With Chevy releasing the very disappointing EPA numbers for the Silverado 2.7 4cyl (20/23 for a 2wd), it's really making me wonder what the Ranger will come in at. While we don't know the curb weight of the truck, somewhere around 4,500lbs for a SuperCrew 4x4 should be close. I personally think anything less than a +2 city/hwy compared to a 2.7 F-150 4x4 (19/24) will be a huge letdown. In other words 21/26 for a 4x4 Ranger. I really could see this truck getting the same 19/24 as the F-150 or like 20/24, just because of the little 2.3 having to work harder. I know 2 mpg isn't much, but the 2.7 would make this truck change the rules, so if the 2.3 doesn't beat the 2.7 numbers handily, I for one will be a bit disappointed.

 

I just rented a 2.3 mustang convertible, I drove it in sport mode only and was very heavy on the throttle. It was 100-115F so I left it running with the remote start / A/C on a lot and still managed to pull 20.5 mpg with it. I was very impressed! No telling what it will do in the Ranger but I have a feeling it will be pretty competitive!

 

I think the engine is going to be a work horse and a force to be reckoned with in that capacity. I do also feel that MPG's will be dismal and uninspiring at best once this engine is working hard. One only needs to look at the 3.5L eco to verify my comments. It's an amazing engine and it does well on MPG's when it's cruising but as soon as you latch something on to it, she's burning some fuel.

The way Ford was able to kind of get away with the 3.5L being thirsty while working is the 3.5L replaced the 5.4L V-8 and MPG's for the two were compared by Ford. The 3.5L did and does better than the 5.4L. However, the 2.3L has no other siblings to compare to for the class of truck that it's going in. I think people will be disappointed with the fuel economy because people buy truck to pull 50,000 pounds and achieve 40 MPG's doing it.

 

 

The '18 2.3 EB Explorer AWD is 18/25 and 2WD is 19/27, both with a 6 speed automatic. Explorer is probably heavier than a base Ranger but Ranger Supercab will probably be the same as the Explorer, aerodynamics are probably a bit better on the Explorer. Tires on the Ranger may be a bit larger and heavier and gearing might be stiffer for towing.

The 10 speed auto will help mileage, so I'll guess equal to the 2.3 Explorer for now.

 

Based upon other similar vehicles already on the market, my prediction is EPA rating of 20 city/22 combined/24 highway for the 4x4. In the real world, it'll achieve less because almost all the EcoBoost engines miss the target.

 

Just for clarity, who's target are these engines missing?

 

Looks like an unofficial leak of a window sticker has the 2wd Ranger at 21/26 combined 23. That likely leaves the 4wd right around the same 19/24 as the 4x4 F-150, which is what I expected, but was hoping I was wrong. I'm seriously disappointed. Ford got out of the compact segment because of this thinking. You build a smaller truck that is in the same price range and it offers no significant advantage except "just right sizing". Wash rinse repeat. The new Jeep pick up, which I'm not a fan of the Wrangler look, will be the most thought out of all the mid sized players. All Ford has done with this new Ranger is offer loyal (Ford people) F-150 buyers a smaller alternative, which ironically is what they wanted to avoid. With the 2.7 EB it would have pulled buyers from Toyota/GM because of it's killer performance. The 2.3 can't do that on it's own. I also expect the 2.3 to suffer in real world mpg, especially towing anywhere near the max 7,500lbs, again a fate the 2.7 wouldn't have suffered. To me, the 2.3 EB in a Ranger is very much like putting the 2.3 EB in the F-150 since there's likely only about 300lbs difference. Ford totally blew this one.

 

As I said in a post above, I figured the Ranger would come in around the same place as an Explorer with the 2.3. The 4WD Explorer is 18/25 which falls right around your expectations. A Lincoln MKC, which is an ESCAPE, is rated at 18/26 with the 2.3 Ecoboost.

In the real world, a gently driven Ranger will get better mileage than a gently driven F-150. Put 35" mudder tires and lift kits on either and mileage will go way down. Pull a trailer and mileage will go way down. Drive with your foot in the turbos and your mileage will go way down.

20 mpg used to be compact car mileage, so expecting 30 mpg from any pickup truck is just unrealistic. Pickup trucks used to get 12-15 mpg regardless of engine back in the 1970's so things have definitely changed for the better.

Too bad Ford doesn't employ you as an engineer who could figure out how to get 30 mpg out of the 2.7 Ecoboost... Do you think Ford is secretly putting 500 lbs of concrete in body crevices to sabotage their gas mileage? Or programming the brakes to drag all the time?

 

 

As defensive as you got, maybe you are a Ford engineer? 30 mpg? Ford is the one marketing the 2.3 as a way to achieve this great fuel mileage. Reality is, it's not much better than an F-150 2.7 EB. I'm using common sense, which, I know, isn't real common anymore, but I'd assume that the same powertrain in a 200-400 lb (?) lighter vehicle would achieve AT LEAST the same mpg. Didn't realize Ford would need me as an engineer to figure that out. I guess, by your logic, they clearly do. I'll quote myself: "I personally think anything less than a +2 city/hwy compared to a 2.7 F-150 4x4 (19/24) will be a huge letdown. In other words 21/26 for a 4x4 Ranger. I really could see this truck getting the same 19/24 as the F-150 or like 20/24, just because of the little 2.3 having to work harder. I know 2 mpg isn't much, but the 2.7 would make this truck change the rules, so if the 2.3 doesn't beat the 2.7 numbers handily, I for one will be a bit disappointed."

Every other know it all "point" you tried to make will be much more evident with the 2.3 as opposed to the 2.7. I.E. 35" tires, towing, putting weight in to sabotage ?? etc... I can't even understand your post, it makes that little of sense. Had I said something like anything you came at me with, I'd be okay with it. You are throwing Escape references. I am posting realistic expectations based off of my own personal experience with a 2.7 4x4 F-150 and the updated 2.7 w/10 speed which the Ranger could/would share. The 2.3 will be a comparable and capable class option. The 2.7 would have changed the class. The 2.3 will offer no real world benefit over a 2.7. Ford blew it! Period. In my opinion, GM will likely flop with it's 2.7 4cyl in the Silverado so it will likely make it's way to the Colorado/Canyon and one up Ford's 2.3. Maybe, just maybe, we'll then get the 2.7 EB as an option.

 

 

 

I am not a Ford engineer (although I know a number of them here in the Detroit area), but real world gas mileage has very little to do with EPA estimates.

If you prefer your F-150 to the new Ranger for fuel economy or performance purposes, keep driving it. If you really want to get all emotional and upset over Ford's best efforts at LABEL gas mileage which does not meet your artificial standards, that's your choice. Your first post said you would be a "little disappointed", then you went to "seriously disappointed" and now you are in "huge letdown" mode. It'll be OK, honest

The Ranger will not be a disappointment to many people with regard to fuel mileage--in the real world, depreciation is far more expensive than gasoline in the first few years of owning a vehicle. AWD compact and mid-sized sport utes often get 20-25 mpg, and the Ranger is larger and heavier than they are, so why would you expect some kind of magic from one? I brought up the Explorer and MKC (Escape with lipstick) because they have the 2.3 Ecoboost engine.

For fun, here are the 2011 Ford Ranger fuel economy numbers: https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/...d_Ranger.shtml

The new Bronco is rumored to be getting the 2.7EB so it's likely that the Ranger will get it in a year or two also.

Have a good Thanksgiving; it's not worth that much effort discussing a truck that has not yet hit dealer showrooms.

 

Again, I know what a 2.7 F-150 4X4 (with a 6spd) will do in this real world you keep referring to. That has been my whole point. The 2.3 will likely do no better or possibly worse in the real world. Is that your view also as to why it's a better choice? That the 2.3 will not do worse in the real world than it's ho hum epa figures? The EPA test numbers are not hard to achieve in my F-150. I average 19-20 mpg in combined driving, have achieved 24.7 mpg on vacation trips down the east coast and just over 23 mpg on the trip back, hand calculated. My EPA for my truck is 18/23. Seeing the EPA numbers are a controlled test it is fair to compare F-150 2.7 numbers to the Ranger 2.3 numbers. Common sense would say that a 2.7 will require less work and probably no more fuel to tow 7,500 lbs, I'd bet it would use less. You want to be a funny guy .........I get it...... "If you really want to get all emotional and upset over Ford's best efforts at LABEL gas mileage which does not meet your artificial standards, that's your choice. Your first post said you would be a "little disappointed", then you went to "seriously disappointed" and now you are in "huge letdown" mode. It'll be OK, honest "

I am seriously disappointed that the 2.3 is the only option, although not emotional and/or upset that the 2.3 offers no real world advantage over the 2.7, that's kinda what I figured in my first post, which does upset me a bit. I was hoping that Ford had a good reason to offer it over the 2.7 and the only "good" reason would be significant mileage increase which it failed at. We all guessed it would be in this range, but some of us were optimistic that Ford had a trick up it's sleeve. Maybe it's a capacity issue or a future plan to keep the Ranger fresh as to why no 2.7? I will be in the market for a mid sized truck next summer. I love my F-150 and especially the 2.7. I am just enamored by the damn thing. I am tired of the size. I bought the F-150 because I am a Ford guy. I am not paying $40k for any new mid sized truck to get adequate performance with the same mpg as my much funner and more capable F-150. So if Ford is in the business of selling trucks and meeting customers demands, a.k.a. artificial standards, then they failed me as a consumer. I'll probably buy a gently used mid size for about $20k instead.