Maybe I'm Wrong!

[gatornek]

Ford couldn't have done better with the 2.0T or at least put the 2.0T in the rest and a 2.3T for the badlands.

This is the way.

Sponsored

 

[NMhunter]

I opted for the 2.0 because I need to pull a couple of small trailers. I just got back from a leisurely 100 mile drive (max speed 70 mph for 40 miles) up to the foothills of the Jemez mountains. I averaged 33.7 mpg.

My wife has a 1.6 L Hyndai Tucson and it barely gets better mileage than my BS.

 

[davidg4781]

The 1.5 verses the 2.0 is a fleet gas mileage issue. Ford is wanting to sell as many 1.5 engine equipped vehicles as it can in order to meet the required fleet fuel mileage average that the government has placed on them without having to pay a fine.

My <20 mpg thinks different.

 

[13MikeH]

My <20 mpg thinks different.

Dude (ma'am) how are you pulling less than 20mpg? My badlands averages 25-28 city/suburbs and when we rolled the black hills it was in the 30s. May want to have that looked at??‍

 

[davidg4781]

Dude (ma'am) how are you pulling less than 20mpg? My badlands averages 25-28 city/suburbs and when we rolled the black hills it was in the 30s. May want to have that looked at??‍

I think a lot of it has to do with a short trip to work with several traffic lights/stop signs. So far on this tank, just driving to work and back I was getting about 14mpg.

I drove it out of town, about 50 miles away, then back. It got up to about 20 mpg on that trip.

My Accord was the same. I'd leave town saying I had 100 miles to empty, get to the big city, and see I had 102 miles to empty.

 

[RM951]

I have a 39mile commute in stop and go traffic and avg over 27 in my BL

 

[davidg4781]

I have a 39mile commute in stop and go traffic and avg over 27 in my BL

Interesting. Is it all stop and go or do you get some time to drive at a set speed? For the small stretches I get, the instant gauge shows 35-60 mpg.

 

[RM951]

Interesting. Is it all stop and go or do you get some time to drive at a set speed? For the small stretches I get, the instant gauge shows 35-60 mpg.

Well I have a bit of downhill, offset by the return uphill. Once I hit the city down the hill it varies. I try to set my cruise as often as I can. I don't have the adaptive cc. Traffic will often have me hitting the brakes. I use Eco mode as soon as I start up and try to accelerate conservatively. I only use sport if there's a tough merge and I need rapid acceleration. I also keep my speed at or below 70. All this I learned from my 2016 expedition. Ecoboost really makes it easy to waste gas. When I'm off roading yeah I'll kill that gas pedal, but when I commute the mission is to max out my milage. I make a game out it(lame I know). Anyone that drives the 580 in the real Bay Area or the 10 in the ie knows a 39 mile commute can take up to 2 hours or more sometimes 3. Yeah it's bad traffic

 

[davidg4781]

Well I have a bit of downhill, offset by the return uphill. Once I hit the city down the hill it varies. I try to set my cruise as often as I can. I don't have the adaptive cc. Traffic will often have me hitting the brakes. I use Eco mode as soon as I start up and try to accelerate conservatively. I only use sport if there's a tough merge and I need rapid acceleration. I also keep my speed at or below 70. All this I learned from my 2016 expedition. Ecoboost really makes it easy to waste gas. When I'm off roading yeah I'll kill that gas pedal, but when I commute the mission is to max out my milage. I make a game out it(lame I know). Anyone that drives the 580 in the real Bay Area or the 10 in the ie knows a 39 mile commute can take up to 2 hours or more sometimes 3. Yeah it's bad traffic

Yeah I'm trying to keep my mpgs up too, mostly during my commute to work or drive around town. If I'm on the freeway in the city, I'll put it in Normal or Sport mode and do what needs to be done.

I guess it's not too bad. For the month of July, I only spent $50 on 93 octane fuel.

 

[Bucko]

Displacement is not everything. It makes fun noises but it's wasteful and expensive. 1 liter engines do the work of American 5 liters of 30 years before. I'd rather see a reliable 250HP from the 1.5.

You won't. It was not designed for that; not reliable at least.

 

[Mark S.]

You won't. It was not designed for that; not reliable at least.

One of the ways to express engine power is by specific output. This is a comparison of horsepower to displacement. 250 horsepower from 1.5 liters is a specific output of 166 hp/liter. That would put the Bronco Sport with a 1.5L EcoBoost in pretty rare company.

 

[Bucko]

One of the ways to express engine power is by specific output. This is a comparison of horsepower to displacement. 250 horsepower from 1.5 liters is a specific output of 166 hp/liter. That would put the Bronco Sport with a 1.5L EcoBoost in pretty rare company.

Interesting read.

I don't see Ford getting the 1.5 into that type of HP range, seeing as how it's intent was to help with fleet fuel economy ratings.

Now should an outside source decide it wants the challenge, that's another story. Reliability is also a concern.

 

[Mark S.]

Reliability is also a concern.

If you browse that list of cars you may note there aren't many on it known for reliability.

 

[Bucko]

If you browse that list of cars you may note there aren't many on it known for reliability.

Which is why my answer of the 1.5 being a concern for reliability when pushed beyond its intended design.

 

[ohiooutdoors]

You won't. It was not designed for that; not reliable at least.

I mean to be fair Toyota is making it happen.

Sponsored