First highway trip 11.9 mpg!!!

[CoolTech]

By FAR... and I mean FAR - the largest impact on MPG's for our beloved aerodynamic billboards is wind resistance... aka speed. The bigger, badder, taller, larger-tired monster you create, the worse aerodynamics become! And that ground clearance that most of us want to brag about is another aerodynamic killer! Unless you are driving in an area with a lot of hills or at speeds that cause a lot of load on the engine, octane isn't going to become a factor. (Lower octane may cause the knock sensors to give you less timing advance, but this is typically minor and limited to the duration of engine load.) I think those that have actually witnessed octane improvement on MPG's have likely unwittingly not isolated speed and/or wind direction impact.

In summary, it's pretty simple. Driving slower and/or driving with a tailwind is going to yield better fuel economy. I try.... but admittedly can't to it for long!

Sponsored

 

[ScLeCo]

By FAR... and I mean FAR - the largest impact on MPG's for our beloved aerodynamic billboards is wind resistance... aka speed. The bigger, badder, taller, larger-tired monster you create, the worse aerodynamics become! And that ground clearance that most of us want to brag about is another aerodynamic killer! Unless you are driving in an area with a lot of hills or at speeds that cause a lot of load on the engine, octane isn't going to become a factor. (Lower octane may cause the knock sensors to give you less timing advance, but this is typically minor and limited to the duration of engine load.) I think those that have actually witnessed octane improvement on MPG's have likely unwittingly not isolated speed and/or wind direction impact.

In summary, it's pretty simple. Driving slower and/or driving with a tailwind is going to yield better fuel economy. I try.... but admittedly can't to it for long!

You forgot weight and rolling resistance of said large tires. Tires by far made the biggest dent in my MPG's.

 

[duel007]

Normal unfortunately - it will climb a bit once you get miles on. My trip out to Utah last spring had me going into a 45 MPH headwind at 85 MPH, and I was getting 12-13MPG.

 

[CalvinT]

I noticed a huge difference in mileage when I drove to the Nevada OffRoadeo. I was pushing it on the way there and got around 14 mpg. And had to stop for gas on the way. I drove the speed limit on the way back and got 18 mpg. On the return trip I made it back on one tank with two gallons left. My Bronco is the first car I've owned that's got me to drive slower (other than the 28 hp Renault I owned in HS).

 

[Winter13]

My wife and I drove from ny to Arizona and back to cover route 66 for 5700 miles averaging 17 miles to gallon with a 22 wildtrak.

 

[Mako]

Few days old , 300 miles on it. Did a 150 mile trip. All highway 76 mph. Got 11.9 mpg

im guessing dealer filled it with 87 octane and winds were somewhat strong. But I had hoped for 15mpg +

I have had my 2023 Bronco Sasquatch Badlands 2.7 for 35000 miles, just over 2 years, and I averaged 17.3 across that time. Individual trips using premium gas doing 75-80 mph I have gotten 19.5-20 mpg. I have also bucked a head wind and had less than 12 mpg. Too may variables for me to know. I hear people speak of 22-23 mpg and I figure that they get towed a lot, I have never seen it.

 

[CalvinT]

I hear people speak of 22-23 mpg and I figure that they get towed a lot, I have never seen it.

Or they're going down hill. Or depending on the Broncos' computer instead of keeping a log and doing the math themselves.

 

[swamp2]

And that ground clearance that most of us want to brag about is another aerodynamic killer!

No, increasing ground clearance is a very small factor in aerodynamics.

The two factors are the drag coefficient and frontal area. The drag coefficient doesn't really depend on ground clearance. Similarly the frontal area does only slightly as more of ones tires are exposed by increasing ground clearance.

 

[swamp2]

doesn't the Braptor specify only 87 octane?

93 won't do anything different.

No.

It specifies 87 minimum but 93 required to make factory stated power.

I strongly sudpect better fuel economy from 93. The engine will pull timing and make more power leading to less fuel required for a speed and hence given aerodynamic loss.

 

[CalvinT]

I keep meticulous records for gas consumption. I first started with 87 octane then switched to 91 octane for several months (93 octane isn't available in Arizona). I didn't see any significant difference. Definitely not enough to justify the price per gallon difference.

 

[PayHeedKU]

Just picked up my Badlands from Granger on Saturday. It’s a little over 200 miles from them to my home in Kansas - obviously pretty flat. I got over 20 mpg. I was taking it a little easy on to break it in but I was pretty surprised by the results.

 

[moab_b2]

My 21 Badlands with Eibach lift and 37s on Utah highways gets me around 14.5. That is driving between 80-90mph. Don't care, just fun to drive. Best I saw before the lift and tires on 35s was 19 on a road trip in Oregon. Speeds are much slower there (50-60).

 

[zoober]

1/2 highway(70-80 mph), half rural roads.
Since my first oil change, I’m at 20.1
OBX SAS 2.3. Most of the time in sport 2wd. Overall since new is 19.7

 

[adam1991]

I strongly sudpect better fuel economy from 93.

well, THAT'S easy to quantify.

 

[CoolTech]

No, increasing ground clearance is a very small factor in aerodynamics.

The two factors are the drag coefficient and frontal area. The drag coefficient doesn't really depend on ground clearance.

Drag coefficient can be measurably improved if you can reduce to high pressure/turbulence under the vehicle and it is the reason that OEMs spend so much money on this. At first we saw Ford aggressively sacrificing ground clearance in their TRUCKS with front air dams well below standard bumper heights. This was done across the line-up including F250's and F350's. Now you even some of these with dynamic air dams as referenced in THIS post.

But you may have a good point insofar that the Bronco air is already SO messed up as it goes under the car, it's hard to imagine that it can get worse with another inch or two of height

Sponsored