Sponsored

buzpro

Outer Banks
Well-Known Member
First Name
Binky
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Threads
40
Messages
1,702
Reaction score
2,298
Location
Arizona
Vehicle(s)
Tacoma
Your Bronco Model
Outer Banks
Clubs
 
There are so many variables that I wouldn't say that's a reasonable estimate. Your guessing tank size. Just because there is a 1/4 tank, you can be off by a gallon. Going by real world comparison against the Ranger is more realistic than a hypothetical.
what about the weight difference between the ranger and the bronco? any estimates on that?
Sponsored

 

JohnnyK

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
89
Reaction score
231
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Sahara JKU
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
Who cares about the mileage, look at that instrument panel, good lord it's hideous. Oh man, this is literally the thing that you're going to be staring at the most other than looking through the windshield.

I like the Atari graphics on that intrusive error box of a screen displaying the same speed and temp info as the speedo. That digital tach vertical bar thing is an abomination, same as the fuel gauge.
 

Wyo

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Threads
2
Messages
266
Reaction score
702
Location
Wyoming
Vehicle(s)
2023 Bronco Sas Badlands, 1968 Bronco, 2018 Expy
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
This was my guess from a while ago:

The Raptor is 15/18 with 35s (3.5L) and much heavier. Is it unreasonable to think a 2dr Bronco with the 2.7L and 35s will get a little better than that. So 16/19 or 17/20. Lower gears though on the Bronco 4.7 vs 4.1. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Pancho Kornwallace

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Pancho
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Threads
60
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
4,028
Location
Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
Your Bronco Model
Base
Impressive, unlike most of us, looks like you drive most of the time in "granny mode". I am guessing that would also boost the MPG just as much with an auto trans.
 

Pancho Kornwallace

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Pancho
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Threads
60
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
4,028
Location
Michigan
Vehicle(s)
Mustang
Your Bronco Model
Base
Who cares about the mileage, look at that instrument panel, good lord it's hideous. Oh man, this is literally the thing that you're going to be staring at the most other than looking through the windshield.

I like the Atari graphics on that intrusive error box of a screen displaying the same speed and temp info as the speedo. That digital tach vertical bar thing is an abomination, same as the fuel gauge.
If you don't like it there is duct tape.
 

Sponsored

SamG

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Sam
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Threads
65
Messages
844
Reaction score
3,769
Location
Detroit Area
Vehicle(s)
sas
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
Clubs
 
Who cares about the mileage, look at that instrument panel, good lord it's hideous. Oh man, this is literally the thing that you're going to be staring at the most other than looking through the windshield.

I like the Atari graphics on that intrusive error box of a screen displaying the same speed and temp info as the speedo. That digital tach vertical bar thing is an abomination, same as the fuel gauge.
You should probably just own vehicles from the 80s
 

Evolkidbell

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
571
Reaction score
808
Location
Northern Colorado
Vehicle(s)
1966 Bronco, 2013 F-150
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
2.3L or 2.7L. Thought I saw somewhere 2.3 gets a 16.9 gallon tank and 2.7 gets a 20.8 gallon.
 

RBF 1401

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Tricia
Joined
Oct 4, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
2,130
Reaction score
7,250
Location
Tucson
Vehicle(s)
98 Avalon, 95 Dakota
Your Bronco Model
Base
Clubs
 
Sorry, its not the 1987 Firebird Formula / Mustang GT era anymore. Computer controls are not yet fully self aware yet, but they can shift for better MPG than humans. Has been that way for a while.
Computer controls can optimize shifting better than MOST people, but also, the computer cares about more than just gas mileage. Example: 1980 Civic automatic got phenomenal gas mileage (better than most new hybrids), but the brake pads wore out quickly because it automatically shifted into neutral every time you lifted your foot off the accelerator. So they changed that in later models. Lower MPG, but better on the brakes.

So you still can shift for better gas mileage than the computer if that is all you care about, because the computer won't be shifting into neutral every time you lift your foot off the accelerator or every time you are going downhill.?
 

Sponsored
First Name
Jorge
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
11
Reaction score
3
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
1996 Suburban C1500
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
Recently found this picture in a thread; stated that it was from a 2 door badlands, saw the 96 miles in a quarter tank.

Made some calculations and achieved: 22.7 MPG

2 door tank size = 16.9
96 miles per quarter tank = 384miles / tank
384/16.9 = 22.7

just a speculation, don’t quote me but pretty decent mpg for a badlands if I’m correct
Any thoughts?

CE9D76D6-BF80-4BB2-A425-C8C469F03F4B.jpeg

photo credits to @ZackDanger
I've read that you wont get accurate numbers until about 3k miles but I'm sure it's close to being as accurate as the calculations.
 

JohnnyK

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
89
Reaction score
231
Location
NJ
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Sahara JKU
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
You should probably just own vehicles from the 80s
Ford's capable of making a nice looking instrument panel, the F150 looks great, so does the Bronco Sport. Must be the same people who designed the interior.
 

Toastedtostito

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Steven
Joined
Jul 30, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
240
Reaction score
551
Location
Thornton, CO
Vehicle(s)
Nissan Xterra
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
Clubs
 
Please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the larger engine get better gas mileage then the 2.3 in real driving conditions? My thought behind it is if you take 2 vehicles same size, same trim wouldn't the 2.3 have to work a bit harder then the 2.7 to move the 4500ish pound vehicle. I could see the 4 cylinder getting better mileage on a dyno, but it doesn't make since to me outside of that. This is assuming auto trans as stick has too many extra variables.
 

Rick Astley

Raptor
Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Threads
70
Messages
5,019
Reaction score
18,563
Location
Up Doug's ass
Vehicle(s)
d
Your Bronco Model
Raptor
Quoted for truth!

On the topic of this thread: fuel tanks are not linear, even modern tanks. On my '18 Mazda 6 i'll get 200 miles out of the first 1/2 tank as reliably as the tides, even if you're in "sport" mode the entire time. Then the last 1/2 tank will net anywhere from 70 to 100 miles depending on how you drove.

Old person story: When I was daily driving the '61 Thunderbird and premium was over $4 per gallon I was driving like there was a hole in the wallet. Had a few tanks of almost 120 miles operating range that nearly got to double-digit-MPG! Those were proud fills, even made friends at gas stations close to home and work since the commute was 30 miles each way, plus a few times running out of gas in traffic. People overall are pretty nice when you stop in your lane but have a full Jerry in the trunk. They won't honk if you're only putting in 2 gallons. They will honk if you whip out all 5 gallons to impress the ladies.
 
Last edited:

AMK610

Big Bend
Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
408
Reaction score
732
Location
PA
Vehicle(s)
2019 RAM 1500 Rebel
Your Bronco Model
Big Bend
Please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the larger engine get better gas mileage then the 2.3 in real driving conditions? My thought behind it is if you take 2 vehicles same size, same trim wouldn't the 2.3 have to work a bit harder then the 2.7 to move the 4500ish pound vehicle. I could see the 4 cylinder getting better mileage on a dyno, but it doesn't make since to me outside of that. This is assuming auto trans as stick has too many extra variables.
i would disagree. i dont think the 2.3 is any way underpowered for the bronco when used as intended, it has more HP than a lot of V8's used to have from not that long ago. It's efficient all around
Sponsored

 
 


Top