Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did find one issue with the Ranger, possible factory setup problem.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • nickel-city-fab
    replied
    Originally posted by Willy View Post
    NCF,
    I had a nice '79 Chevy 1 ton flat deck 4x4, 350 4 spd. 4.10:1 diffs and I got 11 mpg, and this with Imperial gallons, so yeah roughly the same.
    Like you it didn't much matter whether it was empty or loaded.One time I picked up a tractor for a buddy, just about grossed out for gvw and had to haul it across the Rockies to bring it home. Mileage took a real nose dive on that leg of the trip.
    10.5 mpg. LOL
    Yep almost the same setup I had LOL that thing was a beast, couldn't even use first gear unless i was starting on a hill fully loaded. But I never did find the limit for the max GVW. Truck had DOT 9600 on the side, but I bet that was light... it just didn't seem to notice the load. Paid $700 for it in the classifieds.

    Leave a comment:


  • Willy
    replied
    NCF,
    I had a nice '79 Chevy 1 ton flat deck 4x4, 350 4 spd. 4.10:1 diffs and I got 11 mpg, and this with Imperial gallons, so yeah roughly the same.
    Like you it didn't much matter whether it was empty or loaded.One time I picked up a tractor for a buddy, just about grossed out for gvw and had to haul it across the Rockies to bring it home. Mileage took a real nose dive on that leg of the trip.
    10.5 mpg. LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • nickel-city-fab
    replied
    I am reminded of some of my older trucks, where the gas mileage simply didn't change at all. It was uniformly bad -- but to be fair, they were heavy-duty working trucks, intended and designed for such.

    The 1977 GMC got 8 mpg. Going downhill, it got 8. Going uphill it got 8. With 5000 lbs of rocks in the bed, it got 8. Empty, it got 8. In snow up to your butt, it got 8.

    Most likely because of the 4.56 axle ratio, the 6.5 first gear ratio, and a big V8. (four-speed, granny gears) It was as strong and stout as the proverbial brick outhouse, however -- the salt and rust finally did it in, mechanically it was fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • DrMike
    replied
    Thanks for the (non-Honda) insight, and for the Ranger towing forum link. It appears that a lot of folks are getting ~11 mpg with a 4k-lb travel trailer that is taller and wider than the truck. so much for the "oh, you'll only drop a couple of MPGs" I heard from others.

    I try to stay out of the turbo (unless passing) and accelerate to the speed limit as quickly as possible without triggering "gas hog" mode.

    For giggles, this week I tested the Tow/Haul mode without a trailer. I was on a fairly level stretch of road, about 50 mph (according to the running meter) at ~1500 rpm, foot off the accelerator. I switched on the Tow/Haul mode and it immediately popped up to >2000 rpm, down to 35 mpg. And to prove to myself it wasn't a fluke, I did it two more times with the same results. If the truck's performance changes this much cruising on level roads with no extra load, accelerating from a stop while towing another 2/3 of its weight will be... well, I've seen those numbers and they aren't pretty.

    Next time I have the trailer hitched I will try driving without the Tow/Haul mode, just to see how much performance and mileage change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Willy
    replied
    Originally posted by DrMike View Post
    Didn't see this thread until recently.

    I bought a 2021 Ranger in early April 2021, new as there were no used ones available. Bought the truck (my first pickup) for features that I've never needed before.

    My normal work commute is 52 miles round trip, on mostly ~50 mph surface streets with traffic lights every mile. Over the last 4 months I've averaged 29 mpg on those commutes, significantly higher than the 20-24 mph on the window sticker. For some reason I have always been able to beat the EPA mpg in vehicles, it's just how I've always driven. When not towing, I'm delighted with this vehicle.

    However... towing a 4000-lb camper (the not-needed-before features mentioned above), I get significantly less mileage (~11 mpg). I'm assuming it's because I've been using the Tow/Haul mode that shifts the 0-speed transmission later and keeps a higher rpm throughout. My next trip I'm leaving that off and see what happens.. Having to stop for $50 of gas every 150 miles is killing me. Any insight will be helpful.
    The roughly 11 mpg is I will admit not a figure that is easy to live with when 80,000 lbs.18 wheelers are getting 6-8 mpg, but then again I'm betting that the vast majority of your driving does not involve towing.
    It wasn't that long ago that folks would rave about the then new little Japanese cars like a Toyota Carola getting 30 mpg.
    29 mpg for the type of commute you do is excellent.

    Just wondering if the frontal area is large on the camper since the 4,000 lbs weight is not all that heavy. Aerodynamic drag is a real mileage killer at highway speeds, so this and the type of driving you do when towing (hills, speed, etc.) can be real factors.

    Was going to end it here but before posting I checked in at one of the Ranger forums and see that the mileage you're getting is pretty well in the ballpark.

    https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threa...wing-mpg.8623/



    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    Dunno.... pulling any sort of load, meaning not towing, but just going uphill, will really cut back the MPG, according to the built-in MPG meter, which just looks at fuel flow and road speed to get MPG.

    The decrease really seems non-linear, even a slight incline appears to cut MPG more than I would have expected. Of course, the flip side is that fuel is practically cut off when going down the other side of the hill if you back the throttle off enough. (see below about that, though), and that can really compensate for the lower mileage uphill.

    It's really a question of how many gallons per mile are being sucked in... So the tranny programming may come into this. if the tranny does not shift down, there may be a lugging situation, which it would seem might be lousy mileage, requiring heavier throttle input to keep going, and potentially causing the turbo to pack in the air (and gas).

    I just had the tranny programming updated, due to some rough shifting in certain situations, and it appears to have improved the mileage, suggesting that it can have an influence, as would be expected.

    Another thing: I do not know if the hill driving mode is invoked by the towing mode. The hill mode enables more engine braking. There is normally about zip engine braking, and the truck, even light, will accelerate downhill on many slopes with foot off the throttle. It also goes immediately to "99 MPG", which is the max readout. I do not know what if any influence that may have, but it stands to reason that increased engine braking would require some throttle input on down grades so as not to actually slow down. That would have to affect gas usage.

    It makes sense that the towing mode would enable some engine braking, just to take a load off the vehicle brakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • A.K. Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by J Tiers View Post
    When towing (which I rarely do at the moment), you are likely to have to be heavier footed than when not towing. Turbos use more gas than similar non-turbo vehicles, because the air-fuel mixture still has to be good, and there is more air crammed-in.

    It seems that turbos have a much faster increase of gas usage than a naturally aspirated engine. Whether that is really true, I am not sure, but it really seems so. It makes sense, because more power is more fuel, and more exhaust, which runs the turbo, pushing in more air, and using more fuel. It seems as if the gas usage is a square function, and not linear as with non-turbo vehicles..

    Going up hill in the Ranger alone will pull MPG down to 12 or so. A 4000 lb camper is about doubling the total moving mass, so it is hardly a surprise that it sucks gas pretty seriously.

    I assume you have been doing the usual stuff that improves mileage, light foot, using downslopes, etc. It may be that towing 1/6 of an 18 wheeler behind the truck is more than the truck can do efficiently. it CAN do it, though, which is a lot better than the S10, which had lousy tow capability.
    I will say this much about your newer turbo,, it's not your de-tuned low compression engine grandfathers turbo,,, it's a direct injection gasser which means you need to think more on the lines of a diesel with efficiency ratings,,, not quite - but getting there - and will never quite be there simply due to gas not containing as many BTU's per gallon - what what an improvement,,,
    now maybe they can get taxed so hard that they consume like crazy like Mike is stating ,,, but look at your great numbers when not pulling a major load,,, old POS gas turbo's always sucked bad, worse than NA engines due to having to run low compression so they did not pre-maturely light off the mix,

    well now there is no"mix" so higher compression than NA engines can be used,,, hence the reason as to why efficiency ratings have increased so drastically over the past several years...

    It's a beautiful thing, thanks to micro managing the mixture with pulse control direct injection systems... this is where I like technology... this is where technology belongs...

    Leave a comment:


  • JRouche
    replied
    Originally posted by J Tiers View Post

    Needless to say, I am not joining the lawsuit about "false mileage claims". That's utter BS, the problem is folks not knowing how to keep their foot "out of it" when the vehicle is turbo-supercharged as the Ranger is.
    Hmm?

    LAWSUITS? I try to stay out of those as best I can thank you.

    Running.... JR

    Leave a comment:


  • A.K. Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by DrMike View Post
    . Any insight will be helpful.

    You left the door wide open on that one - it's the first gen. insight....


    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC05364.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	27.1 KB
ID:	1958372

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    When towing (which I rarely do at the moment), you are likely to have to be heavier footed than when not towing. Turbos use more gas than similar non-turbo vehicles, because the air-fuel mixture still has to be good, and there is more air crammed-in.

    It seems that turbos have a much faster increase of gas usage than a naturally aspirated engine. Whether that is really true, I am not sure, but it really seems so. It makes sense, because more power is more fuel, and more exhaust, which runs the turbo, pushing in more air, and using more fuel. It seems as if the gas usage is a square function, and not linear as with non-turbo vehicles..

    Going up hill in the Ranger alone will pull MPG down to 12 or so. A 4000 lb camper is about doubling the total moving mass, so it is hardly a surprise that it sucks gas pretty seriously.

    I assume you have been doing the usual stuff that improves mileage, light foot, using downslopes, etc. It may be that towing 1/6 of an 18 wheeler behind the truck is more than the truck can do efficiently. it CAN do it, though, which is a lot better than the S10, which had lousy tow capability.

    Leave a comment:


  • DrMike
    replied
    Didn't see this thread until recently.

    I bought a 2021 Ranger in early April 2021, new as there were no used ones available. Bought the truck (my first pickup) for features that I've never needed before.

    My normal work commute is 52 miles round trip, on mostly ~50 mph surface streets with traffic lights every mile. Over the last 4 months I've averaged 29 mpg on those commutes, significantly higher than the 20-24 mph on the window sticker. For some reason I have always been able to beat the EPA mpg in vehicles, it's just how I've always driven. When not towing, I'm delighted with this vehicle.

    However... towing a 4000-lb camper (the not-needed-before features mentioned above), I get significantly less mileage (~11 mpg). I'm assuming it's because I've been using the Tow/Haul mode that shifts the 0-speed transmission later and keeps a higher rpm throughout. My next trip I'm leaving that off and see what happens.. Having to stop for $50 of gas every 150 miles is killing me. Any insight will be helpful.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    Yep, S10 had 29 MPG rated, never broke 25, ever. 2000 model year

    Leave a comment:


  • Willy
    replied
    It also bares mentioning that the EPA test protocols are revised every so often to reflect a more accurate picture of how vehicles are actually used.
    The last major revisions in drive cycle testing were were implemented in 2008 and again in 2017.
    Prior to that earlier EPA mileage figures were so inaccurate that it became a joke to even reference them as they were not indicative of what one should expect because it gave an inaccurate representation of real world use.

    The EPA's website has lots of info on the ratings and changes

    https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings.shtml

    One can even compare a vehicle's ratings to the revised 2017 testing schedule, apparently going back all the way to 1984. Although for vehicles built prior to 2008 will be adjusted to 2008 testing protocol, and will not reflect the 2017 revisions for testing.

    https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comparempg.shtml





    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    Originally posted by A.K. Boomer View Post

    Iv always seemed to be real close to the ratings but who know's that most likely can depend on your vehicle choices and mine just being stacked in my favor and against with yours...

    I will say this much now that I own a vehicle with the current scale MPG readout,,, I think this is such a valuable feature, I now know iv been doing some strategies backwards for what they should be to achieve good results...

    take faster acceleration for instance - yes it does make sense in my car due to being able to use the energy's that I just stopped with to then take off with, (the battery bank in a hybrid) but it does help to get your car up to speed so you can then go into "efficiency mode" instead of constantly slow climbing --- in fact slow climbing up to speed still uses a fair amount of fuel --- and i don't get to use "assist" so im stuck at something like 35mpg the entire time and then a stop light or something in the distance so only get into the high range for the last "blip"

    much better to pay the fiddler at 25mpg's for 1/4 the stretch - even over shoot your speed slightly and then go into the 125mpg maintenance speed or slightly losing speed for the remainder of the duration ...

    The MPG graph is yet just one more distraction but once you get used to it - it's really not bad as you train yourself that it's not a priority distraction - just a convenience one that you only look at when all's clear and it really does take just a glance...

    this live data is just one of the reasons why this car's the all time champ in mpg ratings... in fact it's just as important as it's main engine/battery efficiency systems...
    This deserves repeating. It is EXTREMELY TRUE. Read it again and use it.

    Yep, fast accelerating... sure wins with a turbo, 'cause they suck more gas than a standard vehicle when you put the pedal down. Do you want to go MORE MILES sucking gas fast, or do you want to get over it and go into high mileage mode? Yes get it over with and then cruise... In cruise, I can get 30 to 50 MPG, but if I accel slowly, then I just get 14 MPG the whole time....

    If you do not have a MPG meter in your vehicle, you are doing everything wrong, and don't know it.

    I pretty consistently BEAT the rated 25 MPG on the highway at 70+ mph. With a decent load in the truck. I have gotten the rated mileage that was claimed for the 130 HP S10, in the 270 HP Ranger.

    But you need that meter.... all cars should have one.

    Leave a comment:


  • A.K. Boomer
    replied
    Originally posted by Arcane View Post

    I've had a couple of new vehicles in my life and I never was able to come close to the listed mpg figures, even on long trips where I was doing everything possible to maximize mileage, including the drive like you have an egg shell between your foot and the accelerator trick. The only time I came close was driving through BC, lots of uphill and down hill, curves and other traffic to contend with at the time. You'd think steady state driving would have yielded the best mileage but nope!
    Iv always seemed to be real close to the ratings but who know's that most likely can depend on your vehicle choices and mine just being stacked in my favor and against with yours...

    I will say this much now that I own a vehicle with the current scale MPG readout,,, I think this is such a valuable feature, I now know iv been doing some strategies backwards for what they should be to achieve good results...

    take faster acceleration for instance - yes it does make sense in my car due to being able to use the energy's that I just stopped with to then take off with, (the battery bank in a hybrid) but it does help to get your car up to speed so you can then go into "efficiency mode" instead of constantly slow climbing --- in fact slow climbing up to speed still uses a fair amount of fuel --- and i don't get to use "assist" so im stuck at something like 35mpg the entire time and then a stop light or something in the distance so only get into the high range for the last "blip"

    much better to pay the fiddler at 25mpg's for 1/4 the stretch - even over shoot your speed slightly and then go into the 125mpg maintenance speed or slightly losing speed for the remainder of the duration ...

    The MPG graph is yet just one more distraction but once you get used to it - it's really not bad as you train yourself that it's not a priority distraction - just a convenience one that you only look at when all's clear and it really does take just a glance...

    this live data is just one of the reasons why this car's the all time champ in mpg ratings... in fact it's just as important as it's main engine/battery efficiency systems...
    Last edited by A.K. Boomer; 08-22-2021, 12:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X