Ranger most fuel efficent Mid-size gas pickup

[silvrsvt]

13 hours ago, akirby said:

Yes but fueleconomy.gov updated all the older ratings so they’re equivalent now (if you’re using the website).  

 

10 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

And the current numbers happen to match the ones on my trucks window sticker. So that particular model graded out the same under the old and new systems.

I think the change happened in 2007 or so

Here is the 2006 Ranger old and new Estimates

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comparempg.shtml#id=22194

[silvrsvt]

22 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.

So your compairing a stick to a modern automatic transmission? Yeah Apples to Watermelons there. 

Here are the numbers for a Auto 2.3L 2011 Ranger

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comparempg.shtml#id=30705

 

[rperez817]

9 hours ago, Assimilator said:

Imagine if they could spring for Aluminum.  

New Ranger for U.S. has aluminum hood, fenders, tailgate, and wheels (except the standard XL wheels). More use of aluminum would just make the truck more expensive and less durable for not much benefit in fuel economy. It's fine the way it is.

[rperez817]

27 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

So your compairing a stick to a modern automatic transmission? Yeah Apples to Watermelons there. 

Here are the numbers for a Auto 2.3L 2011 Ranger

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comparempg.shtml#id=30705

 

Sevensecondsuv and I are comparing the Ranger trucks we already have with the new one. I pre-ordered a 2019 Ranger XLT 2WD. It's a very relevant comparison for us.

[fuzzymoomoo]

20 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

less durable

Citation needed

[Trailhiker]

23 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Citation needed

Chevy advertising

[akirby]

35 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Citation needed

 

It’s not like they build airplanes out of aluminum that endure multiple takeoffs, landings, compression/decompressions multiple times per day and are still operating after 30 or 40 years or longer.

Edited December 12, 2018 by akirby

[Sevensecondsuv]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

So your compairing a stick to a modern automatic transmission? Yeah Apples to Watermelons there. 

Here are the numbers for a Auto 2.3L 2011 Ranger

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comparempg.shtml#id=30705

 

Yeah the 2011 4-cyl rangers had about the largest mpg difference between auto and manual as any vehicle ever made I think.

Still, everyone says the modern automatic is more efficient than a stick (I agree, but only because they have so many more gears and the shift schedule is controlled by a computer to optimize results on a fuel economy test vs a human controlling shift points.  Gear-on-gear is still a more efficient means of transferring power than hydraulically actuated clutches and bands).  No doubt that the 10R80 in the new Ranger should have a fuel economy advantage over the 90s-era 5MT in the old Rangers.

The fact that it does 1 mpg less in all three metrics is a function of the fact that the new truck weighs 800 lbs more, has a larger frontal area, and twice the power. Only losing 1 mpg is actually pretty impressive. That is, of course, assuming it lives up to its ratings. The old 2.3/5MT are usually pretty capable of hitting 25 mixed and 30 highway in my experience with several of them.

[jpd80]

 Keep in mind that the heaviest body combinatons are submitted for official testing so the 2011 is a 4x2 Super cab versus the 2019 4x2 SuperCrew so the difference in weight is more like 1,000 lbs (4,232 lbs vs 3.210 lbs). So it's possible  that SuperCab to SuperCab, that 1 mpg would disappear. On the SuperCrew side, the Explorer Sport Track (4,583 lbs) is still 300 lbs heavier than the new Ranger4x2 SuperCrew

Edited December 12, 2018 by jpd80

[Deanh]

3 hours ago, Sevensecondsuv said:

Yeah the 2011 4-cyl rangers had about the largest mpg difference between auto and manual as any vehicle ever made I think.

Still, everyone says the modern automatic is more efficient than a stick (I agree, but only because they have so many more gears and the shift schedule is controlled by a computer to optimize results on a fuel economy test vs a human controlling shift points.  Gear-on-gear is still a more efficient means of transferring power than hydraulically actuated clutches and bands).  No doubt that the 10R80 in the new Ranger should have a fuel economy advantage over the 90s-era 5MT in the old Rangers.

The fact that it does 1 mpg less in all three metrics is a function of the fact that the new truck weighs 800 lbs more, has a larger frontal area, and twice the power. Only losing 1 mpg is actually pretty impressive. That is, of course, assuming it lives up to its ratings. The old 2.3/5MT are usually pretty capable of hitting 25 mixed and 30 highway in my experience with several of them.

I found the exact opposite given transmissions. we had two Fiestas, one a 1.6 manual and one with the DCT...contrary to the window sticker estimates the manual was 2 -3 mpgs better...everytime...

[probowler]

On 12/11/2018 at 10:29 PM, jpd80 said:

Just by way of Comparison,

2010 Explorer Sport Trac  4.0 V6 AWD 5AT   City -13 mpg,  Hwy-19 mpg,  Average-15 mpg

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/28718.shtml

2010 Explorer Sport Trac  4.6 V8 AWD 6AT   City -14 mpg,  Hwy-19 mpg,  Average-16 mpg

 

That is.... Not THAT much better than my Bronco  ?

[jpd80]

On 12/12/2018 at 11:47 PM, rperez817 said:

New Ranger for U.S. has aluminum hood, fenders, tailgate, and wheels (except the standard XL wheels). More use of aluminum would just make the truck more expensive and less durable for not much benefit in fuel economy. It's fine the way it is.

I'm not sure that the fenders are aluminum, hood and tailgate yes but most definitely, this was a quick redo of the global truck's final refresh.

[fuzzymoomoo]

34 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

I'm not sure that the fenders are aluminum, hood and tailgate yes but most definitely, this was a quick redo of the global truck's final refresh.

Can confirm Fenders are steel.

Edited December 13, 2018 by fuzzymoomoo

[jpd80]

Exactly, the request for US Ranger came after the final global refresh was locked in, so very few things were open to change. I think Ford has done a good job with Ranger given the time constraints and so late in  the product cycle, This is basically the same truck the US could have had seven years ago....except it would have been either a 3.5 V6  or a 2.0 EB (2 mules built in 2008 as  2.0 EB Falcon  attribute prototypes)

Edited December 13, 2018 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

If it weren't for the  bumpers being heavier than the ROW truck the hood and tailgate would be steel too. 

[jpd80]

I think they were little touches to add variation to Ranger to show that it wasn't a complete copy paste.

Compared to changes made to US Colorado, these are far less because Ranger was much better to begin with.

Edited December 13, 2018 by jpd80

[rperez817]

3 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I'm not sure that the fenders are aluminum, hood and tailgate yes but most definitely, this was a quick redo of the global truck's final refresh.

 

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Can confirm Fenders are steel.

Thank you for the correction jpd80 and fuzzymoomoo. I'm looking forward to picking up my 2019 Ranger at Autonation Ford Fort Worth come spring!