Why No Published MPG ?

[BeerForMyHorses]

Remember when Ford wanted to call their direct injected and turbo engines "TwinForce?"

They should really be named Eco/Boost because you cannot have both at the same time.

The 2021 Ranger's fuel economy is marketed with "up to 21mpg city and 26mpg highway". You can be sure that is for a 2wd XL extended cab.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would estimate that the 2.3L Bronco will be rated 18mpg city and 22mpg highway. The manual will be rated for less.

My WAG on the 2.7L Bronco is that it will be rated 1mpg better on both city and highway than a 2wd, extended cab, short bed XL F150 with the same engine.

My current truck (2015 Ram 1500 Express, 2wd, single cab short bed with the 8 speed and Hemi) gets about 17mpg combined. I have a 55 mile per day commute that is about 80/20 highway/city. I have a HemiFever 91 octane performance tune that increased the fuel economy by about 1.5mpg over stock.

I'd be happy if the basemansquatch I want gets 18mpg combined.

Why will the manual be rated for less?

Sponsored

 

[mdonathan56]

So I found this on the AutoTrader review of the Bronco. This probably makes the most sense of anything I've seen:

While Ford hasn’t announced fuel economy for the Bronco with either engine, we anticipate fuel economy will be the same or better than the Jeep Wrangler, its direct competitor. Fuel economy for the Wrangler ranges from 17 mpg city/23 mpg hwy/19 mpg combined to 22 mpg city/24 mpg hwy/23 mpg combined. (These numbers don’t include mpg for the Wrangler’s available diesel, because there isn’t expected to be a diesel option for the Bronco.)

 

[Potatomafia]

Why will the manual be rated for less?

The 10 speed auto has more available ratios (10) versus the 7 speed (7 but really 6 in normal driving) and a higher ratio spread (lowest gear ratio divided by the highest ratio). The ratio spread for the 10 speed auto is 7.411 and the 7 speed is 6.630 (1st-6th, crawler was excluded because its not used in normal driving).

For an example of this, look at the Mustang. The auto is rated slightly higher than the manual:

I suspect the fuel economy delta between the manual and auto Broncos will be larger due to more weight and more rotating mass (larger tires).

But its all a guess until the official fuel economy numbers are published...

 

[VoltageDrop]

My experience with the 2.7L was 17MPG mixed driving and 21-22 as high as 23 on the highway. Which is worse than the 5.3L V8 Chevy of the same year fwiw.

LS swap, anyone?

Range is important to me so I'm curious about mpg but the question will have many answers with so many configurations available. For instance, it will obviously decrease if you have the sound deadening headliner.

 

[NCOBX]

I'm paying cash for my Badlands, and it damn will better get more MPG than that.
Just because I can afford something, that doesn't mean I want to.

Outside of range, which likely will be an issue given the clownishly small fuel tanks, I can’t see why 16MPG would give you heart burn, that’s pretty damn good no matter how you slice it.

 

[Chrism81]

Kinda sad if the bronco gets combined 16-17 mpg when the more powerful jeep 392 will get around 14 mpg combined. Sure these are all estimates and it's not real world accurate, but still.

 

[da_jokker]

Wow, 3 pages of caring..nice!

Whether something matters to you does not mean a person has to be uninformed. I read threads about manual transmission even though I have no interest in getting one. This is a real, impactive, and unknown topic about the Bronco and sure beats talking about top colors and guessing greens.

The EPAs are always wrong..usually high, but I would imagine it must be on the windows sticker for the first actual production Bronco no?

And my 93 Cherokee XJ 4.0 got 16... Bronco BETTER beat that!

 

[Chrism81]

Wow, 3 pages of caring..nice!

Whether something matters to you does not mean a person has to be uninformed. I read threads about manual transmission even though I have no interest in getting one. This is a real, impactive, and unknown topic about the Bronco and sure beats talking about top colors and guessing greens.

The EPAs are always wrong..usually high, but I would imagine it must be on the windows sticker for the first actual production Bronco no?

And my 93 Cherokee XJ 4.0 got 16... Bronco BETTER beat that!

Should be. When I went to go put my deposit down the dealership had a sport and it had the mpg which I think said around 26 mpg Combined

 

[NCOBX]

Should be. When I went to go put my deposit down the dealership had a sport and it had the mpg which I think said around 26 mpg Combined

Sport is a unibody crossover with nearly no ground clearance, fuel saver low resistance tires and a 3 cylinder engine.
Might as well compare the Bronco to a Corvette, as they are in totally different classes of vehicles.

 

[Chrism81]

Sport is a unibody crossover with nearly no ground clearance, fuel saver low resistance tires and a 3 cylinder engine.
Might as well compare the Bronco to a Corvette, as they are in totally different classes of vehicles.

I wasn't comparing it to the bronco. I was responding to what ja jokker said about there being a window sticker for the first production bronco w/ mpg on it since I saw a sport with the mpg window sticker

 

[NCOBX]

I wasn't comparing it to the bronco. I was responding to what ja jokker said about there being a window sticker for the first production bronco w/ mpg on it since I saw a sport with the mpg window sticker

Oh my bad

 

[OX1]

I am not a rocket scientist but I have a 4WD with decent size tires and expect decent MPG. I have a '19 Sierra AT4 w/ the 6.2 and have averaged over 22 MPG on a 500 mile drive from here in South Florida to GA for a wedding. Went on a 250 mile round trip to Duck key yesterday and averaged over 24MPG. My daily round trip for work is 70 miles, 80/20 - Highway/City, and average between 18 & 19 MPG. MPG matters to me as well and would definitely choose to keep my 6.2 if the Bronco is less than 20 mpg on average.

Right, larger engines, especially NA, don't typically need as rich an A/F as boosted engines need. So you load down these smaller engines, they are always under boost except for really low load situations. DI mitigates (somewhat) needing the entire combustion chamber from being extra rich, by being able to create a sort of rich area in the center of combustion chamber where fuel is directly injected (leaving the rest of combustion chamber leaner). Still going to be richer overall under higher loads than a larger NA engine (and worse mileage result).

You also sometimes have to be richer under heavy boost to not get misfires. 20 Page thread going on right now from some of the guys who have modded 2.7 fusions, having misfire issues and no fix yet.
https://www.fusionsportforums.com/t...ith-methanol-and-mkz-turbos-not-solved.20076/
It's just another reason I didn't really want a turbo motor for a harder core offroad rig. Everyone keeps looking at HP/torque figures and thinks there will be no issues running 23-25 lbs of boost (not that it will be that stock) because they saw some tuner run that for 1-2 dyno sessions. Yes, the engine mechanicals will handle it, it's the little things that get you that big V-8's don't have to worry about.

 

[BroncoAgain]

With the arrow dynamics of a brick and some true 35's or maybe 37's doing 75 on the freeway. My guess is 15-17 freeway at best.

 

[amccue90]

Based on the new Ranger Tremor coming in at 19/19, I think its safe to say we won't see the 20s

 

[GOODVBZ]

Saw a clip from one of the pros at KOH featuring the trail cam. As an aside he mentioned that they had 3/4 tank left and 109 miles to empty . Obviously they’re going flat out for 95% of the cycle but hot damn! Lol this means nothing, but again, HOT DAMN.

Sponsored