2005 ranger 27mpg stock for real??
 

I came across this and said naaa really? BTW I think there is another ranger owner on here. Anyway I am looking for a new service vehicle. I install networks, voice data and so on and also need a place to store the ladder.

So if these are real numbers for a 2005 ranger https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/21112.shtml please validate it for me. I thought it would be cool to make a canopy that extends past the truck bed and tapers to a point.

Seems plausible. I see a couple of Rangers on Fuelly in that neighborhood. But while the new EPA highway cycle is more realistic than the old one, it's still done at a pretty low average speed, which I suspect would favor the Ranger's gearing and give it a slightly inflated number compared to most real-world driving.

That number probably isn't too far off. My old '97 Ranger 2.3l Lima gets 27mpg in mixed (60% highway 40% in town) consistently. I would hope that in over 18 years the technology would give the newer Rangers a consistent 27mpg. Especially the 2.3l Duratech. I don't drive 40-45 mph on 2-lane blacktops. 55mph out of town and 35mph in town. I just drive it sensibly.

Lifetime in my 97 was 31.66. If I went slower it could get to 40.

regards
mech

It really always boils down to 1. Cruise speed 2. amount of time at cruise. 3. Gearing.
Really that simple.

I consistently beat the hwy epa (epa 23 me 30) on my Q45 but driving 55-63mph. I also took long trips.
I upsized the tires about 5.5% to decrease the rpm at cruise.

I'm averaging about 31 mpg on my 2010 Ranger extended cab. Grill block and a light regular (not aero) topper are the only fuel economy mods.

My 2001 v6 longbed short cab 5 speed would get 30mpg at 60mph pretty easily. No mods at all.
JJ