2019 Ranger MPGs

[VAMike]

Safety regulations are one of the main reasons for the sizes of vehicles nowadays

No, it's public tastes and manufacturer profits (people have this weird thing where they think size must correspond to price, so it's hard to sell a small car that isn't significantly less expensive than a larger car--look at all the "I can get an F150 for the price of a ranger!" comments). If a mini can meet safety regs, a pickup the size of the old ranger could meet safety regs.

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 1634]

No, it's public tastes and manufacturer profits (people have this weird thing where they think size must correspond to price, so it's hard to sell a small car that isn't significantly less expensive than a larger car--look at all the "I can get an F150 for the price of a ranger!" comments). If a mini can meet safety regs, a pickup the size of the old ranger could meet safety regs.

Well the current Mini's are much much larger than Mini's of old. Sure, public opinion, whether correct or not, is part of it. An old size Ranger might be able to meet the safety regs, but could it also meet the new public demand of faster, stronger, and more powerful? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.

I agree that the public are stupid and have ruined plenty of good things because they don't look "cool" or "safe" or "fast enough" or whatever. But there are plenty of other things at play here as well. Safety regulations being one of them.

 

[RangerJosh]

I'm getting abysmal mpg's right now and it is both concerning and annoying... 1200 miles total, today my average with a mix of city and highway was 15.7mpg in regular driving mode. Currently running premium (first tank with the good stuff), 3 inch lift and 265/70 R17 Toyo Open Country... I have no idea why my mpg suck this bad, my lift and tires are nothing outrageous and I'm not a speed demon.

 

[Msfitoy]

Well the current Mini's are much much larger than Mini's of old. Sure, public opinion, whether correct or not, is part of it. An old size Ranger might be able to meet the safety regs, but could it also meet the new public demand of faster, stronger, and more powerful? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.

I agree that the public are stupid and have ruined plenty of good things because they don't look "cool" or "safe" or "fast enough" or whatever. But there are plenty of other things at play here as well. Safety regulations being one of them.

The "first gen" of new MINI (second from right) was just big enough to satisfy all modern safety and sporting requirement...something stupid drove it to hideous proportions...

 

[VAMike]

The "first gen" of new MINI (second from right) was just big enough to satisfy all modern safety and sporting requirement...something stupid drove it to hideous proportions...

The average American couldn't fit into it...

 

[Msfitoy]

The average American couldn't fit into it...

Lol...you're mistaken...I was involved with an international MINI club for most of my MINI's 16 years and met a lot of giants who loved the new car...people 6 foot 6, 250# were quite comfortable in them...that's why they're known as the clown car

 

[John Lyman]

So I put on my tonneau cover this weekend - reset my trip computer - so for the past two days I have averaged 22.8 MPG heading to/from work 21 miles one way in metro Atlanta and takes 50 mins. My running MPG since I got the truck is at 19.6 - Very happy with the MPG

 

[Blue Streak]

It's been awhile since my last post. STX, FX 4x4 Supercrew tow package stock no mods purchased in June. Fuel 87octane. Just turn 15000 miles. So far I have made 3 trips from Dallas area to just west of St. Louis, Mo. All 3 trips about 725 miles one way, I have pulled a loaded 6x12 ft U-haul trailer. Worst single tank mileage was in Mo. rolling hills & traffic was 12.8 At present time since purchase my overall average is wright at 20.0 mpgs. which I can live with coming from 10mpgs (no matter) what with my 92 F250 460 ci 4x4 auto. My all around average is always over 21- 22 all driving conditions. Obviously some better.
Happy Ranger owner.

 

[ZCoker]

It's obvious that a lot of these mpg reports are related to driving style, location, load, etc. They're all different, all over the place. What I find interesting and more to the point is the overall ABILITY of the Ranger in achieving great mpg.....nothing to do with the truck at all for those who might be disappointed. I came out of 2 F-150's V6's and no matter what I did, they all averaged about the same. With the Ranter at about 1400 miles on 87, I've been averaging 26.9 city driving here in Florida, heavy traffic, stop and go, My driving style really hasn't changed that much, that I can tell, other than having more of an "awareness" to get the most out of the tank. Regardless, the Ranger at least has the ABILITY to get way better mileage than some have posted on here....from my experience.

 

[BcP28]

Here's a summary of my Ranger in 2019 from my purchase at the end of June through the end of the year; about 10,000 miles so far. For reference, I've got an XLT FX4 with the optional LT Hankook tires. About 7000 miles is just my typical commuting 25 miles each way to work on the freeway, the other 3000 being a trip from Michigan to SoDak for Thanksgiving. The drop-off after 5000 miles is due to some nasty construction that changed my 30min drive each way into an hour and a half crawl. The big dip was driving across SoDak maintaining 85mph against a 30mph headwind.

Overall I've been pretty happy with the fuel economy with the truck. Now that it's winter, I'm not getting quite as good; my current tank is looking like 19mpg, but it's been cold and windy. Still can't complain much as my lifetime average is nearly 21mpg. For Reference, here's the lifetime fuel economy for my 2017 Tacoma driven across pretty much identical conditions. It averaged 18.7mpg; Still good for a truck, but the Ranger definitely has it beat!

 

[R G]

Most likely it's related to engine RPM and not actual speed.
Engine Eff, especially w/ forced air, will have a distinct max Eff based on the engine components used (cam, stroke, type of forced air, etc).
In other words, your engine is running way more efficient at your 60mph RPM vs your 80mph RPM.

To prove it you need to do same trip (miles) at say 50,40,30,20mph.

Seriously, you've never heard of aerodynamics? Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed. The difference in resistance from 60 mph to 80 is dramatic. Fuel use at any given rpm will vary with load. To make up an example, your fuel use turning 2,000 rpm up hill will be way more than the same rpm heading down hill. It is entirely reasonable to expect mileage to decrease with speed, regardless of engine rpm.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Seriously, you've never heard of aerodynamics? Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed. The difference in resistance from 60 mph to 80 is dramatic. Fuel use at any given rpm will vary with load. To make up an example, your fuel use turning 2,000 rpm up hill will be way more than the same rpm heading down hill. It is entirely reasonable to expect mileage to decrease with speed, regardless of engine rpm.

Wind resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity...

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[gwartney]

3500 miles, 75% freeway, 25% city streets. I'm getting 20.9 unfailingly. Sam Rayburn freeway, you can average 75 - 80 mph, never under 70 unless you are stopped. When traffic clogs it up I go miles of stop and go 20 mph. I think I would do better under different circumstances.

 

[RangerCoby]

Getting better the more miles I put on it. I do a lot of interstate driving and love using my adaptive cruise. Lariat Crew Cab FX4. This has never been reset so I'm probably getting slightly better now.

 

[John Lyman]

So I found a problem to getting the best gas mileage especially on weekends. It has to do with that darn turbo and my foot they like each other too much. This truck is fun to drive and can really move when you want it to.

Sponsored