2024 Ranger MPG (EPA) Fuel Economy Numbers Released!

[Rone28]

20.3 gallons

so the RR has a different tank then the regular Ranger? I thought the capacity was 18.8? All-New 2024 Ford Ranger Technical Specifications.pdf

Sponsored

 

[jdlapointe]

It says regular fuel even under the RR. Maybe they used regular. That would mean MPGs should go up with Premium fuel.

I am just happy that my loaded 4x4 XLT will get more fuel economy than my 2018 Taurus it is replacing. The 2.3L is pretty good considering it also has quite a bit more power as well.

 

[Theodore Karadavis]

so the RR has a different tank then the regular Ranger? I thought the capacity was 18.8? All-New 2024 Ford Ranger Technical Specifications.pdf

https://media.ford.com/content/dam/...rd Ranger Raptor Technical Specifications.pdf

 

[Mock01]

so the RR has a different tank then the regular Ranger? I thought the capacity was 18.8? All-New 2024 Ford Ranger Technical Specifications.pdf

I did some looking up and found this. It does indeed seem to have a different tank. Thank god they’re giving us another 2 gallons at least. Hate the small tank

.

 

[Bt_okst]

Ooof 17 combined. I get 22 to 23 hwy in my current tremor and 18 to 19 town.

I've always wanted a ranger raptor, but that is terrible mpg for a small truck.

I'm going to have to see what the new tacoma trd pro and off road get rated at, as I want a sporty truck, but expect low to mid 20s mpg. Otherwise I might as well get a f150.

Really disappointed in these mpg numbers.

 

[tbalt14]

Not surprised by the Raptor mpg numbers. 400hp with 4.27 gear ratio equals poor mpg's.

 

[Wags]

I was hoping the RR would be a little better but it's about the same as my tacoma

 

[SSingh1975]

I'm really happy with my Tremor so far ..in 2 years, still getting about 21mpg combined but the smaller tank is a annoyance. And the "low fuel" indicators comes on once the meter passes 1/4.

But more interested in the 2.7L engine and the mpg on that. I'm paying off in Feb 2025 and comtemplating whether to trade in for the Ranger or the new hybrid Tacoma off-road. Bummer Ford is not doing any hybrid engine here in US.

 

[GypsyDaenger]

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.

That's generally for towing purposes. the 2.0 in the maverick was fine on regular but the manual calls out 91 for towing.

 

[Wayfaring Ranger]

That's generally for towing purposes. the 2.0 in the maverick was fine on regular but the manual calls out 91 for towing.

Right, modern turbo engines can usually run on 87 just fine.

My 2017 focus has the same 2.0L ecoboost as the maverick and isn't doing any towing nor is it made to. The manual for the focus still states "Your vehicle is designed to operate on regular unleaded gasoline with a minimum pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87. For best overall vehicle and engine performance, premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher is recommended. "

The original poster who asked the question said "Anyone know what the recommended octane rating will be for the 2.3L?".

The answer to this, according to the 2024 ranger manual and all the other cars using this engine is that 91 is the recommended octane. 87 is the minimum.

 

[jedadiah]

Uhh. 21+25= 46. 46/2 = 23. Math ain't working for the 2wd Ranger.

 

[RobTile]

When I had my 07 GT500 people would ask me what the gas mileage was. My response was if you have to think about gas mileage then it’s not a car for you. But it was 10.5 and fun as hell
572 to the tires. Besides my 2020big horn hemi gets 11. But I drive it like a hemi. If I did all highway probably 15-16.
my M2 15.8. Always in sport mode hardley sees 7th gear. Drive like it should be driven.
I will not drive my toys all Passive just to get mileage

 

[telenerd]

My 2.7 2 door Bronco with 35s gets about 18mpg and I live at 7200ft elevation. I’d imagine the 2.7 Ranger will be about 19mpg. 17 on the Raptor is actually decent.

 

[jdlapointe]

Uhh. 21+25= 46. 46/2 = 23. Math ain't working for the 2wd Ranger.

The calculation is weighted more city driving than highway. It is not a 50/50 split. That is why the 4x2 and 4x4 get the same 22 combined.

 

[yoopercharged]

When I had my 07 GT500 people would ask me what the gas mileage was. My response was if you have to think about gas mileage then it’s not a car for you. But it was 10.5 and fun as hell
572 to the tires. Besides my 2020big horn hemi gets 11. But I drive it like a hemi. If I did all highway probably 15-16.
my M2 15.8. Always in sport mode hardley sees 7th gear. Drive like it should be driven.
I will not drive my toys all Passive just to get mileage

I see this comment made often on forums. For whatever reason, people like to believe you can't have a fun vehicle that is also somewhat fuel efficient. The Raptor won't strictly be a toy for everyone. In my case, it'll be a daily driver that I can hit the trails/dunes with on the weekend.

I was looking for a significant improvement over my 10 year old 6.2l full-size pickup. The fact that this smaller truck with a 3.0l can only do marginally better isn't saying much for Ecoboost technology, which was introduced to provide similar power/torque levels to larger naturally aspirated motors but with better efficiency and fewer emissions. Ford may as well just have threw a Coyote in the Raptor. It manages 16/22 in a 4WD F-150.

Sponsored