|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
|||||||
| The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
20-03-2019, 05:14 PM
|
#1 | ||
|
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,353
|
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... |
||
|
|
|
20-03-2019, 07:20 PM
|
#2 | ||
|
Mad Scientist!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 2,863
|
How many k's on the engine? Don't engines take a while to loosen up?
|
||
|
|
|
20-03-2019, 07:38 PM
|
#3 | |||
|
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,353
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
| This user likes this post: |
|
20-03-2019, 08:49 PM
|
#4 | ||
|
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,873
|
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. |
||
|
|
|
| 4 users like this post: |
|
22-03-2019, 08:43 AM
|
#5 | ||
|
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,353
|
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. |
||
|
|
|
|
22-03-2019, 12:35 PM
|
#6 | ||
|
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,710
|
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.
|
||
|
|
|
TFL Retests Fuel Economy of 2.3 EB Ranger
Hybrid Mode