Just a quick question for those of you with a full sized Broncos. Truck in question is an 89, 351, lift and 33s. I'd assume it is geared 3.55s and it is an automatic. Nothing too over the top and pretty common. About what could one expect for mileage easy driving providing it is running well? 15mpg maybe?

 

With that axle gearing 15mpg would be the answer to a hefty prayer. Unless of course you don't need to climb any hills. I routinely got between 12-13.5 in my 92 equipped with a 302/E4OD/3.55:1 axles and 33's. But then when I climb hills or want to pass a semi I don't hesitate. The gearing with those tires drives the 3-4 shift parameter into hysterics in the E4OD (Lots of hunting).

 

Yeah I was afraid of that. Not much sense in buying something to improve upon commuting costs to school when it can't beat out the V10 I already have. I about the only thing it would save is added wear and tear on my older SD. I probably should take that money and re gear my F250. 285's and 3.73's I get 11-12 now commuting.

 

Ouch! Yeah, with the Bronco and the small V8's, the gearing is fine up to about 32" tires but really gets crappy on the hills and passing when you move to 33's. 4.11's with 33's and even 4.56's with 35's are best even with an overdrive-equipped transmission.

 

If it were me, I would sell the F250 and buy a Ranger if I was interested in getting better gas mileage while I went back and forth to school. It's a uninformed and immature mind that would think that changing something designed, engineered and manufactured by Ford, which has Phd's trained in TRUCK, would result in something superior, gets better gas mileage, and saves money.

 

I never even thought about it. The 351m c6 and 3.54 gears did everything I wanted out of the 79 F-150sc. The trucks original engine in that got 14mpg. Second one only got 12mpg highway, but who knows the story on that used engine. I figured with efi, a few more horse, and an overdrive the 89 would be as good if not better. Bummer...

 

MPG is mostly a matter of how much the vehicle weighs, weight goes up, MPG goes down and vice versa.

 

Screw that! With a Ranger first it is too small for me unless it is an ext cab, second I can't haul around any equipment, let alone all my dogs in one trip, third I can't plow commercially with a tinker toy, sorry they don't make that great of mileage either unless it's 2x4 4cyl and lastly mine is way too nice and nearly paid for. It would be many years before I ever had one nearly as nice again. Out of the question.

I'll consider this full size Bronco. Something I like a lot, and it has it's place. I might get it regardless, just because. The idea was to save on fuel, but I don't have to. It was just a thought. I can't have it both ways

Seems to me Dad tried the very same thing a few times, a few weeks later came out the big truck and fuel card. Sold the mileage cruncher right after. If it is going to pay, you need to make it pay by having a 30plus mpg. Lets be honest, otherwise the added cost eats up the savings.

A twin plug 4cyl ranger 2x4, an escort, twin plug mustang 4cyl or an early lighter fox with a straight 4cyl 5 speed, or a Probe 4cyl, or 3.0 v6. That is about it, in affordable used, from Ford in the last 20-30years that can do that. The only one I'd care for is the 3.0L V6 Probe because it at least has power to have fun. A 92 LX like I had. Finding one that is 5-speed, good shape, and affordable is very hard here in the mid-west.

 

You could always find a 4.9 to drop in the Bronco if you really wanted to save on fuel. The little truck engine that COULD and quite possibly the absolute best all around power plant the blue oval ever made. It won't blow the doors off many other things but it will pull your house off its foundation from a stand still. Not to mention they tend to go about 250-300 thousand miles before needing anything major. With so many of them out there finding one isn't difficult either. The ignorant and speed-hungry fools out there who can't wait to do 130MPH in their TRUCK are always tossing them aside in favor of more HP. At its best the 4.9 saw only about 150 HP stock from the factory @ 3400RPM but put 265 ft.lbs. against the pavement @ a mere 2000RPM. But then, I'm more of a power-hungry guy than a speed fiend. I'd rather MOVE the mountain than see how fast I can get over it.

 

Heck yeah, I love the 4.9 in efi form. With a 5speed I'd buy it for sure. Would be really nice. I had a 91 shortbox that got 17mpg all day long with 235's and stock 3.55's. Awesome little truck. Dad fetched 19mpg once out of it while I was in recruit training on a trip. I never could. 17mpg was it for me, but I didn't baby it either. That truck was airborne off road as much as it drove on road. Not too many 4.9L 5-speed Broncos out there. Probably none in Eddie Bauer trim.

I stand corrected, it was an option, and they were made. Very rare to find a EB Fullsize with the I-6 and 5-speed.

 

Yeah, I'm in the midst of a 5.0-to-4.9 swap in my '93. I hit a snag though... I was going to take the entire engine/tranny setup from a 1992 donor truck and drop it in the Bronco and then I came into a ZF (wide ratio) so I had to pause long enough to make sure everything would still work using the ZF instead... IT WILL! So it will be a Bronco equipped as none ever were and no 93 would have been. 1993 with a 300 and a ZF 5-speed. Now I'd kill for a NP 205 to replace the BW1356 t-case.

 

It doesn't pay one way or another unless 2nd vehicle is both relatively inexpensive and makes 30mpg or so. Figured even a BII that should do an honest 17mpg minimum, calculating it's cost+maint+ins+mpg= no savings period in the first year. Actually it would cost me more money than driving my V10 hard. A full sized Bronco is worse, except for the added value I place on the truck itself, because I like it. Buying something to save money fuel wise is a stupid quest unless I really did sell the truck and got rid of it. But the money that truck makes me far exceeds its cost in fuel. No room to bitch about it, I guess. I might still buy the Bronco yet under the reasoning of the "what if" scenario. Where the SD goes down with a major problem and I needed something to drive for awhile. Could happen plowing with it, it's age, and mileage.

 

I'm a big fan of the milage vehicle scenario. I bought a '97 Mercury Tracer when the Bronco was under major repair and ended up keeping it until it died. Way I figure it, the car was paid for within 2 years by getting 3 times the gas milage of the Bronco (trading the Bronco is never an option).

Still drove the Bronco plenty, but used the Tracer to commute and go long distances.

IMO, having two full sized 4 wheel drives is unnecessary, but if you can afford it why not?? I had a super rich neighbor with all kinds of collector cars and he drove a GEO to work everyday...no shame in that.

 

I got one year left going to school and I'll be back to big blocks and 4-barrel carbs before you know it. Mileage isn't that important. I'll get by.

 

My 89 5.8 c-6 was doing the 15MPG range but it was 3.08s and 31x10.50s after a full tune up.