Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Unexpected Results! You'll Be Surprised By The New Ford Ranger's Highway Fuel Economy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 фев 2019
- (www.platinumsh...) TFLtruck is brought to you by Platinum Ship, where your delivery is handled with the latest equipment optimized for maximum yield of efficiency and capability, and our Logistics Team continuously monitors routes and road conditions to keep our drivers, your products, and our equipment safe and on schedule. Contact Platinum Ship for your next shipment and let us exceed your expectations.
( www.TFLtruck.com )
( / tflcar ) Please visit to support TFLcar & TFLtruck.
Check us out on:
Facebook: ( / tfltruck )
Twitter: ( / tfltruck )
The Fast Lane Car: ( / tflcar )
and classic cars as well at:
TFLClassics: ( / classicsunleashed )
This is no shocker you drive a vehicle 80mph uphill through mountains and expect to get 26mpg.
I was just going to say the same thing what the hell anybody driving a truck 80 FREAKING miles an hour is going to get 20% less if not more than the sticker says...ON ANY VEHICLE..I really like these guys a lot but this one was their biggest BONER yet... stupid is as stupid does... did you notice when they slow down even though they were in 4 wheel drive they got a lot better gas mileage... there's your clue Forest
Mid size trucks are almost as much money as a full size in many cases and mileage isn’t much better.
Diesel colorado owners get 30+mpg regularly. Friend has a colorado diesel with a tune from duramax tuner and gets 33+mpg highway regularly
My 2013 fx4 with the 5.0 does just as good on the highway
My 2wd V8 silverado always beats those numbers. Their figures do not include AC compressor drag either.
Jesse Hernandez that’s also a diesel you automatically get better gas mileage from a diesel unless it’s a piece of crap
My tuned diesel Colorado gets 34 mpg avg on highway.. with me driving 80.
20.1 MPG going uphill in snow in 4wd. That's awesome in my book.
That's BS ! My 2020 Ranger can't hit 20mpg on a clear, flat road in 2wd ! Don't know what they did to get these figures ??? Everybody is pushing these units, I test drove a 2020 Canyon and wish I'd gone that way, bought the Ranger.....very disappointed !
My average is 20.6 if I'm going 75 mph on flat I get 18 to 19 and any small hill I get like 7
@@daghostxxx1797 my 2021 FX4 ranger has averaged 23.5 for the last 182 miles.
I get 13.9mpg on daily driving half and half hiway but just hit 2k miles hoping it gets better over time idk
Id say all things considered, the Ranger did well on this test. I have a 2019 Ranger Lariat 4WD, and the best mpg I have gotten is 30 highway.
30mpg!?? How fast were you going and was that hand calculated?
@@mrjjthor no f'ing way.
@@danielrn133 I don't believe it either unless he was traveling down a long decline highway.
News flash, you won't get ideal MPGs going uphill, into the wind, in thin air, at 80mph. Youd need to turn around and do the same legs back and average those in to have a more fair test.
Most flawed test I've ever seen in my life. Been driving for 50 years.
That turbo will account for the thinner air.
No truck will ever get the EPA rating at 80 mph. Especially a 4x4. I got better than the 26mpg(8.9L/100km) on my 16 3.5eb all the time, but I drive 65 at most. I did do a 350mile(500km) trip at 120km/h(73mph) where I got 9.2L/100km(25.5mpg US). It doesn't matter I traded that truck back in for a crew cab 8' bed F350 with the powerstroke and I has averaged 11.5L/100km(20.4mpg) on highway trips. That's an 8500lb 4x4 diesel, far more truck than the 5000lb F150 it replaces.
jmilz28 My F-150 2.7 ecoboost definitely shows this as well. Wind and terrain can have a significant affect on my fuel economy. My truck gets great mileage at 60 mph, but drops considerably by 70 mph. Even from 70-75 mph there is a noticeable drop. I think the bottom line is these engines can have great fuel economy, but when the turbos are put to work, fuel economy will suffer. I also see a significant drop in mpg during frigid temps.
jmilz28 you also have two XL people in the cab
EPA tests don't take into account going up hill at 80MPH against the wind so this is more realistic of what you can expect but if you did run through lets say Ohio at 65 MPH you would likely get the 24MPG
Maybe 55 on flat ground
Chico101 most of the time they do. All of the vehicles I have driven get better mpg at just under 80 than the highway epa numbers even with hills. Fords mog is always overrated
Realistic if you're always driving uphill. Which I'm pretty sure you can't do in the real world. lol.
add in no climate control either. freezing or sweating you butt off that a/c pump takes some mpg too.
Nah your get less....275 traffic is at a stand still Everytime the road makes a 15° or sharper turn..... Lol also the road rage that occurs to the driver after they see there wasn't a reason for traffic to lock up the brakes.
I have a 2023 Ranger FX4, 2.3L EB. I only have about 6000 miles on the truck. My overall average fuel economy is 22.5. Not bad for a 4x4. No complaints.
Test the truck on the same 98 mile loop as you test the others and report the mpg.
You have to remember you're dealing with a brand new truck. As the engine breaks in the fuel economy will improve. I have a 2013 EcoBoost Explorer and the EPA highway fuel economy is 24mpg. I get 22 usually at the speed limit. If I drive 8mph under I can get 25. So it's all relative. Good work!
Wow so I guess there is not much difference between this Ranger and a full size F150
So my question is... why buy the ranger?
darnell rogers same reason people bought them before. They like the smaller size.
My question is not why buy an F150 over the Ranger, but why buy a Ranger over the Colorado/Canyon?
Joseph Whiskey Beale
I guess your right🤷🏽♂️
not everyone wants a full size truck so your wrong
N Pooch
Good question
If there were a raptor ranger in America that would be a good reason not to buy a Colorado or Canyon
Winter fuel, cold weather, wind, up hills and 75-80 mph highways all hurt mileage. Considering all that I’d say it did pretty good.
🤣🤣🤦♂️ you Ford soybois kill me, nothing but hypocrites!
As soon as someone uses the term "soybois" and spells it that way, completely loses all ability to be taken serious and as a intelligent human being.
cody roland awww.. Another butthurt Ford soyboi that is hurt by truth.. Awww
Winter fuel? It's not diesel fuel it's gas
Steven horsefield No shit. Winter blend fuel affects gas and diesel.
Everyone chiming in with their trusty older truck beating these numbers, they're irrelevant unless they are doing the same trip, temps, climbing etc. It's silly actually reading all of these without thinking about that.
Ziggy Z. Not really considering better mpg can be attained by those trucks in conditions usually worse for mpg.
Hey my mpg comment was from colorado thats where I live.
And not getting the same fuel economy from one brand of fuel to the next. I get crappy fuel economy using Exxon but get better fuel economy using BP
@@robertrichardson9953 My Tundra's love Shell and Valero, ok on Exxon and hate BP.
TdrSld My transmission is just about toast. I can only get it to go in reverse. I used to get 22 mpg on the highway, now that I have to drive on the highway in reverse, I average around 10 mpg
I always found it strange that you didn’t test and post up the 98 mile mpg test right away.
That was my thoughts as well. Do it on a decent day. It would be easier to compare it to other trucks that way
I agree with you
With the constant climb, weather, assuming there were some stops, going 80 MPH...it seems about right. EPA estimates are usually on the optimistic side anyways.
Epa is typically around 65mph. Above that it drops bad.
They did not say how fast they drove.
🤣🤣 you Ford soybois are nothing but hypocrites!
Next test: Start with a Ranger at the top of Pikes Peak in summer and let it roll down to the next gas station. Then call the video: "Unexpected Results! You'll Be Surprised By The New Ford Ranger's Fuel Economy!"
Matthew Plewa I believe the E.P.A. tests highway mpg at 55mph because it is where the highest rating can be achieved. I also believe that this trip saw some city and stop and go traffic. When you are calculating fuel consumption you have to factor in the energy it would take to lift that amount of weight from 0 to 5000 ft and ad that fuel used to the estimated consumption.
I recently did almost the same trip (Visalia California to Denver) in my 2018 F-150 Lariat FX4 with the 3.5 and I averaged 18.5 on the trip computer, 17.8 MPG actual.
In case anybody wanted a comparison.
Thank you, google shows better numbers on F-150 vs ranger, so its good to hear from actual owner
The mileage on my 13’ f150 can literally change by 6-7 mpg depending on hills, wind direction, and for sure my speed. I get 4 mpg better doing 60mph than I do going 80mph.
I’m not saying this truck gets 24mpg, but I’m saying that the fact you guys drove uphill the whole trip and were going 80mph for large portions doesn’t mean the truck isn’t capable of 24mph.
Full disclosure, I’m a ford guy. But I will start off by saying all vehicles you test will get way closer to their rated hwy mpg . Unfortunately you drive too fast. Not that I disagree with you but the hwy rating is not calculated anywhere near 70mph... it’s been a while and I honestly haven’t researched since but in Canada the hwy call was some slow speed like around 50mph. As a driver of a pickup, speed above 60mph, headwinds, uphill even slightly, snow storms kills mpg.. you need to do a test to prove this. Do your 100 mile loop at 3 different speeds with the same vehicle. 60, 65, 70 on the same day and I’d be shocked if you didn’t see a difference..
Well, most ppl drive 70 mph or above!
Here in America most states have laws in place to prohibit driving too slowly, especially on Highways. In Nevada, where I live, Nevada law prohibits driving so slowly "as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law." (NRS 484B.623, 484B.627 & 484B.630) So for a real world test, they have to drive near the speed limit. As highway speed limits have increased to 70mph, 75mph, and 80mph, the EPA tests have not been adjusted. I believe they still test at 60mph so you are correct. The EPA needs to update their test procedures. Driving 10, 15, 20 mph below the speed limit is not real world.
John Doe I don’t disagree on interstates or 400 series in Canada however it would be pretty silly to call all other driving off interstate ‘city’ driving though. The places I drive, less than 10% of my driving is on a road with a limit above 50mph (80kmph in Canada). So driving at 58mph I always get the rates mpg. Everyone is hung up on driving 70mph or more but that’s not where most people likely drive the larger percentage of the time. Maybe a third epa rating for interstate? Or update the hwy rating for greater speed. The reality is the sweet spot for mpg is likely around 55mph. Sorry everyone drive somewhere around that speed and all trucks will surprise you.
audisportracer yep, same in Ohio. Minimum speed on the freeway is 40mph, but you will be cited for driving too slow, or impeded the flow of traffic.
James D actually, driving 70 mph or above is the normal here in the states, and where most ppl do their driving.
I appreciate the work you do on this channel but for the sake of consistency you should be doing the same MPG loop you do with all other vehicles. Not this one off up hill in the wind and snow test. If you want to claim real world results in each video then do the real world MPG test like this to each vehicle. Furthermore, there are some inconsistencies in your data on the last leg of your trip. The video says you are going from Moab, UT to Denver, CO however the ending mileage of your test is 275.4 miles which lands you at a Kum & Go in the town of Frisco, CO not Denver. The last section of roads to Denver on I-70 are all down range which could and would have increased your real world MPG average... Please be more consistent with your presentations...as I still enjoy your channel.
dude, its a drive from one place to another as they stated at the beginning. That was their mission and they took us(viewers) on that ride. those are real world numbers from someone who will drive that route or sections of that route.
You mean like drive in the real world lol come in dude seriously your never going to drive the same so it will change a little bit should change 4 or 5 mpg people need to understand turbo engines are finicky you accelerate turbos spool they use more fuel. Yes fun to drive more efficient and more likely to cost money later in years is a guarantee
Very unscientific results ! You could stand next to it and guess the fuel economy and do a better job !
Just got my 2020 Larait 4x4 with the FX4 package, so far I'm averaging 50/50 split hwy and city and sitting at 10.8L/100km over 400kms distance. Not complaining at all especially with Toronto traffic.
It's exactly what I would expect from a high altitude, uphill experience. Also, the way or the amount of gas that you actually pump into the tank can vary by a pretty wide margin so you are getting your results to vary depending on how you gas up the car.
To get a more accurate reading you need to top off the tank until you are literally spilling, repeating that process, and then using your mileage do the math. You want to make sure you're not off by more than an 1/8 gallon to get consistent mileage. I can get another 3 gallons in after the pump nozzle clicks off!
Finally, do the test at sea level. I have a 20yr old v6 Oddysey and get 26mpg. It goes to 20mpg when I climb through VT and NH. When I stay at sea level without a bunch of carry-on crap, the thing is a champ. Please DO NOT trust the MPG computer.
My 2006 V6 Dakota got 22 on the same trip.With a motorcycle in the bed and a 400 pound woman in the passenger seat.
Thats no woman thats a wildebeest
Between the gas you would save over the long haul and food expenses you could afford a newer truck if you got yourself a normal sized woman. On the upside, you can use her dresses as a car cover.
Put motorcycle up front n 400 lbs woman in back.
Do a natural gas conversion and plug her in.
And then the truck started flying?
my 2013 f150 is rated at 20 and i hit that once in its life so far... cruising around yellowstone at 45 mph for 200 miles. never hit that number since lol.
I changed the tires on mine to something better than the rubber bands it came with and it killed the mileage. Edit 2012 F150 with the 5.0
I had a 2011 supercrew EcoBoost 4x4, lifetime(45k miles) average was around 17.5mpg (only towed a total of about 1000 miles and routine weekend warrior hauling). On long trips I routinely got around 19mpg. Best was a short highway run with cruise at 60mph, got 24mpg. This was about the same as my 2008 Frontier (crew cab 4x4) over 120k miles. But oddly enough, my 2014 Silverado crew can 4x4 diesel over 17k miles averaged 16.5mpg including some light towing and hauling. At the end if the day, a truck that can haul +/- 2000 pounds, tow 7000 lbs (midsize) 11,000 lbs (fullsize) or 18,000lbs (HD), and 4 or 5 people, to get that kind of mileage is pretty impressive, regardless of what the EPA says.
My 2016 fusion 1.5 eco is rated for 37 hwy. It gets 29 hwy. My 98 blazer is rated for 13 hwy, and it gets 21 hwy. The Ecoboost program is primarily set up to scam the numbers under the specific conditions of the mpg testing. It's kind of lame and us consumers get the short stick as a result.
@@rognio3 my ecoboost 3.5 gets 21? Seems fine to me
@@Pnw_fatguy_gear it's heavily dependant on the speed you drive and whether or not you stay in boost. My old 3.5 got 14 ish. But I typically cruise at about 80-85 since that's sort of avg traffic speed here. I'm not hating on the eco boost, it's all the modern turbo engines. They make nice power and drink fuel
Ten years ago(August), I honeymooned at glacier National park; with a 1997 Lincoln Mk VIII. While there, I found premium non ethanol gas. Doing the speed limit of 75 with the AC on and on roads built for God (Montana knows how to build roads); I got 33 mpg heading to Billings.
That Lincoln was essentially a Cobra Mustang in a tuxedo and I never saw mileage that good.
Between Billings and Twin falls; 30.
Between Twin falls and Pendleton; 28.
Between Pendleton and Portland; doing 60 with no AC and back to ethanol =26.
I do think that good fuel (which Oregon doesn't have) is a major contributor to good mpg. Couple that with good roads (another thing Oregon doesn't have) and things can be dramatically different.
The mark viii was a great vehicle would get 20 city 30 highway out of a 95 lsc 130k+ miss that car hauled ass.
Still happy and still avg. 20-21mpg in '17 gen. II 3.5 EcoBoost f150. So glad I didn't wait around for anything else...
Well, most people don't care about the MPG if they love their vehicles or hardcore fans.... just look at Jeep Wrangler.
Agreed lol! You don't buy trucks for mpg you buy for capability like the mentioned Jeep. If I want better mpg I would drive my wife's camry.
g7003041 I wish the auto manufacturers would get that so they can put better engines in these vehicles other that Turbocharged fuel thirsty engines just to give you torque off the line
I love my F-150, but I certainly wouldn't be unhappy if it got 3 or 4 more miles per gallon.
But the whole point of the very expensive turbo 4 cyl is mpg. A 3.3 or 3.7 from the F150 and Transit would be nice and offer better mpg
You missed one "Jeep owners don't care about safety ratings either" ;-)
EPA mileage testing is done at less then 60 mph.
I don't think so. My car is rated at 39mpg on the hwy but its easy to get 40mpg going 70mph or better. I get 46-52 mpg at 60mph in a nissan altima
@@occckid123 Look it up! EPA testing is done at less then 60 mph.
benjaminwayneb nah they don’t because he doesn’t think so. So there!
Aww.. Keep crying Ford soyboi!
THIS! Little do people know that EPA numbers are based on 60mph, when most people drive at 80mph that changes a lot.
Just want to say thanks for the real world review and stating, that most of what you put the Ranger through IS NOT factored into EPA ratings. I like that you guys are willing to state that fact and actually put the vehicles through real world places. Thanks again guys you are awesome.
I just got a 2004 2.3 manual ranger and fuel economy is amazing! No other truck can come close! It gets high 20s. Never owned a small truck before but I love this little ranger. I think I'm selling my tundra.
EPA tests are done around 55 mph.
Just saying my brother in laws taco has never been above 17 mpg
They were going 80. If I’m not mistaken, the EPA numbers are calculated at a slower speed, like 65-70. Something like that. Every little bit faster makes a significant difference. It is the same with every car.
EPA testing is done at less then 60 mph.
Took my 2015 2.7L 2wd f150 from North Dakota to Ohio average 21.5mpg hauling about 1500 lbs of people and stuff.
80 mph is a ridiculous speed when attempting to calculate mpg. Come on guys you are better than this.
I heard him say on one of the stretches of tests that he was cruising @ 80mph. During the Winter on Winter fuel (Less energy per gallon). If the tires were not properly inflated that can make a large difference as well (Set the PSI @ the correct level while tires are cool... the climb much higher when warmed). These things can add up to poor fuel economy. If I set the cruise on my Colorado to 80mph at the same time of year I would likely see the same fuel economy with headwinds and climbing altitudes. However, setting the cruise on flat ground @55mph during the Summer I can see the instant fuel economy readings hover around 32 to 35mpg. I have 4wd and the V6. I bet the Ranger is the same way.
As a head lab tech for a major oil company, the gas that is used for mpg testing in Detroit is a grade that’s unavailable for the general public. The refinery where I work used to make it. It has even tighter specs than normal gasoline. That may have a little to do with it but it’s not gonna make a massive difference.
2003 Ranger here, with the 4L engine, 2W drive and I average 20 to 21 around town. I love the smaller size.
Do you guys ever factor in your combined body weight?
Yeah, but being a 4 door truck, it could realistically have 4 or 5 people in it.
This test is totally bogus. EPA testing is done with 1 person in the vehicle and at max speeds of 60 MPH.
My only question is... who buys a 4x4 for fuel economy? 🤷♂️
Fuel economy matters you asshole. Its not my fucken falt they did not put a diesel in it. If you want to buy a 4x4 and get good gas mileage get a diesel you ass hole.
My question who buys a 2wd
I'm sure this is true for all truck manufacturers. I drive a Chevy and don't get near EPA MPG ratings. It's in the fine print "your results may vary" This is why I'm glad shows such as this exist. :)
One thing I think is missing in the discussions is the driving conditions during the test. Utah's speed limits on that section of interstate are 75mph. In Colorado 4x4 was used pulling passes 10k' in elevation. These driving conditions are much different than a level road at 55mph. I think a truck going 80mph against the wind , relative velocity is 90+ mph , and get 18mph is actually not bad.
My question is why was the MPG edit out of the first video??? Was it to save face of the Ranger??
First question I asked myself as well.
T logically.. so they can make another 10 min video
They wanted to make another video.
Love the TFL guys, but it's concerning that they didn't publish the data originally. There is a loss of some credibility here.
Rob they need that sweet sweet RUclips money
Whether the EPA rating is off or not, it still got better highway MPG than my 2WD 3rd gen Tacoma on flat ground at sea level.
Al Cala You are a liar, you don’t have a Tacoma. You are trying the old Troll trick. Give up the Kool-Aid trick.
Pickuptrucks.com tested new Ranger and found that its MPG was slightly less than current Tacoma... More real-world numbers are starting to come out, we'll see then.
@@melrose9252 You're right, I don't have one. Any more. That truck was terrible and I'm glad it's gone. I had a 2016 Tacoma DCSB TRD Sport V6 2WD for three years and 29k miles.
@@NukePooch1 I averaged 16/20 city/highway in my V6 Tacoma. I would be okay if the Ranger just matched that because the 2.3 Ecoboost is a much better power plant for a truck than the gutless Toyota 3.5.
Please note that UNL88 is E15 with a little less energy so lesser mpg made sense for 2nd leg. Please note advantage of this fuel is that it doesn’t have 20-30% BTEX which is the nasty stuff that is in regular “reformulated” 87/85 octane that turn it yellow.
I owned a 2wd 2001 ranger for 9 years, 120k miles. Averaged 16-17mpg its whole life. Sounds like an improvement to me.
Not trying to be a Ford fan boy, but if you tested it between 55-65 your numbers would go up closer to their posted numbers
Being correct isn’t being a fanboy. Agreed.
Aww.. That's not what you Ford soybois were claiming with the ram. 🤣🤣🤦♂️ nothing but a bunch of hypocrites!
TFL is doing "real world" testing by going the actually speed limit on the highway. Sure you can risk getting rear ended by a semitruck by going 25 MPH under the posted speed just to prove a point, but then you might as well buy a Prius.
Your worst leg was at altitude, into a headwind, with some snowy conditions. Plus driving mile after mile at 70-80 mph too..
Plus, you had 2 Adult men in the truck, while a carrying crapload of gear on board.
Averaging 20 MPG wasn't bad at all...
So in order to remediate the problems you stated, you must drive only at sea level, only when it's calm out, sunshine only, drive 69mph or slower, have very dainty men or jockeys weighing less than 120lbs driving the vehicle with little to no extra cargo in the truck. Then and only then should you expect the EPA number on the sticker.
@@BrandonContracting yeaaa that's how EPA does it........ or atleast the automakers do it to get the best MPG lol
@@BrandonContracting I don't know where you drew those conclusions. I am not bashing their results at all...
I recently did a trip from Salinas, CA to hermosillo, mexico (just sound of tucson, AZ). Crossed 3 mountain passes. Averaged 19.5mpg. Going a bit above 80. 2020 Ford Ranger FX4.
On the way back i tried going 65-75mph definitely increased my mpgs into the 21s...
It did really well actually Its not a lite truck esp.. FX4! I'm glad I bought a new Ranger XLT FX4. Amazing truck.
Once again, are the EPA standards based on MPH average of 55MPH ?
This test was pure rubbish. 80 mph with a 4x4 and you're saying you are not hitting the epa numbers? Anything over 70mph and you will start to see the number drop dramatically. Come back in a few days with a real test.
Have you guys noticed that MPG goes up with higher altitude. I just finished a vacation with my wife. We drove from Dallas to Red River NM in my 2016 Colorado 4wd, Z71 Crew Longbed. Our mileage sucked going to NM because I was in a hurry and had my foot into it a lot. On the fill-up leg in New Mexico, I used cruise control and got 25.5 mpg on the tank headed into the mountains and coming back to Raton NM and 19.5 on the second tank in Texas.
I once met a man who was very much into restoring old Model T’s. He had at least a half dozen of them, including a pickup version of the T. He actually used it to aid in some property management activities that he had. Maybe 30 horsepower and 35 to 40 mph top speed. Extremely light compared to today’s vehicles. I asked what mpg he was getting. 20 mpg! Some things never change.
Something else the monroney doesn't tell you is the speed of the highway testing. They test at 55mph! Obviously at 70 your fuel economy is going to be much worse.
G I don't think that is correct. Every Honda I've owned gets within 1 mpg of the sticker doing 70-75mph. At 55mph I get 20% better than the sticker.
@@ryanmcfarland1900 yes, think about that though. The aerodynamics on that vehicle are less of a factor at higher speeds. A vehicle like this ranger or any truck for that matter has far more frontal area. Drag force increases with the square of the velocity and a greater drag coefficient, which, between the two can be almost 30% higher in a truck.
Ryan McFarland Agree completely. My Odyssey gets 30 mpg driving at 60. Bump it up to 70 and it drops to 25. Anything above 72 comes at a big drop in mileage, so I set my cruise at 72. I have tracked all my gas and mileage in the past 80k, so I have an actual spreadsheet to base it in.
you guys arent driving 55-60mph... so that "highway" rating doesnt exactly apply
IKR! i think he said that avg like 80mph!! no way does EPA or a mfg rate their mpg at that speed!
I have to say, too, for what it’s worth, the break-in period is huge. I have purchased four new vehicles this year and they all got abysmal gas mileage until the accumulated about 5k on each. After that, they all got their estimated mileage or better; in some cases they were significantly better.
Idk why, but I love videos with Nathan in them. They always cheer me up , don’t get me wrong tho i love everyone at TFL
old ranger was a bullet proof workhorse,if this truck is anywhere near as reliable it'll be worth every penny
datrelle g we’ll find out in time
You are correct, old Ranger was the best small truck out there, we will see about the new one.
Obviously driving uphill is decreasing your gas mileage! 😂
Given the conditions it was driven in i am surprised it is that good . I have had 4 diesel rangers in New Zealand and they are brilliant trucks, My last one got 7.5 liters per hundred kms. The one i tow with and use on the farm did 11 liters per hundred kms so driving conditions make a big difference.
Unbelievable. Took my 2.7 s-crew STX 4x4 on a 1200 mile round trip vacation. Was a mix of interstate, back roads, city, headwinds, tailwinds and idling. One leg would be 14mpg, another would be 24mpg. Gas was always E10 or E15. Total combined average was 20 mpg. Oh..and got a couple of waves from cute girls driving by.
I'm keeping my F-150
Your comments regarding the Ranger’s MPG seem much more forgiving than the comparable video on the Ram Rebel!!!!
Honestly though. Maybe it’s cuz they actually purchased the ram rebel as opposed to being given the ranger to test
I think that to avoid the view that they are Ram Fanboys they go extra hard on the Ram when it doesn't meet the advertised standards.
It's nothing to complain about. But I do find it funny, it gets the same milage as my 2010 Nissan frontier v6 (old faithful).
My 2011 4.0L manual Ranger extended cab averages 21.5 in a mix of city and highway on the daily. Florida elevation though.
Or the same as my 2017 Nissan Titan haha
At 80mph your truck has that mileage? Doubtful.
My 2001 ranger with a 4.0 auto 4x4 can get 18 on the highway if it’s easy going lol
I wish my 98 Ranger (4X4, 4.0 manual) would get 20. Usually around 17 or 18 combined.
Kind of test i was looking for, since I rarely drive under 80 on the highway this real world info is appreciated.
Hard to make any conclusion off that review. That stretch of I-80 has a 80mph limit and there is always crosswinds. I drive that quite often and my 4Runner takes a huge penalty in MPG on I-80. I honestly like to draft behind a semi-truck going 70-75mph on that stretch and keep it easy.
Mmmm.... i own a new Ford Endeavour which is a SUV based on the Ranger in India, having a displacement of 3.2 lt (200 bhp, 470 NM) with a six speed AT tranny.... i usually do around 1300 kms each month, at sea level, and i am getting FE of 12.7 kmpl (around 29 mpg) in the hot humid conditions of India..... that too with a low grade diesel ...... ofcourse i normaly go for sedated driving, maintaining speeds in the range of 75 to 90 kmph....
Not even fair. That is a diesel we do not get those here. This is a gasoline ranger waaay different.
@@skileg10
Ford "says" that they are considering a diesel for this generation of Ranger in the US....
BTW, you would be amazed by the vehicles available with diesel engines that are sold in the US, but WITHOUT the diesel option. Subaru markets a diesel in other countries, Honda offers the CR-V with a diesel.
And here is a real shocker, the European version of the Ford Fusion is sold with an optional diesel AND a manual transmission AND there is an available station wagon not sold in the US. For that matter, the Edge sold in Europe has an available diesel and manual transmission as do the Fiesta and Focus.
What are the assumptions for the 24 MPG spec.? Elevation, MPH, and other factors impact actual MPG.🤷♂️ My point is, why are you expecting the same result if you’re driving the vehicle in a manner different than the assumptions?!🤷♂️
I think the EPA highway test is at 60 MPH if I remember right.
1Drummer The EPA highway test is done at sea level, the average speed of the test is 48.3 mph, the maximum speed is 60 mph, and the acceleration endured is 3.2 mph/second. The simulated distance is 10.3 miles over a span of 12 minutes and 45 seconds. The engine is started warm and the air conditioning isn’t on. The lab temperature can apparently be anywhere from 68-86 degrees Fahrenheit. There are also no simulated stops along the test duration.
That was from the fueleconomy.gov website.
flat ground, 1 person in the cab, no wind, straight line, windows up, bed empty and all season tires
now real world, climbing hills while passing the slow fuckers with a full bed, four people inside towing a trailer in shitty weather with 33s installed, sure mpgs will be off, its going to be different for everyone, unsure if you want to get one rent one for a weekend use it the way you normally would, its better than being stuck with a vehicle you cant live with
I think Ford's assumptions for their entire Ecoboost lineup is to have the vehicle in neutral, engine idling, and push it out the back of a cargo plane. When it hits the ground, calculate MPG.
Just google "EPA mileage test" and you can see the exact EPA test- which is not 80 mph on an uphill highway. But TFL is more "real world" than the EPA. And as Roman points out in the video, the EPA itself does not test the vehicles, the manufacturers are responsible more or less on honor system. But there are always "cheaters" such as, in recent years, Ford, Koreans and famously VW.
You take the advertised MPG with a grain of salt no matter what, but a 20% difference is significant. I closely tracked the first 10k miles on my 2018 F-150 (3.5l), the results were within what was advertised, but I did note that the MPG calculated by the truck and what I calculated manually was always off by 1 mpg (manual calculation was always lower).
My Volvo SUVs get between 25 and 27 MPG on that route. Both are 2014s with the T6 engine and AWD. Both vehicles consistently exceed the EPA rating in the city and on the highway. I hope Ford comes clean and pulls down the rating to something more accurate.
Uphill, snow, and altitude. Seems accurate the gasoline mileage wont be very high 😂
TFL like always bashing on Ford
My 2.7 f150 gets about 22-23 on the highway. I am a college student so when I drive to class, which is less than a mile away, I average about 12-13 mpg. It really just depends on the situation, the weather, and how you drive it
Got 27 mpg in my 2001 Ranger with the 4 cylinder, a short cab and bed, 2WD, and with the manual transmission on that road a couple years ago. I don't think anyone should be surprised by this new result considering how that engine has been doing in Mustangs for the past few years.
Just curious what you feel the average highway speed maintained was throughout the trip?
Final average speed was 54 MPH after 1,147 miles. It included stopping in Moab. But we followed speed limits on the highway between 65-80 MPH.
@@TFLtruck so overall not horrible milage but @65 for where I live 24 could probably be achieved with a lighter right foot
@@marcuscorvain1204 yeah.. those are best MPG results.. for example, flat roads, no extra baggage, driving with a light foot and probably the tires several pounds over inflated...
How much weight was in the truck? Almost 500# with two adult males and luggage from a stay in Los Angeles.
@@TFLtruck Temp affects fuel economy, I have seen 20% drop in the winter. can you try your 100 mile loop at 55 MPH, at room temp.
Octane requirements change with altitude. Altitude is essentially an octane booster with every 3500ft or so equaling 2 points. A vehicle rated for low grade fuel, 87 octane(sea level) can run 85 octane at 3500+ ft elevation. It works the same for a high performance car rated to run 93 octane. You won't find anything but 91 at gas stations in high elevation cities because that is all that is necessary.
Except the Ranger and many cars are now turbocharged, and the electronically-controlled turbo systems can adjust for altitude to maintain cylinder pressure. Thankfully, they can also adjust for low-octane gas to avoid pre-detonation, but you're sacrificing performance, and relying on the electronics to protect your engine.
I made two trips in my Lariat from Bullhead City Az to Zion National Park. Truck had 20,000 + miles on it and an aftermarket reusable air filter. Including some 4wheeling and around town St George I had close to 24 MPG on my computer. I think it gets better mileage around town if you keep your foot out of it (hard to do). I also notice that the wind knocks off a couple miles per gallon. Kept one trip meter without resetting for over 6000 miles and it is down to 22 and that is around town and with full loads to Las Vegas from Bullhead.
I’ve drive the stretch between St. George and Green River. It has two huge mountain climbs and San Rafael Swell is one hill after another. I’m not surprised by the lower MPG.
I think TFL is a great channel and the videos are great. That being said, they are making too much of this....
Considering the conditions, high winds, driving up hill, 80mph and the snow....the numbers aren't that bad. No way any mid size pickup in those same conditions will get its EPA advertised mpg.
Bigger issue, they made two episodes about it, this one is just a rehash of clips from a previous vid with Roman doing a voiceover. Viewbait is all it is.
I agree
"toyota needs to update the 4.0l v6" "the 4runner only has a 5 speed" "its an ancient drivetrain" hahahahahahah
Laugh as loud as you can
@@Luis.M.Castillo dont worry it was equally as loud irl with 17 mpg
My 4Runner right now says 19.6... which is accurate to what I get at the pump also. that's with extra time to warm up, and occasional 4x4 use for the snow...so not terrible for being ancient.
@@dbarton8651 mine says 19 and it's the v8 with full time 4wd
@@ISwearDownOnMeNansGrave my buddy can't break 16 with his... but I do love that motor! If I could find a 2009 v8 Limited (low-ish mileage) it would be the only rig I would trade mine in on!
Keep in mind the correct way to average averages is to combine total miles divided by total gallons. (20.8271976+17.5949765+20.0787402)/3=19.50030476666666
(325.3+280.2+275.4)/(15.619+15.925+13.716)= 19.46310207688908
The difference is probably negligible but I already wrote all of this out.
Thank you
Old video, but people are still shopping for these so I feel the need to note; Ford’s MPG and power ratings is while using the recommend 91 octane fuel, but 87 is minimum.
So a Nissan Frontier with old proven reliable 4.0L v6 and 6 speed manual gets better real world MPG than a "state of the art" brand new truck? A v6 auto Frontier will get 19-20 mpg on hwy.
My 2007 Ranger with a 4.0L 4x4, auto trans, 230k miles, LT rated all terrain tires, and a bed full of tools gets over 18mpg regularly. It has done close to 20mpg keeping speed below 60 on long drive on back roads.
This literally makes me sick. I know they tested an off road truck but it has 10 gears. My truck has a 5 speed auto with AWFUL computer logic small tires, 3.73 gears,and near vertical windshield. How am I only 1 mpg off behind with my avg and tie my best????
they said they were going 80mph....
Video is pointless. Break it in, find a flat road, and drive 60 mph and it will get over 24 mpg
When my 1991 S10 extended cab 4 by 4 5 speed was over 300000 MI... I could get 14 miles per gallon driving 80 miles an hour... I'm not a Ford Man by any means, but why don't you nitwits give this truck a fair shake and drive it from Los Angeles California to Dallas Texas and see what the mileage is instead of running it up and down those damn mountains
Considering that EPA test highway milage up to 60mph and you were driving at 80Mph and still got 87% of rated mpg isnt that bad. I have a f150 and have gotten as high as 24mpg on the highway at 70mph, but at 75mph it struggles to break 20mpg. Speed makes a huge difference!
I got 17 through 18 city, 21 though 23 Hwy on my V8 4.6 Toyota Tundra; average of 19... Ok, I don't feel to bad on my 2wd Tundra.
Lol were you driving to Colorado
@@drivinforalivin6945 :- } )
80 mph uphill and against the wind tells me that if I want to know what mpg a vehicle realistically gets, this is not a channel I should be watching
@@rotaryenginepete in california we don't
rotaryenginepete just a lot of libtards!
If you’re doing a evaluation on mpg then you don’t do it under extreme conditions. Maybe the air is a little thin where you’re at but here on earth no one drives uphill against the wind all the time with the throttle pegged to the floor.
Anand Chetty a lot of people do, as Most states are hilly.
John Doe, uphill both ways?
Have owned mine for a few weeks I have been averaging 22.3 dash in city. 21.5 calculator. Think the biggest factor is driver I do not push hard i accelerate slower then most and only pass when I am at speed and only speed up a little.
Most of the time EPA testing for trucks doesn't include rolling at 70 miles per hour down the interstate for the whole tank from what I understand. They use a mixture of speeds . And with a pickup truck wind drag is terrible at 70 but if you slow down at all then the gas mileage goes up a lot. I've noticed over the years that trucks don't usually hit their Highway MPG number when driving 70 miles per hour but cars do. However in a truck you can exceed the highway mileage if you're going let's say 50 miles per hour which is still at highway speed.
The fact of the matter is, the EPA didnt set this number. FORD did. So theres a problem there. Similar issues have been found with the Ram 1500 Rebel. Chevy on the other hand has met or exceeded their MPG claims practically throughout their lineup so well done to chevy. I would like to see this test done again with lighter winds and level terrain though
So GM made a mistake again only this time in their favor you are saying because they rarely get anything right you can finally chear like a typically exited GM fan blowing hot air .....
Exactly, the Tundra is always crapped on because of its terrible MPG but they are just the only ones who are honest about it
Chevy also has many JD Powah initial awards!
@@bradzimmerman3171 what are you saying?
@@jayxj7785 And according to a survey got better reliability then Toyota and Honda, lol.
When you guys do mpg testing, do you use cruise control and what speed do you guys travel at?
We always use cruise control for these trips. Average speed after 1,147 miles was about 54 MPH. We are traveling at speed limit for a trip like this. Our 100 mile MPG loop is always at 70 MPH.
I will say I track milage with every tank and with my 2015 fusion with the 2.0 Ecoboost I thought the thing was broken when it was new, because it was rated to 34 mpg and ill I could achieve was 28. After the first 20,000 miles or so I was able to average about 32 with no problem. I think these Ecoboost motors have a pretty extended break in period.
I got a 2008 4runner and i get 16 on the highway. Kinda disappointing gas mileage but i guess that's the price i pay for having sn older truck.
Nick Cerbone I have a 2018 limited that I get between 19-20. However, after 8,000 miles, I smell oil burning and now have a knock in the engine, roof liner had to be replaced, dash has to be replaced, all the lug nuts have to be replaced, driver door has to be repaired and my overhead console has to be replaced, with my windshield being scratched beyond belief. I'm not very happy at all, especially since this thing was built in Japan where they pride themselves on being the best.
The mpg ratings are for 55mph.
I have a 1993 F-150 with a 5.8L that gets about 18MPG on the highway unloaded. Only 2MPG off of this Ranger. Not comparing apples to apples here, but still interesting to know that a 26 year old truck in a heavier class can -almost- do what this new one can.
I got a 19 gmc at4 with the 6.2 and I got 21.6 driving from Yukon, OK to right outside of Houston, TX. Man I love that truck
You fools! Best gas milage (everyone knows this) is at 50-55 mph!
NOT 75-80 try it again!
Just be sure to get your ass in the right lane and stay there at your 55mph
Truth. My 2.7 2018 at 55 mph gets in the high 20’s and is a full size truck. Tows 7600 lbs as well.
Dean Ainsworth Damn my Taco can almost tow that much while getting high 20s
Omg stop with the drama attitude! Roman sounds like he is going to cry. Just report the info and move on! Video could have been half as long!
Gotta hit that spicy 10min mark
TFL is a good channel, but they sure do know how to drag out a video.
Ya because its a Ford...they are slightly biased to them
@@stanludwig5874 Be quiet
Stan Ludwig when they get accused of being biased toward 3 brands, they must be pretty fair.
I’m still the proud owner of a 1999 Ford Ranger 3.0 4x4. Still runs great, I do my own maintenance too it and I keep it cause it’s so reliable. I would like to get a newer larger Ranger but if I’m paying the exact same amount for a small truck as I would a large truck. I would be better off going with the F-150. 🤔
I did a ~600mi trip almost all highway on East Coast at Sea Level. I got 24.9 mpg, was only doing 60-65 mph. Around town I am getting about 15mpg.
Oh well, Misleading marketing to profit from it, when caught will cost you dearly. If found guilty, tisk tisk.. Automobile companies have not learned the costly lesson they were supposed to from VW.
ScandalCuracao except it’s the government estimating those numbers so any sort of lawsuit over false advertising of the fuel economy will never happen. And the EPA estimated fuel economy of vehicles has been overstated the vast majority of new vehicles since it first started anyways. Only idiots would believe those numbers, after the statements like “estimated fuel economy” as none of the testing is real world anyways, it’s all based on the vehicle in 100% stock form, no passengers, no extra weight, no extra wind drag, no inclines etc....
My son owns one of the diesel golfs they still haven't reimbursed him for it.
im shure when they did the test for epa fuel economy they weren't driving up hill of course your going to get worse fuel economy
They do the test in a laboratory, no wind, no incline, tires all up to max, etc, its an unrealistic environment !
That is pretty much exactly what I expected. Ten minutes I'll never get back. You gained over a mile in elevation and went through two mountain ranges and hit a snow storm. Why would you ever expect to get the ideal MPG rating. 80% of the rating seems reasonable for those condition.
I think this is a good test. Everyone is crying about how you crapped on the mpg going "uphil, 80mph, against wind" but that's amazing news for me! I think 20 mpg with all that holding it back is incredible, why is everyone so upset. Now I know no mater where I go in the United States on the high way I can get a definite 20 mpg worst case scenario... I'd rather have that number than only 24mpg when you are being very careful.