Jump to content

Ranger most fuel efficent Mid-size gas pickup


Recommended Posts

One of the articles on this story claimed the new Ranger's fuel economy was better than the old one. I doubted this, so I dug up the window sticker from my 2011 (2.3, M5OD, 2wd) and sure enough, it's 22/24/27, which is better than the new one. FWIW, fueleconomy.gov currently lists the same numbers under the new system.

I know; it's apples to oranges (I'm fully aware of all the differences between the trucks - no need to point them out), but I thought it was worth pointing out an obvious error in that story.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

One of the articles on this story claimed the new Ranger's fuel economy was better than the old one. I doubted this, so I dug up the window sticker from my 2011 (2.3, M5OD, 2wd) and sure enough, it's 22/24/27, which is better than the new one. FWIW, fueleconomy.gov currently lists the same numbers under the new system.

I know; it's apples to oranges (I'm fully aware of all the differences between the trucks - no need to point them out), but I thought it was worth pointing out an obvious error in that story.

Don't let a technicality kill the message here.   This is a great improvement any way you look at it.

2019 Ranger 2wd with a turbocharged 2.3L engine automatic (270 hp/310 lb/ft)  19 city   23  highway  20 combined 

2011 Ranger 2wd with 2.3L engine automatic (143 hp/154 lb/ft) - 21 city   26  highway   23 combined

And the new one is larger.

Edited by akirby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

Years back, many of us drove Rangers with the 4.0L V6.  All of the Supercab 4x4 Rangers I owned or leased came with the 4.0L.  Highway mileage with that engine, at best ,was about 20 MPG.  This new Ranger appears to be much better than that.

How about the guys that bought 3.0L Rangers and put big tires on them then complained about no power and poor mileage? Ah, the good old days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MY93SHO said:

How about the guys that bought 3.0L Rangers and put big tires on them then complained about no power and poor mileage? Ah, the good old days!

The only way the old ranger made sense was in 2wd, 4 cyl, manual trans form. The guys buying 4wd V6s as some sort of right-sized, fuel-efficient alternative to the F150 were delusional.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, the Al Gore of BON.

I think you brought up an inconvenient truth, the new Ranger doesn't quite beat the official fuel economy figures of all 2011 Rangers.

Mind you, the 2.3 auto and all of the 4.0 V6 versions are absolutely trounced by the new Ranger but yeah, sometimes Ford's advertising gets selective memory...

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when Ford eventually updates the Ranger platform to accommodate the 2.7EB, I think the 2.7 will get as good or better mileage than the 2.3 EB.  The 2.3 is a good engine.  Ranger will do better on the 2.7.

Just my uneducated feeling base on no other reality outside of the Voices In my Head.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

One of the articles on this story claimed the new Ranger's fuel economy was better than the old one. I doubted this, so I dug up the window sticker from my 2011 (2.3, M5OD, 2wd) and sure enough, it's 22/24/27, which is better than the new one. FWIW, fueleconomy.gov currently lists the same numbers under the new system.

Thank you Sevencondsuv sir. I have the same configuration for my 2004 Ranger. 2.3L 4-cylinder, 5MT, 2WD. EPA fuel economy estimates for my truck using the current EPA standard is 21 mpg city, 27 highway, 23  combined. My family and I get about 25 mpg overall in real world use for our landscaping and lawn care business.

So the overall EPA fuel economy estimate for new 2019 Ranger is the same as my old 2004 Ranger. That's pretty good. The only concern I have as I wait for my 2019 Ranger to be built is that Ecoboost engines are notorious for underachieving with real world fuel economy. But even if I get 19 or 20 mpg overall in the new Ranger, it's no big deal for me. Gasoline is still cheap in the U.S. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2nd and 3rd gen ecoboosts seem to be doing much better on mpg.   My 2013 Fusion was 2-3 mpg below EPA estimate but my 2018 F150 is spot on at 21-22 mpg mixed, which is coincidentally the same thing we get with our 2016 MKX 3.7L and my old 2013 Fusion 2.0LEB.   Pretty amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, akirby said:

The 2nd and 3rd gen ecoboosts seem to be doing much better on mpg.   My 2013 Fusion was 2-3 mpg below EPA estimate but my 2018 F150 is spot on at 21-22 mpg mixed, which is coincidentally the same thing we get with our 2016 MKX 3.7L and my old 2013 Fusion 2.0LEB.   Pretty amazing.

Ive had zero problems getting a combined 28 on the Fiesta St ( with a tune ) 33 on a trip with cruise set at 70 -75....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

One of the articles on this story claimed the new Ranger's fuel economy was better than the old one. I doubted this, so I dug up the window sticker from my 2011 (2.3, M5OD, 2wd) and sure enough, it's 22/24/27, which is better than the new one. FWIW, fueleconomy.gov currently lists the same numbers under the new system.

I know; it's apples to oranges (I'm fully aware of all the differences between the trucks - no need to point them out), but I thought it was worth pointing out an obvious error in that story.

Didn't the way fuel economy numbers were generated change a few years back that negatively impacted the test numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...