2.3 ECO, MPG with Lift/Tires

[BroncoBuyer]

You are full of it with the 8.1L vs. 6.8L. I have operated both, and they have very similar power delivery and fuel mileage. Power depends a bit on year, but the best years for pickup applications, the 6.8L was rated at 362 HP @ 4,750 RPM & 457 lb-ft @ 3,250 RPM while the 8.1L was rated 340 HP @ 4,200 RPM & 455 lb-ft @ 3,200 RPM. The both have broad torque curves and peak at almost the exact same point, the V10 just carries the power a bit further than the 8.1L. The 2012+ medium duty 6.8L were rated at 460 lb-ft @ 3,000RPM for what its worth.
.

There was definitely a noticeable difference and I have “owned” (2) of each.
I have owned (2) 99 V10 superdutys, one a F250 supercab 4c4 and one a F450 chassis cab.

For the 8.1 big block, one was a 2003 supercab 2wd and the one that’s currently in my garage waiting for my daughter to turn 16 is a 2001 crew cab 4x4.

The other reason your reading of spec sheets may be decieving you is nowhere In your spec sheets does it mention the fact that the 8.1 comes with the 5 speed Allison which has the lower 1st gear for drastically superior acceleration off the line.

Sponsored

 

[U725]

Ah yes. Another thread down the tubes.

 

[BroncoBuyer]

Ah yes. Another thread down the tubes.

Pay attention son! The adults are talkin and there some learnin be goin on up in here!

lol!

 

[OX1]

Ah yes. Another thread down the tubes.

Your right, "we" did 6 pages on tail lights, 8 pages on headlights. You should start a thread on side markers,
very exciting.........

 

[Paint]

All threads are SFA and V8. Your arguments are invalid.

 

[Fosters]

I've had my 2.7 F150 down to 8mpg towing... they can do eco and they can do boost, just not at the same time. The biggest problem with fuel economy in the 2.7 (and probably any ecoboost, my Fiesta ST included) is keeping your foot out of it because they're so much damn fun to drive. Never broke 20mpg in the F150, never broke 30mpg in the 1.6 Fiesta ST...

Averaged 22mpg in the blown coyote with cruise control from phoenix to vegas... and had it down to 3.4mpg in a night of racing as well...

Point is, comparing MPG is a crapshoot, esp on anything forced induction, and especially on the internets with people living either in flat land at sea level or mountain area 2 miles above...

 

[OX1]

I've had my 2.7 F150 down to 8mpg towing... they can do eco and they can do boost, just not at the same time. The biggest problem with fuel economy in the 2.7 (and probably any ecoboost, my Fiesta ST included) is keeping your foot out of it because they're so much damn fun to drive. Never broke 20mpg in the F150, never broke 30mpg in the 1.6 Fiesta ST...

Averaged 22mpg in the blown coyote with cruise control from phoenix to vegas... and had it down to 3.4mpg in a night of racing as well...

Point is, comparing MPG is a crapshoot, esp on anything forced induction, and especially on the internets with people living either in flat land at sea level or mountain area 2 miles above...

Agree overall, but if you get enough data points to get a range, it's usually pretty decent info.
Stock it looks like 20.5 AVG city/highway is a pretty safe bet.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/ranger/2019

But the fact that mild lift and tires, some guys are in the high teen range highway, means that's where
I would probably be with a 2.3. I can't see the 2.7 doing any worse really.

The 2.7 makes 50 ft-lbs more torque with 87 octane than the 2.3 does with 93 @ 2500 RPM.
by 3100 RPM, it's 94 ft-lbs more torque (and still 87 on the 2.7). So that's 60 cents cheaper per
gallon (near me anyway) and probably even a greater difference since F150 drivetrain saps a bit
more than range drivetrain. (comparing all stock curves, ignore tuned curves)

Yes, it takes a certain amount of energy to reach a certain speed, but the sooner you get out of boost
(and even just getting into the top gear you can @ a certain speed) in Eco's, the much better economy you get.

 

[OX1]

I looked for a 2WD F150 to keep weights close and unfortunately, could not find tests by the same mag, but
it doesn't really look like it's close now, against a 150, a 2.7, 2 dr Bronco (if they make that combo) with streetish
tires may be a mid 13 second ride stock.

4WD Ranger, weight 4551, 0-60-5.9, 1/4-14.4 @ 99
2WD F150, weight 4721, 0-60-6.8, 1/4-15.2 @ 91

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...0-27l-ecoboost-v-6-4x2-supercrew-test-review/
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/ranger/2019/2019-ford-ranger-first-test-review/

 

[Carolina Jim]

There's a lot of expertise in this thread; you lads draw from a good mix of personal experience & textbook.

Granted...there's some guesswork involved until Ford reveals tuning specifics for the 2.3 & 2.7, but would you guess the 6 cyl might be better for mountain driving...where you seldom reach the higher gears? I don't tow...don't need to go fast...and don't much care about MPG. But I do like to get up the grades without straining.

 

[OX1]

There's a lot of expertise in this thread; you lads draw from a good mix of personal experience & textbook.

Granted...there's some guesswork involved until Ford reveals tuning specifics for the 2.3 & 2.7, but would you guess the 6 cyl might be better for mountain driving...where you seldom reach the higher gears? I don't tow...don't need to go fast...and don't much care about MPG. But I do like to get up the grades without straining.

I don't think the 2.3 is going to feel down on power for any of the stock configurations.
Maybe the 4 door loaded down with gear, bumpers, winches and killing the aero with
lift and tires, might make you wish you had the 6.

 

[Carolina Jim]

Maybe the 4 door loaded down with gear, bumpers, winches and killing the aero with
lift and tires, might make you wish you had the 6.

Thanks...my birddogs never get that fat. The 4 cyl probably means I can get one without many frills...maybe just a push-button AM radio

 

[Randy92Fox]

I'd be interested to hear more from the current gen Ranger owners. On paper it is very healthy output at 270 HP and 310 TQ with torque coming in at a very low 3,000 rpm compared to the 260 lb-ft of torque at 4,000 rpm on the 3.6 pentastar.

IF the 2.3 was the only option it would be good enough for me personally but I would definitely get it tuned by either Five Star or maybe Livernois.

However if the 2.7 is an option I will be opting for that over the 2.3 assuming a manual is optional. I will be choosing manual transmission over engine offerings if it comes down to it but I think 2.7 and 7 speed will happen.

Now if Ford decides it's ok to sell a trim level with a 5.0 only available with an auto I may be very conflicted.

But Ford, if you're out there listening...a 5.0, manual transmission, SFA would sell like hot cakes.

Sponsored