2.0L MPG Fuel Mileage

[Osco]

With my base model and it’s adequate 1.5L motor My normal driving is on hilly twisty roads and a daily elevation range of 1500 to 2100 feet above sea level mixed with a bit of hard gravel climbing.
Small town traffic So I get to do what I want.
I don’t Grandma my way to Church or feel the need to be first light to light.
Almost always in normal goat mode.
Summer fuels give me a monthly mpg average of 27
The winter fuel mix and my occasional idle warm up times give me 25 mpg.
I’m completely happy getting that in a vehicle that rides like a $50,000 vehicle, And has a very expensive sounding cabin,
as In really quiet.
Handles like a dream,
Yep,
It’s a keeper.

Sponsored

 

[AllTerrain]

I've been hovering between 26.5 and 27 mpg (on the computer) over 20k miles so far on my 2.0 FE. I do live in a city with lots of stop/go (Chicago), but the bulk of the miles have been on long highway drives. I almost always drive in ECO mode, use the auto stop/start and typically try to be conscious of conserving fuel however possible.

From my experience, I don't see 30mpg being consistently possible with the 2.0 in anything aside from "Goldilocks" conditions (i.e. flat or downhill, with a tailwind, etc.). I was able to do slightly better than 29 MPG over a 7k mile trip in the summer when the bulk of the trip had favorable conditions. This is per the computer on the dash, so it was probably slightly lower if I hand calculated it.

To max out the fuel economy on the highway, just over 60 MPH and under 65 seems to be about the lowest speed my First Edition will hold the highest gear (8th), which is the best combo of MPG and arriving at your destination in a timely fashion (in my opinion). How those speeds relate to the actual speed limit for the road you're on is a different matter entirely.

I'm not pretending I putt along at 63 MPH when the speed limit is 80 in some places in Utah. Just giving my perspective of what you can do to boost your MPGs and what is realistically attainable (from my own experience). At a certain point, you can only do so much to overcome the vehicle being shaped like a brick.

Utah 80 mile speed limits...
Who'da'thunk utah would be a speed zone...?

 

[rdc17]

I was getting 26mpg combined with the stock 225 tires. After switching to the 245s I'm now getting 23mpg combined. Won't know until the weather warms up if the main decrease is due to the larger tires or winter blend fuel.

 

[RonSwanson]

Utah 80 mile speed limits...
Who'da'thunk utah would be a speed zone...?

Most of the continental US west of the Mississippi is at least 75 MPH with several at 80. That's the highest in the country except for one road in Texas (130) that is 85 mph.

 

[RonSwanson]

I was getting 26mpg combined with the stock 225 tires. After switching to the 245s I'm now getting 23mpg combined. Won't know until the weather warms up if the main decrease is due to the larger tires or winter blend fuel.

Does that change in tire size throw off the MPG calculation on the dash or is this based on hand calculations? Also, when did you switch tires?

 

[AllTerrain]

I was getting 26mpg combined with the stock 225 tires. After switching to the 245s I'm now getting 23mpg combined. Won't know until the weather warms up if the main decrease is due to the larger tires or winter blend fuel.

245 in itself larger is one thing but what brand of tire you put on can add even more weight.

In other words consider the weight of the tire you are putting on not just the overall dimension.
Can get 245's that don't weigh as much as other 245 and can still be an all-terrain tire.

That is a strong reason why the BFG Kos are NOT my first choice.

Prefer the Falken wildpeak all-terrain AT3
Very similar capability much less weight.

If I remember correctly 1 lb extra tire weight on one tire is the equivalent of 10 lb turning weight.
~A 10 lb heavier Tire equals/adds 100 lb rotational weight.
That's taxing on wheel bearings, suspension, engine components,
Throttle response, &
MPG.

D & E rated tires may be tougher. Made for hauling high weight capacity,
But tend to be stiffer and Heavier.
And that weight capacity is not necessarily needed on a Bronco sport.

 

[Mark S.]

That is a strong reason why the BFG Kos are NOT my first choice.

Prefer the Falken wildpeak all-terrain AT3
Very similar capability much less weight.

Maybe the Falken rep can speak up here, but I believe the OEM Falken A/T3W that is offered as an option is a one-off for the Bronco Sport. I'm fairly certain it weighs less because it is not built the same. If you look at a chart comparing specs for different sizes of that model the lighter-weight versions have fewer plies and less tread depth. For example, the 235/65R17 has four plies, 13/32 tread depth, and weighs 31 lbs. The 245/65R17 has the same tread depth, but has six plies and weighs 39 lbs. That's a significant difference in weight for 10mm more width. The 245 version also has a max load of 2400+ lbs per tire, while the 235 is less than 2000 lbs.

I think the OEM A/T3W is fine for light off-roading, but I don't think I would say it is as capable as KO3 KO2 of the same size. Whether its worth the trade-off in weight is a question each individual will have to ask themselves. Personally, I plan to have two sets of wheels/tires, one for everyday driving and the occasional dirt road, and one for more serious off-road adventures.

 

[AllTerrain]

Maybe the Falken rep can speak up here, but I believe the OEM Falken A/T3W that is offered as an option is a one-off for the Bronco Sport.

Always with the micro detailed explanation. Reliable in that way ?

Interesting so you're commenting that maybe the Falken wildpeak AT3 that comes on the Bronco sport is not actually offered to the public because that's only made for Ford? That sounds peculiar.
__________
My comment talking about BRANDS
ie: different tires.
the Falken AT3 vs. The BFG ko2.
The BFG KO in the 245 size is heavier.
yes of course just like your post itemized the different specs of tires matter. I was keeping it simple and saying different tires
What I find is the ability of the two tires is very similar.
Traction control feeling on the road.
AT3 Load rating fine.
AT3 Less weight.

Commented about weight because
*Heavier= impact on MPG in this discussion...
Not just diameter.

As to the capabilities of those two tires.
will say this
i used to buy BFG.
And I use the same set of tires for everyday driving freeway and off roading.

 

[Mark S.]

Interesting so you're commenting that maybe the Falken wildpeak AT3 that comes on the Bronco sport is not actually offered to the public because that's only made for Ford? That sounds peculiar.

No, you can get the same tire from Tirerack.

My comment talking about the Falken AT3 vs. The BFG ko2. The BFG KO in the 245 size is heavier. yes of course just like your post started dictating the different specs of tires matter. But what I find is the ability of the two tires is very similar traction control feeling on the road.

Yes, I meant the KO2 as well. When you mentioned "capability" you didn't specify on-road only. I'm pointing out that if you're upgrading tires for off-road capability the better off-road performance suggested by the specs of the KO2 may justify its extra weight.

Tire manufacturers often build tires to meet OEM specs (weight, tread life, etc.), and sometimes meeting those specs means compromising other capabilities. Just looking at specs alone, I don't think anyone would think the tire Falken built for the Bronco Sport is anywhere near as capable off-road as the same model A/T3W in size LT235/85R16, which has more than twice as many plies, 30 percent more tread depth and load carrying capability, and weighs nearly 50 lbs. Nor would anyone think the more-capable off-road version of this tire would have the same road manners or offer the same on-road performance (acceleration, noise, fuel economy, etc.) as the OEM tire.

In other words, even though they're the same brand and model, the A/T3W 235/65R17 and A/T3W LT 235/85R16 are built to different specs to meet different priorities. If I were prioritizing road manners I would certainly--like you--choose the OEM Falken over the beefier BFG KO2, but if I were prioritizing off-road capability and safety, I would hands-down choose the BFG KO2 and live with the reduced on-road performance--at least for the drive to and from the boondocks.

Clear as mud?

 

[AllTerrain]

No, you can get the same tire from Tirerack.


Yes, I meant the KO2 as well. When you mentioned "capability" you didn't specify on-road only. I'm pointing out that if you're upgrading tires for off-road capability the better off-road performance suggested by the specs of the KO2 may justify its extra weight.

Tire manufacturers often build tires to meet OEM specs (weight, tread life, etc.), and sometimes meeting those specs means compromising other capabilities. Just looking at specs alone, I don't think anyone would think the tire Falken built for the Bronco Sport is anywhere near as capable off-road as the same model A/T3W in size LT235/85R16, which has more than twice as many plies, 30 percent more tread depth and load carrying capability, and weighs nearly 50 lbs. Nor would anyone think the more-capable off-road version of this tire would have the same road manners or offer the same on-road performance (acceleration, noise, fuel economy, etc.) as the OEM tire.

In other words, even though they're the same brand and model, the A/T3W 235/65R17 and A/T3W LT 235/85R16 are built to different specs to meet different priorities. If I were prioritizing road manners I would certainly--like you--choose the OEM Falken over the beefier BFG KO2, but if I were prioritizing off-road capability and safety, I would hands-down choose the BFG KO2 and live with the reduced on-road performance--at least for the drive to and from the boondocks.

Clear as mud?

Build to meet specs and still available to the public!

 

[rdc17]

Does that change in tire size throw off the MPG calculation on the dash or is this based on hand calculations? Also, when did you switch tires?

It does throw off the calculations as the tire is about an inch taller. Until ForScan is updated with the ability to get the modules to relearn the new tire size in the BCM it'll be off.

I've been doing my calculations by hand. Put the new tires on in November.

 

[rdc17]

245 in itself larger is one thing but what brand of tire you put on can add even more weight.

In other words consider the weight of the tire you are putting on not just the overall dimension.
Can get 245's that don't weigh as much as other 245 and can still be an all-terrain tire.

That is a strong reason why the BFG Kos are NOT my first choice.

Prefer the Falken wildpeak all-terrain AT3
Very similar capability much less weight.

If I remember correctly 1 lb extra tire weight on one tire is the equivalent of 10 lb turning weight.
~A 10 lb heavier Tire equals/adds 100 lb rotational weight.
That's taxing on wheel bearings, suspension, engine components,
Throttle response, &
MPG.

D & E rated tires may be tougher. Made for hauling high weight capacity,
But tend to be stiffer and Heavier.
And that weight capacity is not necessarily needed on a Bronco sport.

I went with the Pirelli AT+ mainly because of the weight. Only 5lbs heavier per tire than the 225 ATRs. It's lighter than the 245 KO2 and AT3W. I don't need a LT rated tire or extra plys, just something with good snow traction.

 

[DMEARC]

My point was that the 1.5 could not average 30 mpg’s In the real world.

Actually, it can. After more than 15,000 miles my lifetime average is better than 30 mpg.

 

[Mark S.]

Actually, it can. After more than 15,000 miles my lifetime average is better than 30 mpg.

That's awesome. You must have that thing running way lean of peak!

 

[DMEARC]

That's awesome. You must have that thing running way lean of peak!

I like the aviation reference ?
It’s a combination of mostly highway driving for hours on end, Eco mode, auto start/stop, and slightly higher tire pressures.

Sponsored