toddiscdn
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Todd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2018
- Threads
- 17
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 498
- Location
- Blue Point, Ontario, Canada
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Ranger Lariat 4X4
Ummmm, sure. Actual mileage and actual fuel used is likely very inaccurate
Lrtexasman
Well-Known Member
Go to tfltruck.com and watch one of their fuel economy loop test. It will show the hand method and why it is most accurate. The fuelly.com app works the same way. I think fuelly is the best website to track. Currently the 2.3 Ranger is averaging just under 19 mpg.
Last edited:
DHare
Well-Known Member
I've owned at least 10 vehicles that compute your fuel mileage and every one of them was off by 1 to 2 mpg on the high side as compared to hand calculating.
SRAces
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Steve
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 627
- Location
- Lake Park, GA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Ford Ranger, 2015 Mercedes-Benz GLA, 2004 Mercedes-Benz SLK 230 Special Edition
- Occupation
- USAF (retired)
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
I filled up this morning on the way to work. A little over 1700 miles on the truck now. Computer said I was averaging 24.5 miles per gallon for 3/4 of a tank of gas. I burn 87 octane. Dividing the actual miles driven by the gallons used to fill the truck, I got 24 miles per gallon. My manual calculations have consistently been within .5 mpg of what the computer says. My driving is probably 75% highway and 25% in town. I can live with that.
FLEngineer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Threads
- 13
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 251
- Location
- Orlando,FL
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Ford Ranger Lariat SCrew
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
So far this has been my only mild concern with the truck; I have about 240 miles on it and just filled up yesterday. Even after resetting the trip and eco screens I seem to be averaging around 17 to 18 mpg. Admittedly I am learning to stay out of boost and my commute is surface streets (stop and go). I can tell the MPG wants to climb on the rare occasion I get a straight road with no lights or traffic but that is few and far between. Still love the truck and know it will likely change over the next few thousand miles, just underwhelmed so far. When people with new full sized truck ask my mileage and I tell them 18 mpg they undoubtedly will laugh.
VAMike
Well-Known Member
There is zero chance they're putting the same amount of fuel in each time. So then all of the rest of the numbers are just BS. If they did it 10 times and got the same numbers each time then I'd be convinced. But they don't do that...
SRAces
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Steve
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 627
- Location
- Lake Park, GA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Ford Ranger, 2015 Mercedes-Benz GLA, 2004 Mercedes-Benz SLK 230 Special Edition
- Occupation
- USAF (retired)
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
Sorry to hear your mileage is where it is. Hopefully it will improve with miles. I don't have the same driving environment you have with all your traffic and lights. Valdosta (where I work) is nowhere the stop and go of Orlando. I have found that for my driving habits, I don't need to push the pedal very far to accelerate quickly. So I guess I am staying out of boost more than others. Usually I drive about 5 mph over whatever the posted speed is. I do use adaptive cruise on the highway and have the start/stop enabled.
This was my mileage up the highway from the gas stop at my exit to work. All interstate driving and 70 mph.
RCMUSTANG
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Ray
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2019
- Threads
- 21
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- 1,952
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Vehicle(s)
- 2017 Fusion 1995 Ranger
My first tank compared to manual calculation was low by.5 mpg. Manual was 21.5, comp was 21. My second was high by over 3mpg. Manual was 21, comp was 24. That's a huge difference. I'm pretty sure the possible difference in the fill can't be bigger than half a gallon. That doesn't explain that much of a discrepancy.
Lrtexasman
Well-Known Member
It’s Mileage divided by fuel used not total miles per tank. The variance is very small.
SRAces
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Steve
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2018
- Threads
- 4
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 627
- Location
- Lake Park, GA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Ford Ranger, 2015 Mercedes-Benz GLA, 2004 Mercedes-Benz SLK 230 Special Edition
- Occupation
- USAF (retired)
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
While the hope would be that all the Rangers built have the ability to get the same fuel economy, we all drive differently, in different climates, different traffic situations, different topography and get gas from different sources. There isn't one simple solution or answer.
technological_marvel
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Evan
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2019
- Threads
- 2
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 36
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Shadow Black Ranger LARIAT FX4
Just so you know, you can get the owner's manual for free in PDF from the Ford website. I am pretty sure there is a thread around here somewhere with the manual attached, too.
VAMike
Well-Known Member
The number of miles in the videos in question is small, the amount of fuel is small, the method is ridiculous (fill until it clicks, then fill "some more"), so the variance is huge. Again, if they're that confident in their methodology, they should just demonstrate that the results are repeatable. A sample size of one is an anecdote.
VAMike
Well-Known Member
It's not the math, it's the reproducibility of the auto shut off at the pump.
Back when I commuted a lot and tried to minimize gas stops I could shove as much as 2 gallons into the car after the first shutoff...so I'm not sure what the "right" amount to top off is. I will tell you that plus or minus 2 gallons is a hell of a margin of error when calculating mpg for a short trip.
Sponsored
