Since the Badlands is so heavy, would it be smart to get a tune?

[TXNavy]

I have a 2016 Expedition with the 3.5 and I can get 22 mpg highway, 18 city, 12 towing 6k lbs. I drive like my grandpa though. FYI, that motor is a beast. 365/425 I think and she's heavy. All that for reference.

So I'm assuming your grandpa isn't Richard Petty then?

With a tune the Bronco should match those numbers pretty easily. At about 500-1k lbs less should make it quick or at least make sure you have enough torque to get over the rocks.

Sponsored

 

[Techun]

Ecoboost, cute!

Since 2012, BMW has used a turbo i4 twin scroll turbo; it easily produces more power than the previous natural aspirated i6 it replaced which is still considered one of the best performance engines ever designed.

I know BMW and my home has only had them in the garage since 2004; that's 7 vehicles, cars and SUVs. That little spunky i4 turbo was in my wife's old X3. My cars have all had the turbo i6 since 2007 and her current X3 has the i6 and is a BEAST!

I bring all of this up because although the stated mpg these "more efficient" engines are supposed to be capable of, was absolutely BS. Real people just don't drive under those conditions. my current turbo i6 is supposed to get 21 city. It averages 15 city on 93 octane. My wife's old X3 with the i4 only could muster 17 city.

And this Bronco, ain't that X3. Bronco will be heavier, have off road tires, higher rolling resistance, and carry more unsprung weight. Most guys don't have gear hanging off their pickups like many of us will on our Bronco. But for the men who use their F-150s for actual work, tend to. They get far less than 20mpg.

Ford engines are not BMW class of engines. They're a bit more raw, which is not an insult. Ford has been impressive with the EcoBoost engineering; I know that and respect it. However, reality in the Mustang, F-150, Ranger, whatever shows that real world driving tanks the mpg. The big upside is that you can run regular 89 octane which will save me over 38 cents per gallon here in Atlanta.

A 5000 lb rig getting 20mpg combined would be outstanding, but I'm thinking closer to 18mpg. I would love to be wrong, so I hope you're right about the efficiency.

Bmw has had more reliability issues with turbo engines than every other make combined.

 

[Razorbak86]

Am I being profiled?!?

I hate to break it to you, John, but the FBI has been watching you closely since the Nakatomi Plaza incident in the late 80’s.

I’ve seen the dossier. Watch your six, my friend.

 

[North7]

I hate to break it to you, John, but the FBI has been watching you closely since the Nakatomi Plaza incident in the late 80’s.

I’ve seen the dossier. Watch your six, my friend.

 

[North7]

The weights are in this thread:
https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/2021-bronco-gvwr-ford-q-a-and-weight-payload-details.11041/

 

[Mattwings]

Ecoboost, cute!

Since 2012, BMW has used a turbo i4 twin scroll turbo; it easily produces more power than the previous natural aspirated i6 it replaced which is still considered one of the best performance engines ever designed.

I know BMW and my home has only had them in the garage since 2004; that's 7 vehicles, cars and SUVs. That little spunky i4 turbo was in my wife's old X3. My cars have all had the turbo i6 since 2007 and her current X3 has the i6 and is a BEAST!

I bring all of this up because although the stated mpg these "more efficient" engines are supposed to be capable of, was absolutely BS. Real people just don't drive under those conditions. my current turbo i6 is supposed to get 21 city. It averages 15 city on 93 octane. My wife's old X3 with the i4 only could muster 17 city.

And this Bronco, ain't that X3. Bronco will be heavier, have off road tires, higher rolling resistance, and carry more unsprung weight. Most guys don't have gear hanging off their pickups like many of us will on our Bronco. But for the men who use their F-150s for actual work, tend to. They get far less than 20mpg.

Ford engines are not BMW class of engines. They're a bit more raw, which is not an insult. Ford has been impressive with the EcoBoost engineering; I know that and respect it. However, reality in the Mustang, F-150, Ranger, whatever shows that real world driving tanks the mpg. The big upside is that you can run regular 89 octane which will save me over 38 cents per gallon here in Atlanta.

A 5000 lb rig getting 20mpg combined would be outstanding, but I'm thinking closer to 18mpg. I would love to be wrong, so I hope you're right about the efficiency.

You are right on track with your estimates. Ford engines are also notorious for need at least 15k miles of break in to hit their stride fuel economy wise. BTW I run mine on 87 most of the time and have never sensed any detonation or loss of power. When towing heavy loads (heaviest was 8k lbs) it returned almost exactly the same economy as my prior 5.0 when towing similar loads (mid 12 mpg). I like the economy and power of the 2.7 over the 5.0 all day, but miss the sound of that sweet coyote whenever I bury the throttle!

 

[Mattwings]

I'd be happy with 17-18 MPG rolling on 37's with a 2-2.5 inch lift.. 2DR/2.7 motor.
Many from the Jeep forums have the 2.0 turbo with 37's and 2-3.5 inch lift are getting decent MPG.

It would be interesting to know the actual numbers and if the ecm is reflashed. It seems very hard to get 20mpg with a gas motor, lift and 37s , but could be?

 

[HenryFord]

I've yet to tune a Ford Ecoboost engine but in my German automotive experiences we observed slightly better fuel efficiency as a complement to the throttle tip-in/response and torque gained by tapping into the margin left by the factory air/fuel mapping. (Mileage increase absolutely dependent upon operator input)

So, I've been extremely happy to see the Ranger & Bronco tunes offered directly by Ford. Hard to overlook the significance of Ford (already) using various tunes on the 2.3 liter engine within various Mustang/Focus RS offerings.

 

[Panzer948]

Bmw has had more reliability issues with turbo engines than every other make combined.

Can you post a link to this or is this just gossip? I only ask because I currently have and previously had twin turbo BMW six cylinder engines and they had no problems. My previous one went to 100,000 miles before I sold it. On my M4 they are recommended having the plugs changed at 75K or less but that is preventative maintenance on a performance car.

I am hoping this Ford twin turbo gives similar reliability while being tuneable (Note I tuned both of my BMW engines as well with no issues). That's why I am following this thread. For the BMWs, I always added aftermarket tunes so my real decision now is to go with Ford's Tune or aftermarket. I think aftermarket is better bang for your buck but I am still trying to figure out the reliability aspect of Ford's engine before going with either.

 

[395N]

It would be interesting to know the actual numbers and if the ecm is reflashed. It seems very hard to get 20mpg with a gas motor, lift and 37s , but could be?

I never said 20 MPG with the JL on 37's with the 2.0.
I said "decent" MPG and in my mind that would be 17-18.
Go check out the JL forums under the 2.0 turbo.

 

[JesseS]

I think I read the Black Diamond is heavier than Badlands, right?

No, the BL is 400lbs more that the BD.

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

Bmw has had more reliability issues with turbo engines than every other make combined.

That's not true, has nothing to do with the quality of the engineering even if it were, and I guess that's why they sell a ton.

Your feelings on BMW one way or the other mean nothing to me. I don't own any stock in the company and am about to move from BMW to a Ford, so there you have my opinion overall.

The point of the discussion and my point, was referencing what I've driven, besides my old Disco, and how even a renowned engine manufacturer can't achieve the marketed numbers for efficiency. Not even Merc engines achieve the posted efficiency under real world driving.

Trying to establish an engine manufacturing argument between that of a BMW vs. Ford is laughable outside of motorsports and we're discussing street cars.

 

[MadMan4BamaNATL]

You are right on track with your estimates. Ford engines are also notorious for need at least 15k miles of break in to hit their stride fuel economy wise. BTW I run mine on 87 most of the time and have never sensed any detonation or loss of power. When towing heavy loads (heaviest was 8k lbs) it returned almost exactly the same economy as my prior 5.0 when towing similar loads (mid 12 mpg). I like the economy and power of the 2.7 over the 5.0 all day, but miss the sound of that sweet coyote whenever I bury the throttle!

Thanks man and that's one hell of a break in, so I have noted what you wrote here and be careful with revs that first year. I don't even know if Ford ships these new vehicles with synthetic oil or not? If not, I will be switching to synthetic once I research which oil works best in Ford engines.

BTW, when I said 89 octane, made a mistake. I meant 87 octane. Been a while since I could run regular gas, and look forward to going back to it!

 

[Burndog]

So I'm assuming your grandpa isn't Richard Petty then?

With a tune the Bronco should match those numbers pretty easily. At about 500-1k lbs less should make it quick or at least make sure you have enough torque to get over the rocks.

No Petty in my bloodline, lol. Ya, I figure the performance with the 2.7 should be comparable was my point.

Sponsored