Notices
2019 Ranger Everything about the new 2019 Ford Ranger.

2.3 MPG Predictions/expectations??

 
  #16  
Old 11-21-2018, 07:43 PM
YoGeorge
YoGeorge is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,236
YoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud of
I think we need to wait for some real-world reports to see how the 2.3 will do in the Ranger. Your 2.7 mileage sounds spectacular and I'll bet you drive at 60 mph to get that kind of freeway mileage. In my experience, Fords have usually not hit their label freeway mileage, which is probably 10 or so Ford cars and trucks over the years.

Discussing label mpg is not that worthwhile so let's wait and see what real-world numbers are.
 
  #17  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:06 PM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is online now
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 29,369
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
21/26 is right in line with the rest of the gasoline trucks in the same class. But even though I've defended the 2.3L as a good option as a lone engine, i have to also agree that the 2.7L should have been the optional engine. That little six would not only made the truck come alive but it would easily achieve the same or similar MPG's as the 2.3L.

My 5600 LB 2011 truck is now considered old and outdated as it's all steel, has the Gen 1 3.5L Eco and a six speed tranny. with 88K+ on the clock, I'm still getting 22.x on the freeway. So, if at best I'll achieve only 2-4 MPG's more in the Ranger than I might as well stay put and run the wheels off what I have.

At this point, Ford really hasn't given me a good reason to come out of my long ago paid for 2011 truck and down grade to a Ranger or side step to an other F-150. I have to wonder if Ford just plateaued (performance wise) during the 2009-2014 generation.
 
  #18  
Old 11-22-2018, 11:32 AM
YoGeorge
YoGeorge is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,236
YoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud of
Tim, I believe that getting your excellent 22 mpg out of a 3.5 Ecoboost takes slow speeds. Most people I know are happy to get 18-20 mpg with that generation of truck/engine. And that is still really good by historic standards. I would hope that this is an average of actual measured tanks, over a number of tankfuls. People lie about fuel mileage as much as they lie about how fast their car/truck can go. And those lies change depending on how much they like their car/truck.

I know my '02 E150 4.6 averaged 16.05 mpg over 129k miles, every single tank and mile measured. My Grand Caravan is at 22.1 over 28k miles, again measured over every tank and every mile. In my mind, these are solid and comparable gas mileage readings. I tend not to believe gas mileage claims on forums unless they are qualified as being multiple tanks over many miles. Single readings of fuel economy are rarely accurate. And anything that the lie-o-meter tells you (any brand vehicle) seems to be exaggerated by 5-15% over actual fill/calculate numbers.

It is NEVER worth selling your old truck and getting into the depreciation of a new truck for gas mileage unless your old one gets 10 mpg or something. If you crunch some numbers, going from 22 to 26 mpg, for instance, is gonna save you a few hundred bucks a year on gas and for that you pick up a couple thousand bucks of additional annual depreciation. And probably a few hundred bucks of year in loan interest. Of course, there are other reasons to want a newer vehicle such as dependability and more safety equipment (adaptive cruise, pre-emptive braking, lane keeping systems) but all of this adds complexity. And new trucks may also have stuff I would not want, like engine shutoff at red lights, etc. But if the safety equipment saves your life just once, it's worth it.

28k miles on my GC used almost exactly 500 fewer gallons of fuel than 28k miles on my E150--going from 16 to 22 mpg. That's $1500 or so over 2.5 years. In that time, the GC has depreciated some $8000 and my E150 would have maybe depreciated by a grand or something...(but add repairs to that).

Happy Thanksgiving to all; I was just watching the Detroit Thanksgiving Parade on TV and they had a 2019 Ranger (along with a Mustang and an Edge ST) in the procession

George
 
  #19  
Old 11-23-2018, 05:35 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is online now
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 29,369
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by YoGeorge View Post
Tim, I believe that getting your excellent 22 mpg out of a 3.5 Ecoboost takes slow speeds. Most people I know are happy to get 18-20 mpg with that generation of truck/engine. And that is still really good by historic standards. I would hope that this is an average of actual measured tanks, over a number of tankfuls. People lie about fuel mileage as much as they lie about how fast their car/truck can go. And those lies change depending on how much they like their car/truck.

I know my '02 E150 4.6 averaged 16.05 mpg over 129k miles, every single tank and mile measured. My Grand Caravan is at 22.1 over 28k miles, again measured over every tank and every mile. In my mind, these are solid and comparable gas mileage readings. I tend not to believe gas mileage claims on forums unless they are qualified as being multiple tanks over many miles. Single readings of fuel economy are rarely accurate. And anything that the lie-o-meter tells you (any brand vehicle) seems to be exaggerated by 5-15% over actual fill/calculate numbers.

It is NEVER worth selling your old truck and getting into the depreciation of a new truck for gas mileage unless your old one gets 10 mpg or something. If you crunch some numbers, going from 22 to 26 mpg, for instance, is gonna save you a few hundred bucks a year on gas and for that you pick up a couple thousand bucks of additional annual depreciation. And probably a few hundred bucks of year in loan interest. Of course, there are other reasons to want a newer vehicle such as dependability and more safety equipment (adaptive cruise, pre-emptive braking, lane keeping systems) but all of this adds complexity. And new trucks may also have stuff I would not want, like engine shutoff at red lights, etc. But if the safety equipment saves your life just once, it's worth it.

28k miles on my GC used almost exactly 500 fewer gallons of fuel than 28k miles on my E150--going from 16 to 22 mpg. That's $1500 or so over 2.5 years. In that time, the GC has depreciated some $8000 and my E150 would have maybe depreciated by a grand or something...(but add repairs to that).

Happy Thanksgiving to all; I was just watching the Detroit Thanksgiving Parade on TV and they had a 2019 Ranger (along with a Mustang and an Edge ST) in the procession

George
I appreciate your input George. But consider this if you will; During the generation of trucks that preceded the beginning of the ecoboost (2011), you had to equip a truck with the 3.73 LS axle in order to achieve the maximum tow rating. This combination causes an Ecoboost to consume fuel like no one's business, however, it's a tow monster for certain.

When I was shopping for my truck, I noticed immediately that it had 3.31 axles which is the tallest axle that can be had in a 4x4 truck from Ford. I was concerned so I called two guys that I know who own diesels, 1 Ford and 1 Chevy. They both stated that the 3.31 truck will perform well above my needs and what I intend to do with the truck.

On all occasions with the stock tires that came on it, I was easily pulling down 22 MPG's on a longer trip at 65-70. Now, the ecoboost is very sensitive engine and when you change tire size or even aggressiveness, MPG's suffer. I've lost 2 MPG's on average. My daily commute is 16 miles, approx. half freeway and half in town. Every day of the week that I drive to work I'm getting about 17.5 based on hand calculated fill up after fill up and that's with the 265-70-17 all terrain tires that are on it now.

I have the best of both worlds in a truck. I'm rated to pull 9200 pounds, she had a 1600 pound pay load and the truck is a 7200 pound package which makes it the lightest duty F-150 that Ford builds. The difference is that I recognized my needs and I didn't take a testosterone pill before I went truck shopping.

So, 88K miles later, the truck looks and runs better than I ever anticipated. I think I'll stay put for a bit.
 
  #20  
Old 11-23-2018, 10:01 AM
YoGeorge
YoGeorge is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,236
YoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud of
You're doing very well with your truck, Tim. Even though you're down in MPG, your cost per mile at this point is very low compared to getting into almost any new vehicle--depreciation costs more than gasoline for a number of years after buying anything new.

Increasing the number of gears in a transmission allows taller axle gearing which is good for gas mileage, while still giving good grunt to move off a stop. There will always be the guys who think their truck has a testosterone problem because it needs to downshift on an uphill while pulling a load, but having 6 or 10 speeds in a transmission allows for optimizing RPM's...transmissions are all approaching CVT's which have infinite gear choices within their range of ratios.

I think you are helping me make my point about how "fragile" a couple mpg's can be....change to all terrain tires and lose 2 mpg. Ford even has separate EPA gas mileage ratings (lower) for F150's equipped with LT tires. The more testosterone you put into wheel/tire choices, the lower your gas mileage will go
 
  #21  
Old 11-23-2018, 12:15 PM
Dakster's Avatar
Dakster
Dakster is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,706
Dakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputation
Ford would have to put in a diesel to get real good MPG's out of the ranger and we wouldn't like driving it. It'd be tuned for miles per gallon and not smiles per gallon. And of course add $8k to the price. I don't like the smaller diesel motors in 1/4 to 1/2 tons from the factory so far. (Colorado or Ram - haven't driven an F150 diesel yet)

As my kids get older and go off to college my need for a F350, crew cab, starts to diminish and I'd also like a smaller, easier to park truck. Keeping my eyes open for that next truck...
 
  #22  
Old 11-24-2018, 05:30 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is online now
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 29,369
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by Dakster View Post
Ford would have to put in a diesel to get real good MPG's out of the ranger and we wouldn't like driving it. It'd be tuned for miles per gallon and not smiles per gallon. And of course add $8k to the price. I don't like the smaller diesel motors in 1/4 to 1/2 tons from the factory so far. (Colorado or Ram - haven't driven an F150 diesel yet)

As my kids get older and go off to college my need for a F350, crew cab, starts to diminish and I'd also like a smaller, easier to park truck. Keeping my eyes open for that next truck...

I just visited the Chevy site to check out the Colorado. Now I need a bath! But, in certain configurations the 2.8L diesel is available and is advertised as achieving 20/30 with the four banger. 2.8L is actually a good sized 4 cylinder so it should be a pretty stout engine especially in the lighter duty truck.

The 3.0L in the F-150 is about $3300.00 extra and a fella on the F-150 who recently bought one is advertising 27 in town with his with only 3300 miles on the clock. I'm having a hard time wondering why the 3.0L wouldn't fit in the Ranger.
 
  #23  
Old 11-24-2018, 02:39 PM
Dakster's Avatar
Dakster
Dakster is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,706
Dakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputation
Drive a diesel Colorado and get back to me... You also need to drive the 6 cyl. gas one at the same visit to the dealer.

I don't know why the 3.0L wouldn't fit the ranger - I bet it's a cost to Ford for putting it in it, thing. Beside the R&D to get it in, including a DEF tank - they gotta EPA test it and crash a few... Bean counters say it doesn't pencil out. Just a guess... I like more rather than less options.

My second thought is that the new platforms the auto manufacturers are coming out with need to have the future ability of hybrid or battery only capabilities to them. Ranger so far, to me, on the surface appears to be an Americanized version of one already produced.

Just my random thoughts...
 
  #24  
Old 11-24-2018, 04:21 PM
YoGeorge
YoGeorge is offline
Postmaster
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,236
YoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud ofYoGeorge has much to be proud of
The Ranger comes with 2.0 and 2.2 liter 4-cyl diesels and a 3.2 5-cyl diesel in other markets. Especially with the worldwide mix of LHD and RHD vehicles, Ford may center the engine more than in the big trucks, where the engine is kicked over to the right hand side in the US. The 2.0 diesel with a stick would be a fuel mileage king for sure, but would not work in the US market.

The new 3.0 V6 in the F150 weighs 500+ lbs and might be a bit heavy for the Ranger, or might overwhelm the drivetrain with 450 lb ft of torque(?) I also think the 3.0 is pretty wide, maybe much wider than the 2.7 Ecoboost.

The 3.2 inline 5 cyl diesel is in the US in the big Transit vans, so it might be able to fit in the Ranger easier(?) I believe torque is ~350 lb ft, definitely plenty for the Ranger.

I know the 3.0 V6 is an adaptation of a Land Rover engine, so it might be really expensive if built in Europe; not sure if the 3.2 I5 is cheaper. I am guessing both of these are made in Europe.

With the smog controls on light trucks in the US, diesels are not as much of an advantage as they would be in the old days. I am thinking that hybrid gas vehicles will be much more common than diesels in the long term in the US.
 
  #25  
Old 11-24-2018, 09:10 PM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is online now
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 29,369
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by Dakster View Post
Drive a diesel Colorado and get back to me... You also need to drive the 6 cyl. gas one at the same visit to the dealer.

I don't know why the 3.0L wouldn't fit the ranger - I bet it's a cost to Ford for putting it in it, thing. Beside the R&D to get it in, including a DEF tank - they gotta EPA test it and crash a few... Bean counters say it doesn't pencil out. Just a guess... I like more rather than less options.

My second thought is that the new platforms the auto manufacturers are coming out with need to have the future ability of hybrid or battery only capabilities to them. Ranger so far, to me, on the surface appears to be an Americanized version of one already produced.

Just my random thoughts...
Have you driven one or both? Just wondering, almost seems like a dare. As far as appearance is concerned, i think that GM hit a homer with the little GMC. It's a great looking truck whereas for right now, the Ranger is kind of just OK.
 
  #26  
Old 11-24-2018, 09:38 PM
Dakster's Avatar
Dakster
Dakster is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,706
Dakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputation
I have driven them both which is why I said that. In fact, I was contemplating while I bought a house of leasing a Chevy Colorado WT so I could qualify for the note. I would tell you why, but I don't want to bias you. I tried to lease a Ford but they don't lease well. And the Ram dealer thinks he has gold plated trucks.

I'd would drive a Ranger at an event, but there is no event remotely near me... Manufacturers generally don't come to Alaska to showcase vehicles. In fact, we don't even have all bands of dealers in this state.

P.S. I know this is a Ford site, but it doesn't mean that I don't look at everything out there and that I don't have other brands in the household.
 
  #27  
Old 11-25-2018, 04:47 AM
tseekins's Avatar
tseekins
tseekins is online now
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Maine, Virginia
Posts: 29,369
tseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputationtseekins has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by Dakster View Post
I have driven them both which is why I said that. In fact, I was contemplating while I bought a house of leasing a Chevy Colorado WT so I could qualify for the note. I would tell you why, but I don't want to bias you. I tried to lease a Ford but they don't lease well. And the Ram dealer thinks he has gold plated trucks.

I'd would drive a Ranger at an event, but there is no event remotely near me... Manufacturers generally don't come to Alaska to showcase vehicles. In fact, we don't even have all bands of dealers in this state.

P.S. I know this is a Ford site, but it doesn't mean that I don't look at everything out there and that I don't have other brands in the household.
I would love for you to share your thoughts on the test drives. This is an open minded and polite forum that attracts all opinions and facts. I can assure you that Ford has to earn my business each time I buy.
 
  #28  
Old 11-25-2018, 01:52 PM
Dakster's Avatar
Dakster
Dakster is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,706
Dakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputation
Yeah, Tim, this is a pretty good forum which why I have stuck around for so many years. Met in person a few forum members too!

The diesel is 'slow' and its going to be an adjustment going from your EB F150 to it, IMHO... The 6 cyl. one is closer to the power you have with your EB. I'd have to look up claimed 0-60, but they are probably close. The diesel colorado gets you an extra 700 pounds of towing, but you might lose a bit of payload. When we were looking we were replacing the wfie's vehicle and I wasn't looking to get rid of the F350 - so I wasn't looking with those eyes. We were trying to keep her in a car that gets decent mileage, meaning over 20 mpg, real world, her driving conditions. Anything lower than a F350 is gonna ride smoother/different, so it's hard for me to compare your F150. Kinda like when I go inside the 90F store when its -13F out, it feels colder leaving than it did leaving my 65F car...

My one gripe and why we got another SUV over either of the Chevy's was there was no 4A or AWD available on it... Deal breaker, don't want the wife trying to figure out when to use or not use 4WD. TBH, I don't like having to decide myself in the 350. What I did like was that even the entry level Work Truck (WT) had a driver power seat, power locks/windows and Apple Car Play/Android Auto....

Since this stuff is very personal and end user needs for each of us is going to be different... You gotta look and see for yourself. I hope the Ranger gives the Colorado/Canyon a run for it's money. I did check out a couple of rangers while I was in Ireland this summer, but I didn't get to drive one. As much as I wanted to drive the one with a manual in it!
 
  #29  
Old 11-25-2018, 07:34 PM
AlaskanEx's Avatar
AlaskanEx
AlaskanEx is offline
Bleed Ford Blue
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 13,390
AlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputationAlaskanEx has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by Dakster View Post

My one gripe and why we got another SUV over either of the Chevy's was there was no 4A or AWD available on it... Deal breaker, don't want the wife trying to figure out when to use or not use 4WD. TBH, I don't like having to decide myself in the 350.

This is is my biggest issue with the new Ranger myself, we are looking at one to replace my grandfathers 08 AWD (auto 4x4) Explorer Sport Trac which is basically the same size as the new Ranger. Given the way the winters have been the last few years itís not like the old days of leaving it in 4x4 all winter due to all the freeze and thaw events, an Auto 4x4 setting is more important than ever especially for a guy who isnít getting any younger (currently 81).
 
  #30  
Old 11-25-2018, 08:01 PM
Dakster's Avatar
Dakster
Dakster is offline
Post Fiend
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 9,706
Dakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputationDakster has a superb reputation
Russ -- Yeah - you are not kidding about the weird winters here now. Believe it or not I am on my 5th winter here now and I see that. Also that the city doesn't deal with ice all that well. (but that's another story)

All of these vehicles with "Intelligent AWD" in them you'd think that trucks would have them too. I certainly wish my F350 had it, granted I can understand that building one to handle the torque/power of a 6.7L Diesel could be a challenge.

I can understand wanting that for your grandfather. Maybe it will be option? The F150 has 4A as an option.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: