Horrible MPG's

Mick Carlson

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mick
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
47
Reaction score
89
Location
Southeastern Washington
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT
So I’m getting around 25 mpg with my truck. Very happy with those numbers. It’s very comfortable on the highway and I have no complaints. And it’s a truck. Thank you Ford!
Sponsored

 

RoadBoss

Well-Known Member
First Name
Travis
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
484
Reaction score
755
Location
Lakewood, CO
Website
www.TJAoutfitters.com
Vehicle(s)
95 Isuzu trooper, AE86 corolla, 19 ranger XL
Occupation
video/film, small business owner
Has anyone in the higher altitude states used 85? I know the book says don't use anything less than 87, but at 5000+ft, I'd imaging 85 would be fine. Unless the turbo is "normalized" and will boost up to Sea level pressure.

I ran 85 for the first three tanks through my ranger. Didn't notice any issues with it at all, also got 24.5 mpg going from Gunnison to Denver, on which I broke 1000 miles on the truck (I'm now at around 1800 miles).

The last two tanks I've been on 91 octane, just to see the difference. It's pretty hard to tell, tbh. first tank on 91 didn't really do any better on fuel mileage, the current tank I'm doing much better though, and averaged 27.5 coming from castlerock to my house in lakewood, about 30 miles on the highway and 5 miles city driving, though I was driving very cautiously. I'll probably switch back to 85 on the next tank and see if anything gets worse. I don't have enough consistencies in my driving patterns yet to really determine much though.

also my gauge has consistently been reading about .5 mpg higher than hand calculated numbers.
 

Birdheezy

Member
First Name
Owen
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
12
Reaction score
3
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2019 ranger, 4 door
I ran 85 for the first three tanks through my ranger. Didn't notice any issues with it at all, also got 24.5 mpg going from Gunnison to Denver, on which I broke 1000 miles on the truck (I'm now at around 1800 miles).

The last two tanks I've been on 91 octane, just to see the difference. It's pretty hard to tell, tbh. first tank on 91 didn't really do any better on fuel mileage, the current tank I'm doing much better though, and averaged 27.5 coming from castlerock to my house in lakewood, about 30 miles on the highway and 5 miles city driving, though I was driving very cautiously. I'll probably switch back to 85 on the next tank and see if anything gets worse. I don't have enough consistencies in my driving patterns yet to really determine much though.

also my gauge has consistently been reading about .5 mpg higher than hand calculated numbers.
I'm in lakewood too actually. I've been using 87 just because but I think I'll switch to 85. My brother has an F150 and uses 85 and hasn't had an issue. Not that these engines are the same...
 

Jerry Caldwell

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jerry
Joined
May 18, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
227
Reaction score
238
Location
Granbury, TX
Vehicle(s)
Ranger Lariat
Occupation
Retired Architect
Turbocharging makes the engine run hotter and with higher compression, which can lead to premature ignition (pinging). Strategies to avoid that (and potential engine damage) include retarding the timing (which reduces power) or running rich (basically using extra gas to cool the cylinder). A higher octane fuel may be able to delay or avoid those mitigations and get better mpg.

Whether there is a noticable effect depends on how you're driving, and whether there's an economic improvement in mpg depends on the relative prices for different fuel grades.
Turbo charging has nothing to do with higher compression. A turbo charged engine actually has lower compression than a naturally aspirated engine.
 

BabyTruck

Active Member
First Name
Sharon
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
32
Reaction score
14
Location
Sonora CA
Vehicle(s)
‘19 Lariat, 501A, FX4, tow, Magnetic Metallic, chrome grill, Truck Cover USA, LineX Bedliner
Occupation
Retired
I'm a conservative driver, and I only get 18.9 highway, and 18.3 combined. VERY disappointed.
 


VAMike

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Threads
1
Messages
3,270
Reaction score
4,145
Location
Virginia
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger Lariat SuperCab
Turbo charging has nothing to do with higher compression. A turbo charged engine actually has lower compression than a naturally aspirated engine.
The compression by the piston is lower, but the air is also compressed by the turbo so the total amount of air compression is higher. Pulling back on the piston compression is actually another one of the mechanisms that's employed to prevent preignition in the gas DI. (Compare to diesel DIs which have compression ratios like 15-20:1 vs 8-11:1.)
 

Cape Cruiser

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bret
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
1,077
Reaction score
2,955
Location
Southern Delaware
Vehicle(s)
31 Ford-20 Ranger Lariat FX4- 19 Ranger Lariat 4x2
Occupation
retired mechanic
Turbo charging has nothing to do with higher compression. A turbo charged engine actually has lower compression than a naturally aspirated engine.
I do believe static compression is low but dynamic compression is very high due to boost
 

TexTazManiac

Active Member
First Name
Peter
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Threads
1
Messages
29
Reaction score
21
Location
Houston
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger, 2015 Ford F150 King Ranch, 2013 Lincoln MKX, 1977 Datsun 280Z, Various Can Am 'Toys', Mahindra Tractor
I am running 285/70/17 BF Goodrich KO 2's, have Auto Stop/Start turned off, drive pretty aggressively and suffer Houston rush hour traffic during the week. Am averaging between 19-21. Friday evenings, I do a 125 mile drive to the farm (speeds range between 65 and 80) and I average 23 mpg... I have 1500 miles on my truck

The only time I've seen 16 was during the first 200 miles and then I've noticed my MPG is increasing slowly as the truck continues to break in. I drive pretty aggressively, but have not done a WOT run just yet. Waiting for 3000. I know, I know, may be too OCD, but want to keep this machine for a long time. And am learning the whole turbo thing.
 
Last edited:

svache

Well-Known Member
First Name
JJ
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Threads
2
Messages
254
Reaction score
311
Location
Oahu
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger Lariat SuperCrew Saber, 2012 BMW 328i
Vehicle Showcase
1
I didn't get great numbers previously, but it seems now that I've passed 2.5k miles I'm more often/quicker in higher RPMs. Currently, for my current tank, at which I'm about half a tank down, I'm currently at 16.9 MPG.

But.. there's a lot of idling, lots of AC use, hills, traffic etc, all that on top of my heavy feet and quick reaction at the lights lol

Oh, and it's pretty much all city driving, very little freeway.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Caldwell

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jerry
Joined
May 18, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
227
Reaction score
238
Location
Granbury, TX
Vehicle(s)
Ranger Lariat
Occupation
Retired Architect
The compression by the piston is lower, but the air is also compressed by the turbo so the total amount of air compression is higher. Pulling back on the piston compression is actually another one of the mechanisms that's employed to prevent preignition in the gas DI. (Compare to diesel DIs which have compression ratios like 15-20:1 vs 8-11:1.)
I guess we disagree on the definition of compression. Boost only increases the air charge and amount of fuel before compression begins.
 

Cerwin D. Vega

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
161
Reaction score
172
Location
Valle De Oro Texas
Vehicle(s)
Ranger XLT 4x4
First full tank back on original wheels and tires with couple of highway trips maybe.4 of tank, hand calculated 26.5 mpg.

So i cannot complain about that.
Sponsored

 
 



Top