2024 Ranger MPG (EPA) Fuel Economy Numbers Released!

[Bt_okst]

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.

Exactly. You're spot on in this post.

Sponsored

 

[RobTile]

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.

Mine will be a daily as well. It’ll be decent mpg but for me I am not gonna not jump on it get 2 mpg more

 

[jdlapointe]

The issue is, people are comparing the raptor to a road princess, which it is not. It is a baja truck first and foremost. It is incomparable to any regular truck mid or full size. The ecoboost is efficient when it needs to be, but in this case it is tuned for max power, and not max MPG.

Apples to oranges. People bought an apple but want it to be an orange.

 

[goalieThreeOne]

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.

Engine efficiency isn’t based solely on the engine itself. The Raptor has tall gearing, which gives it exceptional acceleration at the expense of highway efficiency. It’s carrying hundreds of pound of extra suspension equipment over a leaf spring Ranger. It’s got heavy 33” off road tires. Everything about this vehicle is designed towards off road performance. If you wanted fuel efficiency, something about that off road performance must be compromised. Not to mention that because of the steel bed, it’s heavier than an F150 Tremor.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. We still live in a world limited by physics.

 

[Mikknj]

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.

I will always run 91 to reduce the chances of detonation. The turbo will like you for this. - in the long run...

 

[Mikknj]

The issue is, people are comparing the raptor to a road princess, which it is not. It is a baja truck first and foremost. It is incomparable to any regular truck mid or full size. The ecoboost is efficient when it needs to be, but in this case it is tuned for max power, and not max MPG.

Apples to oranges. People bought an apple but want it to be an orange.

Little sports cars with big engines suffer the same physics reality.

 

[GreyAreaRanger]

Im impressed. Thats a lot better than the colorados. For the regular rangers/colorados at least.

Compare HP and TQ and I’m willing to sacrifice a few mpgs for 40hp and 80-120 ft-lbs tq. I want to see what the Ecoboost 2.7 will do in the Ranger compared to the high output 2.7 Colorado will do, unfortunately I doubt GM will release the 10 speed anytime soon for the Colorado

 

[richman555]

2.3 liter making a compelling case! Id like to see some driving reviews to make sure it is adequately powerful.

 

[Wayfaring Ranger]

I will always run 91 to reduce the chances of detonation. The turbo will like you for this. - in the long run...

Right. It honestly doesn't matter what the manual recommends at the end of the day...if you have a car with a turbocharger you should be putting 91+ in it. It's just the nature of these types of engines and it has been this way for multiple decades.

 

[LoneStarCaviar]

Same here, that's about what I used to get in the Dakota but it's probably worse than that now with as old as it is. Definitely better than the 9 mpg I get in the CTS-V. If I want good gas mileage I'll just ride the gixxer lol.

Now who's going to make it worse with e85 like me?

Nice, I have a lsa to put in an old Chevy truck, just gotta get around to it. We usually Coyote swap everything, and we even have about 30 predator blowers for the new gt500s. Here’s just three of our supercharged mustangs, the red Mach 1 has the same engine and whipple as the white 2015. Absolute beast of a car. I like gixxers, just too cramped for me, so I went with a dorsoduro, but it doesn’t get great mileage either. Best I have is a 2018 Audi A4 that gets close to 35 mpg on the highway.

 

[1986YellowRanger]

2.3 liter making a compelling case! Id like to see some driving reviews to make sure it is adequately powerful.

It’s the same engine as the current Ranger. Go drive it. I think it does fine, and all the reviews are generally positive. I’m still waiting for the 2.7 because I’m a bit of a lead foot and plan in driving this truck for 10+ years.

 

[fordtrks4ever]

It’s the same engine as the current Ranger. Go drive it. I think it does fine, and all the reviews are generally positive. I’m still waiting for the 2.7 because I’m a bit of a lead foot and plan in driving this truck for 10+ years.

I really want the 2.7 but do not wish to wait till summer to order.
So will order a 2.3 and drive it for 2 to 3 years and trade for a Ranger with a 2.7.

 

[Rone28]

I really want the 2.7 but do not wish to wait till summer to order.
So will order a 2.3 and drive it for 2 to 3 years and trade for a Ranger with a 2.7.

I am not willing to wait either. Unless it takes 3+ months to get my build date then I may reconsider. Now, if I thought I could get more power AND 23-26 mpg I would wait either way. Hard to say what I believe on mpg for the 2.7.

 

[FreezingFlatlander]

I really want the 2.7 but do not wish to wait till summer to order.
So will order a 2.3 and drive it for 2 to 3 years and trade for a Ranger with a 2.7.

Same here, My dealer has a 2.3 Lariat coming in and told him to put my name on it, am not waiting for the 2.7. I have an F150 4x4 with the 2.7 now and like the engine, am not sure the 2.7 engine won't get as good or better gas mileage than the 2.3. I know that makes no sense but it might be true. Recently took a 650 mile round trip with the F150, 95% highway driving, 70 mph and got 22 point something mpg hand calculated. I rarely get less than 20 mpg with the F150 and am more than satisfied with the power, I like the 2.7 engine.

 

[slobkrieg]

Look at the Bronco .It has both engins and which one gets better MPG .

Sponsored