Son thought he would get 25 mpg from a 2.3 ecoboost in a 2016 Ford Explorer. Didn't want to use premium gas. Also, never got 25 mpg. If Ford uses this 2.3 ecoboost in the new Ranger their going to have a lot of disappointed owners. I won't be one, because my 2011 Ranger with 4.0 liter V6 is the last Ford I'll ever buy. Dave

 

Explorer weighs approx 4400 to 4900 lbs. not sure what your son has.
The aussie Ranger with 3.2 Diesel engine in 4 door config comes in at about 4400 lbs.
Now a few websites report that the 2016 gets an AVERAGE of about 18 mpg with the lower end hitting on the 2.3 Ecoboost.
This is also with a 6 speed tranny but not sure about all wheel or front wheel drive.

The Ranger will have a 10 spd. Again not sure if this will help or hurt. I do hope they iron the issues out of it that I note in the new F150 trucks.

My wife and I just got a new Honda Civic. 1.5 turbo and CVT transmission. city mpg was 30 and highway 42. I am driving it to work and was able to get 42.3 mpg so does that mean I have an overachiever? Mind you I was also taking it easy trying to get as much mpg as I could. I know driving it as normal Houston traffic gets about 38 mpg. 4 mpg difference. And this is on 87 octane Kroger gas.

My point? Each car is different. Each car is possibly capable of the listed EPA average on the window sticker.

I know that when I get my new Ranger, if it gives me an avg of 19-20 then I'll be happy.

D

 

 

My question to the OP is: Which engine would you choose for the Ranger if you were the decision maker on this project?

I was hoping to see the 3.3L V-6 as the engine of choice initially but the 2.3L packs the power in a smaller package and has proven to be very reliable.

 

For the record, by now everybody knows that you don't buy an EcoBoost for fuel economy. It's been 7 years now that magazines and auto sites have written and vlogged about how there's nothing "eco" about the EcoBoost engines. It's just common sense...the more air you stuff into the cylinders the more fuel you're going to need to keep the stoi ratio where the ECU is happy.

However, even though Ford's EcoBoost engines drink fuel like they're sponsored by OPEC, they DO provide more horsepower and far more torque than any engine in any competitors' trucks. And for that reason alone they will sell a metric ton of these trucks when they hit our dealerships.

 

I have a '17 F150 SCab, 2.7 EB. I am getting about 18.5 mpg over a 4000+ mile series of tanks. My current tank, which is home to work commute only, (11 miles, 2.5 miles streets, balance freeway) is running in the low to mid 17s. This is with a bit of a heavy foot, and acceleration and speeds just a bit ahead of traffic. My Tacoma 2.7 4 cylinder 5 speed MT would get 19.8 IF I drove it like a retired nun on the commute. I know the magazines always get poor mileage, because they drive with both feet on the gas.

We rented a 2.3 EB Mustang--Pasadena to Palm Springs and back, the lie-o-meter showed 31 mpg, with my wife driving in "unrestricted" mode, that is, about 10-15 over with a medium lead foot.

So they are not fuel sippers like a Prius, but driven with a little care they return livable mileage with "sly grin" performance.

FWIW....YMMV

 

First off, these Ecoboost engines need premium fuel for optimal fuel economy, performance, as well as engine life. They also need full synthetic oil. To not use these ingredients, they simply will not return the best fuel economy.
Second, as has been mentioned; the Explorer is a much heavier vehicle than the Ranger is expected to be.
A third key factor is driving style. Please don't take offense sir, but how heavy is your son's right foot? The Ecoboost engines can give you Eco-, or they can give you -Boost; but they're simply not going to do it at the same time. Even Ford's sometimes-brilliant engineers cannot defeat the laws of physics. The more one dips into the throttle, the faster the turbo spins forcing more air into the combustion chamber, thus requiring more fuel to go with it to even out that magic ratio. A turbo-4 simply provides v6 performance and v6 fuel economy out of a smaller package.
So in the case of the Ranger, why isn't Ford simply offering the V6? I think they just want to stay ahead of the curve in terms of technology; and if it gives them a slight edge in EPA ratings, then all the better.

 

False, false, and false. I've owned three EcoBoost-powered vehicles over the last five years, and I take meticulous records for fuel economy and record every tank. I've tried full-synthetic, synthetic blend, and regular dino oil in all of them and have never noticed a difference in fuel economy. Likewise I've tried every grade of gas and noticed the same, virtually no difference in fuel economy. I've even monitored AFRs and noticed no difference, my current 2.0L EB will richen the mixture at 3,500+ RPMs no matter which grade of fuel it's fed. There's a noticeable power difference on higher octane gas, along with a corresponding increase in ignition timing. But fuel economy seems to remain the same.

Don't just take my word for it, you can see my data. Whenever I deviate from 87 octane I put in a note with the grade. Take a look for yourself.

tomb985's Profile | Fuelly

 

I too have tried all different types and tiers of fuel, no change. The ONE thing that changed my fuel economy is when I changed tire size from the P235's that came on my truck to the current stock P265's that I have on it now. I lost two (2) MPG's by going to a larger heavier all terrain tire even though the P265 is a stock tire size for my model and year.

People are going to buy these Rangers and they will modify them. They will lift to silly heights and they will mount stupid big tires on them and then bitch about MPG's. You all mark my words and tell me that I'm wrong.

 

THAT is a sucker bet.

The Ranger I get will get simple mods like the Edge I have now so I can monitor tranny temp and voltage...mebbe mod the shift pattern. Also for sure an aluminum pan with drain plug like I have on my current truck.