EPA Says the New Ford Ranger Gets 24 MPG on the Highway, But What Does It Really Get at 70 MPH?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- (www.platinumsh...) TFLtruck is brought to you by Platinum Ship, where your delivery is handled with the latest equipment optimized for maximum yield of efficiency and capability, and our Logistics Team continuously monitors routes and road conditions to keep our drivers, your products, and our equipment safe and on schedule. Contact Platinum Ship for your next shipment and let us exceed your expectations.
( www.TFLtruck.com ) EPA Says the New Ford Ranger Gets 24 MPG on the Highway, But What Does It Really Get?
( / tflcar ) Please visit to support TFLcar & TFLtruck.
Check us out on:
Facebook: ( / tfltruck )
Twitter: ( / tfltruck )
The Fast Lane Car: ( / tflcar )
and classic cars as well at:
TFLClassics: ( / classicsunleashed )
Nice testing system, all the trucks you test are tested the same. Makes comparison easy.
The 2.7 V6 Ecoboost engine from the F-150 Should have been the big daddy option for the ranger.
The 2.7L in the Ranger would be very impressive. I have the 2.7 in my F-150 and it still surprises me with its 0 to 60.
100% Agee👍👍
I bet they are holding off to put it in the Raptor Ranger ... if and when it comes to the US & Canada.
Won’t fit until its redesigned.
Give it a couple years
I was excited about the coming of the new Ranger, but I assumed they would be significantly more affordable than comparably equipped F-150’s...they’re not..., especially when you account for the fact that you can always get rebates on the F150’s but not on the Rangers. They other thing is, If I’m going to pay only a little less for a smaller truck, it better also get much better fuel economy....which also seems not to be the case.
I call the 2019 Ranger a big fat fail for Ford.
Pretty much, the big killer of this truck is the price. If it was out the door 5 to 7 grand less than an F150 Im interested. The ones I have seen are around 3 grand cheaper which is negated on resale. No thanks.
@@logdon17 They will get rebates soon enough and they will be in that $6000-$8000 cheaper range I would suspect
@@xaviermcquiston1604 Hopefully, no rebates yet but the F150s they are putting cash on every hood with little negotiation.
The ranger not suppose to be a hot seller for Ford. Its meant to help boost the f150 sales thats why they bought it back. Who would buy a same price ranger as the f150
Honestly all mid size trucks are a big fat fail...but people buy them. When I was truck shopping I drove a TRD sport Tacoma 2017 double cab and an f150 XLT supercab w/ 3.5 eco, locker and 36 gallon tank.
It was only $3000 more for the f150.
I have two things of note: The FX4 does forego the front air dam, which will increase the effected profile of the truck. I have noticed with my truck (A larger F-150), that every 2-3 mph over 68 results in about the same drop in fuel economy. I made a trip cross country and only managed 17-19 mpg (Depending on wind direction) at 75-75+ mph speed. Whereas a trip to DIA at a Max of 65 yields most often about 24.5mpg. This is something to consider for people who are looking to replace their family vehicle with a pickup. These things are aerodynamic bricks. Wind, tire size, speed humidity, barometric pressure and temperature greatly affect the fuel economy. If you get a leveling kit, or a lift, then you can kiss it goodbye altogether.
MSTRCHIEF143
First logical and knowledgeable comment yet. I also take into account where testing is done by ford, EPA, and where TFL is.
My ZR2 does not have an air dam and in fact has attrocious aerodynamics ( at least it looks like it should). But it still exceeds its EPA rating consistently, even if I'm driving over the speed limit, making the aero way more of a factor.
Therefore something is very wrong with this Ford Ranger. I don't know what, but something is really fishy
Aero is hardly a factor at legal road speeds. Engine rpms will make a much bigger difference.
I went from 205/60r15 tires to a 275/60r15. The new tires were 2" taller and almost twice as wide (28.1"tall x 10.8"w vs 25.9 x 7.5") and weighed more then twice as much as the old tires. My gas mileage at 80mph decreased from 25 mpg highway to 28mpg highway.
I also did change out the speedo gear, so it was within 1mph at 80mph with both setups.
So with my wider and taller tires, why did I use less gas? The tires being 2" taller added about a 10% overdrive which dropped engine rpms on my 5.0 v-8 by about 300 rpms at 80mph.
Elevation really doesn't matter, neither does weight or aero in regular freeway driving. You will spend more gas getting up to speed, but once you get to speed, the increased load is negligible if it even is measureable at all.
For me personally, my best gas mileage is when I am towing and loaded down because I decrease speeds to about 55mph. I can go from 28 to right around 35mpg this way.
Pretty much every vehicles engine gets better gas mileage at lower rpms, usually within 5-10mph of the highest overdrive gear kicking in.
If aero was a huge factor, most vehicles would get better mileage at city speeds. Aero drag squares with every 10mph after 60mph. Before that, it's almost unmesurable.
@@AC-xq4hh There very well could be something wrong with this particular Ranger, as it does happen to be the very same truck they drove cross country with. They could have eliminated a variable by requesting a different truck. It's a small point, but it may have been the whole story. We'll have to see how the truck does on fuelly to have more data points on what it is capable of.
@@BeanoNoir I would really like to see that too tbh just to be absolutely certain
*You should never top off your gas tank* Damage to charcoal evap canister can hurt performance or the gas goes back to the station anyways lol
The fuel companies love it when you top off..... I would like to know how much more they put in during their top off? Did they use cruise control.
Not surprised by this at all. I had a 2011 F250, and that thing always overestimated my mileage by 2-3 gallons.
yep lol thats like 30+ miles MY 99 F150 same way and had a buddy had one of those 2004 Fjunk50 POS left us stranded! Never trust the reserve on ANY ford , My 2004 Durango is dead on....to the last mile! FRAUD sells shit
Thanks for the video guys. I think it’s time for the EPA to re-evaluate how they calculate MPG. I’ve never owned a vehicle that got the MPG that the EPA said I should. Basically another semi-useless government agency.
My Cruze exactly matches the EPA rating at 38 combined. My last generation corolla also matched the ratings at 33.5 combined. You have to drive your vehicle at least 10,000 miles before the advertised mileage is met.
Conversely MOST of my vehicles easily met or exceeded the EPA figure, even those with nearly 200,000 miles. Maybe your foot is the problem?
Congrats to all the guys saying they’ll buy an F150 instead. 👍🏻 remember one thing though....
Nobody cares
i got myself a ford ranger lariat 2020 and i love it so much, the turbo is amazing and i am happy people saying they will buy a f150 over the ranger its better because the RANGER will be more rare unique on the road
@@FlyLopez1991 that 2.3 is a reliable engine
exactly
@@FlyLopez1991 make sure you change the oil every 5k not the 10k that they recommend and use full synthectic oil, that is what i will be doing, oil is alot cheaper than a new engine
@@1976axerhand yup I got free oil changes for 5 years but I hope it’s syenthic oil
I think you guys should try it with the lower octane fuel. You are not at sea level. The higher octane fuel burns at a slower rate, not the best description here. So at your altitude the timing and fuel maps my not adjust in a short drive cycle for it. Also does any car or truck get the same EPA mileage at your altitude. I don't know for sure. What do you guys see with other cars and trucks?
As usual, great video and info. Thanks
When it was time to retire my 2005 Silverado 5.3 I looked at these smaller trucks but for what I got my 15 Silverado 5.3 was a steal and it gets almost the same on these highway trips. Glad I went with a full size!
Just here to read all the Ford guy comments on how the EPA does this and how TFL should have done that!
Typical Chevrolet fan talking shit from the start
@@marcuscorvain1204 I don't have to talk bad about anything. The video shows the proof.
But a Silverado doing the same exact test did better. Calm down ford dude . Your just dilusional bud.
Lol it's a shame Chevrolet's don't run as good as your mouths
@@marcuscorvain1204 Man, you have mommy issues. Or maybe daddy issues too! Quick hurry up and change the subject of MPG based on this video so you can sound smart!
An 18 gallon gas tank? My Ford Taurus has a bigger tank; I’ll be it 19 gallons, but still.
Kirby Goodwin SHO?
Might be 18.X gal tank. my bmw has 18.6, 16 main and a 2.6 gal reserve
In Europe the tank is big, very big. My own car has 8 american gallon. 9.2 with reserve
@@bartjanflikkema Europe has gay micro cars that dont count
water bear facts
Everyone complains about the price of these small trucks approaching 50 grand...They can carge that, because you clowns will pay that! KNOCK IT OFF. We need an Affordable body on FRAME 4x4 working mans truck. How about OEMs try to meet repair Price points? Like NOTHING on my old truck costs over 1,000 bucks to fix. Cost of ownership after the warranty expires is what keeps me in my old truck....& 50 grand...there's that
Problem is if your in a salt state. My 09 frame rusted from the inside out... state inspection pulled it off the road... it cant be fixed 70k on the motor and its junked by the state.
I'm thinking it is just your state. Ranger starts at 32,500 for the lariat trim, which is the top trim for the ranger. Unless your talking about the F150 which is definitely not a small truck.
If it weren’t for the Chevy getting better than reported .... I would start to suspect Weights & Measures was being manipulated on the pumps to charge extra for fuel not really pumped.
Great info as always
Of course you would. A private, for-profit company would never do anything to deceive.
If you're being sarcastic, well done.
Just bought one at Thanksgiving time and I'm getting 23.9 super cab XLT with fx4 can't complain one bit
I own a 2020 Ford Ranger XLT 2WD with a tonneau bed cover. I am living in central Florida. When cruising on highway at 65mph - 70mph, I never got above 19.3 mpg which was calculated by hand.
Disappointed. Not so much in the 21, but that the truck was WAY off. My 2017 powerstroke is almost dead on. If anything I usually get 0.2mpg higher then what the truck says.. I'm trying to think of why it got 21 but I can't find an excuse...
I don't know why Ford USA didn't allow the Diesel, the diesels are in real-world testing between 26-30 MPG (US).
I think because they top off, and it probably used the tank level to calculate. If they had driven until it was closer to empty it probably would have been more accurate.
@@joytech23 I wish they would. I'm all for diesels as my last 5 trucks I've own are powerstrokes.
@@randomvideosn0where probably so.
@@randomvideosn0where topping of the tank that way is the same method they used on other trucks that were at or above their highway MPG EPA rating or the MPG displayed on the instrument panel.
I have a 2019 Ranger Lariat FX4 and I get 27mpg. Very happy with this truck.
Great video guys. I have no desire to buy a ranger (although I have owned 2 in years past) but I still enjoy your vids.
Ram needs to do this. Look on the 5th gen forum as well as your videos TFL and you’ll see. 12.8 city mpg .... 17mpg city advertised...that’s substantial as your 4mpg deficiency
A couple things, guys:
1. From that I was able to learn, 85 at elevation is the same as 87 at sea level, which is effectively below 3300 ft.
2. You can't really do a real world mpg test at elevation comparing it to the EPA test done at sea level. That's not fair.
Thoughts?
Agree with the V6 talk. I’ve owned turbocharged vehicles. Never again. Fine with a big warranty. But for something I hope to keep.. turbo is not for me.
I live in Wyoming and I will never EVER go back to NA engines. I drive at elevation quite a bit and the turbo maintains its power. The engineering and build quality these days is amazing. Never ever ever will I go back to NA engines. I had a 12 Tacoma TRD off road and the improvement with my Ranger is shocking. The reliability of turbos is a very 80s/90's things and shows you are not doing actual research. Just "believe" bullshit.
Hello again Andre&Nathan! Once again good reporting and nice job, I guess someone has to do it! I need to tell everyone out there, a friend of mine has a new Ranger ZX4,4x4, Crew Cab, that he is also disappointed with the mileage he’s getting, mind you he has less than 1,000 miles so far, but the best he’s getting commuting to work on 20 highway, 5 rural miles daily. He was hopeful for a two gallon round trip! But has not been able to get less than 2.3!! That’s about the same you’re getting! But in my 2016 Colorado Ext Cab Z71,4x4, V6 Six Speed Auto, I cannot get less than 23 at 75 mph! On the trip computer. If I drive the speed limits, say 60-70 mph in Florida mind you that’s fairly flat at sea level I can get 25-26! Or 18 city. The best over a 40 mile stretch of The Overseas Highway in The Keys at night with little traffic, at the speed limits set with cruise control at 40-45 mph I have saved 32.3 mpg on the computer, but verified that at a pump to be certain! I still am amazed at the power and mileage we get, especially when towing our 4,000 lbs Travel Trailer, that over a 4 month,4,500 Mile trip we averaged 15 mpg! That was of course at the speed limits and no cruise control, that while towing gets worst mileage, due to the fact the truck stays in lower gears. If I carefully feather the gas pedal I can keep the truck from down shifting.
Many of these newer vehicles have different mpg displays or needs to be reset per trip. Some use a "current tank" or short term mileage display (much more rare to find in anything newer than 2000), but most of the newer vehicles are using a medium or long term display that needs reset in the settings (or in some cases only way to reset is battery disconnected for 15-20 minutes). Even my wifes 2014 Nissan Pathfinder has the long term mpg in the dash display that can only be reset by battery disconnect, then it has a separate one in the center radio/display that can be reset in the options so you can watch it per trip. After several tanks of gas without reset they tend to match up much closer but the short term display can easily be reset in my case.
Purchased a F150 w/ 2.7L EB about 4 months ago, have just over 8000km on it. I have tracked all fuel usage to date. The computer has ALWAYS over estimated fuel economy by at least 5%, regularly 10%, but sometimes higher. I suspect their trip computer is not recording fuel usage accurately.
Does the ranger have a screen that shows how many gallons of gas are burned? My 2011 5.0 f150 did, and it was usually pretty close to how much I put in when filling up provided you just filled it to the “first click” when pumping gas. After that it’s seems like I was adding more gas than I actually burned creating a disparity between truck and phone calculations. I think the 30 second top off is skewing your test. If you divide 98 miles by 3.960 gallons you get 24.7 which is very close to the epa rating. Filling till it clicks is the method most auto manufacturers recommend to keep from damaging the evaporative systems by overfilling. Just a thought guys..keep up the good work!!!
That's pretty bad for a new truck with a 4 cylinder (turbo)
Yeah, remember it is like 6 years old though actually
They were going 70 MPH. EPA didnt rate it at 70 MPH..... they rated it at 55 MPH. No car is going to be more efficient at 70 than at 55. Use your brain.
@@Clapxiomatic people don't think
My exact thoughts too !
My 2019 Ranger with 4x4 gets 27 mpg on I-95 when the road is flat. As soon as I hit any elevation, the mpg goes down.
Was looking for this comment. I too live on the east coast. Flat as a pancake.
Good to see you guys supporting an Oklahoma-based company... Love's.
on a recent trip from Savannah to Augusta, a round trip averaged between 23.6 and 29.4. overall MPG with my FX2 Lariat 4 door crew, 24.8 overall.MPG numbers are very dependant on weather, speed, driver, and destination. EPA ratings are in a static module dyno and NOT real-world numbers. some of the claimed numbers are impossible to accomplish in the real world.
My theory is that it is accurately calculating MPG to the UK's imperial gallon instead of the US Gallon which is slightly smaller. Could be a side effect of taking a truck with euro roots and when they switched the program from L/100km they programmed it to the wrong gallon measurement.... just a thought
you would think after altering the frame and replacing the suspension and drive train one of all those engineers would have thought of that, especially since ford has been selling cars around the world for like a century.
Problem with your Theory is that would mean the US EPA is doing that which doubt a ton.
Seeing as how the EPA takes the manufacturers own results as being correct mistakes could happen , things could get overlooked. Either way, if it's wrong, then the EPA needs to not take manufacturers at their word for it and both parties are at fault
Yup. Glad I didn't wait on this when I bought my Zr2. My biggest hang up was the gas mileage but the difference is pretty much negligible. Worth it for the much cooler truck.
I have a 2.7 ecoboost F150. 15 model, 2 wheel drive. EPA is 26 on the Hwy. Expressway only, l have gotten 25.5 . Just driving city, hwy it gets 23 . Just around the house with virtually no 60 miles an hour, it gets 17 . Very good for a full size pickup. I have a friend with a 2020 ranger, and says it averages 22 in mixed driving.
Hey enjoyed your "Freeway" MPG test. Not sure freeway is highway???? Maybe you need to do a city, highway, and freeway mpg test? Heck maybe your should add a rural, snow, mud, rock crawling, mountain, valley, sea level, and rain mpg test????? Ya know something, my dad's 1971 Chevy (C10 I think) with 6 cylinder standard trans on leaded regular gas got 21 mpg back and forth to work for years.
Doesn't even get better mileage than my dad's F150 with the 3.5L and the 36gal tank.
My 3.5 EcoBoost never, ever, got over 19mpg on texas highways in 42k miles
Good to see same pump used 👍
Do you guys also verify the tyre pressures too as per the spec?
I have a 2019 ranger 4x4 xlt. The most I’ve got on the highway was 18.9 So I decided to try 93 octane instead of 87. My gas mileage actually went down by 2 miles per gallon to 16.8 with the premium gas. These results are at 65 to 70 mph. So I swapped back to 87 and it went back up. Went back to premium and it went back down. But that’s another story. Bottom line I can’t get this truck over 19 miles to a gallon at 65 to 70 miles an hour. Don’t believe the window sticker. Update I now get 23 mpg now that it’s broke in. Great truck love it . Trouble free with over thirty thousand miles on it. Still smooth and quiet. Plenty of power to pull my camper.
Is part of the problem the rear diff? Only 3.73 is offered .
I doubt it. With a 10 speed transmission you can kinda make up for shorter axle ratios.
Mileage is weird...my wife's 2012 CLS550 with 400+ HP.. we get 29MPG on the highway. My Durango (sold it a few months ago) would do about 20MPG with the 5.7. That was rated at 360HP. I'm stunned by how well the merc does
i still wish it wasnt a mid-size truck...still holding onto my 2003 ranger
The diesel ranger in the UK has options of the 2.2 or 3.2 TDCi diesels... rest of the styling and spec is identical.
How bout dodge brings back the Dakota with the v8 and still offer a Rt version along with a SRT version just add a turbo'd/supercharged v8 SRT and kill the midsize competition again
Dakota needs to be reborn, base with the V6 and Eco Diesal, RT with the 5.7 Hemi, and SRT Dakota with 6.4 Hemi, then Dakota Hellraiser with the 707 Hellcrate motor lol Imagine the AWD burnouts
@@youngblood23rb I'd buy it
@@CloroxGodThe1st I agree, I am waiting on RAM to take their gas powertrains to the next level, FCA/Ram listens to consumers very well, hopefully it is only a matter of time
And with that nice Ram interior too. How about not calling it the Dakota this time around though? The name sounds like some high school cheerleader from Nebraska or something.
My 3.5 ecoboost in my 15 f150 with 70 k is getting like 16 city and 19 highway right now. When the weather gets warmer it will get 19 city and up to 24 on the highway. But I did get the bfgoodrich allterain tires Which I noticed a couple mile per gallon change. And in any kind of head wind the milage goes down alot and especially when towing. But I don't care to much the truck tows just awesome and I love the tires.
I'm getting 33 mpg highway on my Canyon turbo diesel. I owned Rangers for many years, but Ford left America behind until now, and we still don't get the diesel version. So when it was time to replace the truck I went with GM midsize and I couldn't be happier.
The Isuzu 2.8 is a great motor. Took allot of work for GM to pass that through EPA but they did it. And I hear nothing bad about it. The gas version of the Colorado is junk. Mainly the issues with the 8 speed. Ford was too lazy to do the work to bring in a diesel. And overseas they have THREE. 2.2, 2.2 bi turbo, and 3.2 I owned a 2014 XLT with the 3.2 five cylinder diesel and it was a great engine. Now back in the states I ended up with a Nissan Frontier after what I saw they did to the Ranger. The oversea model is way better. Exponentially so.This is a true ECOBUST. This little sucker sucks allot of gas when under boost. About the same as my Nissan Pro 4X with a 4 liter 24 valve DOHC engine. pretty sad.
If the put a coyote 5.0 with. 10 speed and it would get better mileage 🚀😁
What's the point in a ranger?
@@mikebolton2388 oh Ford cant do that...it would be faster than the Mustang
@@philtripe maybe
What's the effect of elevation on fuel efficiency? And what elevation does the EPA or the manufacturer consider when providing its fuel efficiency numbers?
My best mpg numbers on my '16 Sierra, 5.3L, 8-speed is 23.6 mpg from Georgia into S.C. (decreasing elevations) over 100+ miles at 75 mph. This is the only time that my truck's computer matched my hand-calculated number. Every other time over 3 years the computer reads 0.6 - 1.2 mpg higher than actual.
Maybe the Ranger is just not as efficient regardless of elevation.
Waiting for people to say you guys messed this up some how lol
They didn't do anything wrong other than at the pump waiting 30 seconds and trying to put more fuel in the tank, you never want to do that but that didn't effect the results.
my f-150 has the same issue with the dash mpg and the actual mpg. usually about 3 mpg off.
21 mpg in a BRAND NEW 10 speed 4cyl isnt good. I got that sort of mileage out of a 99 s10 4x4 with 200k.
Wayne Duke not mention this is a 50k truck
Mazda is coming out with a more efficient gas 4-cyl. I'd like to get a skyactive motor in a small- mid size truck. The old 2.3 4- cyl was a great, tough little motor in the rangers.
@@inforthewin3231 You just summarized why there was no ranger for so long. COSTS.....Just buy a 2.7 f150 and be done with it and have more room, safety, & capability, better interior & more options
@@aaronhumphrey2009 If mazda ever brings the new B-series to the USA, with the Skyactiv-g 2.5, X, or 2.5T I'd actually really be looking to trade in my 2012 mazda3 I use for construction. As it stands right now, I'm waiting for a complany to make an EV capable of light off-roading as I don't want to lose the great gas milage I get with my old sedan. (please Rivian please don't suck.)
I've learned to not entirely trust the fuel economy readouts on the vehicle. I've owned three with that feature and all of them were optimistic compared to by calculations. I've never had as big a discrepancy as that last fill up you showed but 1.2 to 1.5 mpg off is not uncommon. I've also not totally convinced that turbo engines, even small ones, are going to be all that economical overall. Yes, the potential is there if you drive them properly, but if you're using that turbo, and most people will be most of the time, then the economy is not going to be there. There is not free lunch.
I gave a 2016 Ford Explorer with 18.6 gallon tank. I have a 2019 Jeep Grand. Cherokee with 24.5 tank and around a 440 to almost a 500 mile range depending on where I’m driving it.
Why did they calculate 4.587 gallons of gas used (10:51) when the pump said they used 3.96 gallons of gas (10:39.) Anyone else notice this error of calculation? So 98 miles ÷ 3.96 gallons of gas = 24.747 mpg. Lower than the trip meter, but correct by what EPA quoted. Still TFL guys make Interesting videos good job.
Encoding issue. Jerky video on this one for some reason. Theyll never get epa numbers at high elevation as well
but they do. and they sometimes even beat the EPA numbers so. idk about that. this is the first time they've ever had a 4mpg difference. that's nearly 20% difference on this truck somewhere between 18% and 20 any way. thats huge compared to their own results from previous tests over the last few years worth of testing.
Except other vehicles do and sometimes better. Also the air is thinner at higher elevation. It would be better not worse
fuel economy usually drops at elevation, the engine has to work harder to maintain the same speed, thus uses more fuel. EFI systems can compensate for thinner air somewhat, but still tend to be a tad rich at elevation, hence why most vehicles at 5000ft have sooty tailpipes.
Except for the fact that the Silverado 2.7 is rated at either 21 or 22 highway, and on this same test they hit 24.
@@mrvwbug4423 That's not entirely correct.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2009/vouliagmeni/EELA/EELA-29.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxtc2W947hAhVs34MKHXcSAJMQFjABegQIDRAE&usg=AOvVaw05M-Dm-aesiZMNE8_gGKRO
In 2016 i rented a Ford escape for a long Road trip that would be from California thru Utah to Colorado and on highway driving 70 to 80 MPH the escape did horrible on gas but in city driving it had good fuel economy that 4 banger turbo doesn't like highway's IMO. Ranger Proves my OP.
Has to be with something on the pump. Cause they were all +/- 1 mpg from the vehicle to the pump from LA to Colorado but all of a sudden 4 mpg off? I know it’s the same pump in this test, but the same pump could be a little off one fill to another, and since they only do like 60 miles a little difference with the fill can lead to a big variance. If you look on like Fuelly people are averaging 21-22 mpg including city driving.
I always wonder if there are potential air pockets in some tanks, where if the front or the back is higher that air pocket will prevent about a half gallon from going in. But you use the same pump. The half gallon would make all the difference in the calculation.
Just bought myself a 2021 Ranger Lariat Tremor. It has EPA highway of 19 MPG. I am discovering the on board MPG average is way off sometimes because it will tell me 23-25 MPG when at the pump I got roughly 21 MPG which is still better than the EPA rating. I considered the fact that the Tremor model has more steel and body protection (just a little bit) underneath that may add to the weight but I expected that when buying it. Still love my Ranger though!
I have the Tremor also. I have put 6k miles on it, getting 20.5 overall. Love the truck
I think they should run the test a couple more times to see how consistent it is. Maybe since the fuel tank was almost full to start with, it didnt quite pump in right. I would run the loop three times in a row if you have enough gas to do it, then see how that longer average does. or do it three times, filling each time, just for some added information.
The problem is the antiquated EPA standard. It hasn't been revised since the Feds abolished the 55mph national speed limit. EPA needs to start rating vehicles at 65 instead of 55.
Ford's worry about the Ranger cutting into the F150's market is the other way around (for now). For the dealership price of a fully equipped Ranger, you can get a nicely packaged F150. Of course, all sales are relative to their perspective markets.
s13one80 Yeah, getting a comparably packaged F-150 here in the Pacific Northwest is significant more expensive. Once rebates settle, I’m sure the Ranger will be even cheaper!
@@ZillennialJ once you mentioned Pacific northwest dollar signs popped up in my head. Even if the Ranger is cheaper than the F150 in your area, a nicely equipped ranger with all the rebates will still be priced higher than the national average. Best bet to to wait for the year end clearance for the most savings.
LOL, Ford did not "request" that you guys use 87 octane pump gas (for this test). Ford recommends a minimum of 87 octane *or higher*. For the best MPG results.. obviously you would want to use a higher octane and a good quality pump gas.
@@BeanerMan3k Depends on how the math works out based on cost vs. gain. You'd have to calculate the percentage of actual mpg increase, to the percentage of money spent on the higher octane fuel. I buy reg 87 octane for my work commuter vehicle and my wife's car, and I buy flex fuel for my performance vehicle.
Not interested in anything with a bed, but I am very anxiously awaiting the new Bronco. Sure hope it’s available in this same orange color.
How does it's competitor the Tacoma do in the same mpg loop? I wonder why the EPA rated it at 24 Highway when it doesn't even come close to that?
Guys the pump showed 3.98 gallons pumped. How did you get 4.5gal?
I have been getting 28+ mpg on the hiway with the cruise control at 68 mph in central Minnesota 2021 ranger lariat fx4
No manufacturer would recommend 85 because they are recommending for sea level and because 85 does not exist in many places. So essentially, aren't you doing the equivalent of putting in 91 because you are at higher elevation which will cause the truck to adjust and get less than the posted numbers?
Is this a joke? 21 mpg for a mid-size truck? Full-size get that or better 🤦♂️
??? A tundra won't even get 15.
What full size gets 21? They might advertise 21 but they won't get it.
Ram gets it
travis southworth That’s because they are being towed.
Did they use the 4x4 in the snow? & a brand new motor is usually pretty tight & mpg improves slightly after break in .
Absolutely correct!
Maybe I missed it but it would be interesting to know how close the computer was to the actuals on their 1000 mile trip. If it was accurate then it's almost like they should rerun the test....the first fill up may have had a weird anomaly like an air bubble in the tank or something.
Would like it's 10spd for our I5 3.2l turbo-diesel that would be a beast.
Sleepless-GHM I think the Transit will be getting the 10-speed soon, but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) Ford is dropping the 3.2 in favor of the 2.0 biturbo 4 cylinder.
3.2l 5cyl diesel is junk. Glad they are dropping it.
Southern Nevada offroading and back country what was wrong with it?
It shifts every 20sec. getting up to 55mph !
Then bogs down like hell in town ! Like its shifted up to 10th gear, you press the gas and blubbering !
Maybe they should fill up a 5 gallon gas can to see if the pump is accurate. Pumps have been known to be inaccurate. I don’t know how they do it in Colorado but here in Ohio the county auditors are supposed to certify the pumps. My wife caught a pump that kept going after it was shut off and wasn’t pumping gas. She caught it on video and posted it to the internet. It went viral and weights and measures were out there the next day.
Should add drive time to report ##mpg at average speed ##mph.
A buddy of mine has a 2015 F150 with a 3.6 L TwinTurbo V6 and his fuel economy is only 14.5 MPG in the EPA claims 22 mpg
There’s is 3.6 there is a 3.5 I drive a 2.7 and I get 24 on highway one time really working on it going for miles I got 28 and average around 18-20 on city my friend has 3.5 and his was little under but 3.5 is geared fir towing and such the 2.7 geared for regular driving
I have a Lincoln with the 2.3 and it gets better fuel economy with age
Most cars do. As the engine wears in, it runs "looser" or with less resistance. So it has an easier time turning.
Fords are generally speaking my favorite trucks out of the Big 3 brands. That being said, when it comes to published #s, be it mpg or hp/ftlbs, ford seems to be the worst at having real world results match up with the published #s.
So weird I get 24 on a ranger tremor when on cruise control at 65 but I was also getting 5mpg worse all around before 7k miles
I average 26.1 MPG around town, it's a 4x2 2020 Ranger.
Maybe the 25.8 mpg rating the truck was reading out was an estimate of mileage you would get if you drove that way for the entire tank?
Does Ford and the EPA use ethenol free fuel? It makes at least 10% difference in my 02 Chevy silverado 4.8 4x2 and at least 15% in my dad's honda ridgeline. I noticed y'all are using blended fuel.
....and they are teaching "new" math in schools these days.
My 90' Geo Tracker 4x4 with DaynaPro MTs, tube bumpers front and rear with AC gets 24mpg.
I think you should approach Iveco and show the Iveco Massif to your American audience!I think the Massif is a beast of a car that has a HUGE potential on the US market!
Dumb. My 2010 Ranger gets 25mpg on good weeks and always at least 23mpg. Mix driving 40-75mph
My Prius gets like 35mpg in winter. But in the summer it goes back to 50ish lol. Maybe it’s too cold where these guys testing it
I averaged 24.7 driving from SLC to Denver in my 2019 f×4 ...however, I did have a tail wind most of the way. 😂
Slow the test drive down to 65 mpg and take off cruise control and see what you get. Let’s not forget all the tests they do are on brand new vehicles. Engines tend to get better mpg’s after a few thousand miles. When things break in and the rings start to seat. But if they drove 65 mph I bet mpg would be around 23.
I like these kinda videos, keep up the good work......and send this video directly to Ford! No excuses! I call B.S. if Ford doesn’t want to make the Ranger better because it might hurt it’s “big is better” thinking by hurting F-Series sales! People don’t always need a big truck and pricing it like a big truck doesn’t mean we want less or that we’ll step up to a big truck. Between my dad and I, we’ve had three Rangers and would like to love this new one but for the money they want......nope. The Tacoma by keeping its value long term is a bit of a Face/palm to this Ranger. Make it better on the interior Ford, a Lariat version should match its F-150 Lariat package. Make that engine more fuel efficient and give us a V6. Wishing for more and even a Raptor Ranger too.
I had an fx4 ranger as a rental car in Rhode island. All interstate travel, averaged 27 or 28 mpg.
The throttle is extremely touchy as far as mileage drop. Maybe I was an anomaly
Hmm not great . I wonder what a non fx4 would get. Is 70mph standard for epa highway ratings? Any chance more octane would help?
I don’t like that it doesn’t have a greater ground clearance, it should have an automatic rear view window, and I’m worried about the 4cyl longevity. They also could’ve improved the storage in the backseat. And the fuel tank capacity sucks. Oh, and the price sucks.
Disappointing to find out it’s thirsty but....
Let’s see a Super Ike. I bet the Ranger shines.
you do know that the fuel from that pump comes from the same tank so that don't matter..lol
8:52 Listening to Ozzy's Boneyard! I knew you guys rocked!!!
I appreciate the info but it's close enough for me. I have NEVER owned a vehicle that meets or exceeds the EPA rating. Regardless of brand.
I had one of the 2019 chevy colorados with the V6 in it. It was the 4 door 4x4 version. And I was averaging close to 25mpgs on the highway. I had it for about a week and a half as a loner and was very surprised how good the mpgs were. I also know people who have full size trucks with V8s in them that get the same or better mpgs then this Ranger seems to.
We got one a week ago today
I wonder when TFL will get demonized by TH-cam for posting the truth about epa numbers
I honestly expected better. My 1994 minivan with a 3.0 v6 and 2008 Trailblazer 4x4 with a 4.2L I6 get similar gas mileage. I would have expected at least mid 20's like the EPA estimated given that it's 10 years newer than my Trailblazer and 25 years newer than my van. Oh, and my Trailblazer has more power too. That plus the fact that they're no cheaper than a 1/2 ton and I don't understand why anyone would want one in the US.
2:05 I've never seen a progress bar for resetting a trip meter before. lol
F-150s have it too. You have to hold down the OK button until it's reset.
EPA Highway test is based on a max speed of 60 with an average speed of 48 mph. Not 70 mph. www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
Drove the Middle East version back in 2018, not the same truck, suspension and ride are better in the North American version