comes to transmissions, you can absolutely lose (only taken from the perspective of somebody who enjoys driving and a manual transmission is a must-have item for any new car I buy).

If the 2.7 was available with a manual and the normal $1,700 up-charge, i'd still pick the 2.3/MT. I don't' see the 2.7 as enough of an upgrade to justify the cost of entry. I get it though, this is Amurika and you must buy the largest engine available to fill your sack........ But a 2.7 is a tiny motor and the dual turbos with integrated manifolds are prone to needing replacement. It's not as much of an advantage over the 2.3 as many on here believe it to be.

FYI: My build was $44K so i'm not sure where everybody is getting these $50-60K quotes from. Going full-frontal-nudity on the build sheet will get you into the $60's, but you certainly don't need to be anywhere near there to have a potent rig.

Test drove the Ranger 2.3 and did not like it. Test Drove the F150 2.7 and loved it.
That being said Both these engines are more than capable Truck engines. Both these engines had to meet Ford Truck engine standards. My Wife's 2012 F150 CC 3.5 ecoboost is 9 years old runs like new, looks new inside and out. NO issues none period. My 99 F350 Powerstroke 200,000 miles no issues. Both have Turbos. The 2.3 is a good motor, I prefer the 2.7.

 

[harpo]

Just wait till I get done ecomodding my 2 dr, 2.3 manual badlands. By god I'm going to bust right thru the 19mpg barrier.


It is going to be sweet. You suckers with just 18 on the highway. My fuelly is going to average 18 and I'm going to save $3/wk!

 

[ccameron511]

On a nearly 60k build? No.... I thought in some strange universe the 4 with a single turbo would be more than 1 mpg better than the twin V6. I know I'm not buying a civic or a Prius. But if Ford knew these numbers to begin with, I feel like I got a bait and switch

Ford bait and switched you into paying LESS money?

 

[Norderwurm]

Ford bait and switched you into paying LESS money?

Just forget it. Your right, I'm a dumb@$$

 

[Gamecock]

Ford bait and switched you into paying LESS money?

He was duped big time. Ford tricked him into a lower priced, much lower margin engine by doing the unthinkable.....by making the differences between the two engines smaller than he had imagined despite all evidence to the contrary....diabolical.

 

[Khayze427]

Via Bronco Nation

The competition

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

Where are the data for the 4-Door Broncos? Add 800+ pounds for the 4-Door And you will get less mpg.

 

[AZshot]

It's exactly what I expected them to report for the 2.3 on a Big Bend. Now with my 7 speed manual, and the way I drive sane, I can feel confident I'll get 25 MPG. It is as I planned - enough power, enough fun, all purpose truck. Not an extreme rock crawler only vehicle that gets horrible milage, roars going down the highway, changes lanes like a halftrack. All the Sasquatch and giant tires and more power is not needed by me. I'll be driving this Bronco hundreds of thousands of miles.

And the range between fill ups will be pushing 400 miles I'd guess. Not bad for a $39,000 vehicle with this capability.

 

[Chops]

Put 35" tires, and similar gears on the Jeeps then post their numbers.

I had 35’s with 2” lift on my jeep average gas mileage was 17.

Sponsored