TFL Retests Fuel Economy of 2.3 EB Ranger

[jpd80]

Basically, at 70 mph or roughly 110 kph for 98miles, trip meter said 25.8 mpg (9.2 litres/100 km)
wile actual miles divided by actual fuel was still 21.36 mpg (11 litres/100 km).

I have to ask if they did the run at 60 mph (100 kph) would fuel economy be a lot better.


The actual highway test loop used for official figures is done on a loaded dyno
using the following speed profile that;s far from steady state.



It never gets to 70 mph in any part of the test...

[ivorya]

How many k's on the engine? Don't engines take a while to loosen up?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by ivorya

How many k's on the engine? Don't engines take a while to loosen up?

At 11m55sec, the odo reads 6,683.5 miles, 10,693 km..

[simon varley]

Ford have already, voluntarily, admitted to the EPA that there might be some issues with the Ranger published FE.

you are right about the TFL testing. the extra 10mph will be significant as aero drag force is proportional to speed squared.

[jpd80]

The other point is that none of the current tests really reflect acceleration and driving in today’s vehicles, that’s why they are going to new test cycles that more appropriate.

I’m sure that manufactures have been testing the limits of the believable with fuel economy, especially with smaller capacity Ecoboost engines which have an exponential tip in of power verses the more linear delivery of most larger capacity engines

N the end, Ford May be right with claimed official figures but if buyers can’t get near those figures, it could seriously hurt the perception of Ranger as competitors V6 engines have no problems getting claimed fuel economy.

[EDManual]

All the little 4 cylinder turbo petrol engines with gearboxs that keep the engine in the revs for power are just terrible on fuel if you use it that way where you use its power. I would think if i had a 2.3litre ecoboost ranger i would be getting easy 20 litres per hundred. They are not a diesel.