2019 Ranger MPGs

[Geoff]

I have found my 2016 Fusion to be pretty much spot on.

Early on mine was off (1-2 mpg) but it seems to be more accurate now.
My brother also has a 2016 Fusion and noticed the same thing.

I'll be checking mine manually to see how well it correlates with what the info screen shows and I'm kinda leery that the info screen number will exaggerate the actual MPG....at least early on.

Sponsored

 

[DHare]

Early on mine was off (1-2 mpg) but it seems to be more accurate now.
My brother also has a 2016 Fusion and noticed the same thing.

I'll be checking mine manually to see how well it correlates with what the info screen shows and I'm kinda leery that the info screen number will exaggerate the actual MPG....at least early on.

I've owned a bunch of cars/trucks which compute your mpg and every one of them was off by about 1 mpg too optimistic.

 

[Geoff]

I've owned a bunch of cars/trucks which compute your mpg and every one of them was off by about 1 mpg too optimistic.

Yeah, I believe that - it makes the owner feel better.....

 

[khyros]

Heh, meanwhile I checked my Escape a couple of times when it was new and was satisfied with it's calculated MPG (within .3)... and then recently didn't believe it (it was stating I got ~20mpg on a pure highway trip) because it has a 13.5gal usable tank, so I presumably should have maxed out at 270 miles, and yet I'd gone 260 miles or so and it was still saying 50 MTE... turns out that it was about 3mpg low on the actual calculation. Still really poor mileage for what it is, but I never got good mileage in that car.

 

[Geoff]

I guess my point was to calculate the mpg's and then see how accurate the truck computes it. Don't just rely on the truck's number until you've verified its accuracy.

I'm not sure but my Fusion may be reading higher than actual mileage because I get on the turbo (to frequently ) and maybe that's where the inaccuracy is introduced on the vehicle mpg number.

 

[RedlandRanger]

Heh, meanwhile I checked my Escape a couple of times when it was new and was satisfied with it's calculated MPG (within .3)... and then recently didn't believe it (it was stating I got ~20mpg on a pure highway trip) because it has a 13.5gal usable tank, so I presumably should have maxed out at 270 miles, and yet I'd gone 260 miles or so and it was still saying 50 MTE... turns out that it was about 3mpg low on the actual calculation. Still really poor mileage for what it is, but I never got good mileage in that car.

I know on my 2004 Honda Accord the trip computer mileage is about 10% less than the odometer mileage. I'm sure that accounts for some of the MPG difference. Wonder if there is a similar thing on these vehicles? It always surprised me since both mileage calculations are digital. Maybe things have improved in the last 15 years though.

 

[Geoff]

^ Either that or the fuel flow meter isn't totally accurate...

 

[R G]

My experience of onboard computer based mileage calculation is all in European cars. Never once has the calculated mileage been less than 5% over actual. In my current car, you fire it up and the displayed MPG starts at about seven, and that's before the car has moved. This suggests to me there is a built in bias which overstates mileage on short trips. My commute is 80 miles per day of mostly freeway. Never had a Euro car yet which didn't overstate mileage by almost 10% on my commute..

I suspect one of the reasons we won't see a bigger engine offered in this Ranger is the tiny gas tank. Heck, even my FD RX7 had a 20 gallon tank, and it was a pure sports car.

 

[Joe Holcomb]

1400 miles, 28.5 mpg’s this morning with mixed driving conditions!

 

[kep]

1400 miles, 28.5 mpg’s this morning with mixed driving conditions!

Mine has not been near that, but I have not seen temps above 3 degrees yet. This morning it's -17 with a high today of -5.

 

[Krzydmnd]

I just hit 1500 miles of varied driving conditions as well as a 600 mile road trip and my avg according to the vehicle is 20.5

 

[FX4Offroad]

1400 miles, 28.5 mpg’s this morning with mixed driving conditions!

WOW! A few questions:

1. Are you hand calculating?
2. What's your driving style?
3. What's the terrain?
4. How much city/highway driving?
5. Many times, most driving is country roads - 45 - 55 mph. Is that your situation?
6. What brand of gas are you using (additives and such)?

I really have to move to a Ranger - My F150 gets 12 - 13 mpg ave - only a few more mpgs highway.

Sorry for all the questions but as you know, all these factors make a big difference in optimizing mpg's.

 

[SchoolZoneSpeeder]

Fx4 here, and I have just under 500 miles. Getting 24 HW if I set the cruise at 75 or less.

 

[Jim]

Is anyone wondering what the 2.7 Ecoboost V6 mpg would be in the new Ranger?

F-150 Supercab 4WD with 2.7L EB:
325 HP, 400 lb-ft torque
79.9 in width, 76.9 in height --> 42.7 sq ft frontal area
4805 lb curb weight
Mpg: 19 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

Ranger Supercab 4WD with 2.3L EB:
270 HP, 310 lb-ft torque
73.3 in width, 71.5 in height --> 36.4 sq ft frontal area
4232 lb curb weight
Mpg: 20 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

The 2.7L in the F-150 is rated equal hwy/combined mpg and 1 less city mpg, even though it has 17% more frontal area, weighs 14% more, yet delivers 20% more HP and 29% more torque than the 2.3L in the Ranger.

 

[Strokerduster]

Is anyone wondering what the 2.7 Ecoboost V6 mpg would be in the new Ranger?

F-150 Supercab 4WD with 2.7L EB:
325 HP, 400 lb-ft torque
79.9 in width, 76.9 in height --> 42.7 sq ft frontal area
4805 lb curb weight
Mpg: 19 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

Ranger Supercab 4WD with 2.3L EB:
270 HP, 310 lb-ft torque
73.3 in width, 71.5 in height --> 36.4 sq ft frontal area
4232 lb curb weight
Mpg: 20 city, 24 hwy, 22 combined

The 2.7L in the F-150 is rated equal hwy/combined mpg and 1 less city mpg, even though it has 17% more frontal area, weighs 14% more, yet delivers 20% more HP and 29% more torque than the 2.3L in the Ranger.

Naw, I wasn't wondering........

Sponsored