- First Name
- Jake
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2020
- Threads
- 11
- Messages
- 2,338
- Reaction score
- 7,076
- Location
- various, construction engineer.
- Vehicle(s)
- '13 SLK55 AMG, '15 Indian Chief, '15 WRX
- Your Bronco Model
- Badlands
- Banned
- #91
Yep, this is my last try to help folks understand that they should not count on this estimate at all, a gallon more in the tank and you are looking at 15.5 MPG, a gallon less and it is 23 MPG. A 50% swing. Forget the gallon, a 1% difference in the tank is just over two 12 ounces beer/soda cans of fuel. If it is off that much, you get between 17.8 MPG and 19.2 MPG. Gauge off? Reading the Gauge wrong? Been idling with the A/C on for 2 hours on that tank? The fuel tank gauge drops faster at the bottom than the top due to the tank getting smaller at the bottom? Truck not sitting level and the tank is reading a gallon or two off?The problem is you don't know if the 1/4 tank is heavy or light. If it has 1 extra gallon then math gets thrown all off.
Too many uncontrolled variables and guesses to have any faith in the 18.5 MPG number. It may be that all the errors cancel each other out and it is accurate, but I would not depend on it if you are trying to decide if fuel costs or range are going to work for you.
A 3.6 Rubicon on 33's gets mid 16's for average MPG per Fuelly.com
The 2.0 Rubicon sits about 2.5 MPG better.
Personally, I believe that the extra weight, the Sasquatch tire size with M/T tread, hybrid and all, are going to cost at least 1-2 MPG on those numbers. (the 2.0 numbers, the turbo engine likely is more efficient and the obviously both Bronco engines are turbocharged)
Sponsored