Ford Released Official MPG Ratings For 2019 Ford Ranger

[Jim Oaks]

Adventure Further: All-New Ford Ranger Rated Most FuelEfficient Gas-Powered Midsize Pickup in America

• With EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings of 21 mpg city, 26 mpg highway and 23 mpg combined, 2019 Ford Ranger is the most fuel-efficient gas-powered midsize pickup in America
  
• All-new Ranger’s proven 2.3-liter EcoBoost® gasoline engine beats the V6 gasoline engines from its midsize truck competitors to deliver best-in-class 310 lb.-ft. of torque and best-inclass
• towing capacity
  
• Ranger is the no-compromise choice for power, technology, capability and efficiency whether the path is on road or off

DEARBORN, Mich., Dec. 11, 2018 – The adventure-ready 2019 Ford Ranger is the most fuelefficient gas-powered midsize pickup in America – providing a superior EPA-estimated city fuel economy rating and an unsurpassed EPA-estimated combined fuel economy rating versus the competition. The all-new Ranger has earned EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings of 21 mpg city, 26 mpg highway and 23 mpg combined for 4x2 trucks.

When configured as a 4x4, Ranger returns EPA-estimated fuel economy ratings of 20 mpg city, 24 mpg highway and 22 mpg combined. This is the best-in-class EPA-estimated city fuel economy rating of any gasoline-powered four-wheel-drive midsize pickup and it is an unsurpassed EPA-estimated combined fuel economy rating.

“Midsize truck customers have been asking for a pickup that’s Built Ford Tough,” said Todd Eckert, Ford truck group marketing manager. “And Ranger will deliver with durability, capability and fuel efficiency, while also providing in-city maneuverability and the freedom desired by many midsize pickup truck buyers to go off the grid.”

Along with 270 horsepower, Ranger’s standard 2.3-liter EcoBoost® engine produces 310 lb.-ft. of torque, delivering the most torque of any gas engine in the midsize pickup segment. Paired with a class-exclusive 10-speed transmission, Ranger boasts a unique combination of efficiency, power and capability that only comes from Ford.

Ranger is designed and engineered to serve the needs of North America with innovative technology like its available class-exclusive Blind Spot Information System with trailer coverage, all-new Terrain Management System™ with Trail Control™ and standard FordPass Connect™ with a 4G LTE Wi-Fi hotspot supporting up to 10 devices.

Built Ford Tough is engineered into every Ranger. When properly equipped, this shines through in the truck’s best-in-class 7,500 pounds of gas towing capacity with available tow package and best-in-class 1,860 pounds of maximum payload to handle all your gear.

 

[MastuhWaffles]

That's really...bad.

My truck makes similar horse power and maybe 5mpg less. I figured with the ecoboost they could achieve 30 at least. Is there plans for a diesel engine?

 

[Jim Oaks]

I don't think Ford is going to say what any future plans are for fear the people will hold off on buying one.

 

[Craig0320]

Well it could be worse. At least it is out of the teens. Only true way to know is owning and driving it.

 

[DRanger024]

I’m sure it will do better than the EPA estimates. My ‘94 with a 4.0 in it will regularly go 325+ miles on a tank of gas (~15 out of 16 gallons). My daily commute is 75% highway. If I drive like I’m 16 you can literally watch the fuel gauge drop though. Still far better that the EPA rated 17 mpg combined.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

That's really...bad.

My truck makes similar horse power and maybe 5mpg less.

It isn't similar size or weight though.

Really mpg advances have been painfully slow for trucks, even the new all aluminum V8 F-150 is less than 5mpg more than my old F-150's rating (and I can beat the rating) The new Ecoboost is less than 10 more.

 

[Dirtman]

That truck even with an aluminium front end probably weighs a whole lot more than a pre 2011 fully loaded ranger so I'm somewhat impressed with those mpg ratings.

The other thing is while the ecoboosts are nice engines there is ALWAYS a downside to pumping more power from a small engine. While the power numbers are leaps ahead of any of the older engines only time will tell if the ecoboost in these trucks can last 300,000+ miles of low maintenance like the limas, duratecs, and 4.0's. Having only one engine option has been one of my biggest complaints since they announced this truck. The other is not offering a 2 door fleet model.

 

[alaskan155]

i dont know how people get 300+ out of there 4.0.... im lucky to get 200 before im lookin for a gas station....about 13 to 14mpg in my 94 explorer and my 2000 4.0 wasnt mich better... those numbers are nice but compared to my old 02 honda crv awd with the 2.4 vtec....yeah i was getting those mpg numbers with no turbo....

 

[sgtsandman]

About what I expected. About what I get with my ‘99 CR-V the new Ranger will be replacing and about 6 mpg better than what I’m getting with my ‘11 XLT 4.0 4X4 manual.

If past experience holds true, actual mpg will be about 5-6 mpg less than the reported estimated highway mpg. My ‘98 XLT 2.5 Lima RWD got about that and ‘11 XLT gets that now with mostly highway miles. Straight highway, the ‘11 sees about 19-20 usually and 21-22 on occasion if everything on the trip is favorable. I’ve only seen very close to the 23 mpg only a couple times if the planets aligned just right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James86]

Too bad they don't offer the NA 2.5 that's still used in Fusions - I love that powertrain with a manual in the wife's 2012 Escape, and can hit 30-31 pretty consistently in runs to the metro or St. Cloud, but people would probably scoff at "only" 170ish HP, even though its more HP and higher revving than my Ranger's 3.0. I do find it odd they offered it with a 6spd in Fusions but only a 5spd in the Escape.

Colorado offers a 2.5L around 200HP and Tacoma offers a 2.7L with around 159HP, so there doesn't seem to be a solid reason the Ecoboost is the only engine choice in the new Ranger, heck even the newer small Escapes have THREE four cylinder engines (1.5L Eco, 2.0L Eco, 2.5L NA), so with more room under the hood for intake and exhaust reworking that 168HP the 2.5 put out in the Escape currently could probably be tweaked to fit neatly in that range.

 

[Craig0320]

i dont know how people get 300+ out of there 4.0.... im lucky to get 200 before im lookin for a gas station....about 13 to 14mpg in my 94 explorer and my 2000 4.0 wasnt mich better... those numbers are nice but compared to my old 02 honda crv awd with the 2.4 vtec....yeah i was getting those mpg numbers with no turbo....

I got 19 constantly out of my 98 ranger 4.0 4x4. 20 on the hwy.

 

[stmitch]

"Class leading" (barely) is great and all, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little disappointed. My 01 Duratec/5 spd truck got 30mpg pretty regularly. That was with a transmission designed in the late 80s, early 90s aerodynamics, and an engine from the late 90s.

Obviously, this new truck is heavier, more powerful, and more capable than the older Rangers, so they've made great strides. But they've also had 20 years of new tech and development compared to my old truck. I was thinking with all of the aerodynamic improvements that have been made in the last 10 years alone, Plus direct injection and a "state of the art" 10 spd trans that they'd be closer to 30mpg hwy for a 2wd.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

i dont know how people get 300+ out of there 4.0.... im lucky to get 200 before im lookin for a gas station....about 13 to 14mpg in my 94 explorer and my 2000 4.0 wasnt mich better... those numbers are nice but compared to my old 02 honda crv awd with the 2.4 vtec....yeah i was getting those mpg numbers with no turbo....

It is easy to sell the older ones short, Ford was really stupid with the gearing in the 90's and early 00's.

My mom's '94 Explorer was in the mid teens but had to grab third on every hill bigger than a speedbump. An adequate engine in a 4dr SUV... with 3.27 gears that poor engine was in a fight for its life on the highway.

"Class leading" (barely) is great and all, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little disappointed. My 01 Duratec/5 spd truck got 30mpg pretty regularly. That was with a transmission designed in the late 80s, early 90s aerodynamics, and an engine from the late 90s.

Obviously, this new truck is heavier, more powerful, and more capable than the older Rangers, so they've made great strides. But they've also had 20 years of new tech and development compared to my old truck. I was thinking with all of the aerodynamic improvements that have been made in the last 10 years alone, Plus direct injection and a "state of the art" 10 spd trans that they'd be closer to 30mpg hwy for a 2wd.

Aero is aero, even the new Ridgeline which doesn't look like a truck is about in the same ballpark.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Pow...18&make=Honda&baseModel=Ridgeline&srchtyp=ymm

I think they are kind of hitting the wall aerodynamically. If it is going to be a truck it has to be shaped roughly like this and sit this high off the ground... and there you go.

Really IMO mpg isn't a midsize trucks strong point.

It was alluded to in Detroit that the new Ranger isn't aimed at being an eco truck. It is a truck for those that want a smaller, handier and more maneuverable truck than a F-150. Thats the way I took it it anyway

 

[stmitch]

Aero is aero, even the new Ridgeline which doesn't look like a truck is about in the same ballpark.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Pow...18&make=Honda&baseModel=Ridgeline&srchtyp=ymm

I think they are kind of hitting the wall aerodynamically. If it is going to be a truck it has to be shaped roughly like this and sit this high off the ground... and there you go.

Really IMO mpg isn't a midsize trucks strong point.

It was alluded to in Detroit that the new Ranger isn't aimed at being an eco truck. It is a truck for those that want a smaller, handier and more maneuverable truck than a F-150. Thats the way I took it it anyway

There are guys doing aero mods with cardboard and other trash that are getting 35mpg or better on the highway from older Rangers. Simple things like grille blocks (the reason most new cars have fake grilles with only tiny openings for air) and undertrays that 90% of new cars have can make a huge difference, and could easily be added to a truck. Call them "skid plates" to make the macho crowd happy. It's way cheaper for an OEM to gain fuel economy through small aero than it is to go after the same gains mechanically. And that matters when fuel economy regulations and green house gas regulations are getting tighter all the time.

The new truck has twice the hp and tq of my Duratec truck, and shouldn't be terribly inefficient. That's quite a feat I guess. But it also seems like they're leaving some low hanging fruit on the tree. Maybe to avoid stepping on the F-150. Maybe because they don't see a sales case for it. I just think they can do better. They waited a long time to get back into the market, and when they did, they gave us the truck that the rest of the world has had for several years with metal bumpers and a parts bin powertrain. It just seems like they're phoning the whole thing in. But I freely admit I'm not their target customer, so my opinion probably doesn't matter a great deal to them.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

There are guys doing aero mods with cardboard and other trash that are getting 35mpg or better on the highway from older Rangers. Simple things like grille blocks (the reason most new cars have fake grilles with only tiny openings for air) and undertrays that 90% of new cars have can make a huge difference, and could easily be added to a truck. Call them "skid plates" to make the macho crowd happy. It's way cheaper for an OEM to gain fuel economy through small aero than it is to go after the same gains mechanically. And that matters when fuel economy regulations and green house gas regulations are getting tighter all the time.

Most truck buyers probably won't like the cardboard/duct tape look. "Bigger and bolder than anyone has bigger and bolded before" is the name of the game for truck styling now.

Skidplates are great for trapping debris too, the only skidplate I have between my two 4x4 trucks is one for the t-case on my Ranger and one I robbed off an FX4 F-150 to keep snow out of the engine bay on my F-150. I don't really want that running the full length of my truck accumulating gravel dust, mud and moisture.

They waited a long time to get back into the market, and when they did, they gave us the truck that the rest of the world has had for several years with metal bumpers and a parts bin powertrain. It just seems like they're phoning the whole thing in. But I freely admit I'm not their target customer, so my opinion probably doesn't matter a great deal to them.

I think they are playing it safe somewhat too.

They let GM come back first and if it blew up in their face it wasn't nothing on Ford. They see there is a market there and might still remain unconvinced of its viability so they piece together a truck they think will do well with minimal investment to prove to themselves there really is a market there.

If the market holds and the Ranger does well... in a few years the T6 will be due for a update (it is circa 2011 with a 2014 facelift) and then I bet the gloves come off and we get an aluminum body and who knows what else.

FWIW the Ranger always was a parts bin vehicle, just now at least they are not reaching into the Pinto parts bin