Breaking News - Ford Launches Probe Into Ranger Fuel Economy: Here's What It Means!
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 02. 2019
- ( www.TFLcar.com ) Breaking News - Ford Launches Probe Into Ranger Fuel Economy: Here's What It Means!
( / tflcar ) Please visit to support TFLcar & TFLtruck.
Check us out on:
Facebook: ( / tfltruck )
Twitter: ( / tfltruck )
and now even Truck Videos on CZcams at:
The Fast Lane Truck ( / tflcar )
and classic cars as well at:
TFLClassics ( / classicsunleashed ) - Auta a dopravní prostředky
I'm a big Ford fan, and it always sucks to hear news of this type for the home team, but I'm glad TFL reports these things as they are. It keeps everyone honest.
I would trust them again as they’ve come forward by themselves. Two of my last three Ford purchases actually beat their EPA figures comfortably but I know that the current Fusion also comes in well below in real world results than its EPA figures also which is one of the reasons that it stopped selling.
@Bruce Solomon That's one of the many things I've loved about Ford. They seem to slightly under-rate the fuel economy numbers and the horsepower numbers on their vehicles. This makes for pleasant surprises in every day driving and out-of-pocket costs, but also when you go to the dyno!
Any of the EcoBoost vehicles are a different story. When you add boost to an engine, as the driver of your vehicle, you have to act like you've got a hollowed eggshell between your foot and the accelerator. It's SO easy to get into the boost and eat gas like a 1968 Cobrajet V8!
Don't be a Ford guy, be an everything guy. Life's much better this way👌🏻
Ford motor company never lies. They are doing great things like buying old Detroit train station and working on making things nature friendly.
I have driven Fords off and on for 35 years. Some are good, some not so much. Just like Chevy and Ram. Some good, some not so much. Every type has lemons. And some are great. I just got rid of a Raptor that cost Ford at least 25,000 dollars and me about 10,000 bucks. Worst POS I have ever owned. I have a new Ram Rebel. Too new to report yet.
Oh, come on! If you already know the mileage figures you got, why not tell us today and, instead, make us come back tomorrow?
For the same reason regular TV shows say "Next time, on The Big Bang Theory..." or something similar.
They want more views
I’ve always found that odd as the Big Bang only happened once.
They will add each in so they can prove their numbers, rather than just saying it. I am betting its WAY off, like 10 mpg off.
Guess what... we will be watching it tomorrow 🤪
I've never purchased a vehicle based on fuel economy. I buy what I need/like, I buy what puts a smile on my face. If you can't afford a couple hundred extra dollars a year for gas, you probably can't afford the 40K the vehicle costs.
The new Ford Probe!🤣😂
I see what you did there lol
Ahead of it's time!
Lol
I miss my 95 probe gt
R Dixon yasssss!!!!!
ROAD LOAD= WIND RESISTANCE, Tire roll Resistance . This would be HARD to measure in a wind tunnel, and on paper and SHOULD be a Real world test. Thank you TFL for getting it Done!
Yeah this is the most true thing that everybody forgets that wind tunnel will never replace real world conditions. And here is the problem most people don't understand UTE/Pickups no matter what marketing of car manufacturers say have the aerodynamics of the freaking brick. When you look at guide videos from people who do a "proper off road" (in other words people who aren't calling a dirt track that can be beaten by any car at any weather "off road" terrain) that highest speed that you should drive is 80 km/h (or 50 m/h if you will) if you wan't any fuel economy.
My Toyota truck gets exactly the fuel economy as advertised. Not good fuel economy, but exactly the stated MPG for highway and city driving.
I The insurmountable difference is that the Tacoma’s resale is so solid that you cannot even buy one used better than you can just buy a new one. On the other hand, the Ranger’s resale in the USA will suck so badly you’re stuck with it if you don’t like it. Not a difficult decision.
@@prevost8686 I was looking at sales reports since January Toyota sold 20000 units of the Tacoma since January the Rangers since it's been launched 2000 units it's not looking good right now. And with the Jeep Gladiator coming out the Rangers going to take a big hit I'm not a Ford hater by any means but for the price they're charging you're better off getting an F-150
pilot steve I’m not a Ford hater by any means but the Taco has a well deserved ranking as the finest small/compact truck ever made. Their owners are fiercely loyal and have no interest in experimenting with anything else, When you add to that the fact that Ford offers no V-6 option it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going to be the result.
Toyota is upfront on their mpg. Spend extra money on gas, you won't on maintenance or quality.
@@prevost8686 Yeah. That's why so few of them are sold.
The EPA is a joke. Pay a non government independent lab to do modern fuel economy tests. Have a summer and a "winter" number. Do all highway tests at 70 mph with the fancy dancy automatic climate controls set to 68 degrees and auto. Include information like the tires used and trim. Have a code with a website or something if people care that much they can scan the sticker with their phone.
I use fuelly for my real world numbers. Actual people unloading real world numbers. I haven't been surprised since I got my 2.7 Ecoboost F150. About what people were averaging on the site.
I agree the EPA numbers are a joke. Vehicles rarely get what the EPA says and that goes for all brands.
Just let Roman, Nathan and Andre handle it. Nobody takes EPA MPG ratings seriously anyway.
James, that is incorrect for the United States. Check IIHS for the real analytics. 41 states have an average posted highway speed of 70mph or higher, and 19 of those have an average posted highway speed of 75-85mph. Hawaii is the only state with with posted speeds of 55-60mph on average.
Whole government is joke since Donald trump took office over from Obama.
Just put the first tank in my Lariat FX4 Crew Cab, combined driving was 21.1. For a brand new 4x4 truck, I'll take that any day of the week.
I just did a 105 miles of errands both city and highway, and driving gingerly was able to achieve 24.5 MPG, this truck, a 4x4 is EPA rated 24 highway, so is achievable. There are people out there getting better than I have. Of course if you get your foot into it it goes downhill fast, and with the fun factor of the power is easy to do.
EVERYONE needs to test the car on a full tank before buying it. Before committing to a car, ask your dealer if you can do at least 50 miles on it before deciding to buy it, and fill the tank back up after your test. Then use the GALLONS USED and FILL UP COST to calculate against the MILES YOU DROVE. This is your ACTUAL fuel economy!
Don't rely on manufacturer-submitted EPA numbers. Do your own tests, on your local roads, in your local weather conditions! :)
Is it just me or does it sound like Roman is about to cry? The poor prized ranger got some dirt on its knees
Foreal he sound like he’s at the Rangers funeral ⚰️
Sounds like he might have a cold.
He just sounded sick, not sad. Rorschach test I guess.
He is just using his "journalist" tone of voice, to enhance "dramatize" the seriousness of the issue.
No you doofus, it sounds like he is sick.
Ford working with VW now??? WOW!! Here we ve got the first result of the corporation!
Ford created Volkswagen for Hitler. Look it up. Because of Henry Ford's help and resources, Hitler wanted to commission Henry Ford a colonel in the SS. The original VW factory was an internment camp. Men and women weren't suppose to fraternize, but they did. As a result war crimes occurred, including the murdering of pregnant women or nearly born children. Ferdinand Porsche was held accountable for the war crimes. Ford and VW have been hand in hand ever since. Even the executives today are intertwined. Look into Mark Fields. He designed the VW New Beetle in the late 90s. Several years later he was Ford's President of The Americas.
@@domin8ss didn't Henry Ford hate Jews?
@@adrianhosein7698 that I don't know
Wow! Great informative video. Thanks!
The EPA should just test all vehicles and compare. No bullshit
All automakers lie about there numbers. Never heard of one that was exacly what they said it would be. Aslong as they don't test like they should test cars it will never change. Who gets screwed, all of us :-(
I doubt it would make much difference. I think most of the discrepancies are due to the vehicles being designed to the test and manufacturers choosing their most economical configurations for testing.
@@sonictech1000 maybe the EPA should tell manufacturers to give them there most heavy version and test that. Then all the lighter versions will even use less then what the test results say. Then the costumer atleast get a fair number and does not get screwed over.
@@rikkiesix That still leaves you with the problem of manufacturers designing to the test though. IMHO it would be more effective in the long run for the EPA to get out of this business altogether and for consumers to look to independent, competitive, third parties for their testing/mpg numbers.
@@rikkiesix That wouldn't work (for the manufacturers) because you'd have a large group of people who are scared off by the "EPA reported" fuel economy numbers alone, and never set foot on a dealership lot.
I dont want no big gobment! cut the ford ceo's taxes again!
Good reporting!
Alex On Autos has stated the most accurate brand he has tested over the years that is most accurate with EPA fuel numbers is Toyota
Funny you should say that as my wife's RAV 4 is pretty darn close to the EPA estimates. If you really try it is not hard to exceed the EPA numbers by a little bit but with normal driving we are getting within 1 MPG of the EPA estimate. I also have a Prius that my daughter drives and it gets pretty darn close too.
Toyota also doesn't really use many turbo engines. Which tend to do well on the government mpg test but worse in actual real world driving.
I had a tundra EPA combined was 14mpg, I got 14.3 lifetime. I now own a Tacoma, EPA combined is 20 mpg, so far I’m averaging 19.7 mpg. Both hand calculated over the years.
Fuel num yes emissions ....lets just say they know how to work the sistem( secondary air injection pump)
And my 07 tundra gets me16.5 total
Fuel economy is subjective, you can get this mileage, I can get that mileage..... all depends on the current conditions and how heavy your foot is !
And how heavy your butt is! Not to mention, there are plenty of people who carry around 100 or more pounds of "stuff" in their vehicles, which also adds to the total weight and brings down their fuel economy. Then they turn around and blame the manufacturer.
100% agree!! For example, I will always get better MPG here on the Canadian prairies vs someone out in BC. And ya, I’m a Ford guy but in (my opinion), Ford deserves credit where credit is due. The company is concerned that there products are not meeting spec so they are taking it upon them selfs (without any outside agency telling them to) to fix a potential problem. I have never heard of any other auto manufacturer doing that in regards to MPG results. So ya, if it comes up with bad results then that sucks. But good on them for taking the risk and the potential backlash to right a wrong.
A wind tunnel and a computer are NOT accurate. They need Real world testing, and TFL has done it!
Exactly! This applies especially to turbocharged engines like this one. I have a very similar 2.3 in my 2015 Mustang with a manual transmission and it returns anywhere between 28 MPG and 11 MPG depending on conditions and how fast I go. After 37 000 miles I have a long term average of 21 MPG which is quite a bit worse than the official EPA figures, but then again I live in Europe and unlimited freeways are well worth the extra fuel :-)
I had a Yukon with a 6.0 liter v8. After I put an after market exhaust on, my mpg dropped. But man did that thing sound good when you floored it.
I just picked up a ranger last week. I was skeptical of the fuel mileage after hearing the concerns but my first tank was 23.8mpg when the computer said 25.0mpg my second tank was even better at over 24. I do 95% highway driving so i think it is a little underrated because normal driving would probably be more accurate at 22-33 but its not the 19 to 20 that everyone claims.
Roman, Sorry to hear you have a bad Cold hope you feel better....
I have 2,000 miles on my ranger and with mixed driving it’s showing 23.9 mpg so far .. I reset the trip when I bought it to keep a lifetime average .. lariat supercrew fx4
Colbey Moore Have you manually calculated your mpg and compared your results with the onboard computer?
Gabez82 yes every tank .. it’s usually off by about .5 mpg .. I will say the mileage drops off huge at 65, like all the other eco’s it’s sweet spot is 50-60 mph
@@colbeymoore2785 I've noticed in mine there are a few "sweet spots" where the mpg improves significantly. It also goes sky high if I use the adaptive cruise as I think it has better control over throttle position than I do with my foot.
t4thfavor1212 I always use adaptive cruise .. the sweetest spot I have found is 45 mph which is a lot of my rural roads speed limit
I’ve had the truck for almost a month, and getting around 18-19 mpg between hwy and local. I’m completely satisfied with that number. I did a trip all hwy and reset the meter and actually got 22.9 mpg. Pretty darn good. I have zero issues with this.
Thank you for the video report! Will be interesting to see where this leads. Also looking forward to see what you guys got MPG wise out of the new Ranger! 👍
This shit has been going on for so long now with many manufacturers. It’s funny to see this topic finally get traction. Tires of trucks being rated for 22+ or so hwy and not ever getting close on a road trip.
Thanks to TFL's great reviews, I ordered my fully loaded Ranger Lariat about a month ago and I'm hoping it will arrive sooner than later. I wonder if this kind of probe will affect production? Depending on the result of such an investigation, could there be a discount offered to buyers of the Ranger if we were misled on its fuel economy specs? Not really confidence inspiring to a long time Subaru driver buying his first Ford. :-/
Chad, that's awesome about your Ranger Lariat! I'd love to be in a position to buy brand new right now. It's just not the right time for us.
Don't let this news get you down about your new truck, or Ford! Ford is a great company, they listen to and have the pulse of their customers. I'm sure they'll take care of you.
Run away while you still can, this vehicle is a total rip off brand new
I’ve had the truck for almost a month now, and I’m getting between 18-19 mpg hwy and local combined. I’m completely happy with that number. I did a trip all hwy and reset the meter and literally got 22.9 mpgs. I’ve never had a car that got exactly what the sticker said. It’s all how you drive the truck. I have zero issue with this, and I’m actually pleasantly surprised how efficient it’s been thus far 🤷♂️
Im glad you guys did this cause I was looking highly in getting one of these and now I’ll wait to see what happens.
Impressed that TFL reported this...never heard anything on lame stream media!
Nice work
Im excited to see their results. Love the channel.
Thanks for the great information Roman. You aren't sounding too great. Hope you're well.
"Ford launches probe into ranger fuel economy." I see what you did there...
No video is to long with you guys . Keep up the good work
The whole tone of the vid was really somber like someone died. Other than that, thanks for the info.
TFL did have a Raptor, and I know that at least a few of the staff are Ford fans. I think it's appropriate that it was somber.
There's nothing exactly "happy" about the fact that yet another automaker has been potentially caught fudging MPG numbers. This could cost Ford billions of dollars and more importantly the loss of Ford jobs. That's very sad!
hyperbole much? Ford is conducting an internal audit after it's own employees raised a concern about potentially bad model data which is very different than trying to "fudge" numbers. My F150 consistently gets higher fuel economy than the fuel label. I
My stock value was on life support and the plug was just pulled by a nerd with a stack of papers.
@@ehabaleid1093 not internal.
They hired an independent firm. That will be risking it's reputation on its results
As a GM employee, this pleases me greatly. 😄
As a Ford fan and F150 owner, this makes me very sad.😥
I may need therapy before this is over.😬
for people complaining about the price and it being "almost as much as an F150"... I just built a comparable ranger to my F150 on the website, my truck list price was 52,000 a comparable ranger list price is 39,765. I paid 39,400 out the door for my F150 so if you take that amount of discount and apply even half of it to the ranger, you get a very nice truck for a very good price
11 prius got 51 city 48 hwy as advertised.Now I drive "THE GM VALDEZ"aka Rusty 99 Yukon .Got a prius gas dropped now I have the most ginormus 4WD i ever had get ready !
Andre: "We always follow manufacturer's recommendations (regarding octane)" Except in the 2019 Rebel where your tests have all been run AFAIK running fuel below the recommendation... You need to test it with fuel meeting the minimum recommendation. Dont run 87 in an 89 truck and then do a fuel economy test. If you can't buy 89 in Colorado put 91 in and try again.
You seem outta breath are you okay Roman?! Sick? Thanks for info can't wait to see the video tomorrow.
Thanks for the follow up
What’s new? OEM MPG numbers are ALWAYS higher than you ever get yourself.
These types of regulations are pretty much like taxes. The incentives to get as close to the line as possible (and possibly put a toe over) are huge.
Meanwhile I’m here getting 18 combined in my V6 Fj Cruiser.... GAS-HOGS FOR LIFE!!
I've always said that my Raptor never gets what the computer shows. When I measure it the way you guys do, it is usually about a half a mile to a mile under. My GMC was the same way though. Just figured that is what they do.
I have a 2017 Ford Edge Sport with the 2.7 twin turbo. EPA sticker was 17/24. I get 17 in the city and no less then 24 on the hwy. Frequently on a long trip kept at less then 70 I will get 25-27 mpg in all hwy driving.
I am glad to hear Ford are being open about this and actually looking into it. There is always going to be some discrepancy between real world and tests but they should be realistic so consumers have a good idea of what to expect. My 2010 F150 got the same as the EPA numbers, my 2016 Taurus also matches the EPA numbers.
As far as the high altitude testing TFL does, it is bound to have some effect but I am not sure how much.
Will ram do anything about correcting the epa of the ram rebel. I saw your 3 videos of the rebel not getting the same mpg numbers as what ram says what the epa for the rebel.
This isn't a big deal. Im a tech at a Ford dealer I have preform numerous MPG tests for customers. Veh always get advertised fuel economy. Problem is no drives the speed limit, if you drive around constantly 10-20mph over the speed limit your MPG is going to suck.
Not in the case of my 2018 F150 Platinum. My fuel mileage falls in line with all the people in the forums and we cannot even come close to the 23 MPG on the highway for a 4X4 model especially with 3.55 or 3.73 gears. Funny thing is that if I short shift in manual mode around town, I can get 18 MPG in local driving in the suburbs which is far better than my old Mercury Grand Marquis or the Taurus. I will say you statement is precise and correct for the Ford cars in my current fleet like the 2014 Fiesta and 2013 SHO which I can exceed the EPA numbers if I operate the car at the speed limit.
If you have EB, stay out of the boost and use sport trak mode. If you have latest Coyote, don't buy over 3.31 rear end, also use sport trak mode.
I get a kick out of people like a Gary. Buys a $65k truck and worries about fuel mileage. LOL. Screwed up on at least two fronts.
@@sdvten It is not about the $$$ as it is about getting the needed range to complete my regular trips from southeastern "Pennsyltucky" to proper northeastern "Kentucky" without having to do a "splash and dash" along the trip to get my advertised MPG and proper range out of the truck. That's all.
I am a fan too,..and only Wednesday was chatting informally with a Ford dealer sales rep. about trading my '17 2.0 litre Escape for a Ranger.
I had decided, at this point too, to wait for one more year, before going forward on this. The news from TFL now will be very interesting to hear.
Reg Sparkes my wife’s Escape has so much more value for its price compared to a stupid ranger, why take the escape in? Also hers with full cab gets 29-31 mpg on hwy at 70 mph flat ground all time time here in Washington. Why give up a semi luxury vehicle that cost 22 grand out the door when the ranger cost above 40 grand and is worthless for price? Get an f150, I got an older one
@@skyhawk21 I appreciate your comments of course,.but as I noted,...I am waiting a year to be sure the Ranger will suit me,.and also now, to see what 'bugs' may be there that a years production may work out.
I do agree with you and your wife's choice of the Escape, and while on that subject it also makes me wonder why TFL rarely ever talks about nor does reviews on the Escape.
The escape is not a truck, sadly to TFL. To my wife and I, it does feel like driving a small truck due to the boxy look and feel and tough suspension. Feels like a small f150 inside when driving.
Just fyi, if you own a turbo charged vehicle, the number will never match the EPA. Because there's quite a significant difference in testing and real world driving. I had an Evo IV. That I could drop down to 10 mph depending on my driving habits. My EcoBoost F150 gets 17 combined with a plus 2 tire size and depending on my driving habits can sink pretty fast. So its all relative.
Epa mpg has always been a joke, as that whole department always been. Real world tests are always mandatory in buying a new car nowadays
Has any EPA mileage rating been met? I have yet to see one.
Still driving my 2003 ranger with 185000 miles, not ready to spend $40,000 on a new truck.
What engine driveline combination?.
The cold part about it is,the truck doesn't get very good mileage anyway. Seems to me the turbo motors perform well and last long but efficiency is lacking.
never saw 88 octane, before. wondering if the refineries stopped making 12,000 blends and maybe cut it down to 3/4 whether it would bring prices down at all.
Most all don’t get what they (consistently) advertise they will, but different conditions, day, mood, its possible. Ballpark +/- 4
It's bad for owners cause when smog is due the vehicle will most likely fail or be put on a yearly smog check list instead of every 2 years
Announcement: Ford gets recognition for doing its job.
My 87 ranger 2.9 v6 5 speed gets me 18 city 24 highway with the cruise control on.. yes the ac and cruise control still works..... 258k miles and counting
I have a 2018 Focus EPA says 38 highway, 28 City, 32 Combined. I get 33 MPG Average.
I have a focus aswell it suppose to get 36 HW and 28 in city but I get 38-42 mpg in the highway tho. So that was a surprise.
My equinox turbo gets really crummy mpg compared to the sticker but it does well for the light towing of a 3000 pound rig.
Roman’s heavy nose breathing between each sentence. Once you hear it it’s maddening
Considering everything we buy seems to never get the mpg it states, I doubt it will amount to a number that it would matter too much. Lets hope.
I wish all car companies would be honest about there mpg. It would be nice give towing mpg too for pickups
There’s no way to certify towing MPG. There are simply too many different types of trailers with different numbers of axles and different structures. A small single axle utility trailer will affect MPG much less than a box cargo trailer that has much more wind resistance
Ok, you got 20, 17, and 21 gallon out of three tanks from California to Denver.
I'm more interested in what I can expect on the entire trip vs half the trip.
Time for a real world test to set this in stone
It's time to have all vehicles tested by an independent entity under set conditions.
Well so far I haven't seen any video on the new Ford Ranger get above 20 MPG so it will be interesting to see the results obviously different tires can play a huge difference.
2021xlt best mpg 18.5
TFL also needs to read the fine print. Ford gets their numbers using premium fuel. So yeah your numbers will be different using a lower grade octane.
I have a 2017 1.5 Ecoboost fusion and I have never gotten the advertised 34 HWY/23 CITY MPG advertised. In city I get 18.5 to 19 mpg and in highway I get 31 to 31.8 mpg according to the car computer, that's way far off from the advertised numbers. And I'm beyond in love with the car, expect for that huge issue.
I do NOT understand the EPA denial that they do certifications/testing of MPG. EPA lawyers claimed THEY certify/test MPG for vehicles, NOT the manufacturers. this testimony is from court records that the EPA does the testing and certifications. Honda was sued in court because the actual MPG was so far below the actual test results/certification. Honda won their suit claiming they DO NOT test/certify MPG! what gives? did Honda and the EPA both lie in court?
I think most consumers know EPA numbers are ballpark - but if the numbers are more that 5-10mpg off then that will be very bad for Ford IMO
You know, it’s funny that back when the EPA tested all the new vehicles, everyone screamed about how they didn’t show “real world” mpg numbers, because they used a standardized testing method. NOW that everyone is relying on their models of fuel use, and EPA is reduced to “certifying” the models, everyone is screaming about how the manufacturers are providing bad data, the mpg numbers are only for one version of the vehicle out of many, and they don’t match “real world” numbers. At least the old system provided a benchmark from manufacturer to manufacturer by vehicle.
I LOVE TFL REVIEWS and I TRUST ROMAN MICA and NATHAN ADLEN and ANDRE SMIRNOFF'S REVIEWS. It does give a MEASURE OF DISCOMFORT to hear of EMISSIONS SYSTEM being a bit off for the FORD RANGER. This isn't the first time that there were issues with ford vehicles though and i hope that they are resolved.
As I've said before midsize trucks have midsize engines. Plus geared to keep engines in the powerband. That equals not so great of mpg. I expect they will settle into the 17 to 18 mpg category. The Ranger cost less than the full size thats why its being built. To capture the in betweeners dont want an suv and cant afford a f-150.
Could very well be that under conditions similar to being tested (low load) the truck runs lean on low boost and then runs rich with higher boost in situations where it needs more power, most turbo engines are farther away from their epa rating than NA ones. It's mostly a feature to get better advertised efficiency but doesn't translate well into the real world.
This issue just continues the discussion which began with the Ram Rebel not meeting EPA highway mileage results by your road tests. I have outlined the EPA chassis dynamometer testing procedures in that discussion and shown that you cannot use non repeatable road testing at speeds that are not even close to EPA driving cycles. In the EPA tests the chassis dynamometer is programmed to simulate the vehicle weight and to the speed dependent loads for rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. In the case involving Ford, it appears that these rolling resistance and aero loads, which are determined by computer simulations and real road tests of coastdown times, may be in question. Since the number of vehicles to be tested each year with their varying weights and rolling and aero loads is so large, the EPA cannot test each vehicle and allows the manufacturers to do their own testing according to strict EPA regulations.
Ford mislead on the mpg for the explorer. I fought and the law won. Ford said it doesn't have to meet the epa numbers. 2017 ford explorer limited combined is under 16 mpg. They stated combined was 21. 19 city/ 21 combined/ 25 hwy. It does not get any of those numbers. And people online said theirs are even worse! Glad to see Ford get it!
Funny thing is, other reviewers on CZcams of he Ranger reported that they are getting what Ford says they are. Just saw one yesterday on a Ranger 4x4 got 24 on the highway. Thats what it says on the sticker? check out the other reviews. even TFL got only slightly lower and that was doing the test out west where the speed limit is 80 and climbing to 8000 feet.
I would think if there was a bizarre discrepancy that included older cars, consumers would have noted that their numbers seemed wildly different than the mpg advertised, which I suppose they generally are by a little bit because driving behavior and road conditions always vary.
More importantly are the HP and Tq numbers accurate?
Seems to me the core problem is that the EPA doesn't actually test every vehicle in their own lab independently of the manufacturer. This whole "Oh we trust the numbers you gave us, we're good friends" bullshit is sketchy.
That being said, if you can't get the EPA rated mpg in any vehicle in the last 20 years, your right foot is to blame. I've only owned ONE car that couldn't exceed it's EPA hwy fuel economy rating, and that vehicle matched it.
So they went for an Eco boost to gain 2 mpg over the V6 competition. I'm sure that will offset the difference in servicing costs at the dealer when anything more than a basic service is needed.
TFL. Doing their best to be as biased as possible. Yes, re-read it.
Oh self certification.... That can't be that bad an idea.....
Boeing: Hold my 737 Max....
Non-Breaking News: The 2019 Ford Ranger is actually an 8 year old truck, with cheesy plastic parts from the Lego bin thrown on it (like the exterior door keypad, trailer brake control, etc. that don't match anything sold on other Ford vehicles) so they can sell it in the U.S. market, and the tiny turbo engine doesn't achieve the fuel economy promised. They cobbled this together as fast as they could to try and steal a little bit of pie from GM and Toyota.
C'mon guys.. sites like Ranger5G.com that censor information heavily have led to a false sense of success with this truck, but the truth is that Ford has a long way to go, and Ford knows it which is why they're working on the truly all new Ranger for 2021.
TFL is great because they show the truth to people who are shopping these trucks.
OFFRD your totally stupid the engine is the Same one in the mustang
Talk about cheesy plastic. GM may look decent on the outside (and that’s a huge stretch) but get inside and it looks like an abortion.
Umm I'm pretty sure ranger5g isn't censoring information. If you actually visit the site they are very thorough with all aspects of the truck including issues/recalls/problems.
This truck was a entry. It’s not meant to cost them a whole lot of money. Just something to test the waters and see how it will compare in the current market and against their other trucks. It’s a smart move on their part to part together something that has been around and successful, the problem is the motor. Instead of offering what people would like or develop something new they took it out of a car and small beefs call it a truck ready engine. I’m hoping those leaks of the 2021 ranger would be a big thing for ford and they need to realize not everyone wants a ecoboost engine.
Chevy did the same thing with the Colorado the current Colorado is based on a European / Australian Colorado. It was out for about 5 years before it came to America. All Chevy did was change the interior a little bit and the front end
Be nice if they offered the small 2.7 twin turbo V6 in the ranger or even a special edition 3.5 turbo
It’s not their first time
I got a huge refund on my ford back in 2014 to offset the misleading MPG rating
No wonder people think of Tundras as gas guzzlers, they’re the only ones with honest numbers.
You nailed it!!!
Lol true
My GM's have been on par
How can anyone brag on a brand of full size truck in 2019 with a rating of 15 and 16 mpg combined, 4.6L and 5.7L V8s, respectively with less capability and performance even if they do prove more accurate than the domestics; 22 (V6s) and 19 (V8s)? The contest is not even close; real world or otherwise.
Looks like the right people were not payed
It is about time the EPA actually tested vehicles itself. I find it hard to believe that they just trust the manufactures still for this stuff. We bought a new F-150 (3.5 fullcab sport 4x4), last summer and road tripped over 4000 miles along Route 66, with an average of 23mpg which I thought was ok. Recently we drove from Chicago to Canada and back ,800 miles and averaged 18.4mpg. Different trip, different weather etc but big difference now with 10k miles on the truck. Day to day driving has dropped from 17.5mpg to 14.8mpg in the same period. Not good.
Who Snitched? Was it Kevin or Bill, maybe Amy😂🤣😂 Still FORD 4life
My 2014 gets better mpg than listed so I'm happy
I had a 2002 Ranger with 4.0 V6, standard transmission. It got decent mileage when I wasn’t chirping the tires and driving like an idiot
Maybe they can hire a team of investigators to find out why the Ranger dash and button layout is horrible? lol
It sucks that this happens so much these days. No matter the manufacturer. Ford is leading this year in recalls and it was a very close second with FCA being first last year.
My understanding is that ford are the lead designers and the next Amarok will sadly be based on the next Ranger.
The current Amarok is a good vehicle. Only put down by people because it lacks some newer safety technologies.
Ford is not new to incorrect fuel economy numbers. A few years back I received a check for their discrepancies on two cars that I owned.
I got one of those as well for the 2014 Fiesta. Sadly, that car exceeds the EPA numbers anytime I drive it so I don't know what the fuss is about years ago.
I saw the headline real quick and thought, "What? Ford got an old Probe from back in the day and shot it into space or something???"
My vehicle's (all gms) have gotten EPA or better. Wifes dodge van does as well. My current sierra gets less but still close, but I've modified it so I dont expect it to be as close
My friends and I have noticed in most Ford vehicles we have used over the last 10 years have not got the mpg that is listed on the widow sticker. We noticed that the Ford vehicles got about 10 to 15 percent less mpg then what the EPA certified. We called it the Ford factor.
Why reedit the video, why wasn't it disclosed originally?
I just got my replacement vehicle yesterday from 2018 F150 lariat lemon 🍋 To a 2019 Limited with the raptor engine I guess I’m in line for another buyback
Hope it’s better than the last Ford Probe. 😑 I will show myself out.
What don’t they just tell the TRUTH!!! I would rather them tell me it’s going to get 18 to 19 MPG on the highway and get 20 to 21, then tell me 24-25 and only get 20 to 21 MPG...😒😒😒