Anybody else see this bull****? I was at an auto expo last night and I was looking at the Ranger they had, it was the same thing as my truck, 4.0 4x4. Then, I looked at the sticker and it said 14 city and 17 highway. I thought that is crazy, I get 15 if I stomp on the gas all the time in city driving. From what a friend told me, the test accelerates faster and highway speed went from 55 to 80. I think that the new measurements are crazy, so many trucks/suv's at the show were right in the 10-17 city range. Anyways, anybody have any comments or notice this too? Also, I wasn't sure where to post this, but I figured it relates to the 4.0 so I posted here. If this is the wrong spot, let me know.

 

Yes, they have changed how they rate fuel economy, they are all going down. I am not too concerned though, my truck gets far better than what the sticker says anyway...

 

Yea I know, butI think it is crazy how the estimate is going to be worse than what you get. I get 18 with a light foot and 15 with a heavy one, and the estimate for '08 is 14.

 

The new epa standards reflect actual driving habits of consumers.

How is it worse to under estimate and over perform than over estimate and under perform?

 

I WISH mine was as high and the estimate

 

I don't necessarily think it is worse, just I am used to them overestimating. Plus, I accelerate quicker than most people and I still get better gas milage than what they predict.
What are you getting for gas milage?

 

I think it is a lot more accurate. I know in my rangers hayday, the best I ever got was 18, but on average I got 16-17 with mostly highway driving. This is both rangers with 4.0 SOHC 4x4’s 4.10’s. One manual an one automatic (in my experience it didn’t make a difference in mileage)

~HJ

 

...and the vast majority of them do not drive in a manner that produces decent results. I score 119% of combined scores on my Focus and Explorer. It has VERY little to do with the vehicle and more to do with the operator. Granted, the Focus does better than the Explorer, but 22 average is great for an SUV. Give it to an 18YO and bingo! 15 MPG.



I think it is for the better though...

 

I've been in the OEM product engineering realm for going on 16years now. And it's my opinion that new car milage is a disgrace. It could be higher. Much higher.

This *mindset* is a typical OEM car company problem. The leaders think the way to "fix" this is to argue with the Gov. and then paint perceptions for the public that they are doing everything possible. It's an absolute lie!!

I sit right here right now on a cold Nov day designing interior stuff (mostly seating) for cars and truck that will be on the road 3-5years from now. You know what... ****mass**** is of Z-E-R-O concern in the design phase of developing a car. Yeah we give the token material saver here and there for a talking point. But I'm telling you.. we do not "bake in" the mentality of reducing mass.

The only way to significatly increase milage in a IC engine car is to reduce cubic inches of displacement and to reduce the mass your trying to move.

Yes there are technologies that can have effects. But those two are the biggies. Engine displacement and mass.

Rich

 

^^^Correct, but with that comes added cost... If you gain a few more MPG at the cost of thousands, are you really saving? Just a thought, not a fact...

 

my trucks rarely over 17 and thats with mostly highway miles


and i dont get why this is a bad thing, its better than getting the truck expecting 18 and never getting there

 

i would pay 2-3k more for the same ranger that got 20mpg city than 16mpg city.

Granted my truck is not a good example for mpg at this point

 

Last week I averaged 19.23mpg. FX4, 4dr, 4x4, 50/50 driving, and I even had a few good 0-70mph blasts too.

It is very possible to buy a new 4x4 ranger and with less than $2,000 make it get over 20mpg avg.

Rich

 

a new ranger yes, but my 03 never... even in its stock form. I got 16-18 consistently and had most of the mpg mods.

I am still not complaining I get 15-16 every time i fill up and that is with 35s and some lift.

I think the newer rangers are getting much better.


Rich, why dont they design engines to run leaner(no sure that is the term im going for), i mean they may not last as long but an engine that dies at 100k-120k miles but gets 5 mpg more or something that would be a big benefit.

 

me too, i got 1300 miles on my 08 and im only getting 12 mpg's and im babying the hell outta of it

 

my 2 rangers don't even come close to what the sticker said, even in stock form. One was a 3.0 and now my 4.0.

3.0 got around 13 to 15
4.0 gets around 14-16. Gone as low as 11(stiff wind in my face) and as high as 19(stiff wind at my back)