Didn’t even notice but thank you for correcting your mistake. Know if we can get politicians and the news to tell the truth we would set. Hope you guys have a great week and keep making great and funny videos.
nope, engines spend most of their time at a small percent of their total power. Its more efficient to have a small engine using a higher percent of its power than a big engine using a lower percent of its power. A turbo lets you have a small engine but have big engine power when you need it, of course if you always have your foot in the turbo you get big engine mpg's.
I caught that error also, I want to point out that you chose to comparing Ford to Ford for some reason, I think it is because you want to distract views from the fact that what you should have done this test with was the white Dodge 4X4 (Stubby is it?) which is more of a work truck and would perform better in this test where the Raptor is lets say a sport truck that can tow but it is not really what it was designed to do.
I was also thinking that it would make sense to also change the trailer weight between tests to be the same percentage of towing capacity. In this, if the trailer was 7500 then it's 100% for the ranger, but only 86% for the Raptor R. I'm sure the other challenge for TFL would be trying to get matching gear ratios which would have some impact as well.
@@nascarben Why not change the transmission and engine on the Ranger to make it more fair in terms of strength of towing? Oh yeah, that would destroy what was being tested.
@@ronaldking1054 if the point is to test the efficiency then they should both be tasked with towing the same level of effort and that's not what they did here. I mentioned the gear ratio as a nice to have because if you had 3 identical truck with 3 different rear end gear ratios you would get 3 different results.
@@nascarben This is very realistic. You tow the same load with different vehicles. You have a ranger and say, aah, it should tow this just fine, and either you want the extra towing headroom or just thing a bigger truck looks cooler, but that doesn't mean you then go out and buy a new trailer and thing to put on it. You usually still pull the same trailer. Sure, you might eventually get a bigger trailer to take advantage of the new truck, but that's not a given. I've done what they are doing, personally, 4 times. New vehicle, same load.
I would really love to see a test of the exact same truck with different size engines. Say the f-150 with the 2.7 vs. the f-150 with the 5.0. That way, aerodynamics are practical the same on each truck.
You hit the nail on the head with this comment. Nobody is cross shopping a Raptor R and a Ranger. It’s very likely someone would be trying to decide which engine option on their F150 would better suit their needs. Testing 3 F150s with different engines would be more revealing and relevant
I came here to say the same thing. They tested two trucks that are so far apart on the spectrum that there's no useful conclusions to be had here with regards to fuel economy while towing. The real world results of an F150 with a 2.7L vs a 5.0L would be very close, with a likely small margin of victory for the 5.0L, since a naturally aspirated engine doesn't have turbos to keep cool under heavy load. That's the test we should have gotten, not this. All we can say from this video is that the Raptor gets more smiles per mile, but we didn't need a towing test to tell us that.
If I ever becomes possible a second run of this test with a 2.7 vs 5.3 or 6.2 in a silverado would be really apples to apples. A mid size vs full size truck has to many variables. Still a great video though.
@Adam Lesandrini true, but lots of other factors come into play with how different the two trucks are. If the comparison was mid size vs full size it was a reasonable test, but the displacement of the two motors was likely not the biggest factor in fuel economy because the trucks are so different in weight and shape.
@@spcneary This is incorrect. The amount of impact on fuel economy is known, and can simpl;y be applied to any base vehicle and engine combination by taking the unladen MPG and roughly halving it. The larger the vehicle, the closer to half you get. Smaller vehicles can get better than half. This is simple math. If you really want results down to the 10th or 100th, obviously you need to test every variable in configuratin, but that's not reasonable. They did a ford f150. divide laden and unladen numbers, apply this ratio to any other f150.
Usually if you don't need a full size you are better off with a mid sized. They are easier to maneuver, fit in the garage, and should get better mpg's.
When they built the raptor r they were not concerned with fuel mileage. A better test would be with a f150 with the 5.0. But the raptor did get better fuel mileage than I thought. I was thinking high 6 low 7.
exactly- this test was just for fun but objectively made no sense whatsoever and proved nothing.. which is fine, but they are presenting it as "myth busted" when it clearly isn't
I'd like to see the same test with the Ranger vs. the work truck. And then calculate the % lost per vehicle in regards to MPG. I feel that would give a more accurate picture to mid-size vs. full-size.
That would make it easier on the Ranger because Stubby has a lower towing capacity than the Ranger. As for the % lost, that is irrelevant to which would use the most fuel. Trying to justify muscle when agility is being tested makes no sense. Yes, there are limited cases for when muscle is better and if you are buying a truck on that, its resale should be much lower, but it for some reason is not.
A more relevant comparison is GM 2.7 vs 5.3 or Ford 2.7/3.5 vs 5.0. In my experience a 3.5 will pull like an effortless brute, but use more fuel than 5.0 and the 5.0 just doesn’t have the same grunt
Ecoboosts have to run rich at high load to control exhaust temperatures. If you let the truck shift on its own it will use the available torque and grunt along at low rpm, high torque. I've logged my 2014 3.5L towing thousands of miles and it appears to start to go rich as you push it more than 350 ft-lbs sustained. I've started downshifting the truck manually as I see the air fuel ratio start to drop and it will pop right back up. The only time I can't prevent it from going rich is on the steepest, toughest climbs.
Its really hard to make a good comparison here with two different sizes of truck, etc. On paper you'd want to go with the smaller truck because its going to get better mileage when you're NOT towing, which is most of the time. However, towing more weight than your tow vehicle causes problems, as was shown with the trailer issue. BTW---*thank you guys* for taking trailer sway seriously. I totalled my new truck and trailer in a very scary crash last year, luckily walked away unscathed, and I dont want anyone else to ever have to go through that. BTW i thought I had it set up perfectly, was towing a lighter trailer than these guys with a heavier truck, had anti-sway bars, and it still happened. trailer sway is no joke.
You guys got close to the correct answer there at the end. Thr efficiency difference between the two is really the delta for each between their unladen MPG and their towing MPG. The RaptoR lost about 23% efficiency and the Ranger lost about 57%. Therefore, the RaptoR is more efficient.
Very good video, Thank You Andre and Nathan. Additionally, I am "Pleasantly" surprised that ranger is Not squatting while hooked up to that MAX loaded trailer ✌✌
I really cant believe the Ranger did that well. I have a 2012 150 with the 3.5 and I bet I would have gotten about 8mpg on that tow. Very impressed with the ranger and 4 banger and to top it off it actually looked like it was pulling the load quite well .
That load was really pushing the little 2.3 to the max of its abilities and it still got over 9mpg. The 5.2, as you alluded, barely knew it had a load on. If you were towing that kind of load all the time, the Ranger probably isn't the best for the job. A full size would be. But if you only did that 2-3 time a year and 95%+ of your miles were empty at 20+mpg combined. Dang, what a great solution the Ranger is for that scenario. Please do the same test with the Ranger vs Nathan's Santa Cruz and a 2000lbs (or whatever it can tow) trailer. It would be fun to see the result of that.
Very interesting test. Still great video, guys. I would love to see the same test with the GM trucks: 2.7L HO, Colorado vs. Silverado 2.7L HO vs. 2.7L+, Colorado/Canyon 2.7L HO Colorado vs. Silverado Diesel 5.3L vs. 6.2L, Silverado/Sierra
As a previous generation Raptor owner, you don’t buy a Raptor to tow. You buy a Raptor to HAVE a Raptor, but you need to do everything your old F150 did and more. PS I think the 3.5L Raptor would have had a better MPG than the Ranger! Thanks for the fun comparison
It's all great that you're doing tons of videos about towing and off roading. Trouble for me is you almost totally ignore snow plowing, especially with a 1/2 ton. It's getting harder and harder to know if a truck is capable of snow plowing with all these new engine choices! I for one don't haul around huge trailers or go insane off roading. I want my truck as an everyday ride plus the weekend warrior bit. Here's the biggest issue, manufacturers are doing what your doing. Focusing on towing and off roading. The trucks are being made to have more and more ground clearance to the point a 3/4 ton won't fit through the average garage door height opening! Crazy! I for one live in an area that gets lots of snow and I'd like to keep my truck in the garage and not have to clear snow off it every 5 minutes. So a 1/2 ton works for me and It's getting harder to know if the new trucks with these smaller engines can still plow snow. Example the new Tundra. I for one like having an 8 cylinder without E-Torque nonsense to plow snow with. So what I'm trying to ask is for you to not ignore this aspect of truck owners, the one who only needs a 1/2 ton because we're not plowing as a business just for our own property. I hope you can do this. Thanks for all your videos that you do anyway, they're still entertaining.
Should consider the unladened MPG on the loop for each vs. the towing MPG on the loop for each and then calculate percentage degradation to the MPG for each. That would show whether the theory of smaller engines working harder are worse than big engine doing same work. The Raptor already had a worse MPG to start based on weight and engine size vs the Ranger. Always fun watching content regardless. Keep it up
The ranger went from 22 mpg to 9 mpg, or 41%. The raptor went from 11 mpg to 8 mpg, or 72%. Therefore, the Raptor is more efficient. They both tow, but the Raptor had to work 28% harder compared to the Ranger working 59% harder to do the same task. So, Raptor wins on efficiency, while Ranger wins on fuel quantity.
@@JasonPhipps Yes but, you are going to spend a lot of time driving around without a trailer where you get 22mpg instead of 11mpg. Of course I would like an offroad focused Ranger so probably 19-20mpg.
@@jeffk464 my ranger has a fox leveling kit, 32 inch KO2 and ford performance tune. It’ll get 20-21 on the interstate if the wind is my favor. Pulling a 21 ft (total) travel trailer at speed limit I get 9-11 and a 17ft bass tracker I get 15-16. Wind is a big factor.
For a more apples to apples comparison, my brother and I had identical trucks except mine had the smallest gas V8 option and his had the biggest. I rarely hauled or towed much while he frequently towed roughly 10,000 pounds. With no load my truck averaged about 3 mpg more than his. One day his water pump failed and I towed his trailer with my truck while his truck was towed to a shop. My truck got about half the mpg towing that trailer as his did. Our conclusion was we both had the right engine options for our different needs but in the case of those two trucks, for towing bigger was definitely better. In this video I think it still says a lot that the Ranger lost over half of its unloaded mpg when towing while the Raptor starts with pretty bad mpg but loses a much lower percentage when towing.
Speaking of optimistic MPG computers, I had a Crosstrek a couple years ago. It would say I would get like 42 mpg open highway from gas station to gas station and I’d calculate it out at the pump like you do and I’d get like 35. Made me mad every time. Like how can it be off THAT much?
Every single fuel economy estimator built into the vehicle is wrong by at least 10%. All of them. Hand calculating is the only way to get the truth. I say 10% because two of my last vehicles were optomistic by 10% almost exactly. A 22mpg computer guess-timate would always calculate by hand to 20mpg. And 28mpg computer guess-timate would calculate out to 25mpg.
My 17 F150 2.7 w/ 6spd trans towing a Miata, 2000lb trailer, full bed of luggage and 4 people averaged 14mpg from Nebraska to Florida and 14.5mpg empty trailer Florida to Nebraska
I pulled my friends 29' camper,7500#, up to Lake Erie. My 2010 ,4x4 ,5.7 v-8 ,Toyota Tundra got 9.5 mpg going 65 in heavy cross winds. I expected 8 mpg ! I had a car hauler pass me and it got severe sway, I got on the brakes and it straightened out at 45 mph. Had I had a small truck, I don't I would have saved it!!!
My experience is you get about half your highway mpg towing a TT weighing 75% of max tow weight at 60 mph. The towing experience is much better in a full size truck at the expense of having a larger truck than needed for everyday use. Thanks for sharing.
I have an 09 f150, with the 5.4.,fx4 with air bags......tow from sedro-woolley Washington to Merritt BC, over mountains... Average 12-13mpg. I tow 1600lbs trailer, witH 2300 lbs racecar.
Thank you for doing more towing content. My 2.7 ecoboost was better unloaded by quite a bit then other trucks I've owned. While towing, it was the worst. Of course, the 6.0 v8 chevy only made 360tq at best when spinning 2800rpm in 3rd up a hill, whereas the 2.7 with a tune on 87 octane was making over 400tq by 2200rpm
My Silverado with the slug 5.3 struggled to pull 10,000 pounds of trailer and, at best, got 21 mpg. Dumped it for a 3.5 Ecobeast. Like night and day pulling and got 15 mpg with the Ford. Never looked back.
I would also like to see this against the 3.5L Ecoboost and a normal 5.0L F-150. Obviously a cool video, but Ford is going to sell oodles more of those other trucks than the Raptor R (as much as most of us would probably love to have it).
They did this test years ago. My recollection is that any advantage the 3.5 had in MPG evaporated in a real towing test. The 5.0 was slightly better, but nearly the same.
The Buhanca is mid engine so when you lined the front bumper to where you thought the weight would be good but the engine is back almost centre. Good lesson is that any load in your thing you are towing might be unbalanced because of the junk inside the thing you're towing
Here i am in Commiefornia and not allowed to tow a trailer past 55 mph....😅I agree with other commenters regarding restarting the Ranger for most accurate mpg (though that would probably only change around +.5-1.5 gallon per mile). I would only consider a full sized if I was towing most of the time. If I was only towing once ina while I would get the mid sized, when you dont have load the mpg is pretty much doubled with smaller truck benefits.
More work requires more fuel thats a no brainer. "Work" is all factors affecting moving an object from point A to B. Good test though to show people to get the right "tool" for the job "they" have to do. More options is better than the narrow market we are heading towards.
Check your editing - in multiple places in the video, the script graphics state the Ranger is a small displacement "V6". Obviously Blaze handled the video editing and he is not clear on the Ranger's "I4" configuration.
I'd wager that the difference in mpg is mostly just due to the aero drag difference between smaller frontal area and smaller tires vs what's basically a Super Duty in the wind. If the aero drag was equal, I'd bet $20 the mpg towing that same load would also be identical.
Can you guys please do a towing video on the max capacity on the 4 runner? I know you have 4 runner towing videos but noting at max capacity. There aren't many clips on TH-cam on max capacity tows for the 4 runner
There are so many factors that affect fuel economy - it's hard to compare one to another. Smaller engines are getting better, but you can't really compare a 1.4L to an 8.1L, for example. If they're both forced induction and built well - to the same specs, the 8.1L will always have more power but may not always have better economy. The 1.4L can be great for toodling around town in a mid size vehicle, but it can't tow the same weight a large engine can. Try to tow 15000lbs with a 1.4L and it just won't. The 8.1L will handle it just fine.
You got way closer results than I have, but having compared 4 big/little combinations, I can assure you the smaller vehicle will ALWAYS get better efficiency (not including hybrids, of coarse), regardless of the engine option. it's physics. ram 1500 22mpg down to 12 (highway) towing an empty utility trailer, honda ridgeline 24mpg down to 14 (city) (33/16 highway) towing an enclosed trailer with a light load, ford escape 24mpg down to 17 (35/19 highway) with the same enclosed trailer and load, saturn ion 35mpg down to 24 with a fully loaded (highway) (for the trailer, technically overloaded for the car) 6x12 utility trailer.
Nearly 15% more fuel is significant. Even more significant is an almost guaranteed US14mpg doing the same towing job with a four cylinder twin turbo Ranger diesel automatic where available.
that result isn't terribly surprising. when i would tow a 6x12 cargo trailer with my ecoboost f150 i'd get 7-8 cause i was working that engine a lot. however, pulling that same cargo trailer with the power wagon net me 8-10 mpg. i guess you just don't work that big 6.4 as much as the 3.5 booster.
I can speak from experience. Truck was originally a 2 wheel drive 1500 92 Chevy 4.3l tbi 5speed that I towed with for several years on the farm towing double 40ton silage wagons hay wagons and equipment trailer and skid steer way too much for a half ton let alone a v6 and I consistently got 8-10mpg depending on what I was pulling and the speed i was going. Once I finally blew the engine i bolted a 5.7l tbi engine in its place same trans gears and all and with the 5.7l i averaged 9-12mpg I am sure that it was that high only cause the 4.10 rear gear meant to make sure that you would be able to tow everything a v8 could with a v6. The only real difference was empty mpg the v6 i could easily average 18mpg and with the v8 was a steady 15mpg regardless of how i drove it again gear killed me 70mph in 5th gear was 2800rpm so way to high for the v8 to be in its zone
I realize that these are the trucks you used because these are the trucks you have onhand. That being said, it makes me interested to see a video that's a little more apples to apples. The Raptor R is really a worst case scenario with the big lift, degraded aerodynamics, large tires and supercharger.
Most of the energy at those speeds goes to wind drag and the fact that you towed the buhanka in both cases is the reason mpg was very similar. Size of the truck, weight of trailer and size of engine makes much less of a difference.
That was a great comparison guys. There will wonderful discussions around fire pits, cookouts, and campfires thanks to the wealth of knowledge gained by this video. Now, all y'all have to do is at least 5 more videos comparing different trucks and towing packages. I'd like to see the Maverick b!tchslap.....I mean, go up against the Toyota Tacoma, both AWD/4WD, with roughly the same cargo, and towing capacity. You know Maverick owners are gonna load those things up in the back, put a tarp over their stuff, then hook up a little camper to the back, and head out. I'd be interested in seeing what the hybrid can do, against maybe 4cylinder Tacoma if you can find anything like that in your area, without having to drive 2 states away to get it.
I would trust what the truck says for mpg rather they trusting the gas pump will fill to exactly the same amount. You are guessing how full the tank is and with the trip counter it calculates how much gas went to the engine.
Before watching, my guess is going to be the small engine will be more efficient based on my knowledge of engines being most efficient at close to full load and my experiences with towing 2K-2500 pounds with my 1.7L Civic and still getting around 28-32 MPG. Semi trucks also have comparatively small and low horsepower engines for the loads they pull and are pretty damn efficient for all the stuff they are moving.
Ford Ranger owner’s manual: Turn off the speed control with heavy loads or in hilly terrain. The speed control may turn off automatically when you are towing on long, steep grades. 2023 Ford F-150 owner’s manual says the same thing
I'm curious why TFL hasn't added the brake controller Ford offers for the ranger. Always comment on how it doesn't come with one, but there is an OEM brake controller. Also can't wait for them to get a 24 ranger so they can stop commenting on how it doesn't come with a brake controller.
V8s are the best for towing and longevity. I would put up with 1.5 less mpg with an 8 cylinder than wearing your V6 for fuel efficiency. Ram 1500 owner.
My old '99 F150 with the 5.4L Triton V8 got 13 mpg on it's own and 8 mpg towing my little 4k lb camper. My recently acquired '16 F150 with the 3.5L Ecoboost gets 21 mpg on it's own and 12 mpg towing the same trailer... It seems these small displacement turbo charged engines take a more significant mpg hit when loaded or towing, but they are still more efficient than the bigger V8 options. The Raptor is the worst of both since it is a big V8 with a supercharger. Raptor is an awesome truck, but definitely not the right pick for towing.
Fun video although I think few people are picking between these 2 trucks A Ford F150 with the 2.7 ecoboost and a Ranger would be a likely decision choice for a lot of people. I know I have 3 trucks I use around my place and the smallest motor v6 wins every time for lowest amount of gas used if the job falls within its admittingly more limited capabilities as compared to my newer 1500 series with a small block v8 engine or worse yet is my even newer 2500 series with a slightly bigger gas engine. Oh some will complain that working my littlest truck at its max will hurt its longevity. Okay 31 years and counting and still doing work with my smallest truck. I also have 8 gas tractors around the place from 24 to 51 hp. For any job that requires say the throttle to be set to maintain say 540 PTO rpm the tractor that has just barely enough hp to exceed the job requirements at hand.such that the tractor rarely has the governor kicking in will be the most fuel efficient for the job if the ultimate goal is to save gas. In other words the tractor I choose to bush hog when the grass is 1 foot tall as compared to when the grass is 4 foot tall will be totally different if saving gas is the primary goal My criteria: What does it cost me to buy it? What does it cost me to feed it? What does it cost me to maintain it? A bad answer to any one of these 3 questions and I do not desire the truck,.
I love the way the Raptor looks and performs. But I’d most likely use a truck for truck things than desert running. The Tremor may be a better option for me if I wanted a big truck.
The bigger truck will be way more confidence inspiring and safer. I used to tow a 4k pound travel trailer with a Tacoma and it was sketchy at best, I upgraded to a 21 Silverado 1500 3.0 Duramax and It's literally night and day difference.
With the advancement of aerodynamic technology i think we are at the peak of efficiency that whatever size pickup truck, engine etc... They will always have very close mpg numbers.
Back in 2018 my wife bought a ROCKWOOD ROO and it weighs around 5 000 pounds. Towing with my 13 Tacoma with the 4 litre v6 saw me getting around 40 litres per hundred. With my 2020 Tundra I see 20 litres per 100 kms.
Cool test, but I really wish it was with a regular f150. I get it, your looking at total extremes, and the raptor is that, but when it comes to towing, the average guys extreme is either a 3.5 Ecoboost or the 5.0. can you do it again with either of those two engine or both?? Please! Lol
But considering all the difference, the Raptor being only 1.2 of an average behind, I didn't think it was bad... if it weren't for the design of the current Raptor so boring, it would be an option... but for me, the Ranger already has everything I need.. .I just prefer the 2.0 biturbo diesel!
Looks like everyone beat me to the comment I wanted to make. A much more appropriate test would be a Ford 2.7 turbo vs a 5.0 V8 and in the Chevy department a 2.7turbo 4 cyl vs the 5.3 V8. Not that I didn't enjoy watching, but this was very apples to oranges.
@@jeffk464 Oh I would take a V8 over a turbo gas anyway. The torque produced by a V6 turbo is probably better, but I look at long term life/cost as we keep our cars a long time. I do have to admit that I prefer my 2001 F250 with the 7.3L diesel for pulling my 9' tall, 25' long cargo trailer vs pulling with my brothers 2015 with 5.0. Much better stability with the 3/4 ton.
I liked this video however, I would like to see this done with the ranger and a non-high-performance v8. I wonder if the results would be different. Rob
Its an interesting way to compare these for the funsies, but not really the right test to call this myth busted. The way the Raptor R is tuned means more enrichment under load than the way the 2.3 would be tuned. the power densities are very different 114 to 140 hp/liter. Im not suggesting that specifically is the reason, just that there are a lot of variables here that make this fun content, but not really clear enough to call it myth busted. I mean, the Aero drag alone could account for the difference.
You have to take into consideration the loss off of unloaded mpg because if the ranger normally is 20ish mpg it got the worst mpg vs raptor R is 10ish with less loss
But you have to analyze the context of the vehicles... the Ranger is more aerodynamic, smaller frontal area and lighter, not to mention that it doesn't seem to be the 4 straight focused on performance as this V8 is... to be fair it had to do with the New Ranger Raptor with the 397 hp V6!
Yeah, I have a Ranger at work that's driven by a variety of people (3-4) throughout any given month. The best I've seen (not towing) MPG is nearly 22MPG (Quad cab, 4wd, with a canopy). My personal Tremor gets consistently 17.8mpg with 2300 mi. on it so far. Although, the Ranger gets better mileage I have to say the extra HP, Comfort of a full-size truck and capacity of my truck far outways the extra MPG in the Ranger. This' isn't even looking at how much better my truck will be with towing and I'm sure the MPG difference will be minimal.
I think if your able to afford to buy either of these trucks (especially the raptor r) then fuel economy is not a issue. Neither I would buy to tow with.
Octane controls combustion and is not a representation of potential energy.for forced induction it is key to control combustion to avoid knock and self detonation
Hey all, quick editing mistake. At the end the font says "V6" for the ranger, clearly it is a 4 cylinder. Our apologies!
Didn’t even notice but thank you for correcting your mistake. Know if we can get politicians and the news to tell the truth we would set. Hope you guys have a great week and keep making great and funny videos.
nope, engines spend most of their time at a small percent of their total power. Its more efficient to have a small engine using a higher percent of its power than a big engine using a lower percent of its power. A turbo lets you have a small engine but have big engine power when you need it, of course if you always have your foot in the turbo you get big engine mpg's.
You’re unladen.
@@johnheath4305 Yeah, you will probably see a bigger difference when unladen with turbo vs large displacement.
I caught that error also, I want to point out that you chose to comparing Ford to Ford for some reason, I think it is because you want to distract views from the fact that what you should have done this test with was the white Dodge 4X4 (Stubby is it?) which is more of a work truck and would perform better in this test where the Raptor is lets say a sport truck that can tow but it is not really what it was designed to do.
Would be interesting to test the Ranger against an F150 Eco Boost 3.5 and a 5.0 V8. The Raptor R is not what the average person would buy to tow with.
I was also thinking that it would make sense to also change the trailer weight between tests to be the same percentage of towing capacity. In this, if the trailer was 7500 then it's 100% for the ranger, but only 86% for the Raptor R. I'm sure the other challenge for TFL would be trying to get matching gear ratios which would have some impact as well.
Towing my 6x12 trailer at about 5000# gave me 12mpg on the ranger and 10.5 on a powerboost.
@@nascarben Why not change the transmission and engine on the Ranger to make it more fair in terms of strength of towing? Oh yeah, that would destroy what was being tested.
@@ronaldking1054 if the point is to test the efficiency then they should both be tasked with towing the same level of effort and that's not what they did here. I mentioned the gear ratio as a nice to have because if you had 3 identical truck with 3 different rear end gear ratios you would get 3 different results.
@@nascarben This is very realistic. You tow the same load with different vehicles. You have a ranger and say, aah, it should tow this just fine, and either you want the extra towing headroom or just thing a bigger truck looks cooler, but that doesn't mean you then go out and buy a new trailer and thing to put on it. You usually still pull the same trailer. Sure, you might eventually get a bigger trailer to take advantage of the new truck, but that's not a given. I've done what they are doing, personally, 4 times. New vehicle, same load.
I would really love to see a test of the exact same truck with different size engines. Say the f-150 with the 2.7 vs. the f-150 with the 5.0. That way, aerodynamics are practical the same on each truck.
Good idea. Add the hybrid to that mix too
I’m probably around 9-10mpg with my heaviest loads in my 2011 5.0 F150.
I remember my older chevy 3/4 ton 6.0 getting 10-11 with a decent load. It was about 1mpg different from empty to having a trailer lol.
You hit the nail on the head with this comment. Nobody is cross shopping a Raptor R and a Ranger. It’s very likely someone would be trying to decide which engine option on their F150 would better suit their needs. Testing 3 F150s with different engines would be more revealing and relevant
I came here to say the same thing. They tested two trucks that are so far apart on the spectrum that there's no useful conclusions to be had here with regards to fuel economy while towing. The real world results of an F150 with a 2.7L vs a 5.0L would be very close, with a likely small margin of victory for the 5.0L, since a naturally aspirated engine doesn't have turbos to keep cool under heavy load. That's the test we should have gotten, not this. All we can say from this video is that the Raptor gets more smiles per mile, but we didn't need a towing test to tell us that.
If I ever becomes possible a second run of this test with a 2.7 vs 5.3 or 6.2 in a silverado would be really apples to apples. A mid size vs full size truck has to many variables. Still a great video though.
you roughly halve the unladen MPG, that easy
@Adam Lesandrini true, but lots of other factors come into play with how different the two trucks are. If the comparison was mid size vs full size it was a reasonable test, but the displacement of the two motors was likely not the biggest factor in fuel economy because the trucks are so different in weight and shape.
@@spcneary This is incorrect. The amount of impact on fuel economy is known, and can simpl;y be applied to any base vehicle and engine combination by taking the unladen MPG and roughly halving it. The larger the vehicle, the closer to half you get. Smaller vehicles can get better than half. This is simple math. If you really want results down to the 10th or 100th, obviously you need to test every variable in configuratin, but that's not reasonable. They did a ford f150. divide laden and unladen numbers, apply this ratio to any other f150.
@@Flyinghook I disagree, but that's ok. Hope you have a great day.
Usually if you don't need a full size you are better off with a mid sized. They are easier to maneuver, fit in the garage, and should get better mpg's.
When they built the raptor r they were not concerned with fuel mileage. A better test would be with a f150 with the 5.0. But the raptor did get better fuel mileage than I thought. I was thinking high 6 low 7.
exactly- this test was just for fun but objectively made no sense whatsoever and proved nothing.. which is fine, but they are presenting it as "myth busted" when it clearly isn't
I'd like to see the same test with the Ranger vs. the work truck. And then calculate the % lost per vehicle in regards to MPG. I feel that would give a more accurate picture to mid-size vs. full-size.
That would make it easier on the Ranger because Stubby has a lower towing capacity than the Ranger. As for the % lost, that is irrelevant to which would use the most fuel. Trying to justify muscle when agility is being tested makes no sense. Yes, there are limited cases for when muscle is better and if you are buying a truck on that, its resale should be much lower, but it for some reason is not.
Ranger VS Stubby VS Nathan's Santa Cruz using whatever trailer the Santa Cruz can tow.
A more relevant comparison is GM 2.7 vs 5.3 or Ford 2.7/3.5 vs 5.0. In my experience a 3.5 will pull like an effortless brute, but use more fuel than 5.0 and the 5.0 just doesn’t have the same grunt
Ecoboosts have to run rich at high load to control exhaust temperatures. If you let the truck shift on its own it will use the available torque and grunt along at low rpm, high torque. I've logged my 2014 3.5L towing thousands of miles and it appears to start to go rich as you push it more than 350 ft-lbs sustained. I've started downshifting the truck manually as I see the air fuel ratio start to drop and it will pop right back up. The only time I can't prevent it from going rich is on the steepest, toughest climbs.
Its really hard to make a good comparison here with two different sizes of truck, etc. On paper you'd want to go with the smaller truck because its going to get better mileage when you're NOT towing, which is most of the time. However, towing more weight than your tow vehicle causes problems, as was shown with the trailer issue. BTW---*thank you guys* for taking trailer sway seriously. I totalled my new truck and trailer in a very scary crash last year, luckily walked away unscathed, and I dont want anyone else to ever have to go through that. BTW i thought I had it set up perfectly, was towing a lighter trailer than these guys with a heavier truck, had anti-sway bars, and it still happened. trailer sway is no joke.
You guys got close to the correct answer there at the end. Thr efficiency difference between the two is really the delta for each between their unladen MPG and their towing MPG. The RaptoR lost about 23% efficiency and the Ranger lost about 57%. Therefore, the RaptoR is more efficient.
You’re kinda right, but the Ranger was maxed out on towing capacity. The Raptor was not, need to take that into account as well.
Very good video, Thank You Andre and Nathan. Additionally, I am "Pleasantly" surprised that ranger is Not squatting while hooked up to that MAX loaded trailer ✌✌
It almost looked like the Raptor squatted more than the ranger. Soft suspension.
I really cant believe the Ranger did that well. I have a 2012 150 with the 3.5 and I bet I would have gotten about 8mpg on that tow. Very impressed with the ranger and 4 banger and to top it off it actually looked like it was pulling the load quite well .
That load was really pushing the little 2.3 to the max of its abilities and it still got over 9mpg. The 5.2, as you alluded, barely knew it had a load on. If you were towing that kind of load all the time, the Ranger probably isn't the best for the job. A full size would be. But if you only did that 2-3 time a year and 95%+ of your miles were empty at 20+mpg combined. Dang, what a great solution the Ranger is for that scenario. Please do the same test with the Ranger vs Nathan's Santa Cruz and a 2000lbs (or whatever it can tow) trailer. It would be fun to see the result of that.
Very interesting test. Still great video, guys.
I would love to see the same test with the GM trucks:
2.7L HO, Colorado vs. Silverado
2.7L HO vs. 2.7L+, Colorado/Canyon
2.7L HO Colorado vs. Silverado Diesel
5.3L vs. 6.2L, Silverado/Sierra
As a previous generation Raptor owner, you don’t buy a Raptor to tow. You buy a Raptor to HAVE a Raptor, but you need to do everything your old F150 did and more.
PS I think the 3.5L Raptor would have had a better MPG than the Ranger! Thanks for the fun comparison
It's all great that you're doing tons of videos about towing and off roading. Trouble for me is you almost totally ignore snow plowing, especially with a 1/2 ton. It's getting harder and harder to know if a truck is capable of snow plowing with all these new engine choices! I for one don't haul around huge trailers or go insane off roading. I want my truck as an everyday ride plus the weekend warrior bit. Here's the biggest issue, manufacturers are doing what your doing. Focusing on towing and off roading. The trucks are being made to have more and more ground clearance to the point a 3/4 ton won't fit through the average garage door height opening! Crazy! I for one live in an area that gets lots of snow and I'd like to keep my truck in the garage and not have to clear snow off it every 5 minutes. So a 1/2 ton works for me and It's getting harder to know if the new trucks with these smaller engines can still plow snow. Example the new Tundra. I for one like having an 8 cylinder without E-Torque nonsense to plow snow with. So what I'm trying to ask is for you to not ignore this aspect of truck owners, the one who only needs a 1/2 ton because we're not plowing as a business just for our own property. I hope you can do this. Thanks for all your videos that you do anyway, they're still entertaining.
Should consider the unladened MPG on the loop for each vs. the towing MPG on the loop for each and then calculate percentage degradation to the MPG for each. That would show whether the theory of smaller engines working harder are worse than big engine doing same work. The Raptor already had a worse MPG to start based on weight and engine size vs the Ranger.
Always fun watching content regardless. Keep it up
The ranger went from 22 mpg to 9 mpg, or 41%. The raptor went from 11 mpg to 8 mpg, or 72%. Therefore, the Raptor is more efficient. They both tow, but the Raptor had to work 28% harder compared to the Ranger working 59% harder to do the same task.
So, Raptor wins on efficiency, while Ranger wins on fuel quantity.
@@JasonPhipps Yes but, you are going to spend a lot of time driving around without a trailer where you get 22mpg instead of 11mpg. Of course I would like an offroad focused Ranger so probably 19-20mpg.
@@jeffk464 my ranger has a fox leveling kit, 32 inch KO2 and ford performance tune. It’ll get 20-21 on the interstate if the wind is my favor. Pulling a 21 ft (total) travel trailer at speed limit I get 9-11 and a 17ft bass tracker I get 15-16. Wind is a big factor.
@@JonBecker81 could be worse.
Great video thank you. It was uploaded two weeks ago and mysteriously I missed it. And I still love the Buhanka!
For a more apples to apples comparison, my brother and I had identical trucks except mine had the smallest gas V8 option and his had the biggest. I rarely hauled or towed much while he frequently towed roughly 10,000 pounds. With no load my truck averaged about 3 mpg more than his. One day his water pump failed and I towed his trailer with my truck while his truck was towed to a shop. My truck got about half the mpg towing that trailer as his did. Our conclusion was we both had the right engine options for our different needs but in the case of those two trucks, for towing bigger was definitely better.
In this video I think it still says a lot that the Ranger lost over half of its unloaded mpg when towing while the Raptor starts with pretty bad mpg but loses a much lower percentage when towing.
Speaking of optimistic MPG computers, I had a Crosstrek a couple years ago. It would say I would get like 42 mpg open highway from gas station to gas station and I’d calculate it out at the pump like you do and I’d get like 35. Made me mad every time. Like how can it be off THAT much?
Every single fuel economy estimator built into the vehicle is wrong by at least 10%. All of them. Hand calculating is the only way to get the truth. I say 10% because two of my last vehicles were optomistic by 10% almost exactly. A 22mpg computer guess-timate would always calculate by hand to 20mpg. And 28mpg computer guess-timate would calculate out to 25mpg.
overly optimistic MPG trip computer readings help sell cars on test drives...
Would like to see the TRX Ram milage on this loop compared to the Raptor R.
I enjoy your videos keep up the good work😎 I was amazed they were that close😳
My 17 F150 2.7 w/ 6spd trans towing a Miata, 2000lb trailer, full bed of luggage and 4 people averaged 14mpg from Nebraska to Florida and 14.5mpg empty trailer Florida to Nebraska
I pulled my friends 29' camper,7500#, up to Lake Erie. My 2010 ,4x4 ,5.7 v-8 ,Toyota Tundra got 9.5 mpg going 65 in heavy cross winds. I expected 8 mpg ! I had a car hauler pass me and it got severe sway, I got on the brakes and it straightened out at 45 mph. Had I had a small truck, I don't I would have saved it!!!
My experience is you get about half your highway mpg towing a TT weighing 75% of max tow weight at 60 mph. The towing experience is much better in a full size truck at the expense of having a larger truck than needed for everyday use. Thanks for sharing.
That ranger is impressive. I’d like to see it stacked up against the Tacoma, I think we already know how that will go.
Miss my Colorado diesel. Pulling my lifted Toyota trail truck with a roof top tent on the Colorado, I would get 13-14 mpg. GCW was 12,400.
I have an 09 f150, with the 5.4.,fx4 with air bags......tow from sedro-woolley Washington to Merritt BC, over mountains... Average 12-13mpg. I tow 1600lbs trailer, witH 2300 lbs racecar.
You guys talking about the sway and fixing it. It looked wrong when I first saw it on the ranger.
Thank you for doing more towing content.
My 2.7 ecoboost was better unloaded by quite a bit then other trucks I've owned.
While towing, it was the worst. Of course, the 6.0 v8 chevy only made 360tq at best when spinning 2800rpm in 3rd up a hill, whereas the 2.7 with a tune on 87 octane was making over 400tq by 2200rpm
My Silverado with the slug 5.3 struggled to pull 10,000 pounds of trailer and, at best, got 21 mpg. Dumped it for a 3.5 Ecobeast. Like night and day pulling and got 15 mpg with the Ford. Never looked back.
Wow those orange graphics on the Ranger are something.
I would also like to see this against the 3.5L Ecoboost and a normal 5.0L F-150. Obviously a cool video, but Ford is going to sell oodles more of those other trucks than the Raptor R (as much as most of us would probably love to have it).
They did this test years ago. My recollection is that any advantage the 3.5 had in MPG evaporated in a real towing test. The 5.0 was slightly better, but nearly the same.
The Buhanca is mid engine so when you lined the front bumper to where you thought the weight would be good but the engine is back almost centre. Good lesson is that any load in your thing you are towing might be unbalanced because of the junk inside the thing you're towing
Holy cow!!! Gas prices!!!!! Glad I live in South Carolina....
Here i am in Commiefornia and not allowed to tow a trailer past 55 mph....😅I agree with other commenters regarding restarting the Ranger for most accurate mpg (though that would probably only change around +.5-1.5 gallon per mile). I would only consider a full sized if I was towing most of the time. If I was only towing once ina while I would get the mid sized, when you dont have load the mpg is pretty much doubled with smaller truck benefits.
More work requires more fuel thats a no brainer. "Work" is all factors affecting moving an object from point A to B. Good test though to show people to get the right "tool" for the job "they" have to do. More options is better than the narrow market we are heading towards.
Check your editing - in multiple places in the video, the script graphics state the Ranger is a small displacement "V6". Obviously Blaze handled the video editing and he is not clear on the Ranger's "I4" configuration.
I'd wager that the difference in mpg is mostly just due to the aero drag difference between smaller frontal area and smaller tires vs what's basically a Super Duty in the wind. If the aero drag was equal, I'd bet $20 the mpg towing that same load would also be identical.
I would like to see the ford 2.7 ecoboost towing
Can you guys please do a towing video on the max capacity on the 4 runner? I know you have 4 runner towing videos but noting at max capacity. There aren't many clips on TH-cam on max capacity tows for the 4 runner
The screen at 2:50 says the Ranger has a small displacement v6.
Do they still produce Buhunka Trucks? Some of that old Soviet stuffs pretty cool. UAZ seems like a good brand.
When paying attention in school pays off. Woot!!
There are so many factors that affect fuel economy - it's hard to compare one to another. Smaller engines are getting better, but you can't really compare a 1.4L to an 8.1L, for example. If they're both forced induction and built well - to the same specs, the 8.1L will always have more power but may not always have better economy. The 1.4L can be great for toodling around town in a mid size vehicle, but it can't tow the same weight a large engine can. Try to tow 15000lbs with a 1.4L and it just won't. The 8.1L will handle it just fine.
% change in mpg would give an indication of how hard the job was for each truck
V6 ranger @ 19:38 ?! Just kidding guys. Love your videos!
Did they redo the whole ranger test once they fixed the sway issue? Did i miss that?
The stop and trailer reset and swaying is a variable that set the ranger at a difference. I think it could have performed better 🤔
You got way closer results than I have, but having compared 4 big/little combinations, I can assure you the smaller vehicle will ALWAYS get better efficiency (not including hybrids, of coarse), regardless of the engine option. it's physics. ram 1500 22mpg down to 12 (highway) towing an empty utility trailer, honda ridgeline 24mpg down to 14 (city) (33/16 highway) towing an enclosed trailer with a light load, ford escape 24mpg down to 17 (35/19 highway) with the same enclosed trailer and load, saturn ion 35mpg down to 24 with a fully loaded (highway) (for the trailer, technically overloaded for the car) 6x12 utility trailer.
Nearly 15% more fuel is significant. Even more significant is an almost guaranteed US14mpg doing the same towing job with a four cylinder twin turbo Ranger diesel automatic where available.
that result isn't terribly surprising. when i would tow a 6x12 cargo trailer with my ecoboost f150 i'd get 7-8 cause i was working that engine a lot. however, pulling that same cargo trailer with the power wagon net me 8-10 mpg. i guess you just don't work that big 6.4 as much as the 3.5 booster.
Holy crap that Ranger is chunky.. It weighs as much as my 2001 ford supercrew 4x4!
I would actually like to see the Ranger 2.3 against a 2.7 F150 to see if it’s worth downsizing to a mid truck that have full size prices.
19:38 One of those Ranger Raptors?
I can speak from experience. Truck was originally a 2 wheel drive 1500 92 Chevy 4.3l tbi 5speed that I towed with for several years on the farm towing double 40ton silage wagons hay wagons and equipment trailer and skid steer way too much for a half ton let alone a v6 and I consistently got 8-10mpg depending on what I was pulling and the speed i was going. Once I finally blew the engine i bolted a 5.7l tbi engine in its place same trans gears and all and with the 5.7l i averaged 9-12mpg I am sure that it was that high only cause the 4.10 rear gear meant to make sure that you would be able to tow everything a v8 could with a v6. The only real difference was empty mpg the v6 i could easily average 18mpg and with the v8 was a steady 15mpg regardless of how i drove it again gear killed me 70mph in 5th gear was 2800rpm so way to high for the v8 to be in its zone
I realize that these are the trucks you used because these are the trucks you have onhand. That being said, it makes me interested to see a video that's a little more apples to apples. The Raptor R is really a worst case scenario with the big lift, degraded aerodynamics, large tires and supercharger.
Now do a deleted and tuned HD diesel vs the 4-banger
Just for your information the rangers owners manual says not to exceed 62 mph while towing.
wow who would have thought a 600hp truck was thirsty!
Most of the energy at those speeds goes to wind drag and the fact that you towed the buhanka in both cases is the reason mpg was very similar. Size of the truck, weight of trailer and size of engine makes much less of a difference.
That was a great comparison guys. There will wonderful discussions around fire pits, cookouts, and campfires thanks to the wealth of knowledge gained by this video.
Now, all y'all have to do is at least 5 more videos comparing different trucks and towing packages. I'd like to see the Maverick b!tchslap.....I mean, go up against the Toyota Tacoma, both AWD/4WD, with roughly the same cargo, and towing capacity. You know Maverick owners are gonna load those things up in the back, put a tarp over their stuff, then hook up a little camper to the back, and head out. I'd be interested in seeing what the hybrid can do, against maybe 4cylinder Tacoma if you can find anything like that in your area, without having to drive 2 states away to get it.
I like to see an gas HD truck try this test. My 2016 power wagon got better towing mpg than my current Tundra.
I would trust what the truck says for mpg rather they trusting the gas pump will fill to exactly the same amount. You are guessing how full the tank is and with the trip counter it calculates how much gas went to the engine.
Before watching, my guess is going to be the small engine will be more efficient based on my knowledge of engines being most efficient at close to full load and my experiences with towing 2K-2500 pounds with my 1.7L Civic and still getting around 28-32 MPG. Semi trucks also have comparatively small and low horsepower engines for the loads they pull and are pretty damn efficient for all the stuff they are moving.
Ford Ranger owner’s manual: Turn off the speed control with heavy loads or in hilly terrain. The speed control may turn off automatically when you are towing on long, steep grades.
2023 Ford F-150 owner’s manual says the same thing
In California you can not tow that trailer with a ranger
Chp will stop you...
Must have at least a 2500
I'm curious why TFL hasn't added the brake controller Ford offers for the ranger. Always comment on how it doesn't come with one, but there is an OEM brake controller.
Also can't wait for them to get a 24 ranger so they can stop commenting on how it doesn't come with a brake controller.
Interesting... I guess the same results could be expected between a Chevy 2500 6.6 diesel and a 1500 3.0 diesel.
Would really like to see a Silverado 1500 towing comparison with the 2.7L Turbo 4 cylinder vs the 5.3L V8.
V8s are the best for towing and longevity. I would put up with 1.5 less mpg with an 8 cylinder than wearing your V6 for fuel efficiency. Ram 1500 owner.
Thank you for this! Love it!
My old '99 F150 with the 5.4L Triton V8 got 13 mpg on it's own and 8 mpg towing my little 4k lb camper. My recently acquired '16 F150 with the 3.5L Ecoboost gets 21 mpg on it's own and 12 mpg towing the same trailer... It seems these small displacement turbo charged engines take a more significant mpg hit when loaded or towing, but they are still more efficient than the bigger V8 options. The Raptor is the worst of both since it is a big V8 with a supercharger. Raptor is an awesome truck, but definitely not the right pick for towing.
Fun video although I think few people are picking between these 2 trucks A Ford F150 with the 2.7 ecoboost and a Ranger would be a likely decision choice for a lot of people.
I know I have 3 trucks I use around my place and the smallest motor v6 wins every time for lowest amount of gas used if the job falls within its admittingly more limited capabilities as compared to my newer 1500 series with a small block v8 engine or worse yet is my even newer 2500 series with a slightly bigger gas engine. Oh some will complain that working my littlest truck at its max will hurt its longevity. Okay 31 years and counting and still doing work with my smallest truck.
I also have 8 gas tractors around the place from 24 to 51 hp. For any job that requires say the throttle to be set to maintain say 540 PTO rpm the tractor that has just barely enough hp to exceed the job requirements at hand.such that the tractor rarely has the governor kicking in will be the most fuel efficient for the job if the ultimate goal is to save gas. In other words the tractor I choose to bush hog when the grass is 1 foot tall as compared to when the grass is 4 foot tall will be totally different if saving gas is the primary goal
My criteria: What does it cost me to buy it? What does it cost me to feed it? What does it cost me to maintain it? A bad answer to any one of these 3 questions and I do not desire the truck,.
Take the stripes off the hood, it’ll look better with just the side graphic in my opinion!
I love the way the Raptor looks and performs. But I’d most likely use a truck for truck things than desert running. The Tremor may be a better option for me if I wanted a big truck.
The bigger truck will be way more confidence inspiring and safer. I used to tow a 4k pound travel trailer with a Tacoma and it was sketchy at best, I upgraded to a 21 Silverado 1500 3.0 Duramax and It's literally night and day difference.
That paint job on the Ranger better could with a $10k price rebate.
Let's see the ranger compared to a naturally aspirated v8 (5L?) A more fair comparison
With the advancement of aerodynamic technology i think we are at the peak of efficiency that whatever size pickup truck, engine etc... They will always have very close mpg numbers.
Why have you guys not got a 2023 Super Duty yet?
Back in 2018 my wife bought a ROCKWOOD ROO and it weighs around 5 000 pounds. Towing with my 13 Tacoma with the 4 litre v6 saw me getting around 40 litres per hundred. With my 2020 Tundra I see 20 litres per 100 kms.
2013 Tacoma V6 shouldn’t have been hooked to 5k pounds at all. It’s towing capacity was 3.5k. Just saying.
@@DownRange02 You are way wrong. It's rated at 6500 pounds. I know..I owned the truck
I wonder if the fuel economy would change with the baffles being in quiet mode vs Baja mode.
Cool test, but I really wish it was with a regular f150. I get it, your looking at total extremes, and the raptor is that, but when it comes to towing, the average guys extreme is either a 3.5 Ecoboost or the 5.0. can you do it again with either of those two engine or both?? Please! Lol
But considering all the difference, the Raptor being only 1.2 of an average behind, I didn't think it was bad... if it weren't for the design of the current Raptor so boring, it would be an option... but for me, the Ranger already has everything I need.. .I just prefer the 2.0 biturbo diesel!
Looks like everyone beat me to the comment I wanted to make. A much more appropriate test would be a Ford 2.7 turbo vs a 5.0 V8 and in the Chevy department a 2.7turbo 4 cyl vs the 5.3 V8. Not that I didn't enjoy watching, but this was very apples to oranges.
If you are towing all the time a V8 is probably better. I bet you will find most pickup owners only tow a few times a year or not at all.
@@jeffk464 Oh I would take a V8 over a turbo gas anyway. The torque produced by a V6 turbo is probably better, but I look at long term life/cost as we keep our cars a long time. I do have to admit that I prefer my 2001 F250 with the 7.3L diesel for pulling my 9' tall, 25' long cargo trailer vs pulling with my brothers 2015 with 5.0. Much better stability with the 3/4 ton.
I would like to see 3.5 f150 vs 5.0
I liked this video however, I would like to see this done with the ranger and a non-high-performance v8. I wonder if the results would be different.
Rob
Its an interesting way to compare these for the funsies, but not really the right test to call this myth busted. The way the Raptor R is tuned means more enrichment under load than the way the 2.3 would be tuned. the power densities are very different 114 to 140 hp/liter. Im not suggesting that specifically is the reason, just that there are a lot of variables here that make this fun content, but not really clear enough to call it myth busted. I mean, the Aero drag alone could account for the difference.
Well, that v-8 is made for performance... I would say that a sliverado would be more evenly matched
Hardly surprising. But you did give the Ranger the absolute best chance to be the more fuel efficient truck.
You have to take into consideration the loss off of unloaded mpg because if the ranger normally is 20ish mpg it got the worst mpg vs raptor R is 10ish with less loss
But you have to analyze the context of the vehicles... the Ranger is more aerodynamic, smaller frontal area and lighter, not to mention that it doesn't seem to be the 4 straight focused on performance as this V8 is... to be fair it had to do with the New Ranger Raptor with the 397 hp V6!
compare to straight coyote 5.0 f150 with about same width tires! think the f150 would shine .
There’s probably a sweet spot for towing, Im guessing the F150 with the 2.7 Ecoboost would be the best of all?
Wow Colorado has more expensive gas. I get 93 here for the price of 85 there. I guess with the altitude you can get away with lower octane though.
Yeah, I have a Ranger at work that's driven by a variety of people (3-4) throughout any given month. The best I've seen (not towing) MPG is nearly 22MPG (Quad cab, 4wd, with a canopy). My personal Tremor gets consistently 17.8mpg with 2300 mi. on it so far. Although, the Ranger gets better mileage I have to say the extra HP, Comfort of a full-size truck and capacity of my truck far outways the extra MPG in the Ranger. This' isn't even looking at how much better my truck will be with towing and I'm sure the MPG difference will be minimal.
I think if your able to afford to buy either of these trucks (especially the raptor r) then fuel economy is not a issue. Neither I would buy to tow with.
How about a f 250 with a 7.3 gas.
Octane controls combustion and is not a representation of potential energy.for forced induction it is key to control combustion to avoid knock and self detonation
What about longevity?