Fuel consumption too high?

Well I learned something new on this thread. Never realized fuel mileage could be a blessing…lol.

Timmo! wrote:
IMO, sometimes that extra 10 mph (75 mph) is not financially worth it, even with an oversized gas tank.

With my smaller 26gal tank I don't think I even save time by pushing 70. As the fuel economy drops I have to squeeze in one extra fuel stop killing all the time saved by going faster.

21 is pretty terrible mileage for a 2019 mid-sized.
Is this normal for a Ranger?

Yes, underpowered engine towing a big (think aerodynamic frontal area) trailer will suck the gas in, where a big v-8 truck will do better as it is not working so hard.

If you like Fords and towing, look at the F150 for 28 highway and will get much much better mpg towing, and the engine and trans is much more suitable for towing something this size.

You need a smaller trailer, or just live with the poor mpg. Research how to change your driving habits to get better mpg's too.

When I tow my cargo trailer with a similar truck to yours (cargo trailer is only 5 feet wide), I can get 16-19 mpg. It's not the weight, it's the aerodynamics that affect mpg.

Your mileage sounds about right. 55 is to slow on the interstate stick to the back roads. 65 is not to bad on interstates though. With my 2011 F-150 and 5.0 Engine I get about 9-11 towing a 22 foot 4600 pound Travel Trailer at 65 .

ajriding wrote:
21 is pretty terrible mileage for a 2019 mid-sized.
Is this normal for a Ranger?

Yes, underpowered engine towing a big (think aerodynamic frontal area) trailer will suck the gas in, where a big v-8 truck will do better as it is not working so hard.

If you like Fords and towing, look at the F150 for 28 highway and will get much much better mpg towing, and the engine and trans is much more suitable for towing something this size.

You need a smaller trailer, or just live with the poor mpg. Research how to change your driving habits to get better mpg's too.

When I tow my cargo trailer with a similar truck to yours (cargo trailer is only 5 feet wide), I can get 16-19 mpg. It's not the weight, it's the aerodynamics that affect mpg.

Ranger took over for the F150 in size after the F150 was moved to share same cab/body as F250/350.

I would call it a large "mid size", slightly smaller than what the F150 was, the new "Maverick" truck sort of fills in for what used to be the old small version of Ranger.

SEE Specs here

Only offered with the "baby" 2.3L ecoboost with 270 HP/310 ft lbs TQ and depending on cab configuration has curb weight of 4,200-4,300 lbs.

It is seriously underpowered for towing which means you will be seriously spooling up the turbos to the max gulping down a lot of fuel.

To put that HP into perspective, that is slightly more than a 2003 2V 5.4 with 265 HP and less than a 2006 3V 5.4 which offered 300HP that I had owned.. Both of those got far better towing fuel mileage and that was in full sized F250s with curb weights around 5,800 lbs.

Don't get me wrong, have a friend with a 2019 Ranger, nice good looking truck. Pretty quick empty but it really was not designed for good towing mileage in mind.

Part of the issue with mileage is often folks try to get up to speed as fast as possible and try to maintain highway speeds up grades. Towing requires one to realize that neither happens if you want to get good mileage when towing especially with a under powered rig.

Basically OP will need to start out easy and slow, let engine and transmission do their job without adding any more fuel than needed. Then when it comes to climbing hills allow the truck to LOSE some speed instead of pushing the gas down further.

The trick is to stay out of the turbos as much as possible without being a road hazard. Once you dive into the turbos the fuel economy is out the window.

Op should have a screen on their display that will show a graphical readout for fuel economy, they can use that to learn the sweet spot between speed and fuel mileage. Sometimes you add fuel when not needed (lead foot) and can back off slightly and still maintain your speed.

Lol @ the theory that the “new” Ranger is basically the “old” F150 since Ford finally wised up and quit producing 2 different cabs for their full size platform. Something the competition has always done and Ford departed from in the 90s until recent years.
Sure, the Colorado and Ranger are very capable mid size trucks, as far as mid sized trucks go. But I can’t even begin to understand your theory.

goducks10 wrote:
I once towed a 21' 4000 lb TT with a V6 Nissan Frontier. Got 8.5 on my best day.
Moved up to an F150 5.4, 3.73 and started getting 10.5 mpg's consistently.
The frontal area on the MKE is whats killing your mpg's.
Slow down to 60 mph and you get better mpg.

Aerodynamics can be pretty hard to predict.

Pulling a 28ft mid height 5th wheel, averaged 12mpg

Pulling an empty 8ft enclosed utility trailer got the same. Smaller sample size but the brakes weren't dragging and nothing else appeared to be wrong.

Only thing I can figure is the aerodynamics are smoother with the 5th wheel where the wind comes off the truck cab and immediately goes up the front of the trailer. With the utility trailer it drops back down and hits the front of the utility trailer adding more drag.

valhalla360 wrote:

Aerodynamics can be pretty hard to predict.

Pulling a 28ft mid height 5th wheel, averaged 12mpg

Pulling an empty 8ft enclosed utility trailer got the same. Smaller sample size but the brakes weren't dragging and nothing else appeared to be wrong.

Only thing I can figure is the aerodynamics are smoother with the 5th wheel where the wind comes off the truck cab and immediately goes up the front of the trailer. With the utility trailer it drops back down and hits the front of the utility trailer adding more drag.

Yep - Distance between the trailer and tow vehicle is major factor.

Theoretically, fifth-wheels should have significant aerodynamic advantages over their bumper-pull counterparts of comparable length and weight.

However...

In the real world, this advantage is negated by the much greater height of the average fifth-wheel.

Grit dog wrote:
Lol @ the theory that the “new” Ranger is basically the “old” F150 since Ford finally wised up and quit producing 2 different cabs for their full size platform. Something the competition has always done and Ford departed from in the 90s until recent years.
Sure, the Colorado and Ranger are very capable mid size trucks, as far as mid sized trucks go. But I can’t even begin to understand your theory.

Never said they were bad.

They are nice looking trucks with LIGHT DUTY uses, under light duty uses they can get pretty good mileage with a small power plant.. But once you start adding a trailer which has the aerodynamics of a cement block and expect that small engine to get decent mileage you will sorely disappointed.

Read the specs from Ford.

Absolute Max towing is 7500 lbs, far less capability than a F150 even the ones with the smaller cab on a supposed full size frame (and no, the small cab F150s did not use F250/350 frames, suspension or axles).

The older smaller cab F150 never "shared" the frames from the "Super Duties".

I should know, I HAD a "Heavy Half" F150 which was a light duty F250 sharing a light duty F150 frame and cab.. It maxed out at 7200 lbs by the way. It was just OK as a grocery getter, easily got 17-18 MPG with a lethargic 235 HP 2V 5.4 .. Not so much when I started towing a TT, topped a lot of hills with 6% or higher grades in 1st gear doing 30MPH with the foot on the floor and yep, 7 MPG..

OP isn't going to get 10-11 MPG towing with that truck with a trailer that has a large frontal area at 65+ MPH, the 2.3L turbo engine is under powered for that use and it is the only engine offered in the 2019 Ranger (that alone speaks volumes, at least the smaller cab F150 was offered in several turbo models and even a larger NA engine).

OP needs to lower their expectations a bit, with some care staying out of the turbo as much as possible I suspect they could improve not only their towing mileage some but their empty mileage.. But, hey, you have a turbo and what fun is it to drive it like a turtle?

Grit dog wrote:
Lol @ the theory that the “new” Ranger is basically the “old” F150 since Ford finally wised up and quit producing 2 different cabs for their full size platform. Something the competition has always done and Ford departed from in the 90s until recent years.
Sure, the Colorado and Ranger are very capable mid size trucks, as far as mid sized trucks go. But I can’t even begin to understand your theory.

Is this a question or new information?
I don't understand the post you put up.
Is this the gibberish that goes through your brain when you think? LOL, we all enjoyed seeing into your thoughts, but not sure why you shared. What mpg does it get?