EPA Says the New Ford Ranger Gets 24 MPG on the Highway, But What Does It Really Get at 70 MPH?

(www.platinumsh...) TFLtruck is brought to you by Platinum Ship, where your delivery is handled with the latest equipment optimized for maximum yield of efficiency and capability, and our Logistics Team continuously monitors routes and road conditions to keep our drivers, your products, and our equipment safe and on schedule. Contact Platinum Ship for your next shipment and let us exceed your expectations.
( www.TFLtruck.com ) EPA Says the New Ford Ranger Gets 24 MPG on the Highway, But What Does It Really Get?
( / tflcar ) Please visit to support TFLcar & TFLtruck.
Check us out on:
Facebook: ( / tfltruck )
Twitter: ( / tfltruck )
The Fast Lane Car: ( / tflcar )
and classic cars as well at:
TFLClassics: ( / classicsunleashed )

[@BeanoNoir]

I have two things of note: The FX4 does forego the front air dam, which will increase the effected profile of the truck. I have noticed with my truck (A larger F-150), that every 2-3 mph over 68 results in about the same drop in fuel economy. I made a trip cross country and only managed 17-19 mpg (Depending on wind direction) at 75-75+ mph speed. Whereas a trip to DIA at a Max of 65 yields most often about 24.5mpg. This is something to consider for people who are looking to replace their family vehicle with a pickup. These things are aerodynamic bricks. Wind, tire size, speed humidity, barometric pressure and temperature greatly affect the fuel economy. If you get a leveling kit, or a lift, then you can kiss it goodbye altogether.

[@forsakenace9577]

MSTRCHIEF143 First logical and knowledgeable comment yet. I also take into account where testing is done by ford, EPA, and where TFL is.

[@AC-xq4hh]

My ZR2 does not have an air dam and in fact has attrocious aerodynamics ( at least it looks like it should). But it still exceeds its EPA rating consistently, even if I'm driving over the speed limit, making the aero way more of a factor. Therefore something is very wrong with this Ford Ranger. I don't know what, but something is really fishy

[@lilsammywasapunkrock]

Aero is hardly a factor at legal road speeds. Engine rpms will make a much bigger difference. I went from 205/60r15 tires to a 275/60r15. The new tires were 2" taller and almost twice as wide (28.1"tall x 10.8"w vs 25.9 x 7.5") and weighed more then twice as much as the old tires. My gas mileage at 80mph decreased from 25 mpg highway to 28mpg highway. I also did change out the speedo gear, so it was within 1mph at 80mph with both setups. So with my wider and taller tires, why did I use less gas? The tires being 2" taller added about a 10% overdrive which dropped engine rpms on my 5.0 v-8 by about 300 rpms at 80mph. Elevation really doesn't matter, neither does weight or aero in regular freeway driving. You will spend more gas getting up to speed, but once you get to speed, the increased load is negligible if it even is measureable at all. For me personally, my best gas mileage is when I am towing and loaded down because I decrease speeds to about 55mph. I can go from 28 to right around 35mpg this way. Pretty much every vehicles engine gets better gas mileage at lower rpms, usually within 5-10mph of the highest overdrive gear kicking in. If aero was a huge factor, most vehicles would get better mileage at city speeds. Aero drag squares with every 10mph after 60mph. Before that, it's almost unmesurable.

[@BeanoNoir]

@@AC-xq4hh There very well could be something wrong with this particular Ranger, as it does happen to be the very same truck they drove cross country with. They could have eliminated a variable by requesting a different truck. It's a small point, but it may have been the whole story. We'll have to see how the truck does on fuelly to have more data points on what it is capable of.

[@AC-xq4hh]

@@BeanoNoir I would really like to see that too tbh just to be absolutely certain

[@rockycadieux4642]

Nice testing system, all the trucks you test are tested the same. Makes comparison easy.

[@MickeyR6]

The 2.7 V6 Ecoboost engine from the F-150 Should have been the big daddy option for the ranger.

[@BCORBAN7884]

The 2.7L in the Ranger would be very impressive. I have the 2.7 in my F-150 and it still surprises me with its 0 to 60.

[@j2j17]

100% Agee👍👍

[@mikec3454]

I bet they are holding off to put it in the Raptor Ranger ... if and when it comes to the US & Canada.

[@gs98999]

Won’t fit until its redesigned.

[@wrifraff]

Give it a couple years

[@drs1023]

I bought a 2021 Ranger 6 months ago. It's the base model XL. I live in the foothills of NW Georgia. My current MPG since day 1 is 26.1 mpg - mostly country roads and 15%-10% highway driving.

[@jminaya90]

The problems with the number of mpg on every car is... They get them by only driving at 55mph

[@JohnConnor636]

2017 explorer 2.3 eco boost - i get 24 mpg at 55 lol its my normal drive to work. i'm lucky haha.

[@Jv19979]

Also they don't test going up hills

[@1976axerhand]

and prob do the test at sea level too.

[@jerryhorn3621]

And I believe that drive is done on a dyno? Everything can be "controlled". It is a govt. regulation that they MUST TEST and the results affect them. Real world - you get used to the turbos acceleration -as a result you use it - in fact that goes for any engine - you use what you bought. So to match those factory numbers is near impossible.

[@Gabesafish]

I was excited about the coming of the new Ranger, but I assumed they would be significantly more affordable than comparably equipped F-150’s...they’re not..., especially when you account for the fact that you can always get rebates on the F150’s but not on the Rangers. They other thing is, If I’m going to pay only a little less for a smaller truck, it better also get much better fuel economy....which also seems not to be the case. I call the 2019 Ranger a big fat fail for Ford.

[@logdon17]

Pretty much, the big killer of this truck is the price. If it was out the door 5 to 7 grand less than an F150 Im interested. The ones I have seen are around 3 grand cheaper which is negated on resale. No thanks.

[@xaviermcquiston1604]

@@logdon17 They will get rebates soon enough and they will be in that $6000-$8000 cheaper range I would suspect

[@logdon17]

@@xaviermcquiston1604 Hopefully, no rebates yet but the F150s they are putting cash on every hood with little negotiation.

[@seanvangster]

The ranger not suppose to be a hot seller for Ford. Its meant to help boost the f150 sales thats why they bought it back. Who would buy a same price ranger as the f150

[@natechorney599]

Honestly all mid size trucks are a big fat fail...but people buy them. When I was truck shopping I drove a TRD sport Tacoma 2017 double cab and an f150 XLT supercab w/ 3.5 eco, locker and 36 gallon tank. It was only $3000 more for the f150.

[@josem6929]

10:07 Andre getting pumped about being able to use the same pump. What a great team tfl has!

[@4bulldurham]

They could have waited for the pump.

[@Painfulwhale360]

Congrats to all the guys saying they’ll buy an F150 instead. 👍🏻 remember one thing though.... Nobody cares

[@FlyLopez1991]

i got myself a ford ranger lariat 2020 and i love it so much, the turbo is amazing and i am happy people saying they will buy a f150 over the ranger its better because the RANGER will be more rare unique on the road

[@Jv19979]

@@FlyLopez1991 that 2.3 is a reliable engine

[@billbates5475]

exactly

[@1976axerhand]

@@FlyLopez1991 make sure you change the oil every 5k not the 10k that they recommend and use full synthectic oil, that is what i will be doing, oil is alot cheaper than a new engine

[@FlyLopez1991]

@@1976axerhand yup I got free oil changes for 5 years but I hope it’s syenthic oil

[@skater041930]

01 Tahoe 4x4 5.3 3.73’s highway mpg cruise on 75 she pulls 15-16 mpg. Window sticker said 17 mpg highway. Not bad for 175,000 miles and 6,000 LBS

[@HuffNaggles]

Just wanted to say keep up the fantastic work guys! Been watching, and learning from y'all for a few years now.

[@suhailns3688]

HuffNaggles agree, they have incredible team!

[@nlitenurmind]

*You should never top off your gas tank* Damage to charcoal evap canister can hurt performance or the gas goes back to the station anyways lol

[@chargestate42]

The fuel companies love it when you top off..... I would like to know how much more they put in during their top off? Did they use cruise control.

[@bobp284]

Have a '19 Ranger XLT Supercab with 4wd and the 302A package and spray-in bed liner for 6 months now. I just did a 390 mile round trip to Manchester Vt which involved a mix of hills and mountains and a little city. Did highway out from upstate NY and got right about 25 mpg. On the return trip we decided to take a nice scenic drive and about 95% of that drive was on two lane roads through country and small towns. That return trip hit 26.2 mpg. We live in a mountainous area and I've been hitting fairly close to the spec mpgs, either a little under or a little over consistently. Paid a little over $37000 all together and I'm really loving this truck and have zero complaints. This is my fourth Ford truck and the other three were all F150s and I like this the most by far of all of them.

[@squidly2112]

I have had a Ranger for about 6 months now. I reset my gas calculation after I returned from my last RV towing run and with new tonneau cover. Mostly going back and forth from work, averaging around 55-60mph, I am currently averaging right on 25mpg!! .. I am amazed that I am getting that good of gas mileage. I get 10mpg towing my 25' RV trailer at 60-63mph.

[@Rockrewls]

Why in the world would you buy a ranger that gets at best 21mpg, when you can buy a full size chev that gets 24 mpg, as well the full size ford 2.7 turbo mileage is very close to 23 mpg. ....Ford you need to do way better with the ranger!!! Thanks for the RW testing TFL.

[@tomhardware2254]

D U 24 mpg in a Chevy full size truck? That’s total bs. Maybe going down hill with a tail wing, being pushed by a Prius.

[@bradleydecker4861]

@@tomhardware2254 On my chevy 1500 4x4 with the 5.3 v8, i get around 22.5 mpg when driving 75 on the highway.

[@MrManic52001]

@@bradleydecker4861 BS

[@XvFenixvX]

@@MrManic52001 my Ram 1500 with the 5.7 gets around that too. Full sized pick up trucks are pretty damn efficient now adays brother

[@Wrang15]

All depends what tires you have. Stock tires my 5.3 did 21... now with tires that work in snow and off road its 18. I Wonder what tires the epa used in the test.

[@theejoeylee]

Everyone complains about the price of these small trucks approaching 50 grand...They can carge that, because you clowns will pay that! KNOCK IT OFF. We need an Affordable body on FRAME 4x4 working mans truck. How about OEMs try to meet repair Price points? Like NOTHING on my old truck costs over 1,000 bucks to fix. Cost of ownership after the warranty expires is what keeps me in my old truck....& 50 grand...there's that

[@Wrang15]

Problem is if your in a salt state. My 09 frame rusted from the inside out... state inspection pulled it off the road... it cant be fixed 70k on the motor and its junked by the state.

[@greggast9824]

I'm thinking it is just your state. Ranger starts at 32,500 for the lariat trim, which is the top trim for the ranger. Unless your talking about the F150 which is definitely not a small truck.

[@combatflipflopsgriff8343]

Watched this video before buying a 2022 Tremor. Just did a 900 mile road trip through six Cascade Mountain passes. 92 Octane. 65-72mph on the adaptive cruise control. 2 passengers. Luggage. And a bed full of Jasper rock chunks on the latter half of the trip. Average in and around mileage for gas stops and snacks. 23.5mpg. Pretty stoked. Looking forward to seeing how the Ford Performance tune, cold air intake, and softtopper help with the road trip mileage. Aiming for 26mpg.

[@kennydiel4797]

I am getting 20 mpg around town in LA traffic, 2019 Ranger two wheel drive

[@slaychild1]

What?? I had the same truck and only got 14 mph, now I have a 2021 FX4 and I’m also getting 14.3 on the HWY with cruise at 70!!!!

[@marktwain580]

I’m getting 22 mpg all day with up to 24+ mpg highway. Still would prefer a larger tank.

[@niksikk15]

It seems like GM is the only one of the big three that gets the real world mileage that they claim

[@matthewrobertson156]

And yet it is still the only one I would choose not to drive.

[@troycruse]

GM all day long!

[@strtngfrsh]

@@troycruse That's about how long it will last without issues, "all day long"

[@davidblalock9945]

Nathen, it's not that we Think a NA v6 will be more reliable, its that we know a Naturally Aspirated V6 Will be More Reliable.

[@BigSam63]

That holds true for essentially every engine from every manufacturer on the planet, not sure why it would be any different for the Ranger.

[@tylough]

A turbo spinning at 180,000 RPMs. What can go wrong?

[@mozeby1975]

Look at any used car website and look at higher mileage turbo cars. A large number of them have had rebuilt turbos. Or they're gonna need it soon. Just something that comes with owning a turbo.

[@mrnovacan2158]

I agree I don`t want any turbo engine from any MFG and the direct injected engines got issues as well!

[@craigg4246]

So, it gets the same mileage as my 2018 F-150 4x4 5.0 V8 with 3.73 gears. That will tow 5000 lbs more, haul 1000 lbs more, and has WAY more room. I think F-150 sales leadership is safe!

[@josephwhiskeybeale]

Ford needs to work out the bugs in their software, and add a 25 gallon gas tank while they’re at it.

[@jww109]

Every manufacturer needs a 25 tank (at least).

[@nbaldo003]

Tacomas got a 22!

[@drobs7279]

Frontiers have 21 gal tanks. My 2006 Nissan Altima had 20 gal tank.

[@prafulmartis8317]

Don't give them ideas. They'll fix the small gas tank issue with a software update

[@namtrinh4695]

I got a 36 gallon tank in my platinum f150, it's a upgrade option from a standard 26 gallon tank

[@randymangum6207]

Drove my 2020 Ranger FX4 round trip from North Georgia to Columbus Ohio the week before Christmas Even with the speed I drove, and not using cruise, I got 24.6 mpg. Drove about 1,100 miles. My first long trip and I was very happy with the gas mileage!

[@jonasbennett9237]

Thanks for the video guys. I think it’s time for the EPA to re-evaluate how they calculate MPG. I’ve never owned a vehicle that got the MPG that the EPA said I should. Basically another semi-useless government agency.

[@adithyaramachandran7427]

My Cruze exactly matches the EPA rating at 38 combined. My last generation corolla also matched the ratings at 33.5 combined. You have to drive your vehicle at least 10,000 miles before the advertised mileage is met.

[@jldude84]

Conversely MOST of my vehicles easily met or exceeded the EPA figure, even those with nearly 200,000 miles. Maybe your foot is the problem?

[@kirbygoodwin5760]

An 18 gallon gas tank? My Ford Taurus has a bigger tank; I’ll be it 19 gallons, but still.

[@ryants1]

Kirby Goodwin SHO?

[@FishFind3000]

Might be 18.X gal tank. my bmw has 18.6, 16 main and a 2.6 gal reserve

[@bartjanflikkema]

In Europe the tank is big, very big. My own car has 8 american gallon. 9.2 with reserve

[@norgepalm7315]

@@bartjanflikkema Europe has gay micro cars that dont count

[@jeffanderson7256]

water bear facts

[@EGGINFOOLS]

Just here to read all the Ford guy comments on how the EPA does this and how TFL should have done that!

[@marcuscorvain1204]

Typical Chevrolet fan talking shit from the start

[@EGGINFOOLS]

@@marcuscorvain1204 I don't have to talk bad about anything. The video shows the proof.

[@raiderboy310]

But a Silverado doing the same exact test did better. Calm down ford dude . Your just dilusional bud.

[@marcuscorvain1204]

Lol it's a shame Chevrolet's don't run as good as your mouths

[@EGGINFOOLS]

@@marcuscorvain1204 Man, you have mommy issues. Or maybe daddy issues too! Quick hurry up and change the subject of MPG based on this video so you can sound smart!

[@yunaferro4836]

EPA testing is done inside a closed environment on a dyno running at 55 mph. With these you remove all variables and sure enough you get the EPA mileage. I run my 2020 F150 3.5 eco boost on 55 to 65 mph and makes around 21.5 average highway.

[@captainamer71]

Thank you I had always wondered how the EPA comes up with their numbers and yes I’m being serious

[@johnb9109]

Not surprised by this at all. I had a 2011 F250, and that thing always overestimated my mileage by 2-3 gallons.

[@AmericanSurvival001]

yep lol thats like 30+ miles MY 99 F150 same way and had a buddy had one of those 2004 Fjunk50 POS left us stranded! Never trust the reserve on ANY ford , My 2004 Durango is dead on....to the last mile! FRAUD sells shit

[@willv5158]

Thank you for this video. I recently purchased a used 2019 ford ranger just like the one you were using, and noticed that when I drove it on the highway at 70 - 75mph, I got less gas mileage than when I drove it in the city and the country combined up to 55 mph. I thought something was wrong, but now that I see what you got, I guess Ford and the EPA lied.

[@awesomearizona-dino]

Kudos for TFL standardized testing.

[@drumtwo4seven]

Over 65mph gas mileage goes down Needs to be done at 65mph

[@stinkenlinken]

I noticed that the pump has a sticker indicating that the fuel may contain up to 10% ethanol. That is probably skewing the numbers a bit from the epa rating. Most of the gasoline sold in the U.S. contains up to 10% ethanol-the amount varies by region. All automakers approve blends up to E10 in their gasoline vehicles. As of 2011, EPA began allowing the use of E15 in model year 2001 and newer gasoline vehicles.2 Pumps dispensing E15 must be labeled (see example). A vehicle's owner manual may indicate the maximum ethanol content recommended for it by the automaker. Ethanol contains about one-third less energy than gasoline. So, vehicles will typically go 3% to 4% fewer miles per gallon on E10 and 4% to 5% fewer on E15 than on 100% gasoline. Not sure how much of an impact this has. Some regions may not have any ethanol.

[@chadkent1241]

You beat me to that particular nit to pick

[@CoelhoSports]

epa test fuel is e10

[@carnactm1171]

Anything from the "independent lab " Ford hired ?

[@ooStrack]

When it was time to retire my 2005 Silverado 5.3 I looked at these smaller trucks but for what I got my 15 Silverado 5.3 was a steal and it gets almost the same on these highway trips. Glad I went with a full size!

[@michaelschneider530]

Disappointed. Not so much in the 21, but that the truck was WAY off. My 2017 powerstroke is almost dead on. If anything I usually get 0.2mpg higher then what the truck says.. I'm trying to think of why it got 21 but I can't find an excuse...

[@joytech23]

I don't know why Ford USA didn't allow the Diesel, the diesels are in real-world testing between 26-30 MPG (US).

[@randomvideosn0where]

I think because they top off, and it probably used the tank level to calculate. If they had driven until it was closer to empty it probably would have been more accurate.

[@michaelschneider530]

@@joytech23 I wish they would. I'm all for diesels as my last 5 trucks I've own are powerstrokes.

[@michaelschneider530]

@@randomvideosn0where probably so.

[@jamesbeaman6337]

@@randomvideosn0where topping of the tank that way is the same method they used on other trucks that were at or above their highway MPG EPA rating or the MPG displayed on the instrument panel.

[@busardr1452]

I purchased one of the first 2019 Rangers that hit the ground here in Winston Salem NC. I too have an FX4 Lariat and the first few tanks averaged right at 21 mpg by my own calculations not the trucks. I did have a couple trips that were 90% highway and got over 24 but for the most part 21 was where I landed. I have since put a 2'" lift and 32" tires on the truck and mileage has suffered. I average now around 18 if I am lucky and if it is mostly city, 16.5. Not complaining though because I do love the truck and knew ahead of time doing these mods the mileage would suffer. Mileage also depends greatly on driving style. You said it before "you either get eco or get boost but not both" which is very true of this engine. Stay out of the gas and you can get great numbers, get on it and it drinks like a V8.

[@nm-qt2hb]

I think you guys should try it with the lower octane fuel. You are not at sea level. The higher octane fuel burns at a slower rate, not the best description here. So at your altitude the timing and fuel maps my not adjust in a short drive cycle for it. Also does any car or truck get the same EPA mileage at your altitude. I don't know for sure. What do you guys see with other cars and trucks? As usual, great video and info. Thanks

[@rickbrauer6794]

2019 XLT, 2wd. Strictly city - light to light - it's just over 18. Mix of city/hwy its 24/25. I made one long haul from Dallas to Little Rock. Speeds varied with the max at 80 and slows of 45 with traffic in Dallas and passing Little Rock. Ended one way with 33 mpg! Picked up a Jon boat from my brother and drove back on another full tank, 31. My driving is not that much, only just over 18k miles on it. EDIT after watching the end of the video I'm very curious now and will pick up the notebook at start a manual track.

[@Davido50]

Awesome truck! Test drove one & bought it immediately. Amazing powertrain and tech features. New king of midsize trucks. Hands dwn. #Ecoboost

[@erizzle67]

Had mine a few months now. The quickness is surprising. The more I drive it the more I love it. I had a new Tacoma a few years ago. Sold it after a couple years. It was... fine. I could only afford a two wheel drive version with the baby back seat so for the money my FX4 is just amazing. I hated the start stop and lane keep stuff at first but now that I've figured out when to use it I really like it. I suppose you've also figured out you can have it NOT shut off just by being very easy on the brake pedal? But I use the disable switch in my neighborhood. The Ford app is also really neat. Fingers crossed though on reliability with this engine and trans...!

[@willie9397]

@@erizzle67 just give a good highway run every now and then helps keep the engine clean and thats really a good idea for all engines, the best time is right before an oil change

[@LilSmoSmo]

E-Rizzle McInerny ...any issues 6 months later? I'm picking up my 2020 FX4 this week. Just curious how it's been

[@Davido50]

@@LilSmoSmo im at 1yr now. No issues whatsoever. Switch to a SN+ Full Synthetic oil about 1000mis . Enjoy!

[@FlyLopez1991]

@@Davido50 do you put 91 or 93 premium gas?

[@DanVoels]

Have owned 7 F150’s over the years and picked up a 2020 Ranger Lariat FX4. I don’t tow heavy, so I downsized. I agree that I wish they offered the 2.7TT motor. It’s by far my favorite and I’ve owned the 5.0, 2.7 and 3.5 motors. That being said, my 2019 3.5 got 25 mpg max on highway (it was a 2wd Lariat), and I’m getting 28 in my 4wd 2.3L Ranger. That’s going 65 to 70 on flat Texas highways. Bone stock except for a MX4 tonneau and a bug guard. Did I get a ringer? I can’t believe you guys only got 20. Wow.

[@TallStarlite]

Over priced mini Gas Hog!

[@Davido50]

Haha greatest midsize truck to date more like! Stay off the boost u get better MPGs. It IS a truck!

[@srrtbb]

Thank you and love what you do for the fans and viewers! Keep up the good work!

[@boxy8438]

Interesting, I've never gotten better gas mileage with cruise control on. I bought the new Ecosport a year ago rated 27/29. Without using cruise and normal driving I get the 28 combined. Using cruise ends up at 26 or 27. But if I want to drive for max efficiency, I've gotten 37 mpg out of an entire tank before.

[@Dmonday_81]

Just bought the new Ranger, and with all the rebates for being a veteran and all the other Ford discounts, I got it for way less than an equally equipped F150, so far my gas mileage has been around 22 mpg, but living in northern California where there are a lot of hills I'd say it's doing pretty good, especially because EPA ratings are at much lower speeds, and in California at least everyone is doing 75mph or more all the time on the freeway. I'm happy with my Ranger.

[@supporterofsanity]

So Ford reported to the EPA what their lie-o-meter says and the EPA said sure we'll accept that number. My Ram lie-o-meter is nearly as bad though. Very optimistic.

[@Mr19853]

Their all the same, my Toyota lie-o-meter was the same thing.

[@Silentroller93]

You can get that 21 mpg in a ram 2500 with the cummins lol

[@supporterofsanity]

Sean Lynn lol I do running empty!

[@dshall442]

No owner of an EcoBoost that I've known in the past 7 years (since they came out?) has gotten close to the numbers the EPA states they should get. All have been unhappy, some have traded for an actual V8. What happens when too many consumers get upset like this? Remember a decade ago with Hyundai?? Time to class action Ford on their reported EcoBoost numbers...

[@thejackalsmith7329]

I have a 2016 F-150 with the 3.5 eco boost and when we take it to Florida fully loaded with 4 people and the bed loses to the top we get 21 mpg. It’s rated at 22 mpg and it has 20 inch tires. Lots of 2.7 eco boosts consistently getting 25-27 mpg.

[@brianaustin1328]

Note: the EPA highway test loop has a max speed of 60mph. Driving at higher speeds will reduce your average mpg.

[@CoelhoSports]

they have been doing these videos a long time. they've been through all this. epa uses own test fuel in climate controlled lab on rollers with hose over tail pipe with own driving formulae, yada yada. this is TFL's test to show real world performance and they test them all the same. this one is a poor performer.

[@rayd2100]

Doesn't really matter when GM has been beating the EPA number. You might have a point if everyone was missing it.

[@ShredGarage]

Ray D if GM has higher mpg numbers in the real world, they would advertise it and put those numbers off to the epa..

[@bigmike4038]

I've had my 2021 Ranger for a year now....my combined mileage has consistently been over 24. In the spring and summer its generally closer to 28. Winter...closer to 24, but still above it. Also, being from Colorado....I recognize that Loves at the beginning of the video. Hudson exit off I-76. Ya'll were in my neck of the woods.

[@jeffforbess6802]

The Big Three always over-estimate efficiency, while the Japanese tend to under-estimate.

[@nm-qt2hb]

Tell take to the owners of the Santa Fe and other Asian owners. Not true. Almost no one gets the EPA numbers.

[@zacharymartin4861]

Maybe frequently, but I wouldn't say always: My brother's Silverado averages 16 mpg, which - to the best of my knowledge - is what GM claimed it would average. I'll have to look into that one to verify. Dodge says the Charger R/T will average 19 mpg; my mom averages 23 in her's. (I average between 25 and 30 when I drive it. Best I've gotten was 41 mpg on back roads). She also had a 2015 Charger SE, that averaged 30 - Dodge claimed it would average 25. Can't speak for Ford, because no one I know owns one nor have I ever driven one lol. Edit: Just checked, and the claimed average for the Silverado was 17, not 16.

[@thejackalsmith7329]

Particles I know my 2013 VW Passat TDI was rated at 40 mpg highway and got between 48-51 mpg. Liars all liars.

[@darens440]

My GMC 6.2 is under estimated. My Honda is like dead accurate for City and Combined, it beats highway a bit. My MK7 Golf was seriously underrated by the EPA, by 5 or more MPG.

[@jeffforbess6802]

Had a GMC Yukon XL. Rated at 16, 21, if memory serves. Got 14.7 and 16.9.

[@machone7580]

The new Ranger is a nice truck, I like mine. Yes, too expensive, agreed not enough incentives from Ford. They cost what they cost I guess. A lot of commenters here are saying just get an F150, but that's not an easy answer. I own a 1997 Ranger XLT and have been driving it for the last 17 years. My new Ranger is quite an upgrade over my old one! It seems HUGE to me versus my old Ranger, but still not as big as an F150, and more than capable for what I need. I like Ford, and I like F150's too, but I don't want a fat, massive, huge pig of a truck taking up all my garage space. Yes, they missed the fuel mileage by a few MPG, I'm not gonna worry about it. Thank you for the video!

[@billp5424]

If there is dirt and crud on the cover of the “cap less” fuel tank does the pump nozzle push it in?

[@JohnDoe-nz6bk]

I've always wondered that! On my 09 fusion (best car I've ever owned, and can't believe I'm saying that about a Ford), they told me that they stopped using fuel filters and the injectors needed to be cleaned every 30,000 miles.

[@bigretardhalo]

Bill P - it could if it was covered, if it was that covered I would wipe it off. I worked at a Ford dealer for years dealing with trade ins and have seen some dirty vehicles. I personally have never seen more than a light coating of dust on the cap less filler area the fuel doors are pretty good about keeping major dirt out of the whole area. It would take some serious mud coating to be an issue and if there were that much mud on and around a normal screw on fuel cap I would clean it off before opening it

[@TheBronco67]

@@JohnDoe-nz6bk A friend had a 2013 fusion and when he got rid of it , the car had 296,000 miles on it, the only problems he had was 1 factory recall and he had to change fuel filter. his car was a hybrid

[@TheCamaro5]

the fuel pump that is in the tank has a strainer filter that keeps debris out of the pump.

[@aaronhumphrey2009]

Agreed,this is stupid. Why isn't a 2.0 turbodiesel offered, with a manual?! That's what you want for mpgs!

[@potatothorn]

i just got the 2019. 2 door, 2wd. took it on 2 long trips already/ going well over 70, sometimes 80, a few mountains, and about 700lbs or more load on... getting 21.5 average over 900 miles trip according to the vehicle, and it seems close to accurate.

[@InternetDude]

I was excited for the new Ranger and then it came and it’s expensive, big and less reliable than the good old ones.

[@jeffanderson7256]

Just like the s10/Colorado :(

[@randywhite6539]

InternetDude The truck just come out how can anyone know anything about it’s reliability.

[@torquesoftware]

You ever have to do a timing chain (the rear) on a old 4.0? I'd rather kill myself. And the earlier OHV 4.0 engines were reliable, yeah for sure. But I can run faster.

[@daghostxxx1797]

@@randywhite6539 They've been running this truck in Europe for yrs.

[@cjtyrogiannis]

I have a 2019 Ranger Lariat FX4 and I get 27mpg. Very happy with this truck.

[@timfox2344]

If it weren’t for the Chevy getting better than reported .... I would start to suspect Weights & Measures was being manipulated on the pumps to charge extra for fuel not really pumped. Great info as always

[@W3RK1Nit]

Of course you would. A private, for-profit company would never do anything to deceive. If you're being sarcastic, well done.

[@willgeo2215]

My 2019 Ranger with 4x4 gets 27 mpg on I-95 when the road is flat. As soon as I hit any elevation, the mpg goes down.

[@BPeezy315]

Was looking for this comment. I too live on the east coast. Flat as a pancake.

[@mojorisin7371]

Make it simple and reliable like a truck should be, no turbo just natural aspiration. Bring back the inline 6, nuff said.

[@RickysHP]

yeah, because turbochargers really reduce the life of a vehicle designed for it. Guess you don't realize that every semi truck on the road has a turbo, hauling 80k lbs, and they go for millions of miles.

[@hughwynn6193]

I own a 2020 Ford Ranger XLT 2WD with a tonneau bed cover. I am living in central Florida. When cruising on highway at 65mph - 70mph, I never got above 19.3 mpg which was calculated by hand.

[@red.riot.2280]

Agree with the V6 talk. I’ve owned turbocharged vehicles. Never again. Fine with a big warranty. But for something I hope to keep.. turbo is not for me.

[@danielrn133]

I live in Wyoming and I will never EVER go back to NA engines. I drive at elevation quite a bit and the turbo maintains its power. The engineering and build quality these days is amazing. Never ever ever will I go back to NA engines. I had a 12 Tacoma TRD off road and the improvement with my Ranger is shocking. The reliability of turbos is a very 80s/90's things and shows you are not doing actual research. Just "believe" bullshit.

[@brada1997]

A couple things, guys: 1. From that I was able to learn, 85 at elevation is the same as 87 at sea level, which is effectively below 3300 ft. 2. You can't really do a real world mpg test at elevation comparing it to the EPA test done at sea level. That's not fair. Thoughts?

[@bernhardwiebe5199]

Well this makes me realise the turbo 4 silverado did extremly good

[@coyote102076]

Heck I have it documented on my you tube channel my plain ol Chevy Colorado 3.6L got better than that! Granted, it is only 2WD, sooooooooooo …………………………. yeah. NOT impressed FORD. :-/ And I have to echo Rocky Cadieux words when he said " Nice testing system, all the trucks you test are tested the same. Makes comparison easy. " Keep up the GREAT work guys! Y'all tell it like it is, and that's why y'all ROCK!!! :-)

[@theag3852]

GM Twins Colorado/Canyon with 2.8 Diesel still is King MPG!

[@lukeprince7690]

Yeah it says probably true that they put a turbo the king of towing to but in this is a big butt now that they have that diesel in the canyon I think Ford's going to want to answer the the challenge so don't be surprised if the v6 makes it to the ranger or or a diesel

[@paulpeters5199]

Just bought one at Thanksgiving time and I'm getting 23.9 super cab XLT with fx4 can't complain one bit

[@SHOTSLAPOUT]

Thanks. For that mileage I'll buy the F150 with the 5.0 Coyote.

[@henryford2736]

Good choice.

[@billmustardproductions9443]

Agreed. From the time that I rolled my 2018F150 (supercrew 4x4 5.0) off of the lot to right this red hot second I am averaging 18.35US MPG. And that includes about 8% towing and we are just finishing up another wonderful Northern Ontario winter that had near record snowfalls and a week straight of -40. And I have 10 ply LT ATTAs on there as well.

[@InternetDude]

That’s exactly how Ford is outsmarting it’s customers. Make the Ranger “meh” next to the F150 so most people just buy the F150 instead.

[@billmustardproductions9443]

@CareerFireman base to base maybe but not with my options and programs will change regularly. Also for many buyers that $6000 disappears quickly when they need a second truck to be able to tow what they need to. That said, if you live in a city and tow light loads and dont own 11 foot long snowmachines this truck might be sufficient. But if you watch the video it was not a "what should you buy" comparison it was a fuel economy video. And the economy is a joke on this for the size and the power. I have 1 ton 8 foot box 4 door diesels that can beat this number on the highway.

[@henryford2736]

@CareerFireman I rather spend the extra $$ on the V8 because the 4cyl sounds like a lawn mover. I really don't know who's going to drive 4cyl trucks.

[@MrTimdtoolman1]

Great video guys. I have no desire to buy a ranger (although I have owned 2 in years past) but I still enjoy your vids.

[@thivakarsaravanamuthu4744]

That's pretty bad for a new truck with a 4 cylinder (turbo)

[@George-nx4bp]

Yeah, remember it is like 6 years old though actually

[@Clapxiomatic]

They were going 70 MPH. EPA didnt rate it at 70 MPH..... they rated it at 55 MPH. No car is going to be more efficient at 70 than at 55. Use your brain.

[@Jv19979]

@@Clapxiomatic people don't think

[@daghostxxx1797]

My exact thoughts too !

[@17forever64]

You need to take the variable of the pump out of the equation and put the gas in a container and measure the amounts if you want the real mpg. There is no way it’s that far off from the computer!

[@vernonpitts6630]

Re-test the truck once the winter blend fuel is gone. My vehicles always get much better fuel economy in the summer compared to winter.

[@vernonpitts6630]

@@leonardrice1500 Face it....you are a Troll.

[@darens440]

For Gasoline, winter blend is only 1.7% less energy than summer fuel. That 1.7% energy difference is also counteracted by the higher density of cold gas. You get more gasoline (Energy) per gallon if its colder. The reason you get less is due to cold air, and rich mixtures until engine is warmed up. TFL drives to that gas station so its not like its tested on a cold start. They don't run winter fuel in California when they first picked up and fueled the truck. Its just getting bad mileage every single time.

[@vernonpitts6630]

@@darens440 It varies by State and region. It is not the same blend across the country.

[@Shakerhood69]

In the Summer that turbo will be working harder because of the heat and MPG's will drop.

[@Z06redvett]

The MPG on this truck really sucks, my 2016 V6 Colorado 3.6 L gets the same mileage per gallon. Love your videos, keep up the great work.

[@nateuther2451]

21.4 mpg on flat highway at 70? My 4x4 Tacoma does that all day long. Best-in-class my ass

[@Catman1798]

Nate Uther yes and a rusted frame to go with it as well

[@Tempsho]

@@Catman1798 Tacoma will still have much better resale, even with a history of rusty frames. Hopefully the newer gen Tacomas dont suffer the same problem.

[@SethDanger1]

Nice job. That's as close to a proper test in the real world as you are going to get. Some are trying to justify the results by saying its because it wasn't driven at 55mph , the altitude, bla bla bla. I don't mind that it doesn't get the advertised MPG. The difference between the actual MPG and what the display is showing is a bit troubling though.

[@timsisco3742]

But why does the screen look like its using Windows 98 graphics... just in the graphics alone the tech screams old.

[@huntertomlin3909]

We have two 2018 transit connects for work vehicles both with sync touch screens, both sync systems for some reason won't turn off when you remove the key, exit the vehicles and lock the doors. This leads to dead batteries almost daily and according to the dealership this is normal.

[@mainwayne1352]

Because they’re not ready to upgrade to windows vista.

[@foxbodyguyeightyeight3672]

@@huntertomlin3909 your dealer is not telling you the truth sync runs off after driver door is opened

[@foxbodyguyeightyeight3672]

@@huntertomlin3909 your door switch is bad common issue your dealer is ignorant

[@SolaOutdoors]

Our Ranger has been getting about 23-24 on the highway with our RTT on the back, but we also live in Louisiana so it is mostly flat terrain. Around town, its closer to about 18MPG. BUT! We didn't exactly get ours for the gas mileage. A F150 is way too much truck for what we do, it would be too big for the trails that we camp on, and we just plain didn't want one. The Ranger is, and probably always will be, a lifestyle truck. It's for those that want the ability to tow something and throw something in the bed, but don't want to live with the behemoth full sized trucks on the market today. A midsize is a commuter truck, a full size is a status symbol.

[@marathonbaker]

Ranger and Colorado turning radius test

[@bryane2857]

who cares

[@juaaniim]

Great test guys. I just happen to have a 2018 Ranger 3.2 5 Cylinder 4x4 6 speed automatic, I live in Argentina. My dad had previously owned a 2014, same model. Both of them were around 21 and 22 MPG, but at about 80 mph...I believe something is not properly okey in your 2.3. I think my numbers could get better because the roads I normally take are not highways and it is impossible to go over 50 miles without having to slow down for other reasons. Maybe you should take it to the dealer and have it checked....

[@juaaniim]

Also, my computer was off by a couple of liters and I found a way on internet about how to make the avg more accurate. You cand find that easily. Now is of by less than half a liter...

[@shrtbus44]

The MPG on the dash is an estimate for if you were to use the entire tank of gas in the current conditions of you driving. So even though you only were getting 21 mpg you didn't use the entire tank of gas. I have done 3 MPG tests in my 2019 ranger and Driving from Rhode Island to Georgia I filled up 3 times and averaged 24.8 MPG with my best tank being 26 MPG

[@Snadzies]

At what speeds do the EPA and manufacturers calculate MPG? I assumed it was 55mph, so for you to get a lower MPG going 70mph is expected. The real shocker is the discrepancy between what the truck's computer said and what you calculated.

[@jabronjunklove760]

Yes, the truck computer should still be giving an accurate reading and not be off by like 3-4 mpg's.

[@travnat1]

that sucks. My 2500 Cummins 4x4, lifted with a long bed will get 20.8mpg on the highway.

[@Sn0Pro7]

Nate T. Same. I have a 2500 crew cab long bed Cummins. Ive gotten upwards of 24mpg on the highway. Ridiculous a truck half the size and weight can’t do better

[@MADelectriCITY]

So ridiculous that a diesel is getting better economy than a gasoline engine. Fake news I bet.

[@MADelectriCITY]

Never mind fuely recordings - www.fuelly.com/car/ram/2500?engineconfig_id=233&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

[@danielanderson2030]

Had an 01 24v 5spd 4x4 reg cab flat bed, slightly built up to haul. Bigger turbo, fuel system, intercooler, etc. I got 25 mpg qt 75 religiously. Towing i got about 18 doing 55 in 4th, i got about 10 pinned at 3k towing switchback mountain roads in 3rd doing about 35 to 40, but going cross country i got 20 to 22 mpgs towing almost the exact same setup with 4 extra horses and alot more gear at 70mph in 5th.

[@justinhardt1]

Colorado dmax here. 21.5 mpg highway 72 mph in Utah. 35x12.5" tires and 4" lift. The Ranger is quick.. but that's all its got..

[@cbp9510]

Had been weighing pros and cons for several months between the ranger, colorado diesel and taco, and was ready to take the plunge with the ranger and then this video comes to my attention. Certainly there can be a lot of reasons for the low fuel economy, but the fact that the on-board mpg calculation was so far off from a straight forward hand calculation (by more than 15%) at the very least draws into question the accuracy of any of Ford's information for this truck, and at worst, suggests intentional misrepresentation and fraud. I can't condone this type of false advertising with a purchase. Thanks TFL for your good work in informing the public and please continuing doing so. We really need you to do your work, because the feds appear to be asleep.

[@AL-nb9bf]

Thay all do it, none are the exact it's all done by calculations and not exact science.

[@agaad22]

Is this a joke? 21 mpg for a mid-size truck? Full-size get that or better 🤦‍♂️

[@Maniac742]

??? A tundra won't even get 15.

[@Bdubs-ns7nn]

What full size gets 21? They might advertise 21 but they won't get it.

[@travissouthworth8937]

Ram gets it

[@mparts100]

travis southworth That’s because they are being towed.

[@FrankySilverFace]

I hope you did the downhill test with this Ranger as you did with the hybrid mini van. That would be hilarious!

[@crimsonstang]

Doesn't even get better mileage than my dad's F150 with the 3.5L and the 36gal tank.

[@trevorc5477]

My 3.5 EcoBoost never, ever, got over 19mpg on texas highways in 42k miles

[@1981440cw]

Mine gets 24.6mpg on the highway at 70mph and 26.1 at 65mph. This is my second Ranger and both are exactly the same mpg.

[@FordFracture]

Well I've had mine for a week now and the best I've gotten on the. Highway in Cruise control is 17 so I'd say someone's lying !!!!

[@scottneal2738]

I did a trip and back that was over 250miles and after my fill-up, I got 20mpg. I can see this since it's a small motor and was on cruise control without a lot of hill changes or speed change due to traffic. I also have kept an eye on the mpg flex number to get a good mpg but also see if it was really dropping low or reading high numbers for the trip. I was driving 70 just like on the video as well. I have noticed going slower definitely will show a greater number on the flats but like always drop drastically when a upward climb comes about.

[@WhaddupImJohn]

@@scottneal2738 Thats crazy. My SHO gets close to 30 on road trips and mines a TT V6... and weighs 4400lbs

[@daghostxxx1797]

Same as mine !

[@k.r.v.4219]

Hello again Andre&Nathan! Once again good reporting and nice job, I guess someone has to do it! I need to tell everyone out there, a friend of mine has a new Ranger ZX4,4x4, Crew Cab, that he is also disappointed with the mileage he’s getting, mind you he has less than 1,000 miles so far, but the best he’s getting commuting to work on 20 highway, 5 rural miles daily. He was hopeful for a two gallon round trip! But has not been able to get less than 2.3!! That’s about the same you’re getting! But in my 2016 Colorado Ext Cab Z71,4x4, V6 Six Speed Auto, I cannot get less than 23 at 75 mph! On the trip computer. If I drive the speed limits, say 60-70 mph in Florida mind you that’s fairly flat at sea level I can get 25-26! Or 18 city. The best over a 40 mile stretch of The Overseas Highway in The Keys at night with little traffic, at the speed limits set with cruise control at 40-45 mph I have saved 32.3 mpg on the computer, but verified that at a pump to be certain! I still am amazed at the power and mileage we get, especially when towing our 4,000 lbs Travel Trailer, that over a 4 month,4,500 Mile trip we averaged 15 mpg! That was of course at the speed limits and no cruise control, that while towing gets worst mileage, due to the fact the truck stays in lower gears. If I carefully feather the gas pedal I can keep the truck from down shifting.

[@russethridge]

Looks like a mpg sham.

[@joetacoma6829]

That's how Ford rolls, just about always.

[@jamesturpin9091]

Eh its every vehicle and ecoboosts are goimg to be more volatile because theyre turbod. If they went 55-65 the whole trip then they probably woild have gotten more but because its not naturally aspirated the passing power is gonna suck down that fuel.

[@aaronbritt2025]

The problem is the antiquated EPA standard. It hasn't been revised since the Feds abolished the 55mph national speed limit. EPA needs to start rating vehicles at 65 instead of 55.

[@rackedpaks]

Remember your a mile above sea level!! That's why it's different!

[@danielk5930]

Wrong! The vehicle will get better MPG at a higher altitude. Do some research. itstillruns.com/effect-elevation-gas-mileage-6744997.html

[@Nick-ue7iw]

Pathetic fuel mileage. A full size GMC Safari with a 4.3l vortec v6 can hit 20-21 on the highway. There is no reason a truck with that 2.3l 4 banger can't get at least 24.

[@wayneduke384]

21 mpg in a BRAND NEW 10 speed 4cyl isnt good. I got that sort of mileage out of a 99 s10 4x4 with 200k.

[@Pofdmanaxe]

Wayne Duke not mention this is a 50k truck

[@aaronhumphrey2009]

Mazda is coming out with a more efficient gas 4-cyl. I'd like to get a skyactive motor in a small- mid size truck. The old 2.3 4- cyl was a great, tough little motor in the rangers.

[@theejoeylee]

@@inforthewin3231 You just summarized why there was no ranger for so long. COSTS.....Just buy a 2.7 f150 and be done with it and have more room, safety, & capability, better interior & more options

[@Miata_On_The_Homestead]

@@aaronhumphrey2009 If mazda ever brings the new B-series to the USA, with the Skyactiv-g 2.5, X, or 2.5T I'd actually really be looking to trade in my 2012 mazda3 I use for construction. As it stands right now, I'm waiting for a complany to make an EV capable of light off-roading as I don't want to lose the great gas milage I get with my old sedan. (please Rivian please don't suck.)

[@tornes19]

168mi trip done yesterday. 73-77mpg om cruise control. 1 wot to merge and 1 110mph run just to see what it could do. Final mpg when I got home was 24.8mpg 2019 ford ramger lariat crew cab 2wd

[@nysportsfan9680]

Waiting for people to say you guys messed this up some how lol

[@strtngfrsh]

They didn't do anything wrong other than at the pump waiting 30 seconds and trying to put more fuel in the tank, you never want to do that but that didn't effect the results.

[@Mekhanic1]

Dumb. My 2010 Ranger gets 25mpg on good weeks and always at least 23mpg. Mix driving 40-75mph

[@chrishill6788]

Encoding issue. Jerky video on this one for some reason. Theyll never get epa numbers at high elevation as well

[@TheDaltonmichaels]

but they do. and they sometimes even beat the EPA numbers so. idk about that. this is the first time they've ever had a 4mpg difference. that's nearly 20% difference on this truck somewhere between 18% and 20 any way. thats huge compared to their own results from previous tests over the last few years worth of testing.

[@EGGINFOOLS]

Except other vehicles do and sometimes better. Also the air is thinner at higher elevation. It would be better not worse

[@mrvwbug4423]

fuel economy usually drops at elevation, the engine has to work harder to maintain the same speed, thus uses more fuel. EFI systems can compensate for thinner air somewhat, but still tend to be a tad rich at elevation, hence why most vehicles at 5000ft have sooty tailpipes.

[@kokocostanza2036]

Except for the fact that the Silverado 2.7 is rated at either 21 or 22 highway, and on this same test they hit 24.

[@EGGINFOOLS]

@@mrvwbug4423 That's not entirely correct. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2009/vouliagmeni/EELA/EELA-29.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxtc2W947hAhVs34MKHXcSAJMQFjABegQIDRAE&usg=AOvVaw05M-Dm-aesiZMNE8_gGKRO

[@greggc8088]

I like the Ranger. Went and test drove one when they fist came out and the rebates were great. Only thing that stopped me is the Ford guy didn't value my Jeep trade enough so I went across the street and bought a Dodge. MPG isn't bad for 70 MPH on that Ranger and it drove like a nice truck and felt like a V6. Sounds horrible inside though, kind of like the old lawn mower sounding Chevy Cavilier. And I'm not so sure about a 10 speed auto, but not many manufacturers are having good luck with their automatics. Except Chrysler with the ZF 8 speed. Nice riding Ranger though.

[@mikec5820]

I'd like to know what specific changes Ford made to the U.S. spec frame. It sounds substantial, saying that "changes to the frame were made", but it could be as simple as re-positioned motor mounts. Also, that mpg computer discrepancy is sketchy AF.

[@pahuntnut]

Great review. Thanks for reading my comments.

[@Mekhanic1]

If the put a coyote 5.0 with. 10 speed and it would get better mileage 🚀😁

[@mikebolton2388]

What's the point in a ranger?

[@philtripe]

@@mikebolton2388 oh Ford cant do that...it would be faster than the Mustang

[@mikebolton2388]

@@philtripe maybe

[@mcciaccio]

I think the 2.7 would be a good option and have better mpg when towing the same weight. And just have an economy mode for around town when not towing. I own a f150 5.0 coyote and getting anything higher than 16mpg is hard. It would be nice to have a hybrid version of the ranger!

[@masethephotoguy]

A hybrid version of the ranger that has the same in-bed 7.2kw generator option that the f150 hybrid has would be a game changer... I love 220v outlets out the bed, gives you so many options for using welders, compressors, and other tools off the bed with no extension cord nonsense.

[@BiGG_X]

hmmmm 😒 seems best in class everyone claims now is just based on lies

[@austinhowze6280]

Think of where that at and temp all effects mpg

[@KC-lg7tx]

They did 70 correct? Epa ratings are at 55 mpg so of course it will be lower then 24

[@EGGINFOOLS]

Excuses galore!

[@Libertarian_Neighbor]

KC2101 Great point.

[@Libertarian_Neighbor]

KC2101 One thing though, TFL does the same test for their reviews, so we can see how the Ranger stacks up to other mid-size trucks head to head.

[@jerrychiasson9857]

What I’ve noticed with my tremor towing if I keep it to 50 or 55 miles an hour I get fantastic gas mileage…. But if I’m heavy footed or over that I come up with the same kind of figures you do….Which is not all that bad for gravel roads and chip seal…..