Ford Ranger real world fuel economy

Komang

Active Member
Empty 2015 ranger no dpf around 8.1 with bullbar and empty tub, tyre 265/65/17 steel wheel.
So you can addup the weight the additional accessories will effect the fuel economy
 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
Not sure about all modern ECU controlled cars but the speed displayed is not the same as the odometer.
With both my 4wds running bigger tires makes the speedo run almost exactly the correct speed when compared to the GPS but the odometer runs less than the actual distance traveled by about 5km less per 100km when compared with a GPS in the Disco 4 and 7km with the Disco 1.
Not a huge amount but if calculation fuel figures over a 1000km average it all adds up
 

Toyasaurus

Active Member
When I said brim your tank, what I meant was fill it until you can see fuel just sitting there in the pipe.

That`s the way I do mine, but I have 2 nozzle holes for the 2 tanks, there is a bit of a reservoir at the top, I just fill until it has a pool of fuel there.

I get between 14.5 & 17lts to the 100, but it is a 3t v8 auto petrol.

Worst thing I ever drove was my Rangie, loaded with 33`s and rooftop tent 2 dirt bikes in the trailer, 35-45lts per 100 on lpg, nearly as bad on petrol.
 

FrankP

Active Member
2014 BT50 XTR, 3.2 auto, alloy tradie canopy filled with storage system and camping stuff and second battery, ARB bar and winch, 265/70-17s, GVM upgrade to 3500 (heavier leaf packs and coils). I never empty it out. Sits all the time at 3.2 tonne with 140 litres fuel and 70 litres water. Speed is accurate compared with GPS. Odo - I've never tested it? I get low 14's not towing, 17's towing 2300kg hybrid camper - that's calculated between fills and matches the Scangauge tank for tank.
 

a1bert

Active Member
Mine very similar as FrankP, canopy etc, with about 300kg of tools etc for work, seems a constant 13.7 l per 100 ks, can crack 13 l on a constant 100 kph with auto engaged
 

callmejoe

Well-Known Member
It seems we are talking about if 3L per 100km.
In the whole ownership of a new vehicle these days fuels only a minor factor.
Yeah I know it all still adds up but its not a game changer. Look at the other good points. Its a nice new shiny 4wd, it capable to work for you its capable to get you out.


Joe
 

FrankP

Active Member
I agree about fuel being a minor factor, Joe. Reliability and robustness is more of an issue. I just wish mine hadn't shat an engine. Mazda came good, but it's done nothing for my confidence in the vehicle, especially for long distance remote area travel, which is what I like to do.
 

FranksnBeans

New Member
All this is making me question the diesel consumption in my 80 Series factory turbo. I'm right at gvm with Bull bar, rock sliders and Kaymar wheel carrier, old ARB steel roofrack with a rtt etc and getting mid-13's on camping trips. This is a mix of freeway, cruising on dirt roads and low-range tracks. And honestly, I think the freeway is where I really drink the juice.

I'm fairly anal about calculating my consumption figures on a trip. I use a gps for distance and the fuel bowser figures to work it out. Surely modern 4wds are getting much better figures than a 30 year old lump.
 

RBJET

Well-Known Member
All this is making me question the diesel consumption in my 80 Series factory turbo. I'm right at gvm with Bull bar, rock sliders and Kaymar wheel carrier, old ARB steel roofrack with a rtt etc and getting mid-13's on camping trips. This is a mix of freeway, cruising on dirt roads and low-range tracks. And honestly, I think the freeway is where I really drink the juice.

I'm fairly anal about calculating my consumption figures on a trip. I use a gps for distance and the fuel bowser figures to work it out. Surely modern 4wds are getting much better figures than a 30 year old lump.
Are you still running standard size tyres? I found tyres to be the biggest killer in economy. Especially if going more than one size up and putting the gearing out.
 

RBJET

Well-Known Member
How did you go fitting 15s? I thought 16s were as small as you could go. Standard is 30.6".
 

FranksnBeans

New Member
No problem at all. Mine is a 1991 model so has the smaller brakes. 15's fit no problem. I think 1993 and later had the larger brakes and only 16's will fit.

Biggest problem has been finding replacements in small towns. I suffered a rock fracture on the first day of a 20-day trip along the Murray and then back up towards Sydney following the Murrumbidgee. Nobody stocked my size even in places like Albury. It was a 3 day wait for delivery. I had them patched professionally and just continued the trip on them. Still on my 4wd now actually, 3 months later.
 
Last edited:

Les PK Ranger

4x4 Earth Contributer
I think it will simply vary from vehicle to vehicle too, even off the same assembly line one after the other.
Luck of the draw as it is with getting a good build or a lemon.

There are things you can do to improve econ.
My older PK was a beaut and still got low 10's on a highway to the desert or interstate etc, fully loaded for up to 2300km non stop fuel, water, gear, etc.
Had Ozbush EGR fix, PWR intercooler, 3" straight through exhaust, stayed with stock 15's and noticed worse econ and general performance off road when I went up to 16" and about an inch more rolling dia. While the clearance was nice, went back to stock soon after again.

Hope it improves a bit for you as everything beds in, but most modern vehicles don't seem to need this any more.
A good tune might help down the track if needed.
 

TimNWVic

Member
Have you adjusted your wheel circumference in the cars settings? As @John U says the larger actual diameter will be travelling further than the car thinks it is, and hence skewing your consumption upwards.
Been doing some reading on the Forscan forum at saeb.net, and it seems even though my speedo is currently spot on to gps, the engine management software uses actual road speed for odometer and therefore fuel consumption, but adds about 4-6% to the speed, something to do with ADR compliance. So while my speedo is accurate my odometer etc isn't.

Based on tyre sizes I'm about 5% over stock circumference, working that back 13.3L/100 becomes 12.7L/100 which sounds a little better (but still high in my opinion).

I bought a programming cable and installed Forscan, but it turns out the 3.2 auto won't accept a circumference higher than 2423mm or it throws an error, check engine light stays on. My tyres are 2559mm, which Ford "corrects" to 2475 for some reason, so I'll still be reading 2% lower distances than actual. I find this a bit annoying, the tyres are within the legal limit (less than 50mm larger diameter than stock) so why would Ford put some arbitrary limit in the firmware?

Anyway, I've started manually tracking fuel usage to see what it really is doing, and I'll go for a drive today to calibrate the odometer against gps distance. I'll be sure to report back if it improves (or not) in the coming months as it gets further run in.
 

TimNWVic

Member
Not sure about all modern ECU controlled cars but the speed displayed is not the same as the odometer.
With both my 4wds running bigger tires makes the speedo run almost exactly the correct speed when compared to the GPS but the odometer runs less than the actual distance traveled by about 5km less per 100km when compared with a GPS in the Disco 4 and 7km with the Disco 1.
Not a huge amount but if calculation fuel figures over a 1000km average it all adds up
I somehow missed this post which describes exactly what I just wrote...
 

idiomatically

Well-Known Member
I have used Forscan to set my tyre size so my speedo etc is correct with my 33" 255/85/16's. Over the life of my 2016 PX2 Manual Wildtrak I have gotten 11.86lph tracked by my actual fuel usage and k's by my fleet company and I have 112,000 on the clock.

I have added a fair bit of weight with all the fruit on the car, bullbar, winch, bash plates, recovery points, sliders, suspension and tyre upgrades, 30lt fridge and draw system in the tub, frontrunner rack with table, twin ARB compressor etc... so it's not exactly light.
 

Batts88

Well-Known Member
Going by some of these fuel figures if they're been done correctly these modern 3.2 Ltr diesels are very thirsty my GQ was constanty getting around 13.8 Lph by the gps, weighed in around 3t usually have cruise set on 104 kph.
 

devjam

New Member
the 3.2 auto won't accept a circumference higher than 2423mm or it throws an error, check engine light stays on. My tyres are 2559mm, which Ford "corrects" to 2475 for some reason, so I'll still be reading 2% lower distances than actual. I find this a bit annoying, the tyres are within the legal limit (less than 50mm larger diameter than stock) so why would Ford put some arbitrary limit in the firmware?
Yep, exactly. Putting the ACTUAL value of your tyre circumference in will yield a fault code. I basically just got to the "correct" value by trial and error so that my speedo is -2% (eg. 98km/h actual @ 100km/h speedo) for 265/70R17. I can look that up up if it's helpful.

Confirmed by 1200km last week, mostly highway @ 105kmh, fully loaded (~3T) with said AT tyres at ~40psi equalled 11.4l/100km
 
Top