2019 Ford Ranger Pulls Ahead in Gas Engine EPA Ratings

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 5.25.01 PM copy II

EPA fuel-economy ratings are in for the 2019 Ford Ranger, and they allow Ford to claim that its mid-size pickup truck will have the most fuel-efficient gasoline engine in the class when it goes on sale in January boasting 21/26/23 mpg city/highway/combined for two-wheel-drive configurations. Four-wheel-drive 2019 Rangers will deliver an EPA-estimated 20/24/22 mpg city/highway/combined, making the Ranger the most fuel-efficient gas-powered 4x4 (or all-wheel drive in the case of the Honda Ridgeline) in the class.

Related: Ford Releases Complete Pricing for 2019 Ranger

The all-new 2019 Ford Ranger will be offered with only the 2.3-liter inline-four-cylinder EcoBoost engine when it goes on sale. The engine offers the highest four-cylinder horsepower and gas-powered torque of any mid-size pickup with 270 hp and 310 pounds-feet of torque. Additionally, all Rangers will have Ford's class-exclusive 10-speed transmission and the Terrain Management System with Trail Control as an option (it's also an option for the 2019 Ford F-150 Raptor). The Trail Control system acts as a sort of slow-motion cruise control while off-roading in low range, but the multi-terrain settings work in two-wheel, four-wheel high, and in low range (also a class exclusive).

Before the Ranger EPA ratings were announced, the gas-powered Chevrolet Colorado 4x2 reigned as fuel-economy king with 20/26/22 mpg city/highway/combined. The 4x2 Toyota Tacoma four-cylinder gets 20/23/21 mpg city/highway/combined. The 4x2 Honda Ridgeline six-cylinder (no four-cylinder available) gets 19/26/22 mpg, and the 4x2 Nissan Frontier four-cylinder gets 17/22/19. See the EPA ratings for the latter three compared here.

The mid-size pickup fuel-economy leaders are still the 4x2 Colorado and GMC Canyon when equipped with the turbo-diesel 2.8-liter four-cylinder Duramax that gets 20/30/23 mpg city/highway/combined; see their EPA ratings here.

Manufacturer images

Ranger 1

Ranger 2

 

Comments

Wow, the discussion has really gotten off topic. Look forward to seeing this new Ranger. As for horsepower I might be in the minority but horsepower is not a major consideration for me when buying a truck. I want decent acceleration but I don't need to race. Not everyone wants or needs a full size truck and to say that a midsize truck is just a pretend truck and toy is not true. I use my trucks as a trucks full utilizing the bed and their capacities. The rest of the time I want to have a vehicle more nimble and easier to park. As for comfort today's midsize trucks are very different than the compact trucks of the past and most midsize trucks ride just as well as most passenger cars and trucks. Maybe if I were 7 foot tall I might find a midsize truck uncomfortable but being about 6'2" I have more than enough legroom and headroom and most of the seats have enough comfort. Many of the midsize trucks have a full frame under them just like their bigger brethren.

@Jeff

The EPA ratings won't sell many trucks in a land where Ford and Chevy guys are so bitterly divided. Admittedly the nasty moods are probably not as pronounced amongst the general public but the online-video crowd and the guys who haunt this site are quick to get their backs up over brand considerations. I even fall for it myself sometimes.

To me the big story is the way Ford want's to market the high end Ranger pickup, as a lifestyle---the active crowd of bikers, canoers, hikers and hunters.

Good luck with that. I'm not thinking you'll sell a half million midsizers annually---which is what Ford and GM were aiming for back in the 1990s, if you're pricing these things north of $40k. Someone who wants the whole banana can easily punch up a Ranger on the product config webpage well past 40k. We'll see.

Will it be like the rest of the ecoboost and get less real world mileage? I've never seen any ecoboost get the claimed mileage on a continuous basis.


Posted by: ram man | Dec 11, 2018 6:23:00 AM

No doubt you've seen hundreds or thousands of ecoboost fuel mileage results. I get EPA out of mine in the real world, so, Every EcoBoost I've ever seen gets claimed mpg in real world test.

Wow, the discussion has really gotten off topic. Look forward to seeing this new Ranger. As for horsepower I might be in the minority but horsepower is not a major consideration for me when buying a truck. I want decent acceleration but I don't need to race. Not everyone wants or needs a full size truck and to say that a midsize truck is just a pretend truck and toy is not true. I use my trucks as a trucks full utilizing the bed and their capacities. The rest of the time I want to have a vehicle more nimble and easier to park. As for comfort today's midsize trucks are very different than the compact trucks of the past and most midsize trucks ride just as well as most passenger cars and trucks. Maybe if I were 7 foot tall I might find a midsize truck uncomfortable but being about 6'2" I have more than enough legroom and headroom and most of the seats have enough comfort. Many of the midsize trucks have a full frame under them just like their bigger brethren.


Posted by: Jeff s | Dec 11, 2018 6:23:25 PM

Yeah, it's every post on here. There's one or two people who post 75% of the comments. Most of time completely off topic. They then tell people to stay on topic. It's why I visit about once a month.

@papajim--It is more than the EPA ratings. I don't really need or want a large truck. I drove large vehicles for a good part of my life. I just prefer to drive something that is not too small or not too large. I prefer a vehicle that is more nimble and easier to park. The 40k models seem to be selling well enough but I agree Ford and GM are not going to move 500k mainly on those models. I have seen a number of extended cab Colorados and Tacomas being used by businesses mostly automatics but far from being loaded. GM and Ford will still need the fleet sales to get the volume but there is nothing wrong with that if it pays for the tooling and covers the fixed costs. I am just glad to see more offerings in the midsize trucks and if the fleet sales help the manufacturers help keep the product on the market then that is good. I want this product to be profitable enough for the manufacturers to have an incentive not to discontinue it.

They are going to sell so many Rangers. It's going to be huge.

It is more than the EPA ratings.
Posted by: Jeff s | Dec 11, 2018

JEFF!!!

read for comprehension. I simply said the ARTICLE is about EPA ratings. That's all. Somebody was talking about folks being off topic. I reiterated that it's a story about EPA.

I get EPA out of mine in the real world, so, Every EcoBoost I've ever seen gets claimed mpg in real world test.


Posted by: 2.7EcoBoostRoost | Dec 11, 2018 7:42:08 PM

i am in the same shoes my 3.5 has met and exceeded the EPA rating, but then so has every vehicle i owned so far and i live in the NE

Here we go, more progressive liberalism creeping into the truck market!

Ford Ranger is for urban liberals, plain and simple!

Last month I bought gas just south of St Louis on Interstate 55 in Arnold Mo.

Paid just over 2.00 for unleaded. Last week back at home in Central FL. All the stations here are selling unleaded between 2.10 and 2.20

Why in the world is everybody going nuts over gas mileage? Gas is cheap guys! Take your best girl to the movies, get a bit to eat. Give the Salvation Army guy a five (or ten?) dollar bill. Life is short. Live a little.

I think the Ranger will be pretty big for Ford as long as it’s not too expensive and lives up to its heritage of a tough truck. I have two neighbors one with an HD GMC and the other with a RAM the both have last generation Rangers as daily drivers.

I think the Ranger will be pretty big for Ford as long as it’s not too expensive and lives up to its heritage of a PARTS DELIVERY TRUCK.

Posted by: Grnzel | Dec 12, 2018 6:26:55 AM

I fixed it for you

Here we go, more progressive liberalism creeping into the truck market!

Ford Ranger is for urban liberals, plain and simple!


Posted by: oxi | Dec 12, 2018 6:10:44 AM

I would sell my product to urban liberals if I was in the business of selling things. You wouldn't wan't that revenue? Ford has seen how badly GM full size trucks were cannibalized by the mid size. Ford said a few years back that they wouldn't bring a Ranger back for this reason. Their hands were kind of tied with the recent surge in mid size sales. If you're going to lose truck sales, why not to yourself? They purposely left the Ranger look "global" or importish in some aspects. They purposely didn't offer the 2.7 EB as an option in an effort to reach a different demographic/buyer than their current F-150 buyer. Sure, Ford buyers are loyal and many who have bought F-150's but didn't need that big of a truck will buy Rangers. But, they are hoping with selling points like class leading MPG and a plethora of "active" accessories that they'll pull from other brands and demographics. Could be a genius strategy. Time will tell....

Also, many are screaming for the 2.7 option, but based off the F-150 numbers, it would likely get the same or better mpg as the 2.3 does in the Ranger. All the while offering significant performance advantages. It likely will not be offered unless a Raptor version is someday introduced.

"Also, many are screaming for the 2.7 option, but based off the F-150 numbers, it would likely get the same or better mpg as the 2.3 does in the Ranger..."

Color me confused.

Please explain the above. Since the 2.3 is not available in an F150 how does that comment hold up?

I've not heard a single reviewer knock the 2.3 Ecoboost in the Ranger so far. Before Ford even announced the engine/trans combo last year i was beating the drum for a turbo 2.3

I think it's still the best option, unless somebody thinks that adding the expense and complexity of a diesel somehow adds that much value. Big V6 and diesel engines are unnecessary in the Ranger as presently configured.

"“ @Walt

Nice point. Now here's my point.

Go to the online videos where real guys are talking about their old Fords and Chevys.

The chevy guys complain about noisy lifters. The common complaint is, this damn truck has 200k miles on it and now it's starting to make noise on the cold mornings. Besides that it runs fine. Crappy interiors.
The ford guy says I'm never buying another f-150 because the modular v8 is crap and was already shot before the warranty was up but Ford refused to replace it.
You choose.
Posted by: papajim"

I CURRENTLY own 4 Ford products and have or driven several Chevy's in the past. I have experience with both and have made my own decision on where to put my money now and really don't give a hoot what other people say. So I have followed your advice and did choose what I think is the better vehicle for me. All the same I try to avoid putting down other people's vehicles because I don't view my vehicles as ego items and competition makes everyone try harder.

I CURRENTLY own 4 Ford products
--Walt

@Walt

How many of them are still running? Just curious.

Thanks Jack!
Where it will join the Canyon/Colorado and Tacoma. Great add.

Here we go, more progressive liberalism creeping into the truck market!

Ford Ranger is for urban liberals, plain and simple!


Posted by: oxi | Dec 12, 2018 6:10:44 AM
————————-

Liberals buy foreign vehicles. Same ones who support open borders, mass 3rd World islamic immigration, globalization etc etc...

People like you oxi

Color me confused.

Please explain the above. Since the 2.3 is not available in an F150 how does that comment hold up?

I've not heard a single reviewer knock the 2.3 Ecoboost in the Ranger so far. Before Ford even announced the engine/trans combo last year i was beating the drum for a turbo 2.3

I think it's still the best option, unless somebody thinks that adding the expense and complexity of a diesel somehow adds that much value. Big V6 and diesel engines are unnecessary in the Ranger as presently configured.


Posted by: papajim | Dec 12, 2018 7:51:32 AM

The argument is that an F-150 weighs approx. 400-575 lbs more in 4x4 comparably figured trucks, where the 2.7 gets a rated 19/24. If you put that in the Ranger, with less weight and a smaller frontal area, it would surely get at least 20/24 just like the 2.3 does. Plus a significant boost in performance. It would be like putting a 5.3 in the Colorado and achieving the same fuel mileage. Who wouldn't want that? Makes sense....

Color me confused.

Please explain the above. Since the 2.3 is not available in an F150 how does that comment hold up?

I've not heard a single reviewer knock the 2.3 Ecoboost in the Ranger so far. Before Ford even announced the engine/trans combo last year i was beating the drum for a turbo 2.3

I think it's still the best option, unless somebody thinks that adding the expense and complexity of a diesel somehow adds that much value. Big V6 and diesel engines are unnecessary in the Ranger as presently configured.


Posted by: papajim | Dec 12, 2018 7:51:32 AM

The argument is that an F-150 weighs approx. 400-575 lbs more in 4x4 comparably figured trucks, where the 2.7 gets a rated 19/24. If you put that in the Ranger, with less weight and a smaller frontal area, it would surely get at least 20/24 just like the 2.3 does. Plus a significant boost in performance. It would be like putting a 5.3 in the Colorado and achieving the same fuel mileage. Who wouldn't want that? Makes sense....

Did I ever tell you about my saggy balls?

"The argument is that an F-150 weighs approx. 400-575 lbs more in 4x4 comparably figured trucks, where the 2.7 gets a rated 19/24. If you put that in the Ranger, with less weight and a smaller frontal area, it would surely get at least 20/24 just like the 2.3 does. Plus a significant boost in performance. It would be like putting a 5.3 in the Colorado and achieving the same fuel mileage. Who wouldn't want that? Makes sense...."

@ Proud,

Don't try to apply logic. Papa has been all excited about the 2.3. In his mind he gave Ford the idea, therefore (again, in his mind) it's a great idea. He'd rather have 270 hp/ 310 tq from the 2.3 instead of 325 hp/ 400 tq from the 2.7. He'd rather have the 2.3 even if the 2.7 got better mpg. Just read thru his post. Now he's talking about his balls. That guy is out of control.

That guy is out of control.
Posted by: TNT GMC | Dec 12, 2018

@Moron

Why not drop a 3.5 Ecoboost in it? Fool

Here we go, more progressive liberalism creeping into the truck market!

Ford Ranger is for urban liberals, plain and simple!

Posted by: oxi | Dec 12, 2018 6:10:44 AM
————————-

Liberals buy foreign vehicles. Same ones who support open borders, mass 3rd World islamic immigration, globalization etc etc...

People like you oxi
Posted by: Brawndo | Dec 1
/QUOTE

Before you UNEDUCATED clowns start dissing libs,,learn what exactly Liberalism is


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[

Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law

. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other barriers to trade, instead promoting free markets.

Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract.
While the British liberal tradition has emphasised expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasised rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.
/

Btw if you dont like Globalism STOP buying ANYthing not made here,,let me know how that works out fo you

About as long as it takes them to undercut everyone and start slamming them into fleets.
Posted by: Jack | Dec 11, 2018 7:06:28 AM


That's almost certainly Ford's plan from the beginning. They had hoped that businesses would just start using the F-150 XL/XLT in place of the last Ranger that Ford killed off but that plan didn't happen. Toyota ended up taking on a lot of fleet customers that specifically wanted a midsize truck. This new Ranger is without a doubt a purpose built fleet queen, not pickup meant to go head to head with the Tacoma in the retail market. It has zero powertrain options for a reason. Hopefully fleet buyers are okay with Ford's decision to use the 2.3 Ecoboost, an engine famous for blown headgaskets and problems with heat + 87 octane fuel.

I gave up on Frods about 40 years ago,everyone I know had way too many problems..

The Colorado gets 30 mpg..start braging when Ford beats that
Btw
My 10 year old Silvy w 4.8 V8 gets 26mpg and runs perfect..case closed

Unlike GM, who looses MPG, Ford continues to gain....

@Nitro

It is a R-A-T-I-N-G you clown.

It has not yet seen real-world drivers or environments in any real way.

Lab results and computer programs.

Try being smart for a change Nitro. I'm not much of a Ford guy but I'm still hoping the Ranger is a big success because a lot of good people in the industry are counting on it. Good luck to them.

In the meantime, don't start bragging about EPA numbers.

No papajim it's all real....the EPA numbers are real.

Gandalf is really the best white wizard!
Robert Young real name was Marcus Welby, MD!
Me and Bertie Wooster live life to the fullest!
Dirk Struan was really a man of rigid morality and honour!
And Santa will be coming to my house in 2 weeks!

@Hilti
The 2.3 EB head gasket issue was resolved. It was an error at the factory where Mustang and RS head gaskets were used interchangeably. Its believed the supplier incorrectly marked the wrong part numbers. The cooling passages are different, leading to blocked flow. The Ranger 2.3 actually shares little in common with the Mustang 2.3. Its closer to the RS which is a good thing.


"This new Ranger is without a doubt a purpose built fleet queen, not pickup meant to go head to head with the Tacoma in the retail market. It has zero powertrain options for a reason."
Posted by: Hilti | Dec 12, 2018 5:20:44 PM

Are you just a toyota guy who feels the need to rag on the Ranger like the gm guys do, all for knowing well that the Ranger will be a sales success and will change the mid-size best seller list?? Purpose built fleet queen? Thats just loser talk, fleets sure wont be buying the loaded up 4wd crewcab Rangers that can get very pricey for a small truck. Of course they will also sell to fleets i mean the fleet buyer pays with money too right? So don't be upset when the Ranger takes the other fleet sellers lunch in that game too.....

One engine you say?? A tacoma defender slamming the one engine offered in the Ranger when it single handedly out powers both the ancient offerings in the tacoma!!! LMFAO!!!

Too bad there is no 6 foot box.

I looked into Colorados and Canyons. I decided I didn't want a high revving v-6 everytime I pull or need to go up a hill.

Looked at the diesel, they barely built what I wanted.

@papajim

You mentioned your saggy balls issue before. I find that if I use duct tape, 3 q-tips, a jar of pumpkin filler and a few drops of cow semen; I can keep my saggy balls from dragging on the ground for at least 2 days. Then rinse and repeat.

ford ranger is a awesome truck.

It's great to see the auto cartels appear to be competing for fuel economy on these trucks.
Well at least three of them are.
Toyota says you can take it or leave it.

there are no auto cartels. You are suffering from an illusion. I'll bet things are warming up at the sheep ranch these days.

"Remember the Crown Vic. Was the venue of choice for police and taxi. It was powered by a modular V8. You earn police and taxi service by being dependable."
You idiot. Chevy owned the cop and cab market right up until they stopped making Caprices! I spoke to a state trooper at a Chevy dealership after he'd just gotten his first Crown Vic and he said he'd rather have his old Chevy with 200,000 miles on it! He could take that old car through an S curve north of town at 100mph, but the Ford couldn't even do 90.

@mpzz

thanks for correcting the record! One of the common design flaws in American cars & trucks of that era was the line 'big on the outside, small on the inside.'

The Crown Vic and its kin were certainly that.

My uncle was a dyed-in-the-wool Ford man and back in the 1990s he suffered the heartbreak of two consecutive Mercury Marquis lemons. Both cars were leaky, oil burning, trans-slipping crap. It made him a Chrysler guy.



The comments to this entry are closed.