ULTIMATE MPG Comparison: One Of These Trucks Uses Much More Fuel Than The Rest!

[@davidhillbrand2302]

Very interesting results - great test!

[@TFLtruck]

Thank you!

[@stevenpeterson7234]

​​@@TFLtruck Awesome Review TFL. I'm curious to see if you were to tune the 4 cylinders and V6's if they would get better mpg? That would be a great video!!

[@randallwalker3786]

​@@TFLtruck😊

[@barry7920]

I gotta admit, Nathan called it, and I am surprised, as the Ridgeline has the V6 and it hasn't been refreshed since 2017.

[@2024Alfredo]

Taco win since the Honda not a real truck. But by Silverado with a duramax gets 31 mpg highway. I know diesel more $$. Be nice to see a diesel in the Taco Bell

[@youngblood23rb]

Ridgeline 26 Taco 26 Ranger 26 Colorado 24 and Frontier 22

[@aerynlovell4754]

Ford Ranger with a 6-cylinder diesel engine that is sold in Australia gets 28 MPG (according to Reuban from DMW) on the highway. The blue 2020 Colorado that was V8 swapped by LHT Performance (in Florida) gets 30 MPG on the highway.

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

Do y'all use American or British gallons in Australia? Also, diesel needs to get at least 30% better mpg to be worth it. Fuel costs at 20-30% more, maintenance is more expensive, and they cost more up front. Which is why the only diesel Ford sells in America is the 6.7L in the Superduty.

[@ccs9271]

@@aerynlovell475428mpg on the hwy from a 6cyl diesel in a midsize truck is pretty horrible mileage

[@aerynlovell4754]

@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 In Britain, Australia, Europe, Canada, etc we use Liters (not gallons) and we call it the metric system. But we sometimes convert liters to gallons because even though the metric system is easy for most of the world to understand Americans can't figure it out.

[@MB-jz3uu]

​@aerynlovell4754 diesel is quite a bit more expensive in the US so a 4mpg boost just to pay 30% more diesel it's not worth it

[@jacobk23]

I love how you put the table with the results at the end but half of it is covered up by the stupid end card video links that KZbin won’t let you get rid of.

[@jacobk23]

@@Bob-pv3ge Not if you’re watching it on your tv through a streaming device, it isn’t. And even if it is, it’s still annoying.

[@MrTonaluv]

You're right Jacob. I was gonna write this but you beat me to it.

[@anthonyc1883]

@@Bob-pv3ge Paused it on my laptop but they are not translucent. Not complaining, just saying.

[@lukestoyz]

And it’s not on the screen more than a few seconds

[@jacobk23]

@@lukestoyz Right. If it had been on there longer, no biggie. But it’s literally just a couple seconds at the end of the video right when the end cards pop up.

[@nathanm8921]

I love all these comparison videos. You should put this all in one Playlist so we can watch then back to back and see all the tests in order.

[@WalterA-b3d]

TFL provides great useful information that buyers want and need. This is another outstanding video production that gives that information in an interesting presentation with great guys, Andrey and Nathan, working together.

[@chriscon8463]

I just drove 211.8 purely highway miles from Erie, PA to Buffalo, NY & back (mostly flat terrain), at 65-70mph. My truck is a ‘23 Ranger XL crew cab 2wd; it’s stock with a hard tonneau. No cruise (I’m with you, Andre) & I also still had my snow tires on. I used 8.63 gallons for 24.54 mpg. I zeroed & checked my displayed mpg on the dash, too; it showed 25.7 mpg.

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

For comparison: I have a 2019 Ranger XLT FX4. Yesterday I drove from Wilmington, NC to Lansing, MI by way of Knoxville, TN. I had my cruise set to 75 except through the mountain pass near the NC/TN border and when truckers thought it was acceptable to use the left lane. I have done this trip a handful of times. Using Shell Premium I get 23.5 mpg. Using Sheetz 89 octane E15 I get 22 mpg. Using anything else I get 21.5 mpg. I wouldn't use E15 regularly, it's not good for the fuel lines, but it's great for the injectors and perfectly fine if you're gonna burn it all immediately.

[@chriscon8463]

@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 great comparison! I’ll do mine again sometime with my regular tires on. I’ve often wondered if I’d get better mileage with 89 octane, too. It certainly seems to run smoother.

[@BassRacerx]

no cruise control in the base model trucks has to be some weird government fleet requirement. I think the automakers should just charge the government more money to remove cruise control it is insane paying 10s of thousands of dollars for a vehicle with no cruise control.

[@jimmyjackass1805]

The bigger question is. Why did you buy a 2 wheel drive truck living in that area of the country. Assuming this of course. I live in the Finger Lakes and 2 wheel drive trucks are a curse around these parts. It's not if. It's when are you going off the road and getting stuck LOL.

[@BassRacerx]

@@jimmyjackass1805 some people keep their trucks on the street. and that's ok

[@stevekniess3665]

Great video, Thank you N8 and Andre and the crew

[@TFLtruck]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@JustinKingOffroad]

even with a math error on the gladiator we all knew that would be the worst right?! LOL! good video guys!!!

[@andrewkieper5613]

The error was in favor of gas mileage also...had he done the 110.3 the mileage would have shown lower yet. 😂

[@wilmarbarrick3194]

That Jeep is like the kid in class that just brought the whole class down and needed "special attention".

[@wtdash]

Yeah...but the 'ol (dest) engine didn't fare as badly as I expected.

[@nbaldo003]

@@wtdash honads j series probably just as old as the pentastar

[@wtdash]

@@nbaldo003 Yes....I thought the Ridgeline had the newer DOHC 3.5 like the Pilot, but still rockin' the SOHC version.

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

Pentastar is actually relatively new compared to some of the other engines. Pentastar debuted in 2011. Honda hasn't meaningfully changed their J Series V6 since 1996. The Nissan VQ has been in production since 1994, though it has seen 2 major revisions. The 2.3L Ecoboost is claimed to be a clean sheet in 2015. However, it has a lot of dimensions in common with the Mazda L Series dating back to 2001. There was even a turbocharged L23 in the 2006 Mazdaspeed6 and 2007 Mazdaspeed3. The 2.0L Ecoboost in the Maverick and various other Ford cars is explicitly based on the L Series.

[@bodyzoasispersonaltraining9186]

It looks like a helmet and walker for sure 😂

[@matttanner8357]

Just wanted to thank you guys for doing this. I am currently looking into purchasing a mid-size truck, and you guys gave me lots of great data. I know the Nissan doesn't have the greatest fuel efficiency, but it has a proven power plant, and all these trucks that are trying these 4cyl turbo charged engines haven't sold me yet. I like reliability, and Nissan is still using a tried and true power plant

[@marcpikas2859]

A lightly used Tacoma may be your ticket with the 6 of course.

[@jimmyjackass1805]

@@marcpikas2859 If he is looking for dependability . Nissan Trucks are Just as good as Toyota if not better. I have owned both and it is neck and neck in durability. The Toy use to be the better looking truck for sure. Not anymore. But the Nissan has more power and for ride quality it's not even close. Plus the Nissan has a Box ladder frame. Witch if I am not mistaken Toy went back to this Gen. Not 100 on that statement.

[@marcpikas2859]

@@jimmyjackass1805I’m kind of torn as I may want to go back to manual tranny. Buying used… 2022 tacoma manual or 22 frontier sv auto. Both 6 foot bed that I need for home made 4 season camper. Currently driving old 06 taco with 4 liter.

[@302Mustang13]

The 2.3 Ecoboost has been out longer than the 3.8 in the Frontier. In addition, this 2.3 has been in the Mustang since 2015 MY. So not sure why you think the Frontier's is proven while the Ranger's is not. That and the torque it makes is really impressive. The Frontier is lacking in that area. Good luck.

[@jimmyjackass1805]

@@302Mustang13 3.8 has been out in the GTR for quite some time But honestly Iwas talking about the the Vq4.0 However the VQ3.8 has been around for quite some time as well. It makes that Torque because of the Turbo. No way that motor last as long as a Non Boosted Motor. Sure put the GTR turbo's on the Truck motor watch what happens. That's not the point We are talking about durability. Well at least that's what I was talking about. The Ford got a 2.3 with a Million miles on it ? The Frontier does. JFFT

[@Offshore1977]

I’m surprised Nathan didn’t bring his Santa Cruz for comparison.

[@just4ivaylo92]

It's not a midsize.

[@blackcow8114]

that's a ford maverick competitor

[@alexandersheppard1997]

Santa Cruz isn’t a truck. It’s a car.

[@youngblood23rb]

Lol good joke

[@kjrehberg]

@@alexandersheppard1997 Same with Maverick and Ridgeline, to be honest, but the Ridgeline has a box-frame-like structure underneath to provide strength and rigidity. I love my Ridgeline.

[@steveallwine1443]

Since this is Colorado, which is at a decent altitude, I wonder if this test doesn’t give the turbo engines an outsized “boost” in mileage advantage that wouldn’t appear at sea level? Or more precisely, your location robs a fair amount power from standard engines. It’d be interesting to compare a similar test with these trucks doing a similar run down in Florida.

[@GlennC789]

It shouldn't. Fuel economy does increase with elevation for both NA and turbo engines thanks to the thinner air, but if anything the turbos would need to be on the boost more as a result and be disadvantaged by comparison. I live not far from these guys and drive a lot of the same roads.

[@peterschapp6135]

Definitely …I lived in that area for 3 years and have gone back to visit many times in the last 35 years in my own vehicle. It’s an easy 10% increase in fuel mileage vs sea level.

[@watchmanonthewall14]

@@peterschapp6135 I believe you are correct.

[@codycoquat5953]

Turbo engines return good fuel economy when you stay out of the turbos, so they lend themselves to this type of test. Put a load on them or drive in a more 'spirited' manner, and your results will be much different.

[@Weatherby406]

On a turbos engines worst day it will not get worse mpg that the NA motors. Especially in the city it makes a huge percentage difference.

[@codycoquat5953]

@@Weatherby406 many Ecoboost owners beg to differ. Eco or boost...

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

The ecoboost ranger gets embarrassingly bad economy in the city, like 16. If you're talking about towing, almost all trucks will get almost the same mileage. My Ranger towing a 6,000 enclosed utility trailer at 65-70 mph gets 16 mpg, an F-250 my work owns with the 7.3L also gets 16 mpg towing the same trailer, but loaded heavier.

[@plmn93]

@@Weatherby406 I absolutely love the 2.7 in my F-150 and I can easily meet or exceed the EPA numbers when I want to, which is indeed quite a bit better than what a NA engine can muster around town. But when I stick my foot into it, or go faster than 65 MPH, mileage drops quite a lot. And that's fine, I prefer that to be under my control and for me it works well. If I did a lot more towing I'd consider an NA truck. But then I'd probably consider a 3/4 ton for that. For now I prefer the low end torque while towing to fuel efficiency. For what most people use midsize and half ton trucks for, turbos are ideal IMO. Not for everybody, though.

[@benhaze1010]

@@codycoquat5953 Indeed!

[@vinaashak]

Now for comparison sake run a new PowerBoost f150 on the same loop and see how that compares to these midsized.

[@garycarter5641]

I agree if you play background music please turn it down so it plays very quietly.

[@Captain-Awesome]

Love the humor in this one! You guys were obviously having a lot of fun!!

[@Holden-McGroin]

If you think about the fact that 1 gallon of gasoline can move a 5,000lb vehicle and occupants 20+ miles, it’s pretty amazing. With the results this close, I really wouldn’t consider mpg a deciding factor between these rigs.

[@DeepDishPizza]

I bought my TRX solely because no one else has one in a 50 mile radius.

[@whoiskenp]

I get less than 20 MPG on my Ford Bronco on 33s KO2s on average. These trucks are getting amazing MPGs. Thanks for doing these tests, they are awesome!

[@killercan10]

Ridgeline is impressive, the Taco I'm almost not surprised with that it did so good. The Colorado was the one that got me as its got those Goodyear Territory MTs on it so 24.4mpg and its a Trail Boss (lifted) is pretty impressive there. Same with the Ranger as the front end of that has no air dams or anything like that. Also, the Gladiator can't get a 4XE version soon enough.

[@EthanSilver]

I feel like the z71 would probably break 25mpg. Do you think so?

[@killercan10]

@@EthanSilver Mmmm...probably? They use either Goodyear Territory AT in 265/65R18 or Bridgestone Dueler AT RHS in 255/55R20 for the stock tire options, so the tires alone would up the efficiency. Same if Andre had got his truck with the standard tire option on the Trail Boss which is that same 265/65R18 Territory AT that is standard on Z71.

[@scoobiedoo2517]

That new Ranger is really awesome.

[@thewireman134]

Looks like a prius though

[@scoobiedoo2517]

@@thewireman134 Yes the Tacoma does.

[@neilcarter77]

Can’t wait for the 2.7 to be available!!

[@benchmark3332]

Fanboyism aside. Do you think that the Ranger will out last a Toyota tacoma?

[@thewireman134]

@benchmark3332 no Fords are made to be disposable.

[@JBird959]

Really impressed with the Tacoma and the Ranger.

[@brianselt291]

We got almost 26mpg a few times in my wife’s 2017 Ridgeline Black Edition. She has since purchased new a 2022 Honda Pilot that does not do as well…around 23-24 highway. My 2012 Silverado Z71 only gets 18-19 hwy.

[@johnnyjackson1783]

Unimpressive for a minivan with a bed

[@georgev5766]

This is a very important test. This means that if you buy one of the 26 mpg trucks as supposed to the 19 mpg trucks, you’ll be saving around $4600 in 100k miles driven. I calculated it at $3.50 per gallon. That’s a lot to consider.

[@kx8960]

Right, but.....what if the 26mpg trucks can't do what you BOUGHT them for (in my case offroading)?

[@wilmarbarrick3194]

​@@kx8960only a fool would buy a vehicle that doesn't meet requirements. If the other vehicles don't meet your offroad needs, don't buy it. If one of the others DO meet your offroad requirements, then you be wasting $5K over 100K miles. 🤷‍♂️

[@kx8960]

@@wilmarbarrick3194 Sooo, that was my POINT, in that mpg doesn't matter if you have other priorities.

[@wilmarbarrick3194]

​@@kx8960 I understand. My point is you can have MULTIPLE requirementS and they all matter (else they wouldn't be a requirement). If MPG isn't one for you that's fine, but it is to many. It's probably the highest vehicle expense after initial purchase.

[@lsvej1]

I like the Ridgeline efficiency for what it does as a daily driver and can still do trails. Most of the time it'll be on road and that is important to me cuz I'd rather have good gas mpg and a nice comfortable ride and reliability with the J series engine being that I've own plenty in the past..I have a old Land Cruiser for my off-road needs that barely gets 15mpg😂

[@rprestage74]

I love my Ridgeline. Absolutely the most practical truck in the class. I've hauled and towed with no problems whatsoever. Meanwhile, my commute to work allows me over 400 miles a week while filling up only once. Can I take it to Baja or tow a yacht... no. However, it's a Swiss Army knife of capabilities for everyday household needs.

[@Eddie-yc5yd]

I bought a 2023 RLT. It's perfect for my needs. I love the swinging tailgate. And the huge storage trunk.

[@THX5000]

The Ridgeline is great, but no 4wdLow gear and not as much clearance. I use my old T100s low gearing and high clearance quite often in deep snow.

[@plmn93]

This was just a highway test. In the city the Ranger will handily beat it in MPG while offering much better low end torque, better towing, more off road capability, and depending on configuration, maybe better payload. Practicality is not a purely objective thing, it depends quite a lot on what you need.

[@wiks101]

@@plmn93 Show me the test where it beats it in real world City driving and my RidgeLine has a larger bed than the Ranger

[@plmn93]

@@wiks101 Look at the EPA numbers. Your bed is smaller as well. 34 cubic feet vs 43 for the Ranger. Even including the trunk it's smaller.

[@rothaarige3896]

Watching your videos has made me decide on a 24 Ford Ranger. It'll be interesting to see the MPG for the 2.7, I hope it's similar

[@scoobiedoo2517]

Me too!!!

[@beexiong2995]

Bigger engine means more fuel. The 2.3 is better

[@rothaarige3896]

@@beexiong2995 ya, but by how much more consumption? I really want some oomph in my next pickup.

[@beexiong2995]

@@rothaarige3896 the 2.3 already has class leading standard engine acceleration. The 2.7 will be better for sure

[@rothaarige3896]

@beexiong2995 thanks, I'll look in to both when they're both available. Something to look forward to.

[@kennethisaac3799]

I gotta say I'm pretty impressed with the results.

[@vincentfauconnier1460]

interesting video but what is missing is the mileage accuracy of each truck and what each truck reported as mpg. That would have been interesting to see as it impacts the vehicles remaining mileage calculation.

[@planetim]

I have a 2023 Colorado Z71. I live in South Dakota at about 1400 elevation. I have driven to northern Nevada a couple of times in the last hear and Denver once. I noticed that above 5000 elevation, the gas mileage of my Colorado improves tremendously. Like about 5 mpg. Every time.

[@Marbind]

Honda’s secret is the ground clearance. The lower it is the more efficient.

[@kjrehberg]

Yeah, when the 2nd gen came out Honda said the sloping front end saves about 1 MPG. Some people like to replace parts of the suspension to level the vehicle and give it a more conventional look.

[@domin8ss]

@kjrehberg Even leveled it doesn't look good. It's just a minivan missing its back half.

[@kjrehberg]

@@domin8ss Looks good to me, though.

[@domin8ss]

@@kjrehberg different strokes for different folks

[@johnnyjackson1783]

@@kjrehberg You must think minivans are hawt too

[@mickeybrumfield764]

Good test. A loop is the way to do it. I didn't hear you mention how fast you guys were driving. The Chevy Trail Boss was the biggest surprise to me in this test. Well done, guys.

[@TFLtruck]

Thanks 👍

[@williamjackson8512]

I have a 2017 Honda Ridgeline and I can't get out of it. I live on Basically a Farm but Work in the City. 66 Mile Commute 5 Days a Week. I have a F150 and a Surburban and I hardly drive them now. I pick up Feed, Hay, Tow a Trailer with a Sub Compact John Deere Tractor on it. The RIDGELINE is a Perfect CRUCK, Car/Truck has a Trunk.

[@jimjones-pz1tt]

I notice you capitalize all your nouns. Is German your first language?

[@davewilson8308]

They should compare the Ridgeline against the Maverick. We all know who’s going to win the mpg. The Maverick can tow 4K and has a 1500lb payload. Kind of like comparing a Ridgeline against all these off road trucks. My Maverick gets over 50 mpg highway, more then twice the Ridgeline!

[@elche1976]

@williamjackson8512 congrats on your farm van. Glad you managed to settle and make it work.

[@tacuazinful]

The honda v6 is an everlasting engine, never imagine it was going to be that good with mpg

[@bostondan77]

Andre's truck still my favorite, best value IMO.

[@thewireman134]

And looks the best, and tows the best, beat tech (google on board when you pay for the subscription)and yes. The quickest. I agree Andres truck is the best

[@AJourneyOfYourSoul]

After watching all their comparison videos, it’s my choice too. I think the Ranger is a great truck too, but it looks terrible. Ford really messed that up.

[@michaeldennis2630]

Love it a real world test where the reviewers actually drove them. How many reviews I have seen where they are based on reported stats but you know they never actually drove them. I like user reviews not people just researching numbers. I drive in the real world. thank you

[@mattcomchoc2957]

Wonder how much the hardbody accessories negatively impacted mpg. Probably not the best to test a low production special addition like that against other "normal" models

[@Xmvw2X]

I've got a 2017 Ridgeline with 100000 miles. I average 23-24 in mixed. Highway I've gotten as high as 36 a few times, but generally 29-33 depending on speed. I'll get a little lower in winter with winter tires. The worst I get is 19 in winter with many remote start warm ups all winter long. I've also tower 5000 lbs and was doing 19-21 highway.

[@coldwarkid6611]

My experience with turbo vehicles is they like altitude. Turbo's I've owned did better at altitude in Colorado than they did at home which is around 800 feet vs over a mile high. Also drag decreases with altitude so they have that on their side.

[@SaltyDog69]

I’ve always gotten better mpg in Colorado than I have in Louisiana, even in different vehicles. It boggles my mind.

[@kylesummers1565]

Somewhat ironically, my coyote gets better mpg at altitude. I'm still trying to figure that out. Maybe they tune the truck for it's destination?

[@Pablocrz44]

That makes so much sense I just visited Denver and was regularly seeing over 40 mpg in my Corolla while in my home town I get a little over 30 around town

[@tylough]

Higher elevation means fewer oxygen molecules are going in your engine. Less oxygen means the computer can inject less gasoline to achieve the proper 14 to 1 air fuel ratio.

[@kylesummers1565]

@@tylough My v-8 coyote is naturally aspirated. It should be less effective and efficient at altitude, but it seems to be more-so.

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

My 02 ZR2 4.3 5 speed gets 25 mpg ! so i say thats not bad ! Cool video ! Thanks TFL !! 🙂

[@brianadventures9622]

Nathan and the Lemmy shirt!! 🤘🤘🤘🤘 the Ace of Spades!!

[@onelostcause]

Nice variety with The Aquabats shirt with the gladiator.

[@FortKnoxCo]

such a good video!! exactly what I was asking and wanting to know. couldn't have asked for a better run down of the numbers!! thank you for making such good and entertaining videos and informative.

[@moose64]

New TFL t-shirt..."depends on that squeeze"🤪

[@JCreole]

Nice….this is the video I’ve been waiting for….Thanks for sharing

[@nirvanwa]

A naturally aspirated V6 wins the competition. Something to be said for continual refinement. New 9AT in ‘20, refresh in ‘21 and ‘24. American-made too.

[@0HOON0]

The Pilot's 10 speed will likely appear in the next update.

[@dcl97]

Has way more to do with aerodynamics than power train. Unibody's have less underbody drag. Everything can be tucked up nice and neatly. You start engineering with the drive line/suspension and build the body to suit. Body on frame, you start with the frame and everything else has to be built around the frame.

[@TheAnnoyingBoss]

It also is arguably the most reliable depending on whos building it and how

[@plmn93]

Not really. The other trucks had more aggressive tires and taller true off-road suspensions, as well as heavier and less efficient traditional 4x4 systems riding on body on frame chassis. They will also do quite a bit better than the Honda in city driving, along with offering a lot more low end torque. In my opinion it shows the opposite of what you think it does. The Ridgeline could and should do much better considering what it is.

[@khakiswag]

The Honda has variable cylinder management so cruising under light load it’s only running on 3 cylinders.

[@shorne1111]

I purchased a new 2024 Colorado Z71 about 8 weeks ago. My MPG has consistently beat the EPA numbers. I'm getting 22-24 around town and 24-26 on the highway. No kidding. I did a 4 state road trip (UT, CO, WY, ID) covering 1,700 miles and I averaged 25 mpg. From Grand Junction CO to Denver CO (over the 2 high mountain passes on I-70) it got 28 mpg. Incredible! FWIW, I have a tonneau cover installed. This truck replaced my much smaller 2013 Ford Edge LTD V6 and it is getting better mpg. I never expected that.

[@buickgn1897]

Yeah, the music is subtracting from the quality instead of adding.

[@garysarratt1]

What music?

[@DarkFilmDirector]

I keep forgetting that in western states like Colorado 87 octane is the middle option. In Texas it's 87, 89, 91 or 93 at most gas stations.

[@wtdash]

Andre's 2023, higher-end Colorado doesn't have CC? What the he!!??? Edit: I just watched his 6K mile review and it was an Option, that he overlooked when buying/ordering. I also would have never thought it wasn't a standard feature- at least on anything but the base Colorado/Canyon.

[@ericarntson2035]

GM is infamous for omitting features that most other manufacturers have as standard to get their prices down... at least on their lower trim levels.

[@terrencejones9817]

The Trailboss is Work truck level trim.

[@davidabney3069]

The Trail boss is just the model above the base model, but the complaint about it not being standard still stands.

[@kjrehberg]

@@davidabney3069 No CC (or even automatic CC) on any vehicle made after 2012 is pretty pathetic.

[@4vinylsound]

You guys must have had the wind in your direction because these mpg ratings are all outstanding.

[@rodsilva80]

they ran the test on a 360 degrees course, should average it

[@J.W.W.]

Great test. Wondering if you set all the tire pressures to door sticker recommendations before you left the office?

[@wallacedavidg]

The other variable not mentioned is drafting. Since all the trucks were in a row (as much as possible I assume) you should do a ‘pace line’ where you rotate the lead at regular intervals.

[@robhtwo]

So, what were the computer calculated numbers on each truck and how did you drive them? Speed limit, 5 over, 10 over? Smooth starts, jack rabbit starts? Very important info missing, but still a great job as always. Thank you guys!

[@jimjones-pz1tt]

None of these guys have heard of the scientific method.

[@brohammer]

We love mpg tests!!🎉

[@fluffywarhampster]

The colorado was really impressive. Even though it has offroad tires on it the cylinder deactivate seemed to help alot

[@davefornit6235]

The cyclinders hardly deactivate. I maybe seen it do it a few times since ownership

[@BryonCombs]

Would the results be better or worse for the NA trucks at sea level vs the mile high that you drove at?

[@MrRGiller]

Nathan and Andre, you both in my opinion do the best reviews when you both are teamed up.

[@ron9857]

A Colorado LT or Z71 would have been a better apples to apples compared to the Tacoma and Ranger. Trail Boss - lift + aggressive heavy LT off-road tires = reduced mpg. The Frontier mpg trip was off nearly 10% vs. calculated. This test proves that using the vehicle trip mpg results as part of the Ike Gauntlet scores are flawed.

[@MarkAlanHoran]

I would love to see a Z71 comparison.

[@dmitryc760]

Wow! Remarkable results!!! Veery interesting. Thank you guys for doing this! One remaining powertrain left is iForce max on tacos.

[@David-nx2vm]

I get consistent 25 mpg combined with my 2020 Ridgeline.

[@ShadowBend]

I'm glad to see the midsizers finally getting some decent mpg. My old 4.0 frontier never did very well in that department. I was disappointed when the Taco was rated kinda low with its smaller fuel tank. Thats one of the reasons I went with something else.

[@johngaffney8199]

The Ridgeline has a full box frame rail structure. The body is welded to that structure rather than bolted on. So it's sort-of a hybrid of body on frame and uni-body. (Uni-body on frame) Not enough people talk about this.

[@justinmartin8887]

That’s literally the definition of a unibody. Sedans and suvs also have tubular structures welded against the bottom of the cabin.

[@beexiong2995]

😂

[@johngaffney8199]

@@justinmartin8887 Not true respectfully, sedans do not have fully boxed frame rails. Fun fact - Jeep XJ's are unibody.

[@texZR2]

You will have higher MPG's because you are not at sea level. Thin air, less resistance. Those EPA numbers are likely a lot closer to accurate In Houston than Boulder. A great episode.

[@josel1325]

I average 23mpg on the highway with my frontier ‘ 20 in the city

[@Blue-moon12]

Love my Frontier. Pro 4x

[@beexiong2995]

Subtract 2 mpg. Thats the calculated. Every review I've seen on the frontier it over estimates by 2 mpg

[@JohnWalsh-qw5sh]

I average a tad over 22 mpg hwy with my 2023 pro-4x. I do not go by the trucks computer. Do my own calculations.

[@myplaxismodelisbetterthanyours]

​@@JohnWalsh-qw5shI get about the same in the same truck. Flat highway 26

[@justingonzalez6448]

I’m impressed with the Chevy. 2” lift and more aggressive off road tires.

[@n0xxm3rcyxx]

i still love the frontier. something about it.

[@RW-zh7kl]

I'm really impressed with the Tacoma and Ranger getting 26 mpg! 👍 But the 8sp and 10sp transmissions are what really help with their mpg

[@calebbearup4282]

I've never had a cruise control provide as good fuel economy as pedal control

[@occckid123]

Absolutely correct

[@MrTonaluv]

Opposite for me. Cruise on long trips give me better economy and my Dad too

[@calebbearup4282]

@@MrTonaluv I've found that cruise control can't predict what's coming. For example if there's a level stretch of two miles leading up to a big hill cruise control will keep you right at whatever the speed is set for and then as you hit the hill it'll increase throttle to try and maintain that speed. If it needs to downshift to maintain that speed then that's what it does no matter how many downshifts are required. Whereas I can see miles ahead and can usually tack on 5-10mph without really doing anything to the fuel economy leading up to the hill then slowly bleed off speed going up if needed in order to prevent a downshift. I've gone from Michigan through the Appalachians to the southern coast over a hundred times now so I'm fairly practiced with what's needed in the hills and my last trip with a fully loaded 2003 Yukon XL I averaged 18.7mpg for the full trip using my foot as the throttle control. My wife did the same thing using cruise and averaged 11.2mpg for the same route in the same vehicle with a few hundred pounds less loaded. Obviously it's not going to be apples to apples but still. The fact that cruise can't even come close in a lot of situations causes me to turn it off in most vehicles. Also as an added note. I've taken a few brand new rental cars on routes where the cars cruise control will actually apply brakes on the decent to maintain the set speed. That's a whole other problem

[@occckid123]

@@MrTonaluv that's because you don't work the pedal very well lol. I tried cruise multiple times on the same road with and without cruise. It was hilly and I could go up the hill smoother than with the cruise on was 2 aggressive trying to maintain a set speed or 2 late in trying to maintain speed so it would over compensate the acceleration briefly.

[@MrTonaluv]

@@calebbearup4282 I live in quite flat country where there are few mountain ranges so it works for me. We are talking 500-600 miles of basically flat driving with small mountain ranges occasionally.

[@mrmongo6722]

I would still take the Colorado I had a 2004 with an inline 5 cylinder and drove it until the transmission went out at 187000 miles and sold it to my buddies son five years ago. He had the transmission rebuilt and it is well over 230000 miles now and still trucking along well.

[@Benalan613]

I love these videos

[@bladeaddison3189]

I am a Taco guy but I think GM knocked it out of the park with the Colorado/Canyon. They finally nailed the design!

[@electrikoptik]

The Jeep getting the worse MPG at 19 and Jeepers will still justify this. "It's a Jeep thing"

[@tylermacconnell217]

It’s justifiable based on the fact that the Jeep is easily the most off road capable of this group. Depends on what you want.

[@wilmarbarrick3194]

​@@tylermacconnell217The problem is 99% of its lifetime mileage will be accumulated on road.

[@coloradomallcrawlers]

The only reason I’ve bought Jeeps for over 20 years is off-road capability. The fact that they have been absolutely unproblematic has made me a loyal Jeeper. I’m not too confident with Jeep’s current leadership, but as of now, Jeeps are still one of the most capable vehicles you can buy.

[@tylermacconnell217]

That may be true, but it’s still up to the buyer. If they don’t mind using more fuel, so be it. Drive what you like. One thing is for sure; the Taco, Ranger, Colorado, and Frontier are pretty much cookie cutter trucks and the Ridgeline is a car. The Gladiator is at least different in appearance, for better or worse. It also can remove the top and doors, which the others cannot do.

[@SaltyDog69]

If you want great mpg get a Prius. People will buy what they want and live with the mpg because that’s what they desire to buy.

[@johnbarry1144]

I owned a 2006 Ridgeline, put about 150k on it, one of the best vehicles I ever owned. The biggest complaint I had was fuel mileage around 16 highway. I got told many times it wasn't a truck but that thing handles the beaches on the outer banks as good as anything else and the electronic rear locker saved the day many times. I had to move on from it since I tow a 5th wheel now but my former neighbor has put another 50k on it and loves it as much as I did

[@craigquann]

Are they still using the same 8 speed shudder-matic that was in the full sized GMs? Or is it a different or updated version?

[@cputeq007]

My 23 Colorado Z71's 8 was very smooth (over 16,700 miles I owned it)

[@craigquann]

@@cputeq007 perhaps they fixed them.

[@thewireman134]

New

[@ron9857]

Updated 8 spd. Much improved drivability over the prior gen.

[@CFHGARZA]

Not surprised how well the Turbo 4s did. I get 26 mpg on all my long trips in my 2020 Ranger going 5 over the whole way

[@davidpace3121]

I wonder what the mileage would be if the hurricane motor was in the jeep.

[@tylermacconnell217]

Probably similar. The Gladiator has a very blocky design and higher clearance under the vehicle. Also has a 4.10 axle ratio.

[@TimRHillard]

I had a 1989 Nissan hardbody from New, drive it 275,00mile with nothing but regular maintenance. Little 4x4, and I would regularly being pulling out jeeps and trucks. Of course, they'd be pulling me out too at times😁😁

[@user-tb7rn1il3q]

I’m really impressed with the Taco and Ranger. They have tires that significantly reduce mpg. Imagine if you put more efficient tires on them. They’d be doing 30 mpg.

[@DeepDishPizza]

No one calls Tacomas Tacos anymore. This isn’t Blue Beetle.

[@DeuceDeuceBravo]

They would need to be really small, smooth tires for 30. But yeah tires obviously have a huge impact. Putting one size bigger A/T's on my '22 Taco made a huge negative difference.

[@joemanly8386]

Great review. I made a deposit on. 2024 Ridgeline Black Edition. I’m not an off-road guy so I’m not worried about that aspect. I had a Jeep JL Rubicon and was ashamed as it was an asphalt queen. I can drive the Ridgeline with integrity 😉

[@howzee19]

How many of these engines use a timing belt ?? (Honda for sure) so after spending the big dollars to replace that a few times your gas savings are gone 🤔

[@DJR5280]

Valid point. My Mother's Husband is going through this now with his 14 Accord with the 3.5L V6. Needs a timing belt. Dealer quoted $1700

[@ababbit7461]

My 1983 GM 2500 with a 1 ton rear axle, 4 inch lift, Hummer rims and tires, with a 3 spd manual, with granny gear and a Tommy lift on back in place of the tail gate, with a 6.2 ltr diesel (weaker than Popeye with spinach), 4x4, gets 23 mpg average (unloaded), but I use it only to haul fire wood (19 mpg loaded until the front wheels skip down the road). It is slow, noisy, stinky and drips oil all over the place, but it does what it is intended to do (get me fire wood, cut trees, buck them, round them, haul the rounds). No AC, no radio (I sing better than Taylor Swift, BTW), no head liner (drips from condensation in the winter onto the seat), can't go over 70 mph, and has 140,000 miles on it... Only the bed bottom is dented, no other dents, paint is perfect and shines like new, sits outside in the snow country all 11 years I have had it. Those "Cadillac Cowgirl Trucks" are not trucks, they are pretty trucks for pretty boy/girl drivers.... Yes, I said that. Get a truck for what they are made for - WORK... Out here in CA (yes send me money for I can't afford to live here), they classify trucks as commercial vehicles and we have to pay commercial renewal fees so why have a "grocery runner" and pay commercial fee rates?!!!! No offense intended, but you 350 lb Costco bargain shoppers, need a truck like mine, not a Cadillac Cowgirl Truck with dangly things hanging from the inside rear view mirror. Oh and BTW, I bought it like it is (11 years ago) for $2,000. It just needed 2 new batteries and my Interstate batteries are still going strong 11 years later.... Ouch, try that in your new trucks (no electronics to drain my batteries all day long on this old diesel)....

[@als2217]

Hey now, sounds similar to our farm trucks. Thanks!

[@MrJeffyb69]

I think the most impressive were the 3 REAL trucks ( Chevy ,Ford and Toyota) getting better MPG than what they were rated. The Honda was a given, seeing that it was basically a minivan. I would be curious to see what a Z71 with tires closer in design and size to the Tacoma and Ranger, and cruise control would get ?? I think in typical GM fashion, the Colorado is underrated.

[@kkadkhoda]

That was a really good one and a proper testing!👍👍

[@hitempguy]

The Colorado doesn't have cruise control? Wtf? Is this the 1980's? That is completely unacceptable, it is literally a bit turned on and off in the ecu, the drive by wire gas peddle/throttle body is already there

[@chiron03]

That was my thought too. That's actually insane that it doesn't have Cruise Control. That is like literally a standard feature in todays market or so I thought.

[@randycupp5925]

Yes, but it's business 101 for GM. You can't upcharge for cruise control unless you offer base units that do not have it.

[@aaronmiles1971]

The trail boss is essentially a lifted work truck. Still sad it's not common for cruise control. I mean these guys didn't even expect it to not have cruise when they bought it.

[@ofmyownaccord]

People complain about not offering a stripped down 4x4.....then GM offers it and now they w complain there's no heated seats and adaptive cruise control. You just can''t win with these people.....

[@chiron03]

@@ofmyownaccord They said crusie control. Like basic cruise control. Not Adaptive.

I guessed the Ridgeline. The Tacoma, Chevy and Ranger really surprised me!!

[@nezzr78]

A new truck without cruise control?? What year is this?

[@marcpikas2859]

The year of big screens. All that seems to matter.

[@tmklunk]

I don’t use cruise control so it doesn’t matter to me

[@marcpikas2859]

@@tmklunklong drives + no cruise = sciatica. 😩

[@XceedDriver]

Fleet special

[@12B0692]

I have a 2023 Ridgeline RTL-E. Highway I'm a solid 24-26 mpg. In town 18-21.

[@ericarntson2035]

So what we've learned is... the EPA numbers are worthless. We've also learned that if you have a full-frame truck a turbo 4-cylinder will get better mileage than an NA V6, and if you have a minivan with a bed an NA V6 is still ok. :D

[@gs98999]

Why are EPA numbers worthless? This test they did had 0 to do with what EPA highway test is. EPA is good for comparison of vehicles only based on what their tests look like. Any other way of driving makes the EPA numbers not valid.

[@GlennC789]

This is best-case for the turbo engines and I bet the NA crew would look a lot better if you had some of either city, mountain, or off-road in the mix. Don't know what traffic was like on this; I know the C-470 and Hwy 93 stretches can be anything from free-flowing to stop-and-go. I do appreciate these tests. We're considering the Ridgeline. Car and Driver magazine got 28mpg from the Ridgeline in their 70mph highway loop so yours is right in the ballpark.

[@aroundthegroundlandscaping7107]

If I was looking for a midsize truck to drive on road and tow 5000lbs or less I would not hesitate to go with the Honda

[@darrinfry1]

Gotta respect a guy wearing a Lemmy t shirt. Rock on brother.

[@doublebackagain4311]

The most car-like vehicle got the best mileage, and the most capable off-road vehicle got the worst mileage. This is my shocked face 🙄

[@plmn93]

Yeah but the other trucks that were still much more off road capable than the Ridgeline did nearly as well, and would have handily beat it if the course was city driving.

[@jimjones-pz1tt]

Thanks for putting the TFL logo and a video pop up over the results chart! You really do have a bunch of public high school knuckle draggers working at the DEI Paradise that is TFL.

[@Lq32332]

Wow you really hurting from their logo placement. I hope you recover 🙏 😂 🤡

[@rightwingsafetysquad9872]

A: TFL didn't insert those overlays, KZbin did. You, the viewer, can disable it in your settings. They just have a tiny watermark in the corner. B: Either you have no idea what DEI means or have never paid attention to the demographics of who works at TFL.

[@ALMX5DP]

@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 actually I think they do. When you upload videos you can input end screen links, videos and such, so that large box in the bottom left and right are something they created. Not that it's too much of an issue for me, just thought I'd point it out. I wasnt aware viewers can turn them off though, where in the settings is that? I dont see anything in the Playback and Performance section.

[@jimjones-pz1tt]

@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 The fact that you mixed plural with singular in your reply proves you are a DEI hire.

[@jimjones-pz1tt]

@@Lq32332 I'm sorry you graduated from a pass/fail public high school.

[@samctm]

Great TFL head to head series.

[@WillDraco1052]

26.4 gigawatts!😂

[@rockstertx]

Thanks for bringing us another great comparison! For the record... id take that mileage any day... my 2021 GMC Sierra Crew Cab 5.3L 2WD only gets 15 mpg....

[@thelunatick1993]

Math error. Last car you used a different range number. 111 vs 110.3. Which would be worst mileage yet.

[@wtdash]

No...Nathan stated they went 111, per Andre's GPS. Yes, different trip length (by .7 miles) but not a math error.

[@johnlacroix1639]

WOW amazing TY so much ,,Keep up the great work

[@bradythegenius2123]

26 mpg from a V6 minivan truck seems crazy

[@BC08]

26 MPG from two real trucks seems crazier

[@aerynlovell4754]

​@BC08 They are all crazy BAD. The 6-cylinder diesel Ranger in Australia gets 28 MPG on the highway. In Florida, LHT Performance put the V8 from a Silverado into a 2020 Colorado and get 30 MPG from a naturally aspirated engine. Car manufacturers want us to believe that 24-26 MPG is the best you can expect from a mid-sized truck unless you buy a more expensive hybrid.

[@BC08]

@@aerynlovell4754 How are you honestly comparing diesel to gasoline fuel economy? 😂

[@BC08]

@@aerynlovell4754 And I will go ahead and fly the 🐂 💩🏁 on LHT getting 30 MPG from a Silverado V8 swapped in a Colorado. The 2.7 is available in the Silverado and it gets better MPG in the Silverado than the 5.3 does. 18/21 vs 16/20 No WAY will a V8-swapped Colorado equipped like these trucks (4x4, Crew Cab with off road oriented tires) get better MPG than these trucks much less 30 MPG. 26 MPG from these trucks was actually impressive given the specs. The Ridgeline was the underwhelming one for me

[@aerynlovell4754]

@@BC08 If they want us to believe that 24-26 MPG is "Great" then they should provide context by comparing the best fuel economy of all mid-sized trucks, and engines, sold worldwide.

[@zachowens1412]

This video makes me kind of impressed with my 2010 5.3l Colorado Z-71. It only has a 4 speed auto and 4.10s and it gets 20-22 on the highway.

[@RichardDoherty-y8y]

I got over 40mpg going about 62mph in my Eco boost Maverick. 400 mile trip.

[@donc6781]

Please stay in the far Right Lane

[@RichardDoherty-y8y]

@@donc6781, oh I do. I avoid all the idiots going 90 in the left lane.

[@spyder000069]

I have seen many people reporting average 28mpg hwy on the maverick awd 2.0. Seems these midsize trucks did pretty good.

[@just4ivaylo92]

I've hit as high as 34 mpg with the AWD before I got beefy all terrains.

[@als2217]

2-3 mpg difference equals 300-400 dollars per year. Might spend that in maintenance for the fancy turbos.

[@daviddurham5802]

What maintenance is that? Ford has been doing turbos in their trucks for a long time and have proved to be very reliable

[@Weinzierl1973]

This is an old take - new turbos aren't old turbos