New Ranger MPG

I found it interesting that the headline said MPG at 70mph but the only time I heard them mention how fast they actually drove they said 80mph. That was at stop number two just before they announce the 17.6 mpg. That would cause about a 20% drop in fuel economy. Also, I would really like to know what speed the EPA tests at and whether they use pure gasoline or the ethanol blend that we have to use in real life. Those two things could easily account for the rest of the difference.

Where are the new rangers built? I wonder if they are one of the platforms they are talking about electrifying.

Whatever they are doing with the Ranger they better step it up. Those Canyons and Colorados are breeding like rabbits.

We just had one as a demo at my work last week. It was a S/C 4x4 with the 6.5 box. It was parked next to my F-150, and although it was smaller, it is much larger than the past Ranger and is indeed similar to a Dakota or the current Colorado.

I liked the way it drove; it was definitely peppy with the 2.3L Ecoboost and it felt very solid with predictable, easy steering. It also braked very well, smooth and confident. It seemed like it needed to be revved quite high to get any good power out of it, however, and I found the engine to be quite noisy, especially outside of the truck. I feel that could use some refining; it should be smooth and quiet like Honda engines are.

The back seat was pretty much useless so the CC would be a must.

Ford is pretty proud of them right now, with very few rebates. We can actually still buy a F-150 for around the same money, but that will change after they have been out for a while.

We will be buying several of them so it will be interesting to see how they hold up.

philh wrote:
It looks to me to be the size of older F150's. F150's are the size of old F250's.

I think they are awesome looking.

What I said above

Bedlam wrote:
My personal opinion is that that they scaled the Ranger too large and they should have introduced a smaller platform for this truck. Although I have not seen this truck in person, it appears to be closer in size to Dodge Dakota rather than the Ford Ranger of the past. Perhaps there is no demand for a mini F50 pickup, but it seems like the Ranger will competing against the F150 rather than complementing the pickup line.

It is closer to a late 1990's F150. Similar in size to the Colorado

and this is why thinking the 7.3 and 6.6 gas engines coming out soon will have improved mpg, it is a pipe dream. Big trucks, high power ratings, and a finite amount of power that can be pulled out of a gallon of gas. It applies to small engines as well. The GM 2.7 turbo 4 isn't exactly lighting up the mpg ratings either.

Toyota hasnt been known for its fuel economy for some time.
A bit surprised the new Ranger mileage is so low with the Eco B, but, in general as the size, weight, ground clearance, tire size and power increase with these "compact" trucks the mileage will go down. So not a huge surprise I suppose.
No easy button here unless it starts with a D.....for diesel.

I rented a Tacoma and drove through Nebraska during the recent cold snap. Interstate, 80ish MPG with a head wind, it averaged 12 MPG (hand calculated) over about 250 miles.

Rented a 4Runner last year for a drive through North Dakota. Similar conditions, more miles, similar fuel economy. In my experience, Toyota's fuel economy is..........overstated.

Today I spoke with one of the Quality Engineers at work who recently purchased a Toyota Tacoma CC 4x4 about his trucks fuel economy and he said he gets ~ 3 mpg less than the advertised fuel economy rating.