silvrsvt Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 The all-new Ranger has earned EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings of 21 mpg city, 26 mpg highway and 23 mpg combined for 4x2 trucks. When configured as a 4x4, Ranger returns EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings of 20 mpg city, 24 mpg highway and 22 mpg combined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weiweishen Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 2018 Ford F150 Pickup 2WD 6 cyl, 3.5 L, Automatic (S10) City MPG 18, Highway MPG:25 I assume Ranger is much lighter than F-150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 14 minutes ago, weiweishen said: 2018 Ford F150 Pickup 2WD 6 cyl, 3.5 L, Automatic (S10) City MPG 18, Highway MPG:25 I assume Ranger is much lighter than F-150. 2.7 is 20/26 22 combined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 (edited) 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 December 11, 2018 by akirby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 I figured you'd be along to point out all the differences I said there was no need to point out.? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 I was showing the improvements in power and mpg not pointing out the differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 So, basically, you get the power/torque of two engines, but only have to feed one. Sounds like a win/win in my book! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzcat Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Previous thread on the exact same topic 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 (edited) 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 December 11, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-dubz Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Is this for the super cab, crew cab, or both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadicalX Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 This could generate spotlight for the Ranger. A good start Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 26 minutes ago, T-dubz said: Is this for the super cab, crew cab, or both? The Ford press release didn't say. I think the fuel economy numbers are for both cab configurations. On fueleconomy.gov, most other pickup trucks have the same ratings for super cab and crew cab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Yes but fueleconomy.gov updated all the older ratings so they’re equivalent now (if you’re using the website). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assimilator Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Imagine if they could spring for Aluminum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) 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 Edited December 12, 2018 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.