3000 mile trip from Florida to Wisconsin and back

[JimJa]

Because fines are so high for not meeting CAFE standards, manufacturers spend a great deal of time with their vehicles in the wind tunnel trying to make vehicles as aero as possible. My experience, as well as several near by friends with other makes, seem to bear out that around 65MPH seems to be the sweet spot. After that mileage drops off and more so the faster you drive, particularly above 75.

I make many 135 mile one-way trips between my home in WY to Idaho Falls, ID. That trip is not too hilly and the speed limit for 2/3s of the distance is 55MPH, the remainder is 65. Three days ago I made the trip and averaged 23.5MPG, round trip, driving 58 in the 55 and 68 in the 65 on 88 octane. Two weeks ago I made a 2,000 mile round trip to the mid-west and averaged 19.5, driving 73 on the 70MPH limit and 82 on the 80MPH limit (WY/S.D. Interstates) on 87 Octane.

Manufactures have to build within tolerances and once-in-awhile those tolerances come together on the bad side and sometimes on the good side. So consistent 22-24MPH in a RR is possible. I'm a light foot and wish I could get what to OP got. It is what it is.

Sponsored

 

[Lion77]

On just highway, I was averaging around 18~19 prior to adding a tonneau cover, the cover added another 1~2 mpg for all highways. I didn't buy the Raptor for fuel economy and mine has the Pro Cal tune, so gotta run premium.

I get why Ford de-tunes their turbo engines to be able to run on standard low-grade octane in the US (87), due to cost and also in case a customer accidentally fills up with lower grade fuel, it won't destroy their engine.

My wife's daily is a 2018 CX-9 (Mazda) with their 2.5L turbo, 310 lb-ft torque at just 1,600 rpm. Great engine. Requires 91 to make full rated power, but we normally run 87 without any issues due to cost as it's primarily for her business.

Not towing or driving at high altitude, not afraid to floor it when merging onto highways (i.e., no pinging on 87 at 125k miles now on the ODO) and the loss of 27 hp, while noticeable, isn't earth shattering. For long trips, we throw in premium for the added performance and preventing possible knock if there's a lot of cargo, high temps or we travel through mountainous regions.

The RR on the other hand, I bought primarily for its blend of performance and utility. The manual suggests you SHOULD run premium even on a stock RR but don't have to for mundane uses, and like most turbo vehicles, at higher altitudes and when towing, you MUST run premium to prevent possible detonation even on the stock engine / calibration.

So the only instance for the RR where would run 87 is just driving around on a trip (cruising), which I do about 60~70% of the time, but the other 30~40% of its use case would require premium anyway, but with the pro-cal I get 106 lb-ft more torque (about 20% increase), 50 hp peak gains and around 70~80 HP in the mid-range and much better shift points.

For me, that makes sense, it gives me the added performance that now makes my RR a bit quicker than the F-150 Raptor (stock) at far less cost, in a far more versatile platform and has no measurable effect on fuel economy when using it for typical travel.

There's only three factory built trucks faster than a Pro Cal tuned RR: F-150 Raptor R, Ram TRX and Ram RHO all of which cost tens of thousands MORE and are far less versatile in their use cases due to their size and all of them get completely horrible gas mileage even when NOT hammering it. As in so bad, it nearly doubles your fuel cost, we're talking 9~12 mpg for those trucks and all for about only 1 second faster quarter mile time that doesn't matter in actual off-road conditions (suspension and terrain are not going to allow you to hit 110 mph off-road except maybe on a small straight for a few seconds at a place like Tatts-Finke).

And how many people are going to do that? I get why really big power production off-road vehicles are bit of a "over-design", it's just not usable power unless on-road. And the RR with a pro-cal has plenty of power for on-road uses to make it a pleasure to drive. It may not be earth shattering, but it isn't weak or slow like a ZR2 Colorado or Hybrid Taco Trail hunter (both get pretty sluggish with the added weight and limited real world power).

I think the RR is a very balanced truck, it's right sized for most people's uses (not all, but most). Even stock it's still the top 5 fastest off-road production trucks. With a Pro-Cal it moves to the 4th spot and really refines the powertrain performance while preserving 95% of factory reliability and some meaningful warranty coverage.

The gas mileage is livable, for long trips it's very high teens, low 20's. Our 2018 CX-9 is rated for 20 city, 26 highway. It's a 4,300lb luxury sprot SUV with a great turbo 4 and AWD. The RR is close to that, but with WAAAYYYY more capability.

Sorry for the long post, but I had a lot to say on the subject for perspective. Your mileage may vary.

 

[superj]

we have a 2018 mazda3 touring with the non turbo 2.5 and even that engine is very impressive. 35mpg at 80 driving across country was awesome in a fully loaded sedan

 

[Gris]

Hi folks: I have an inexpensive tonneau cover on my pro cal tuned ranger raptor and am getting 21 to 22 mpg on a mixture of mountainous roads and straight stretches in Colorado/Arizona.
Question: I am considering getting a second ranger raptor: will my first pro cal tune also tune the second one? I suspect not. And, for everyone's information, I bought the pro cal through Tire Rack a couple hundred dollars cheaper than what Ford charges and it is the same exact part number.

 

[superj]

No, it wont worl on the srcond one

Sponsored