Sponsored
Wayfaring Ranger
Well-Known Member
if someone buys a performance vehicle and is too cheap to feed it what it deserves...i am judging them harshly.
that goes for basically any turbocharged car, enthusiast or not. but it holds especially true for enthusiasts.
slobkrieg
Active Member
I looked at all the motors avaible , and I think the 2.3 would be a good motor . I wanted good mpg
( don,t think gas is going to get cheaper ) . Good towing rate , and dependable motor .
I Thought about waiting for the 2.7 , but worse MPG and 2000.00 add on . The 2.7 in the ranger 4400 lbs truck would would be fast . I wanted something bigger then the Maverick , and smaller then the f 150 .
( don,t think gas is going to get cheaper ) . Good towing rate , and dependable motor .
I Thought about waiting for the 2.7 , but worse MPG and 2000.00 add on . The 2.7 in the ranger 4400 lbs truck would would be fast . I wanted something bigger then the Maverick , and smaller then the f 150 .
Sponsored
GypsyDaenger
Well-Known Member
not as high as id like for the normal 2.3. i wonder with my habits if i could squeak a bit more. i average right about 19-20mpg with my 19" 150 with the 2.7.
yoopercharged
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2023
- Threads
- 9
- Messages
- 323
- Reaction score
- 382
- Location
- Tri Cities, MI
- Vehicle(s)
- 2014 F-150 SVT Raptor, 2024 Ranger Raptor
That's a really disappointing number for the Raptor. The Braptor is rated at 15/16 on 37s so I'm not sure how we're only doing marginally better with 33's, a smaller cross-sectional area, and a 400 pound weight savings. I was really hoping for 20 highway. This may be the shove I needed to just buy a CPO gen 3 once the 3.5 hits the market.
rwolfcastle
Well-Known Member
Agreed, I was hoping for 20 as well. When I watched videos on the new Raptor from different parts of the world, it sounded like people were ranging from 16 to 20 mpg. If it's really bad, I may only have this thing for 6 months before I sell and start looking at the hybrid Tacoma, assuming that will be any better.
The other problem is the tank size. Ford can't seem to size a tank properly. The goal should be at least 400 miles per tank. The worst thing about my gen 5 Ranger was that it only went between 330 and 360 miles on a tank so I felt like I was always at the pump.
Wayfaring Ranger
Well-Known Member
91+
You can run it on regular fuel, but generally despite the higher fuel cost, you'll still end up saving money with increased mpgs when you crunch the numbers.
Sponsored
Wayfaring Ranger
Well-Known Member
The 2024 ranger manual is available and this is a quote from it on page 183:
"For best overall vehicle and engine
performance, premium fuel with an octane
rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The
performance gained by using premium fuel
is most noticeable in hot weather as well
as other conditions, for example when
towing a trailer. "
slobkrieg
Active Member
Auto Start/Stop Technology | Standard | Standard | Standard |
| Engine Control System | PCM | PCM | PCM |
| Horsepower (SAE net @ rpm) | 270 | 315 | 405 |
| Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) | 310 lb.-ft. | 400 lb.-ft. | 430 lb.-ft. |
| Compression ratio | 10.1:1 | 10.0:1 | 10.5:1 |
| Bore (in.) | 3.45 in. | 3.267 in. | 3.36 in. |
| Stroke (in.) | 3.7 in. | 3.267 in. | 3.38 in. |
| Displacement (cu. in.) | 140 cu in. | 165 cu. in. | 180 cu. in. |
| Fuel delivery | Direct Injection | Port fuel and direct injection | Port fuel and direct injection |
| Recommended Fuel | 87 Octane | 87 Octane | 91 Octane |
Line 10 , last line. Recommended fuels .
Wayfaring Ranger
Well-Known Member
Conflicting info but the website is more likely to not be the source of truth.
The 2.3L has been in a lot of other ford vehicles where they recommend 91+ due to the turbocharger. I'm gonna assume the historical data + 2024 manual references the correct octane. The 2.0L turbo engine also recommends 91+.
If you get the Ford Performance Calibration/Tune, 91+ becomes a requirement instead of a suggestion.
Sponsored
Similar threads
Member Posted Images
Member Posted Images