https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/ranger-2-7-lariat-question-here.25360/

[SID]

so the above is suggesting that an all wheel driver ranger with the 2.7 engine will get better gas mileage than the
2.3 with 2wd....um i don't think so sir

Sponsored

 

[Max Crafter]

gas mileage is dependant on many factors as we all know. under standard conditions you can level the playing field.

One thing I can relate as an experience, my uncle used to camp alot with a 5th wheel.
He was in the F250 range of towing capacity. He found he got better mileage with the larger displacement engines because the truck didnt have to work as hard with the higher power. How it worked out unloaded, I dont know.
So, there might be some merit to this guys comment, but again, considering all the factors involved, it may be out of our reach to verify with 100% acuracy how true it is.

 

[Fazzie01]

I've followed that thread and it bugs me how terrible they think the current Ranger's mpgs are. I know it's dependent on how a ranger is equipped and your driving style, but you can't complain about the vehicle getting 15mpg when you lift the truck and put massive offroad tires on it. I get 20 in the city and 26.5 on the highway. The only time I drop below 19-20 during a fuel tank cycle is when I sit in my car for a dinner or two during that week.

I'm looking forward to see what the 2.7 economy is, but I'm pretty happy with the fuel economy of the 5G considering it's only a couple hundred pounds less than the F150.

 

[mtbikernate]

I've followed that thread and it bugs me how terrible they think the current Ranger's mpgs are. I know it's dependent on how a ranger is equipped and your driving style, but you can't complain about the vehicle getting 15mpg when you lift the truck and put massive offroad tires on it. I get 20 in the city and 26.5 on the highway. The only time I drop below 19-20 during a fuel tank cycle is when I sit in my car for a dinner or two during that week.

I'm looking forward to see what the 2.7 economy is, but I'm pretty happy with the fuel economy of the 5G considering it's only a couple hundred pounds less than the F150.

I usually squeeze out better city economy, but otherwise my numbers are close to yours. Sometimes I'm able to go notably farther for highway fuel economy, too. My last 1600mi road trip was about 27.5mpg and my best was over 29mpg over the course of even more miles.

In theory I could see the 2.7 doing a little better but only under circumstances that I don't think most people are going to be abiding by. I think people are going to want to get after it a bit more, so most real world economy is going to be less, especially in the city. Folks easy on the gas pedal could do well enough, though.

 

[Nomadjohn]

It seems to me that most of the comparisons on that thread are 2.7 in the F150 vs the 2.3 in the current gen Ranger though it's hard to say because there is some Bronco stuff in there also. Worth noting in that comparison is that given the volume the F150 sells I suspect Ford does a ton to improve the CAFE reported MPG of that vehicle and at least some of that translates into the real world.

 

[Dunedain Ranger]

I average between 24-26mpg - I calculate manually with every fill-up. I have noticed it gets a bit lower when the temps are in the 40's-50's, but in Florida that's not a big issue - only a few months per year.

 

[hughesjv]

I average between 24-26mpg - I calculate manually with every fill-up. I have noticed it gets a bit lower when the temps are in the 40's-50's, but in Florida that's not a big issue - only a few months per year.

I don't measure with every fill but have let the MPG calculation remain since buying the Ranger brand new. This past Summer, I was at 26.6 overall miles (35K), but this winter was cold, very cold and it took me down to 23.8MPG, so your observation about cold affecting milage is correct). Now that it is getting nicer, I am back up to 24.2MPG but the dealer hurt me as they went through a 1/4 tank of gas testing the climate control replacement. I am not sure I drive enough to get it back to the 26s but we will see.

 

[Radioman]

I don't measure with every fill but have let the MPG calculation remain since buying the Ranger brand new. This past Summer, I was at 26.6 overall miles (35K), but this winter was cold, very cold and it took me down to 23.8MPG, so you observation about cold affecting milage is correct). Now that it is getting nicer, I am back up to 24.2MPG but the dealer hurt me as they went through a 1/4 tank of gas testing the climate control replacement. I am not sure I drive enough to get it back to the 26s but we will see.

Another factor is the different blends of gasoline where the winter blend gives you less miles per gallon.

 

[hughesjv]

Another factor is the different blends of gasoline where the winter blend gives you less miles per gallon.

I thought the same thing but one year we had a refinery issue, and the winter gas came out late but as it got colder, I still noticed a dramatic drop. I also wondered if it is just not the cost of warming the vehicle up. However, on mine you can watch your MPG as you drive and the same hill in the winters shows a lot more under 5MPG times than in the summer which almost never goes under 15MPG. Just my observations and not sure if this is all cars or just the Rangers.

 

[D Fresh]

Did you really just title the thread with a link?

 

[maxbottomtime]

Did you really just title the thread with a link?

He's a beekeeper, what do you expect?


on topic, there are hundreds of threads on gas mileage, but i'm not overly impressed by the ranger which seemingly gets comparable gas mileage to the much larger f150 in certain trims. I average just under 22 with mix of highway & city. Not a granny, but not burning it light to light. I'll be curious to see how they alter the value prop in the new gen, given the price increases, and current F150 offerings.

 

[Gizmokid2005]

Honestly, I would fully expect the 2.7L to get better mileage than a 2.3L of the same config (and honestly probably better than a 2.3L 2WD as well).

I had a 2015 Mustang with the 2.3L and liked to play some mileage games with it, and have subsequently done that with my 2019 Ranger (4x4) as well. Our Rangers suffer enough from a combination of drag/aerodynamics/power requirements that we have a very very different "baseline" cruising engine load than say the Mustang.

For instance, at 75mph on the highway, my mustang would sit between -5 to -10inHg, meaning it was so incredibly underloaded that the engine was hardly working to maintain that speed. Aside from acceleration, that car built boost very very rarely.

At the same time, on the highway, anywhere between 65 and 80mph, my Ranger will sit right around -1inHg to 5psi of boost, consistently. This suggests that the 2.3L in the Ranger is almost slightly undersized for the power requirements it needs. More boost = more fuel = less efficient. My truck even before the 265/70/17s and Eibach ProTruck shocks had similar mannerisms from the factory (though it was slightly better with no lift and stock highway all-season tires).

This, to me, suggests that a 2.7L V6 ecoboost which has more base power, would put the Ranger closer to a power use scenario more similar to the 2.3L Mustang, which should improve mileage. Especially given the mileage, both EPA estimates and real-life, that the F-150 gets with the 2.7L with more drag and more weight.

I'll be interested to see what actually transpires, but I would expect a 2.7L Ranger to be more efficient to an otherwise identical 2.3L Ranger.

 

[AzScorpion]

Not a totally true comparison but my '19 got a little better mileage once I tuned it. With the tune it gives you close to the specs (hp/tq) of the 2.7. Driving it "normal" I saw about a 2 mpg bump up with the Livernois 93 performance tune, 265/70/17 and Eibachs all around. My lifetime average was 22.5 mpg which was almost an even amount of city and highway driving.

Sponsored