2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[docwatson]

Doing 80 mph on winter gas...

I bet at 60 mph you could get 24 mpg.

 

[Todd780]

Doing 80 mph on winter gas...

I bet at 60 mph you could get 24 mpg.

That's still not terribly impressive because I've touched that doing 60 mph on the freeway in my V8 F150....

 

[docwatson]

That's still not terribly impressive because I've touched that doing 60 mph on the freeway in my V8 F150....

I've "touched" 35 mpg on the highway in my 11 year old Pathfinder but that isn't very relevant here, is it?

My point is that doing 80 from California to Utah on winter gas then saying, "we didn't hit the EPA ratings" is a little ridiculous.

Although EPA ratings are mostly ridiculous anyway. Even if they actual test the car its for what 30 miles total on a dyno? I think maybe 3 miles are done over 60 mph. Turbo engines do great on EPA testing because they aren't being demanded of.

I will be interested to hear what this independent investigation finds out.

 

[Todd780]

I've "touched" 35 mpg on the highway in my 11 year old Pathfinder but that isn't very relevant here, is it?

My point is that doing 80 from California to Utah on winter gas then saying, "we didn't hit the EPA ratings" is a little ridiculous.

Although EPA ratings are mostly ridiculous anyway. Even if they actual test the car its for what 30 miles total on a dyno? I think maybe 3 miles are done over 60 mph. Turbo engines do great on EPA testing because they aren't being demanded of.

I will be interested to hear what this independent investigation finds out.

Oh I agree with you that a mileage test performed on winter gas doing 80 isn't very indicative of what the truck should average.

I'm saying getting 24 mpg doing 60 isn't great for a smaller 4cyl truck.

When I say touched that mileage, I've done that quite a few times in the summer as I drive like an 80 year old and my commute is all freeway / hwy. ( I set my cruise at 63 for my 30 mile commute) I *suspect* that I should see higher than 24 in a Ranger. Or, at least I hope I would. (in the summer, freeway commute etc.....)

 

[Martinjmpr]

The reason why Ford put a smaller fuel tank in the trucks is simple. Market research has dictated that a large percentage of the population base the fuel efficiency of their vehicle on "How much it costs to FILL'ER UP!".

So the geniuses at Ford marketing put an 18 gallon tank in, and that way people can brag to their friends about how little it costs to fill it up. Here's a typical conversation you can expect from the unwashed masses at a gas station:

F150 Owner: "Hey, nice Ford ranger you got there!! I was looking at them, how do you like it?"
Ranger Owner: "I love it! It's a sweet ride! Best of all, it only costs $60 bucks to fill it up with a full tank of gas!"
F150 Owner: "No way! $60? Mine costs $120. Geez. I should think about gettin' me one of those rangers!"

Majority of people assume that 1 full tank of gas gets the same distance for every single vehicle. They don't bother to do any math or use critical thinking. I've seen this conversation happen 100's of times, and so have all of you...

I don't think that's the reason, I think it's even simpler than that: Smaller gas tank = less weight when filled = slight increase in MPG. Also easier to design a smaller gas tank because it fits in a smaller space.

Also if you think about it, fuel range is something you really can't discover on a test drive. It's not until you've already bought the vehicle and started making payments that you realize how much it sucks to have to stop every 200 miles for gas on a long trip but by that point it's a done deal.

I was seriously disappointed by the fuel range on my 99 4runner. Great vehicle overall but that 18.5 gallon tank was awful. With an automatic transmission my fuel range rarely exceeded 215 miles before my low fuel light came on. Which was annoying because my previous SUV was a 1st Gen Montero. Now the Montero was not terribly fuel efficient but it made up for it with a 24 gallon tank and when on long road trips, 400 miles was my planned fuel range.

 

[Dalko43]

I've "touched" 35 mpg on the highway in my 11 year old Pathfinder but that isn't very relevant here, is it?

My point is that doing 80 from California to Utah on winter gas then saying, "we didn't hit the EPA ratings" is a little ridiculous.

Although EPA ratings are mostly ridiculous anyway. Even if they actual test the car its for what 30 miles total on a dyno? I think maybe 3 miles are done over 60 mph. Turbo engines do great on EPA testing because they aren't being demanded of.

I will be interested to hear what this independent investigation finds out.

The winter blend gasoline only accounts for so much of a mpg hit. 80mph accounts for a little bit too. Colder (more dense air) does too. None of those factors account for huge mpg hits, but they all add up. So I certainly agree that this TFL mpg test is not necessarily indicative of overall highway mpg results for the Ranger.

With that said, I've gotten about the same mpg (18-19) driving on the highway at similar speeds in similar weather and terrain (4.0l v6 with 5 speed auto). So the Ranger's results aren't all that impressive especially given what the EPA ratings and media hype claimed about the truck's mpg.

Going 60mph, I have no doubt that the Ranger could get better mpg's....but so can pretty much any modern vehicle. And 65mph is the new 55mph on most interstates, so I really don't have much patience for playing these little games and tricks to increase a vehicle's fuel economy.

So in theory, I agree with you: this mpg test was perhaps working against the Ranger's favor. But if a truck is getting as low as 18 mpg on 99% highway driving, albeit at 80mph, then I'm not too optimistic that its going to consistently achieve its claimed 24mpg benchmark simply by going 5-10mph slower running on summer fuel.

Coupled with the smaller fuel tank Ford put in this truck, I'm really not too impressed with the finished product Ford gave us from a utilitarian point of view. Had Ford given us the overseas Ranger with overseas engine options and fuel capacities, I think we would have gotten a very unique vehicle. I think that once the hype dies down, most people will realize that this vehicle, while a nice addition to the midsized market, is nothing special compared to its competitors.

 

[XJLI]

I just got back from a 2200 mile road trip down the GA, SC, NC, and back. Averaged 19 MPG over the whole trip in my 2005 Silverado 5.3 with the cruise set at 75 most of the time. 24 isn't impressive. Now if it gets 20 around town, I'm into it. Thats a large increase.

 

[Todd780]

The winter blend gasoline only accounts for so much of a mpg hit. 80mph accounts for a little bit too. Colder (more dense air) does too. None of those factors account for huge mpg hits, but they all add up. So I certainly agree that this TFL mpg test is not necessarily indicative of overall highway mpg results for the Ranger.

With that said, I've gotten about the same mpg (18-19) driving on the highway at similar speeds in similar weather and terrain (4.0l v6 with 5 speed auto). So the Ranger's results aren't all that impressive especially given what the EPA ratings and media hype claimed about the truck's mpg.

Going 60mph, I have no doubt that the Ranger could get better mpg's....but so can pretty much any modern vehicle. And 65mph is the new 55mph on most interstates, so I really don't have much patience for playing these little games and tricks to increase a vehicle's fuel economy.

So in theory, I agree with you: this mpg test was perhaps working against the Ranger's favor. But if a truck is getting as low as 18 mpg on 99% highway driving, albeit at 80mph, then I'm not too optimistic that its going to consistently achieve its claimed 24mpg benchmark simply by going 5-10mph slower running on summer fuel.

Coupled with the smaller fuel tank Ford put in this truck, I'm really not too impressed with the finished product Ford gave us from a utilitarian point of view. Had Ford given us the overseas Ranger with overseas engine options and fuel capacities, I think we would have gotten a very unique vehicle. I think that once the hype dies down, most people will realize that this vehicle, while a nice addition to the midsized market, is nothing special compared to its competitors.

I think we are on the same page. Curious to see if we get the 2022 world Ranger (in 2022, not 8 years later...)and if will address any of those items. I have a 36 gal tank now and while it's nice to have that range, I could live with a smaller tank. But, 18 gallons is a little too small...... 25 would have been nice.

 

[docwatson]

I actually agree with you all, @Dalko43 and @Todd n Natalie , I think the Ranger is a little underwhelming in several regards. Turbos may increase efficiency in some ways but I think diesel is more proven. I will be interested to see the long term efficiency and reliability of Nissan's Variable Compression motors and Mazda's Skyactiv X. Someone in my neighborhood just picked one up and the Ranger was even more underwhelming in the flesh.

What I don't like is reviews like this that expect to even come close EPA ratings knowing they are driving very different than the EPA tests. I would put all my money on NO vehicle hitting EPA ratings driving that same stretch of road at the same time. 80 mph in a headwind does damage to mpg's

Anecdotally, my Nissan Rogue (EPA rated 33 hwy) got 13.3 mpg driving 80 through Wyoming with a strong headwind. Physics can really put a whoopin' on a car.

 

[Todd780]

*Your mileage may vary....

 

[Dalko43]

I actually agree with you all, @Dalko43 and @Todd n Natalie , I think the Ranger is a little underwhelming in several regards. Turbos may increase efficiency in some ways but I think diesel is more proven. I will be interested to see the long term efficiency and reliability of Nissan's Variable Compression motors and Mazda's Skyactiv X. Someone in my neighborhood just picked one up and the Ranger was even more underwhelming in the flesh.

What I don't like is reviews like this that expect to even come close EPA ratings knowing they are driving very different than the EPA tests. I would put all my money on NO vehicle hitting EPA ratings driving that same stretch of road at the same time. 80 mph in a headwind does damage to mpg's

Anecdotally, my Nissan Rogue (EPA rated 33 hwy) got 13.3 mpg driving 80 through Wyoming with a strong headwind. Physics can really put a whoopin' on a car.

In fairness to TFL, they did take the time to explain how the EPA ratings work and the factors that were likely working against the Ranger's efficiency (cold weather, driving speed, grade, ect.). So I don't think there was any intellectual dishonesty on their part.

I think the problem lies not with the car journalists (at least the good ones like TFL) but rather with the EPA ratings which are basically only achievable under unrealistic testing conditions (55-60mph, flat terrain, no accelerations, ect.). This is an issue with pretty much all modern gasoline vehicles; I've only rarely achieved the 21mpg that my 4runner is rated for. But it seems especially pronounced with the ecoboost family of engines; there is a big discrepancy between the EPA ratings and the averages recorded on fuelly.

I think turbo-gasolines have their merits in smaller, lighter vehicles, especially performance-oriented vehicles. I just don't see much benefit from putting them into trucks that are intended to be worked, even moderately so. But for the "truck-lite" market that the Ranger, Tacoma, and Colorado are being designed for, I guess 2-3 extra mpg's during easy-going commutes (which is what 99% of these trucks will see on a daily basis) can't hurt.

 

[Todd780]

I think the problem lies not with the car journalists (at least the good ones like TFL) but rather with the EPA ratings which are basically only achievable under unrealistic testing conditions (55-60mph, flat terrain, no accelerations, ect.).

Funny enough, that is pretty much my exact commute for 30 miles, lol.... That being said. I think I am the exception. Not the rule.

 

[Dalko43]

Funny enough, that is pretty much my exact commute for 30 miles, lol.... That being said. I think I am the exception. Not the rule.

Lol, I'm sure there are some who have that type of commute, and they can probably achieve the EPA ratings on a regular basis.

But there are also a lot of people who drive +75mph on the highway, blasting A/C and radio, running oversized tires with inaccurate odometers who like to get on forums and claim they're getting the EPA ratings. Most of those people take their vehicle's mpg readout at face value and have no concept of what it means or why its necessary to hand calculate. And they can be found on pretty much every vehicle forum (F-150, Tundra, Tacoma, Colorado, ect.).

So I guess my point is that it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to recognize the discrepancy between what a vehicle can achieve in theory and what it achieves in reality...but there are a whole lot of people out there who don't have much intelligence.

 

[Todd780]

Lol, I'm sure there are some who have that type of commute, and they can probably achieve the EPA ratings on a regular basis.

But there are also a lot of people who drive +75mph on the highway, blasting A/C and radio, running oversized tires with inaccurate odometers who like to get on forums and claim they're getting the EPA ratings. Most of those people take their vehicle's mpg readout at face value and have no concept of what it means or why its necessary to hand calculate. And they can be found on pretty much every vehicle forum (F-150, Tundra, Tacoma, Colorado, ect.).

So I guess my point is that it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to recognize the discrepancy between what a vehicle can achieve in theory and what it achieves in reality...but there are a whole lot of people out there who don't have much intelligence.

For sure. I found no matter what vehicle I drove on this commute, I averaged higher the epa ratings. That goes for a Jetta TDi, a Jeep Cherokee, a Hyundai Tuscon, and my current truck. It's just the commute. Now that my wife is driving the same Tuscon in stop n go city traffic it's way under the EPA rating.

 

[Wallygator]

I think we are on the same page. Curious to see if we get the 2022 world Ranger (in 2022, not 8 years later...)and if will address any of those items. I have a 36 gal tank now and while it's nice to have that range, I could live with a smaller tank. But, 18 gallons is a little too small...... 25 would have been nice.

I will be surprised if we get the same Ranger as the rest of the world. I hope we do but I will be surprised.