Miles per tank 2.7L vs 2.3L engines

My trip always shows like 320 miles to empty when I fill up with my 2 door black diamond 2.3

Wifiwanderer

Planning to buy a 2023MY 2-door Badlands with Sasquatch package. Anyone know about how many miles per tank with a 2.7L vs a 2.3L engine? I'm torn between getting more HP with a 2.7L or more miles per tank with a 2.3L. TIA.

Well if you want MPG than I don't think a Bronco should be a good vehicle for you.....but I want the extra power.

Our 2.3 MT 4Door fuel range hovers between 175-260 miles. Yes 175 miles. Why you ask?

Partly because of 3 inch lift, 37s, heavy 4WP bumpers, steps, winch etc.

Partly because I drive it between 70-90mph on highway (in the desert). Can hit 100 no problem.

Outdoor temp and the grade of pavement also have BIG impact on my MPG. When driving to grand canyon from california earlier this year it was an uphill grade almost the entire drive, which wiped out our fuel + engine worked overtime to move the bronco + occupants + our gear. Engine temp also increased, in February when cool outside, to 225+. Hot. I told Ford that and they said that temp is normal + 4cyl run hot anyway. This was when we switched to Full synthetic oil, which helped in various ways.

Important to note. The engine had plenty of power and performed perfectly on our GC trip. Plus, coming back home, downhill most the way, our fuel range jumped back up from 175 miles on full tank to 260 miles!! Crazy.

Around town we average 220-240 miles per tank and we fill monthly with 91 octane (can't get 93 in california). Better fuel helps a little too via power and mpg. Also improved mpg a tad with high flow vtop whipple drop-in air filter.

If you have a base bone stock 2 door 2.3 MT or AT on steelie's with only you in the car in low elevation on premium fuel and full synthetic oil you can make mpg stretch pretty dang far (over 300 miles easy).

If you have 4 door 2.3 or 2.7 squatch, both with auto trans...not a huge difference in mpg if you drive calm and try staying out of turbo boost as much as possible.

If doing a lot of towing or high elevation the mpg in the 2.3 will be gone in a flash.

You have to factor all variables to determine best mpg for your lifestyle and driving style.

Agreed with other comment. If worried about MPG maybe want to avoid the bronco lol. ;)

2020FordRaptor

Well if you want MPG than I don't think a Bronco should be a good vehicle for you.....but I want the extra power.

I enjoy exploring off the beaten path, so knowing the difference between how far a tank of gas will get me in a 2.7L vs 2.3L is important in my decision making process. Been driving various makes and models of 4x4 rigs for decades, but I've never needed a 4x4. 4x4s are my big boy play toys. Also, I like current tech, which is why I'm replacing my 2020 2-door Jeep Wrangler Rubicon with a 2023 Bronco. BTW, if I had ridiculous disposable income, would own both a Jeep and a Bronco, I like 'em both.

Fuel economy is within 1-2 MPG of each other. About 260 - 280 miles per tank, maybe as high as 320 if you are on the interstate most of the time. If you are trying to absolutely maximize your fuel economy, then 2.3L is the better choice. But to be honest most people probably won't notice a difference between the two unless they sit there and crunch the numbers. Obviously if you modify it in any way (like what @NT AUTOMOTIVE did)... then it's a different story, but stock it's about even.

In my opinion the choice between the 2.3L and the 2.7L is more of a weight/cost question. The Badlands is a heavy SUV—the heaviest Bronco trim. You can save around ~100 lbs of weight by sticking with the 2.3L, which means an extra 100 lbs of cargo—handy if you are the type to cram your Bronco full of gear when you go on adventures. The 2.7L is also pretty cramped in the engine bay. It's not terrible, but I won't lie—it does have a certain "rats nest" quality to it at first glance. Doesn't really matter I suppose, but if you are looking at aftermarket accessories you'll have an easier time finding mounting locations for them if you have the 2.3L.

NT AUTOMOTIVE

Our 2.3 MT 4Door fuel range hovers between 175-260 miles. Yes 175 miles. Why you ask?

Partly because of 3 inch lift, 37s, heavy 4WP bumpers, steps, winch etc.

Partly because I drive it between 70-90mph on highway (in the desert). Can hit 100 no problem.

Outdoor temp and the grade of pavement also have BIG impact on my MPG. When driving to grand canyon from california earlier this year it was an uphill grade almost the entire drive, which wiped out our fuel + engine worked overtime to move the bronco + occupants + our gear. Engine temp also increased, in February when cool outside, to 225+. Hot. I told Ford that and they said that temp is normal + 4cyl run hot anyway. This was when we switched to Full synthetic oil, which helped in various ways.

Important to note. The engine had plenty of power and performed perfectly on our GC trip. Plus, coming back home, downhill most the way, our fuel range jumped back up from 175 miles on full tank to 260 miles!! Crazy.

Around town we average 220-240 miles per tank and we fill monthly with 91 octane (can't get 93 in california). Better fuel helps a little too via power and mpg. Also improved mpg a tad with high flow vtop whipple drop-in air filter.

If you have a base bone stock 2 door 2.3 MT or AT on steelie's with only you in the car in low elevation on premium fuel and full synthetic oil you can make mpg stretch pretty dang far (over 300 miles easy).

If you have 4 door 2.3 or 2.7 squatch, both with auto trans...not a huge difference in mpg if you drive calm and try staying out of turbo boost as much as possible.

If doing a lot of towing or high elevation the mpg in the 2.3 will be gone in a flash.

You have to factor all variables to determine best mpg for your lifestyle and driving style.

Agreed with other comment. If worried about MPG maybe want to avoid the bronco lol. ;)

Hehe, kept all my 4x4 rigs bone stock. Seriously, got a flat tire (once in my life) in the Sierras and had to pull out the instruction guide about how to use its stock jack. You are absolutely on target about how driving impacts MPG. Have casually noticed I typically get about 20 MPG in my stock 3.6L Jeep, off road and freeway combined. I carry couple jerry cans for extended off the beaten path explorations, which I've never needed. Always emptied the full cans into my tank at the end of those trips. Slid off a steep muddy road into a ditch in Baja, no winch. My come-along saved the day, plus no damages, though one heck of a manual physical workout. Any hoo, don't need a new Bronco, just want one. BTW, read a Bronco owner's concern about the tailgate not being able to hold more than its spare tire. What's been your experience? I carry a couple full jerry cans on my Jeep's spare.

Wifiwanderer

Hehe, kept all my 4x4 rigs bone stock. Seriously, got a flat tire (once in my life) in the Sierras and had to pull out the instruction guide about how to use its stock jack. You are absolutely on target about how driving impacts MPG. Have casually noticed I typically get about 20 MPG in my stock 3.6L Jeep, off road and freeway combined. I carry couple jerry cans for extended off the beaten path explorations, which I've never needed. Always emptied the full cans into my tank at the end of those trips. Slid off a steep muddy road into a ditch in Baja, no winch. My come-along saved the day, plus no damages, though one heck of a manual physical workout. Any hoo, don't need a new Bronco, just want one. BTW, read a Bronco owner's concern about the tailgate not being able to hold more than its spare tire. What's been your experience? I carry a couple full jerry cans on my Jeep's spare.

The 37 inch spare tire is doing well after hanging on the back for the past year. It is mounted to a 4WP spare tire carrier, which is beefier than OEM. It helps. No issues whatsoever with our tailgate/hinges. No plans to install a tailgate brace because our plan, at least for now, is to preserve our bronco + use it for product demos.

If you plan on 37s with a lot of bumpy offroad adventures or you live around a lot of potholes...you either want a tailgate brace, bumper mounted swing spare, put the spare in the cargo area (if 4Door) or store the spare in your garage. We are considering the latter to make around town driving even more enjoyable + less weight. But if we do so, we have to relocate the rear camera (not too hard) and buy another kentrol tag holder because (a) our 4WP bumper doesn't hold tag (b) can mount rear tag to 4WP bumper using the kentrol, which we currently do up front.

RagnarKon

Fuel economy is within 1-2 MPG of each other. About 260 - 280 miles per tank, maybe as high as 320 if you are on the interstate most of the time. If you are trying to absolutely maximize your fuel economy, then 2.3L is the better choice. But to be honest most people probably won't notice a difference between the two unless they sit there and crunch the numbers. Obviously if you modify it in any way (like what @NT AUTOMOTIVE did)... then it's a different story, but stock it's about even.

In my opinion the choice between the 2.3L and the 2.7L is more of a weight/cost question. The Badlands is a heavy SUV—the heaviest Bronco trim. You can save around ~100 lbs of weight by sticking with the 2.3L, which means an extra 100 lbs of cargo—handy if you are the type to cram your Bronco full of gear when you go on adventures. The 2.7L is also pretty cramped in the engine bay. It's not terrible, but I won't lie—it does have a certain "rats nest" quality to it at first glance. Doesn't really matter I suppose, but if you are looking at aftermarket accessories you'll have an easier time finding mounting locations for them if you have the 2.3L.

For me, I'm mostly concerned about peace of mind when it comes to fuel economy. Can I get where I'm going on a tank of gas without having to stop and mess with a jerry can out in the boonies. Appreciate knowing 2.7L and 2.3L get so close to the same MPG. BTW, noticed the 2.7L looked jam packed under the hood.

Wifiwanderer

For me, I'm mostly concerned about peace of mind when it comes to fuel economy. Can I get where I'm going on a tank of gas without having to stop and mess with a jerry can out in the boonies. Appreciate knowing 2.7L and 2.3L get so close to the same MPG. BTW, noticed the 2.7L looked jam packed under the hood.

Ah… gotcha.

I would think about it like this: the 2.3L definitely has measurably better fuel economy, but it does not have noticeably better fuel economy. If you sit there and measure it, then yes, you will notice a difference. But if you aren’t really thinking about it, you won’t notice a different. Not sure if that makes sense or not, but hopefully it does.

As with most modern engines with 3/4/5/6 cylinders with turbos on them, your fuel economy is much more dependent on how you drive. If you are spinning up that turbo a lot the computer is going to shove more fuel into the cylinder.

Wifiwanderer

For me, I'm mostly concerned about peace of mind when it comes to fuel economy. Can I get where I'm going on a tank of gas without having to stop and mess with a jerry can out in the boonies. Appreciate knowing 2.7L and 2.3L get so close to the same MPG. BTW, noticed the 2.7L looked jam packed under the hood.

Well, if thats what you care about, the four door may be the better choice. The fuel economy is rated the same, but the tank is 16.9 Gallons on the 2 door and 20.8 on the four.

Wifiwanderer

For me, I'm mostly concerned about peace of mind when it comes to fuel economy. Can I get where I'm going on a tank of gas without having to stop and mess with a jerry can out in the boonies. Appreciate knowing 2.7L and 2.3L get so close to the same MPG. BTW, noticed the 2.7L looked jam packed under the hood.

It was quite a shock to find out mid road trip thru the desert with family how bad the mpg was for us. It was a worst case scenario situation though, which made the adventure even more thrilling for the fam AND when pushing the vehicle you learn most about it. I felt a lot better coming back when our mpg improved by 50% mainly because of the downhill grade even though I still ran it between 70-90mph.

Above all remember this. When the fuel gauge on a new model Ford says "0 miles to empty" it means you are OUT of gas!! Some cars will continue going 5-10 miles after 0. Not Ford

NT AUTOMOTIVE

It was quite a shock to find out mid road trip thru the desert with family how bad the mpg was for us. It was a worst case scenario situation though, which made the adventure even more thrilling for the fam AND when pushing the vehicle you learn most about it. I felt a lot better coming back when our mpg improved by 50% mainly because of the downhill grade even though I still ran it between 70-90mph.

Above all remember this. When the fuel gauge on a new model Ford says "0 miles to empty" it means you are OUT of gas!! Some cars will continue going 5-10 miles after 0. Not Ford

Well we picked up one of my mom's company cars and her Expedition said 0 to empty. I was to excited to notice and had let it run for a out 5 minutes. Saw that and immediately turned it off. It lasted for 5 miles but started to cough as we pulled into the gas station.

Can't say, I live in the mountains. Nothing gets great mileage here. When I take trips to flat lands, mine increases significantly. 2 door Basesquatch 2.7...

Mal

Well, if thats what you care about, the four door may be the better choice. The fuel economy is rated the same, but the tank is 16.9 Gallons on the 2 door and 20.8 on the four.

Been driving 2-door 4x4s, because I prefer the maneuverability of a 2-door's shorter wheelbase. Jeep's 4-door has a higher capacity tank, too. Back in my 4-door Jeep and Isuzu days, got myself into some tight jams with boulders and other objects resulting in scrapes and dents. My 1990 4-door Isuzu 4x4 Trooper's OEM bumpers got so banged up, replaced them with steel tubular bumpers that actually looked cool and were invincible. My 1999 Isuzu Vehicross 4x4 (2-door) only got customary off road pin striping from bushes.

Mal

Well, if thats what you care about, the four door may be the better choice. The fuel economy is rated the same, but the tank is 16.9 Gallons on the 2 door and 20.8 on the four.

Yeah, this. Miles per tank, 4 door vs. 2 door fuel tank size will have a bigger impact than engine choice. But for a data point, I just averaged 18.6mpg in my 2.7 2 door Badlands sasquatch on a 1200 mile road trip from Alabama to Ohio and back, most of the time using adaptive cruise set somewhere between 77-82

I'm getting 20 mpg combined with the 2.3 it gets great milage on the open road over the weekends but dips commuting to work. I have pretty much stayed in eco mode but also have a lead foot. It has plenty of power even in eco mode it's actually kind of shocking. I'm otherwise all American V8 so I anticipated a slug in a cool shell but I've been quite pleasantly surprised with acceleration and power.

I am consistently seeing 480 mpg plus after I fill up.
I daily drive a 4 dr '21 BD with the auto 2.3. Over 14k miles on the odometer now. I make it a point to gradually get to cruising speed by not exceeding 2k rpm. It is very flat where I live (MS. Delta) and I drive 50 miles round trip per day., so this skews the numbers in my favor.
I am averaging 24.4 mpg. I try not to go over 55 and really try to keep the rpms under 1700.
Just passing it on.

TitsLaRue

I am consistently seeing 480 mpg plus after I fill up.
I daily drive a 4 dr '21 BD with the auto 2.3. Over 14k miles on the odometer now. I make it a point to gradually get to cruising speed by not exceeding 2k rpm. It is very flat where I live (MS. Delta) and I drive 50 miles round trip per day., so this skews the numbers in my favor.
I am averaging 24.4 mpg. I try not to go over 55 and really try to keep the rpms under 1700.
Just passing it on.

I applaud your restraint, I’m never gonna be able to do that….

I have a 4 door 2.3 auto badlands and if I stick to 65mph on the highway I get about 21-23 mpg