2019 Ranger MPGs

[Bud]

I averaged 23 mpg on my first tank, and half way thru the second tank and the dash shows 24.3. The truck has under 600 miles on the odometer. I live in a rural area, that is noted for its wind. Driving into the wind does make a difference. I am also old and no longer have a heavy foot.

Yesterday I filled the truck with gas, regular, in a town 25 miles from my home. The engine was warm when I reset the trip, and the driving included some town, but mostly on a two lane road. Speeds varied from 50 mph to 65 mph. This two lane road has very little passing areas, and the traffic was heavy enough that passing was impossible. When I pulled into my driveway the MPG on the truck display read 29.8. It actually was over 30, but driving thru our complex to the house dropped it a little. The truck tires have 44 pounds cold, that what it had in it when I picked it up from the dealer. It is a little bouncy, but I do like the mileage. The truck now has just over 850 miles on it.

Sponsored

 

[ausable]

Yesterday I filled the truck with gas, regular, in a town 25 miles from my home. The engine was warm when I reset the trip, and the driving included some town, but mostly on a two lane road. Speeds varied from 50 mph to 65 mph. This two lane road has very little passing areas, and the traffic was heavy enough that passing was impossible. When I pulled into my driveway the MPG on the truck display read 29.8. It actually was over 30, but driving thru our complex to the house dropped it a little. The truck tires have 44 pounds cold, that what it had in it when I picked it up from the dealer. It is a little bouncy, but I do like the mileage. The truck now has just over 850 miles on it.

That air pressure is shipping pressure from the factory for the trains/haul away trucks. The dealer is supposed to deflate those tires to a more reasonable 30-36 cold psi. My lumbar simply couldn't withstand 44 cold psi. No sir.

 

[John Lyman]

I've had my Ranger for a week and half and I drive in metro Atlanta and the computer is saying 19.7 mixed. One of the joys coming from a Jeep to a Ranger that looks like good MPG. I must say I can see myself bringing that down using the sport mode - which is more fun - I can just skip going to the movies....

 

[Doc]

21.5 still holding..sport mode only..
Regards

 

[chuck stein]

Wow, long thread. Those MPG's are no better than a 1985 Chevy S10. Yes, 35yrs later, all new input controls, turbo's are back, better fuels, and yet 1985 still beats it in terms of MPG's. I suspect nobody is serious about how many MPG's a piston/gasoline vehicle is getting?

 

[Dokkenmire]

265/70/17 AT tires and a 2 inch level and I'm still staying around 22mpg. My commute is mostly flat and I average around 50-55mph.

 

[chuck stein]

265/70/17 AT tires and a 2 inch level and I'm still staying around 22mpg. My commute is mostly flat and I average around 50-55mph.

Is that with a side, tail, or head wind? 22 seems like you have more head wind during your travels.

 

[apotocki]

Is that with a side, tail, or head wind? 22 seems like you have more head wind during your travels.

First 350 miles on my XLT with factory AT tires is 20.3.....combination city and highway. Not sure if thats good or bad. Kinda was hoping for a bit better.

 

[apotocki]

First 350 miles on my XLT with factory AT tires is 20.3.....combination city and highway. Not sure if thats good or bad. Kinda was hoping for a bit better.

Oh, forgot to add pressure is 38 all around

 

[chuck stein]

First 350 miles on my XLT with factory AT tires is 20.3.....combination city and highway. Not sure if thats good or bad. Kinda was hoping for a bit better.

Use the highest octane gas you can, and go +3-5psi (cold) higher in tires than door label.
It's a small motor with a small turbo, and it's still not making good power until way out in RPM's. To get really good mpg's you need to accelerate slowly and cruise w/o AC on.

Side note - some tires will present for road surface drag if the PSI is too high. For these Ranger AT tires I really do not know what the optimal pressure would be for you to get max mpg's.

Fixing a spelling mistake on "ranger", Ford is supposed to have a "baby Bronco", does that mean they'll also have a Ranget?

 

[Gizmokid2005]

Wow, long thread. Those MPG's are no better than a 1985 Chevy S10. Yes, 35yrs later, all new input controls, turbo's are back, better fuels, and yet 1985 still beats it in terms of MPG's. I suspect nobody is serious about how many MPG's a piston/gasoline vehicle is getting?

People are very serious.

You're also comparing a 2019 Ford Ranger that has 270hp and 310ftlbs of torque, weighing ~4500lbs depending on config to a vehicle that had 62-110hp (diesel I4 vs I4 vs V6) and weighed ~3klbs.

The Ranger has 2-4x the power and nearly 50% more weight, and turns out roughly the same mileage, while also heavily increasing the emissions standards and putting out less chemicals per gallon burned than the S-10 did. It's easy to do this comparison of only one metric across 35 years, but it's not a meaningful comparison.

 

[Dokkenmire]

First 350 miles on my XLT with factory AT tires is 20.3.....combination city and highway. Not sure if thats good or bad. Kinda was hoping for a bit better.

If it's cold where you're at I wouldn't think that's too bad for break-in mpg. Either way it should slightly improve with more miles, mine did.

 

[AzScorpion]

If it's cold where you're at I wouldn't think that's too bad for break-in mpg. Either way it should slightly improve with more miles, mine did.

Mine too. I noticed it was getting better after 1000 miles were on it.

 

[chuck stein]

People are very serious.

You're also comparing a 2019 Ford Ranger that has 270hp and 310ftlbs of torque, weighing ~4500lbs depending on config to a vehicle that had 62-110hp (diesel I4 vs I4 vs V6) and weighed ~3klbs.

The Ranger has 2-4x the power and nearly 50% more weight, and turns out roughly the same mileage, while also heavily increasing the emissions standards and putting out less chemicals per gallon burned than the S-10 did. It's easy to do this comparison of only one metric across 35 years, but it's not a meaningful comparison.

I would argue that the weight is not significant factor when it comes to the standards used to measure mpg's. Aerodynamics is significant, and perhaps contact road friction. 1985 S10 and Ranger don't have significant diff in either of those two areas.

The emissions argument is both relevant and not relevant. Yes, per vehicle emissions are down, but global usage of such vehicles makes overall emissions greater. So it is safe to say technology is not keeping pace with the emissions issue from a practical application perspective. The "vehicle" view is not a good way to look at the problem, because if it was we would all be arguing "what global vehicle pollution issue" because every new vehicle is way better than it was in the past. Or in simple terms, really no great advancements with internal combustion engines. Didn't VW get stung with their BS claim around "clean diesel technology", thanks/credits to CARB in CA for busting them liars.

 

[apotocki]

If it's cold where you're at I wouldn't think that's too bad for break-in mpg. Either way it should slightly improve with more miles, mine did.

Thanks....yes, I am in Michigan so its cold. I’ve been babying it and not driving like I normally do - lol. I’ll be hopeful it improves after some more miles. Hmmmm. I may try increasing psi after this tank 3-4lbs and see what happens.

Sponsored