2008 EPA estimates - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech General discussion of 4.0L OHV and SOHC V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 11-29-2007
rdsx18's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Methuen, MA
Posts: 39
2008 EPA estimates

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-29-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
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...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-29-2007
rdsx18's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Methuen, MA
Posts: 39
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-29-2007
HarryTasker's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,491
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2007
Roach2004's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 8,320
I WISH mine was as high and the estimate
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2007
rdsx18's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Methuen, MA
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryTasker
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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach2004
I WISH mine was as high and the estimate
What are you getting for gas milage?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2007
HAZZARDJOHN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wyoming MN
Posts: 2,400
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 4x4ís 4.10ís. One manual an one automatic (in my experience it didnít make a difference in mileage)

~HJ
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-29-2007
Fredness's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sasquatch Country!
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryTasker
The new epa standards reflect actual driving habits of consumers.
...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...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-30-2007
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-30-2007
greygooseranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 3,293
^^^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...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-30-2007
jtslmn720's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kent State, Kent Ohio
Posts: 7,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach2004
I WISH mine was as high and the estimate
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
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-30-2007
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by greygooseranger
^^^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...

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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-30-2007
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
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
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-30-2007
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-05-2007
wckdfx4's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: trenton, ohio
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach2004
I WISH mine was as high and the estimate
me too, i got 1300 miles on my 08 and im only getting 12 mpg's and im babying the hell outta of it
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-05-2007
camodown's Avatar
Lost in Nowhere
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 5,029
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)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Guy With 2008 Ford Ranger Chromed out skateboard34 Member Introductions 39 01-06-2009 09:49 AM
Airbag sensors on 2008 08XLT4x4 General Technical & Electrical 11 09-09-2008 08:17 AM
so i blew the hell out of the EPA standards for my truck SVT01RANGER Snapshots 26 06-14-2008 09:30 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:18 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.