Ford Released Official MPG Ratings For 2019 Ford Ranger

I might be a bit biased here but I don't think the average truck buyer would appreciate the plastic paneling they put on cars to increase aerodynamic efficiency. Many truck owners light to work on their own stuff and things like that get in the way. Not to mention, would probably get ripped off the first time they hit a trail worse than a logging road.

Anything more robust would increase weight and probably cost more than a vehicle manufacturer or the customer would want to pay. That is part of the reason manufacturers put the skid plates they do make on their trucks and SUVs. Better than nothing but not quite what they should be (usually).

I personally would probably not mind the extra cost IF it was executed correctly with quick and easy to remove panels. Knowing how manufacturers are trying more and more to make you come to the dealer for service, they would probably make it a real PITA to get those panels off without special tools and equipment. So I'd rather not push the issue. Be careful of what you ask for. You may get it....

85_Ranger4x4 said:

Most truck buyers probably won't like the cardboard/duct tape look. "Bigger and bolder than anyone has bigger and bolded before" is the name of the game for truck styling now.

Skidplates are great for trapping debris too, the only skidplate I have between my two 4x4 trucks is one for the t-case on my Ranger and one I robbed off an FX4 F-150 to keep snow out of the engine bay on my F-150. I don't really want that running the full length of my truck accumulating gravel dust, mud and moisture.

Click to expand...

I know you're joking about the cardboard, but aero mods like that can be integrated pretty well. 99% of modern cars and SUVs have grilles that are at least partially blocked. Fake grilles keep getting bigger and more common because they can style them however and not affect the cooling capabilities. Nobody sees the underside of their vehicles, so they wouldn't even know if an undertray was there or not. I think every half ton truck now has an integrated spoiler in the top of the tailgate, and low hanging front valences in the name of aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. It doesn't seem to be slowing sales at all. If anything, it's made the trucks more desirable by somewhat mitigating one of their biggest drawbacks.

sgtsandman said:

I might be a bit biased here but I don't think the average truck buyer would appreciate the plastic paneling they put on cars to increase aerodynamic efficiency. Many truck owners light to work on their own stuff and things like that get in the way. Not to mention, would probably get ripped off the first time they hit a trail worse than a logging road.

Anything more robust would increase weight and probably cost more than a vehicle manufacturer or the customer would want to pay. That is part of the reason manufacturers put the skid plates they do make on their trucks and SUVs. Better than nothing but not quite what they should be (usually).

I personally would probably not mind the extra cost IF it was executed correctly with quick and easy to remove panels. Knowing how manufacturers are trying more and more to make you come to the dealer for service, they would probably make it a real PITA to get those panels off without special tools and equipment. So I'd rather not push the issue. Be careful of what you ask for. You may get it....

Click to expand...

How many new truck buyers have any idea what the underside of their truck looks like? How many people are going to off road these things hard enough to damage an underbody tray? They're $30-40k. That's a lot of money for most people to be tearing up on rocks and logging roads. I'd put good money on a bet that 95% of them basically never leave smooth pavement or gravel roads while they're new enough to have a warranty. They're targeted at suburban dads that need a single vehicle to get to work, and then do Lowes trips, help somebody move or haul the occasional boat on the weekends. If they're going to spend the vast majority of their time on roads, then it seems to me that fuel efficiency should probably be prioritized over rugged capabilities, breakover angle, etc. Leave that stuff for a special off road edition that you can then charge more for like a Raptor or whatever they call it.

Anyway, I've complained enough now. Sorry if I rained on anybody's parade. I think they could've done more, but it's still a class leading vehicle in many cases. The marketing department will have something to latch onto, and they'll probably sell a ton of them as long as the economy holds out for a couple more years. If anybody reading this ends up with one, I hope they love it.

stmitch said:

I know you're joking about the cardboard, but aero mods like that can be integrated pretty well. 99% of modern cars and SUVs have grilles that are at least partially blocked. Fake grilles keep getting bigger and more common because they can style them however and not affect the cooling capabilities. Nobody sees the underside of their vehicles, so they wouldn't even know if an undertray was there or not. I think every half ton truck now has an integrated spoiler in the top of the tailgate, and low hanging front valences in the name of aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. It doesn't seem to be slowing sales at all. If anything, it's made the trucks more desirable by somewhat mitigating one of their biggest drawbacks.

Click to expand...

For midsizes with the "offroad package" it is common for the airdam to be reduced or outright deleted.

If I didn't rip such a thing off cornstalks would.

No parade being rained on here. I’ve come to accept the mpg ratings that come with the territory.

The only real reservation I have up front is the engine and the head gasket issue that some had a problem with on other platforms. Everything else seems to be pretty much proven or hashed out.

For me, the new Ranger is more of a compromise of what I really need and what I would like to have anyway. The wallet only goes so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mastuhwaffles said:

that's really...bad.

My truck makes similar horse power and maybe 5mpg less. I figured with the ecoboost they could achieve 30 at least. Is there plans for a diesel engine?

Click to expand...

not. Lol

It's a truck and I would use it as such as I do my F150's and not worry about MPG's unless it starts sucking gas for a bad reason.

Well I never bought a pickup truck to have a smooth ride or great MPG
They have neither

Chevy Cruze Hatchback diesel(non-hybrid) boasts 52MPG highway <<< thats cool

Rolls-Royce models, smooth ride, gets about 14MPG


I think about 25MPG for a Ranger pick up seems about right

I got right at 25 from my 3.0 one time coming back from IN driving 1 mph under speed limit for 600 miles on cruise ... mostly downhill ... tailwind ... Get 17 now max hwy. Usually I get about 14.

Not really sure what this means...

https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/02/report-ford-hires-independent-investigators-to-look-into-possibly-misleading-fuel-economy-reporting-ford-ranger-mpg-under-microscope/

85_Ranger4x4 said:

Not really sure what this means...

https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/02/report-ford-hires-independent-investigators-to-look-into-possibly-misleading-fuel-economy-reporting-ford-ranger-mpg-under-microscope/

Click to expand...

It means ,since Ford is Working with VW on a shared truck platform, they may use the computer to give false emission read-outs.

Ranger850 said:

It means ,since Ford is Working with VW on a shared truck platform, they may use the computer to give false emission read-outs.

Click to expand...

Ford nipped that part in the bud:

Ford states that there are no emission “defeat devices” involved. The issue appears to be with computer modeling and physical testing of several driving cycles as they relate to fuel economy estimates. The driving cycles in question are: road load and coastdown testing.

Click to expand...

85_Ranger4x4 said:

Ford nipped that part in the bud:

Click to expand...

Suuuure, Riiiiight, Nothing to see here folks, look over there------>... I would say the same thing. But My middle school principal told me, and I quote - " If you play with Do-Do, your hands are gonna stink." Witch, in this case means, if you work with known cheaters, you look like a cheater. Just sayin'. I didn't really read the article, just skimmed over it. I'm probably way off. Just

Ranger850 said:

Suuuure, Riiiiight, Nothing to see here folks, look over there------>... I would say the same thing. But My middle school principal told me, and I quote - " If you play with Do-Do, your hands are gonna stink." Witch, in this case means, if you work with known cheaters, you look like a cheater. Just sayin'. I didn't really read the article, just skimmed over it. I'm probably way off. Just

Click to expand...

After watching the video I think Ford is investigating itself about how they calculate MPG.

The reviews I have seen did have slightly lower than rated mpg... but that is typical.

85_Ranger4x4 said:

After watching the video I think Ford is investigating itself about how they calculate MPG.

The reviews I have seen did have slightly lower than rated mpg... but that is typical.

Click to expand...

Oh. Ok. I guess that makes sense. After years of assuming a formula is correct, it's time to re-evaluate the process and see if the numbers add up

85_Ranger4x4 said:

After watching the video I think Ford is investigating itself about how they calculate MPG.



The reviews I have seen did have slightly lower than rated mpg... but that is typical.

Click to expand...

I have found that their mpg quotes have been more optimistic that what I actually get. I’ve only seen factory mpg twice. Once when the planets aligned just right and the other when the left catalytic converter was just about to fail. The 2011 Ranger is supposed to get 23 mpg highway but I normally see something around 20.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk