Thriftpower: Ford Touts 2019 Ranger's Stingy Fuel Economy

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Matthew Guy’s going to be mighty disappointed if this is all the big Ford truck news we receive this week. On the same week Ford rolled out its first drive event for the upcoming Ranger pickup, the Blue Oval revealed official fuel economy numbers for the four-cylinder-only midsizer — though specs already leaked last month.

Yes, it’s true. As you might have anticipated, the 2.3-liter Ecoboost four-banger and 10-speed automatic combo beneath the Ranger’s hood returns class-leading combined fuel economy. For a gasoline engine, that is.

The boasting is endless for this truck, which should begin appearing on dealer lots within a month’s time. First, it was power: 270 horsepower and 310 lb-ft. That torque figure beats ’em all in the midsize field. Then, max payload and towing: 1,860 pounds and 7,500 pounds, respectively. Again, class-leading, but there’s an asterisk hovering over all of these figures, just as there is for the Ranger’s fuel economy — it only applies to gas-powered pickups.

Ford cites an EPA-estimated fuel economy of 21 mpg city, 26 mpg highway, and 23 mpg combined for 4×2 versions of the 2019 Ranger. Add four-wheel drive and the figure drops to 20/24/22.

Oh, how Ford wishes General Motors didn’t sell the Chevrolet Colorado with an optional 2.8-liter Duramax diesel. That model outpulls, outcarries, and outtows the Ranger, and matches its rival’s combined fuel economy. It also tops the Ford by 4 mpg on the highway.

Still, Ford’s accomplishment is notable, as it beats any other gas-powered competitor by at least 1 mpg in combined driving. Looking at 2WD models (in combined driving), the Colorado with 2.5-liter four-cylinder gets 22 mpg, while the 3.6-liter model gets 20 mpg. Toyota’s Tacoma, in 2.7-liter guise, tops out at 21 mpg, as does the 3.5-liter version, while the Nissan Frontier sees a rating of 21 mpg for manual 2.5-liter variants and 19 mpg for the big, 4.0-liter six.

The Ranger trounces its 87 octane rivals in city and highway fuel economy, as well. Same story for 4WD versions.

If green living is a big part of your lifestyle, you’ll need to first decide whether your wallet holds enough of the green stuff before pulling the trigger on a purchase. Given that some of its rivals boast lower MSRPs, it could be a while before you realize those savings at the pump.

[Images: Ford Motor Company]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 83 comments
  • R Henry R Henry on Dec 11, 2018

    Comparing a diesel and gas truck doesn't bring any clarity. The purchade prices ate not comparsble and the fuel price is not comparable either. It is like comparing a hamburger patty with a filet mignon.

    • JD-Shifty JD-Shifty on Dec 11, 2018

      you might to contemplate a healthier diet, if you're the typical demographic here

  • JD-Shifty JD-Shifty on Dec 11, 2018

    want to see something interesting, look up used prices on 1st generation Colorado with the 5.3 V8. Last made in 2011, they seem to go for about 20k with less than a hundred thousand miles.

  • Wjtinfwb My comment about "missing the mark" was directed at, of the mentioned cars, none created huge demand or excitement once they were introduced. All three had some cool aspects; Thunderbird was pretty good exterior, let down by the Lincoln LS dash and the fairly weak 3.9L V8 at launch. The Prowler was super cool and unique, only the little nerf bumpers spoiled the exterior and of course the V6 was a huge letdown. SSR had the beans, but in my opinion was spoiled by the tonneau cover over the bed. Remove the cover, finish the bed with some teak or walnut and I think it could have been more appealing. All three were targeting a very small market (expensive 2-seaters without a prestige badge) which probably contributed. The PT Cruiser succeeded in this space by being both more practical and cheap. Of the three, I'd still like to have a Thunderbird in my garage in a classic color like the silver/green metallic offered in the later years.
  • D Screw Tesla. There are millions of affordable EVs already in use and widely available. Commonly seen in Peachtree City, GA, and The Villages, FL, they are cheap, convenient, and fun. We just need more municipalities to accept them. If they'll allow AVs on the road, why not golf cars?
  • ChristianWimmer Best-looking current BMW in my opinion.
  • Analoggrotto Looks like a cheap Hyundai.
  • Honda1 It really does not matter. The way bidenomics is going nobody will be able to afford shyt.
Next