MPG's 4X4 CREW Cab 16 mpg

[Dan]

Seems like everything I see is the FX4 which has the front air dam delite. Wonder how that affects mpg?

Sponsored

 

[rangerdanger]

Seems like everything I see is the FX4 which has the front air dam delite. Wonder how that affects mpg?

Probably pretty poorly.

I calculated that I got around 20 MPG on the highway back from the dealer. Even with a heavy foot on the accelerator that seems low. I’m guessing I should be getting 23 HWY MPG in ideal conditions.

 

[mike]

Link to where they got 16mpg please. Can't find it.

@rangerdanger posted the article.

Here is the exact quote: "We only managed 16 mpg during our boost-filled week with the Ranger. It's likely you'll do better."

They are an enthusiast magazine and had their foot in it. What does one expect?

Plenty of anecdotal evidence on this site supporting a decent mpg if driving in a reasonable manner.

On Fuely a Nissan Rogue averages 23.5 mpg. I routinely average 35 and overall I am averaging 30.5. Drive any car aggressively and mpg drop. Drive them easier and you see the results.

tfl had a recent review that was lame (no shocker) because it was a 1 way test. Bet they would have averaged much better on the return but then then they wouldn't be able to use a clickbait headline with the word "Shocker" in the title.

 

[Desert_5G]

@rangerdanger posted the article.

Here is the exact quote: "We only managed 16 mpg during our boost-filled week with the Ranger. It's likely you'll do better."

They are an enthusiast magazine and had their foot in it. What does one expect?

Plenty of anecdotal evidence on this site supporting a decent mpg if driving in a reasonable manner.

On fully a Nissan Rogue averages 23.5 mpg. I routinely average 35 and overall I am averaging 30.5. Drive any car aggressively and mpg drop. Drive them easier and you see the results.

That tfl review was lame (no shocker) because it was a 1 way test. Bet they would have averaged much better on the return but then then they wouldn't be able to use a clickbait headline with the word "Shocker" in the title.

I don't see how they could have not took into effect their mohab trip. How did they determine how many gallons they used to not include it in the final calculations.

 

[mike]

I don't see how they could have not took into effect their mohab trip. How did they determine how many gallons they used to not include it in the final calculations.

I was talking about this one: https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/02/re...ted-result-after-a-1000-mile-road-trip-video/

The video title is: RANGER MPG SHOCKER

Last paragraph: "After nearly 1,000 miles of measured highway travel and three fill-ups, the final average was 19.5 MPG. This was all highway driving, but we faced an elevation change from sea level to the Rocky Mountains, higher speed limit in Utah (80 MPH), some head wind in Utah, and snow in Colorado."

Wonder what they would have gotten for MPG on the return trip. How much of the trip was 70+? Headwinds are an absolute killer. etc, etc.

 

[FX4Offroad]

I'm not sure, but...when the EPA calculates MPG, aren't there specific guidelines that must be followed? I would hope there are, so everyone tests under the same rules...highway speed specifically.

That review, with elevation changes, 80 mph speeds, up hills etc...seems ridiculous. This test were under the worst conditions for optimal mpgs. I can't believe anyone would take this test seriously. ANY VEHICLE tested under these conditions would also suffer lower mpgs then rated. Ridiculous. If that's how they tested it, how do they test other vehicles...cars, trucks.

In my opinion, that test it completely unusable.

 

[kep]

I was talking about this one: https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/02/re...ted-result-after-a-1000-mile-road-trip-video/

The video title is: RANGER MPG SHOCKER

Last paragraph: "After nearly 1,000 miles of measured highway travel and three fill-ups, the final average was 19.5 MPG. This was all highway driving, but we faced an elevation change from sea level to the Rocky Mountains, higher speed limit in Utah (80 MPH), some head wind in Utah, and snow in Colorado."

Wonder what they would have gotten for MPG on the return trip. How much of the trip was 70+? Headwinds are an absolute killer. etc, etc.

Yep, I have found driving into a head wind at 80 down the interstate I can drive my mpg down to 13.5.

 

[2.7EcoBoost]

TFLTRUCK (Video on YouTube) did an 1100 mile trip, highway, average was 19.5 mpg. Car and Driver got 16.

Damn, think Ford is in trouble.

TFL was a 1,000 mile trip, doing 80 mph in places with high cross winds, climbing in elevation and during some snow. Those are not the conditions Ford or the epa test under. As someone else said, C&D always get an observed mpg that's lower. They are doing performance runs etc. I have not driven one, but I was disappointed that the 2.7 wasn't used. While the 2.3 may get better controlled test numbers, I think the 2.7 would have gotten better real world numbers for most people because it would not have required as much throttle to get the job done, thus keeping the turbos from spooling up and working as hard as the 2.3. The fact that the 2.7 would have crushed every one else in the process would have just been icing on the cake. .

 

[rangerdanger]

I’m getting around 18 average MPG in my FX4 with a heavy foot. I do more than 50% city driving here in San Francisco.

I don’t know how TFL only got 16 MPG.

 

[t4thfavor]

My XLT FX4 is still averaging 21.6 after 1500 miles, I didn't hand calculate the last tank, and there was some furniture hauling last weekend, so it might be a little lower. I drive 108 miles (work round trip) from rural Michigan to the Detroit Metro area, and it's mostly city traffic. It's performing exactly how I expected it to. Like someone else said, it's eco or boost, pick one. It also helps if you don't take too long to accelerate as you stay in boost much more, and that seems to sap MPG's.

 

[rduvall]

TFL was a 1,000 mile trip, doing 80 mph in places with high cross winds, climbing in elevation and during some snow. Those are not the conditions Ford or the epa test under. As someone else said, C&D always get an observed mpg that's lower. They are doing performance runs etc. I have not driven one, but I was disappointed that the 2.7 wasn't used. While the 2.3 may get better controlled test numbers, I think the 2.7 would have gotten better real world numbers for most people because it would not have required as much throttle to get the job done, thus keeping the turbos from spooling up and working as hard as the 2.3. The fact that the 2.7 would have crushed every one else in the process would have just been icing on the cake. .

There is no 2.7L option in the Ranger. It is 2.3L only.

 

[Robert Jay]

I just read the article in March 2019 Car and Driver Magazine and they said they only got 16 mpg on their test Ranger??????

I an getting 15.4 around town stop sign to stop sign and I have a 4X2 in my first couple hundred miles and I only boosted it twice. Hope the highway does better.

Sadly I actually got better gas mileage with my 2018 mustang GT that I traded for the Ranger. Go figure when from Philly to Atlantic City on cruise at 72mph and got...29 mpg.

 

[SteveT]

I agree with Pioneer74. Turbocharging is a great solution to the old performance/economy dilemma. Light on the throttle, better MPG, heavy on the throttle, better acceleration. But there's still no Santa Claus. As a pilot, I kind of liken it to afterburner. Light that thing and WHOOPEE! But there better be a tanker overhead somewhere. I suspect the C&D testers were not gentle. I'll reserve judgment until I get mine.

 

[Strokerduster]

I agree with Pioneer74. Turbocharging is a great solution to the old performance/economy dilemma. Light on the throttle, better MPG, heavy on the throttle, better acceleration. But there's still no Santa Claus. As a pilot, I kind of liken it to afterburner. Light that thing and WHOOPEE! But there better be a tanker overhead somewhere. I suspect the C&D testers were not gentle. I'll reserve judgment until I get mine.

If I remember correctly, an F4 has less than 15 minutes worth of fuel when full, if you were to stay in burner.

 

[t4thfavor]

I an getting 15.4 around town stop sign to stop sign and I have a 4X2 in my first couple hundred miles and I only boosted it twice. Hope the highway does better.

Sadly I actually got better gas mileage with my 2018 mustang GT that I traded for the Ranger. Go figure when from Philly to Atlantic City on cruise at 72mph and got...29 mpg.

This engine is on boost at 1800 RPM or less, saying you only boosted twice and you're getting 15.x mpg on a 2WD truck makes me think that you're either expecting boost at higher RPM only, or your truck is terribly broken.

Sponsored