Jesus Christ, you guys are not getting it.

Please note the shortage is caused by the panic.

I would assume that “process” NEBcruiser is referring to is the revocation of the easement. That is defined somewhere, someplace.

Can definitely confirm re: the mileage vs. speed limit - and this doesn’t even take into account the minute you lift it, add heavy duty bumpers, and upgrade your tire size.

There are already cases being litigated that could apply to this. When President Biden decided to unilaterally revoke the federal permit for the KeystoneXL pipeline, TransCanada and many others filed suit. The premise is that the government through its various agencies and jurisdictions cannot grant permits, only to…

No, but they kill a lot of birds.

Yeah, I’m trying to picture the reaction here if a Republican governor ordered a solar plant or something shut down.

To be entirely fair, the company is right. A governor who was elected 65 years after an easement was granted, can’t just revoke the easement by fiat. It’s not even her easement to revoke. The law defines the process and the Governor’s attempt to rule by fiat defies that process.

If suddenly all vehicles in the world got more than 10% better gas mileage then that would be pretty “earthshaking”, so that 11%+ difference is a big deal. That typed, neither vehicle should be considered economical on fuel use and I’m willing to bet it does not matter to customers in this automotive segment.

My RAM 1500 Rebel has 33" tires from the factory, it gets terrible mpg compared to regular street tired RAMs.

I suspect it’s the larger wheels tires, heavier weight and higher body configuration of the Bronco. The things that make you good off-road don’t help mpg.

Most likely. Assuming it’s a Ford way, my Focus ST does that. It says it’s fine on 87, but I tried it in the winter where I was just doing easy highway mileage eating a tank a day and I got something like 3 mpg less, it idled rough, and accelerated like I had three big dudes in the car.

They look great in-person, it seems like everyone else present was just as jazzed to get to see one (that said, both were Bronco events, lol). The two-door looks much cooler, but I only got to sit/ride in a four-door, so I can’t say how the smaller interior feels.

Initially that sounds pretty terrible - but then I remember it has 35's. And the extra height kills the aero. 34" tires on my 4R = 17mpg on a good day. 35's with low gearing - I’d be more like 13. So I think it’s probably right where I’d expect, maybe better. The same engine returns 19/24 in the F150. It’s the tires…

These power ratings put it right in competition with the Jeep Wrangler.

A more meaningful comparison is gallons/100miles driven. Comparing the 4-cylinder EPA combined ratings the Bronco comes in at 4.8gal/100miles vs the Jeep’s 4.3gal/100miles or just a half gallon difference over 100 miles. Not insignificant but not earthshaking either. And remember, your mileage may vary.

yeah, basically that the engine doesn’t benefit from speed because the increase load aerodynamically is going to put an increase on the engine, the fact that its as low as 17 tells me they are into the boost a little in the EPA testing, which means you will be WELL into the boost in real life.

I didn’t expect great mileage, but maybe a couple mpg more on the highway. Really, manual aside, you might as well get the V6 as mileage is so close and the larger engine will be less stressed. While I always beat the EPA highway mileage even in a combined cycle (on my smaller, much more aerodynamically efficient cars)…

Good reminder! If your vehicle isn’t like a Bronco — where the manufacturer states that opting for higher octane fuel nets a benefit — then just get whatever the manufacturer recommends.

With that fire, I know a sprinkler system he could have passed by to handle that.