Fuel Mileage from a Trip to FL and Back 2020 Ranger 2.3L EcoBoost

ctechbob

ctechbob

Well-known member
Still takes plenty of hydrocarbons to move a brick wall through the air as it turns out.

This is from our trip to Cape San Blas and back to Athens this past week.

Couple of notes:

Some of my dates are wrong. I usually can't be bothered to go back in and fix them.

Fill up #43 was at Buc-ees with 93 octane E0 - Wish I could get that around here. Explains why my mileage down to FL is a little better than on the way back.

Fill up #45 was with 89 E0. It was either that or 87 E15. That part of FL is weird. There are a ton of gas stations that only have 2 choices. Regular E10 87 octane and 89 E0, likely because of the amount of boaters in the area. Apalachicola is the same way, I pulled up to two pumps in a row with those choices.

Fill up #47. You're reading that correctly. No towing, a fresh tank of 93 octane, and billiard table flat Florida roads. I made it a point to drive as gently as I knew how and was rewarded with the single best mileage the EcoBoost has ever given me.

Fillups 49/50. We battled some stiff winds on the way back, most of the way it was an odd crosswind, but sometimes a headwind. That and E10 93 for the whole trip shows in crap results.

1695773789185.jpg
 
That Ecoboost was doing some serious work on the way home! Great economy when not towing though. Was the $4.50+ gas because it's premium? The price doesn't look that high there on gasbuddy.
 
Wayne said:
That Ecoboost was doing some serious work on the way home! Great economy when not towing though. Was the $4.50+ gas because it's premium? The price doesn't look that high there on gasbuddy.
Click to expand...

Yea, I try to only use 93 when pulling. I'll use 87 or 89 the rest of the time, but that little engine works its tail off when I'm pulling the camper and I like to have some buffer standing between it and detonation. Especially with the warm temps we get around here.

I did run into a small(ish) issue with the 10R80 on the way home.

I usually have my phone running torque so I can keep an eye on trans temps and the like. I didn't on the way home. Coming up I75 outside of Perry, GA the truck flared the 8-9 shift BAD. And then slammed the 9-8 shift. My heart hit the floor, I slowed down to 65 and pulled up torque and saw that the trans was up to 248*.

Why? I can only speculate that the crosswind and dealing with a stupid amount of traffic meaning I was on it harder than usual, with some 80mph passing had heated the thing up with not enough airflow to keep it cool.

I slowed down, the temps came down to the 210 range and it has been fine ever since.

I didn't notice until we got home that I'd sprayed ULV all over the place.

I just got my new MBS 10R80 dipstick today and took a good reading (The Factory piece is a pain to get right and usually comes with a 3rd degree burn). Come to find out, I'm overfilled on ULV. I'm not sure how that happened. I checked it the same way I always do the last D&F I did, but must have screwed it up. I figure I got the fluid up higher than it ever had been, it foamed, got hotter, and caused issues.

Ohh well, live and learn, I'm usually pretty careful, with fluid levels but this time I screwed it up. I'm not pulling again for a month and I have an oil change to do between now and then, I'll pull some of the fluid out and get the level spot on.

I'm under warranty until 150k and I figure if its going to fail, it will fail before then. If not, that trans will owe me nothing the work it will have put in.

1695782691497.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ctechbob said:
the truck flared the 8-9 shift BAD. And then slammed the 9-8 shift. My heart hit the floor, I slowed down to 65 and pulled up torque and saw that the trans was up to 248*.
Click to expand...
Do you think the bad shifts were because of the heat or foam or both? 248F is pretty darn hot. If you had to go on and off the power in traffic, the unlocked torque converter will throw serious heat into the oil quickly.
 
Wayne said:
Do you think the bad shifts were because of the heat or foam or both? 248F is pretty darn hot. If you had to go on and off the power in traffic, the unlocked torque converter will throw serious heat into the oil quickly.
Click to expand...
I would imagine both, but foam more than the heat. I know these 10 speeds can run quite hot, although I've never seen mine get that hot, even towing uphill. I've got the logs from a few trips that peak in the 220 range. Foam would explain a lazy clutch apply.

I think it was just several things stacking up and hitting the sweet spot for potential disaster. Bad crosswind, tailing semi's, and working hard with less airflow, just hit the magic spot where bad things started to happen.
 
ctechbob said:
I would imagine both, but foam more than the heat. I know these 10 speeds can run quite hot, although I've never seen mine get that hot, even towing uphill. I've got the logs from a few trips that peak in the 220 range. Foam would explain a lazy clutch apply.

I think it was just several things stacking up and hitting the sweet spot for potential disaster. Bad crosswind, tailing semi's, and working hard with less airflow, just hit the magic spot where bad things started to happen.
Click to expand...
It would be really interesting to send a sample of your trans fluid to HPL to see if it passes the foam test. They have a really neat foam test rig that they had custom made. They have solved some serious foam issues for customers, because they have a unique foam test setup.
 
Azjeff said:
You slowed down to 65, how fast do you usually tow?
Click to expand...
On the interstates around here, 70. If not you are more of a hazard than anything.

65 will get you cut in front of by every vehicle, including 18 wheelers. You'll spend all day getting blown off the road by them.
 
I normally tow at 60, but if I'm that guy causing a slowdown as everyone passes me in the left then, then I'll speed up. I don't want to be that guy. We spend so much time in the interstates in the western US that are less crowded so we can get away with 60.
 
Wayne said:
I normally tow at 60, but if I'm that guy causing a slowdown as everyone passes me in the left then, then I'll speed up. I don't want to be that guy. We spend so much time in the interstates in the western US that are less crowded so we can get away with 60.
Click to expand...
Yea, once we get on to secondary roads I'm the one doing the speed limit instead of 10(ish) over like I normally would unloaded.
 
We travel at 65. The 6700 mile spring Az-Fla-Pa-Az trip was all interstate and all at 65 in the right lane. Yeah, everyone passes but it's low stress for us, and she drives 50% of the miles by choice. I never felt like a rolling roadblock and even the 200 miles on I-95N had we done 75 everything would have still passed us. In the entire trip there was one oh s*** moment and it was a sudden slowdown thing. I'm a big believer in lots of truck for the job, the only thing that unsettles our outfit is a car hauler blasting past, it will wiggle a bit, otherwise just rock solid driving.

Respect that you're pulling a 30 foot trailer with that truck. I couldn't do it.
 
Azjeff said:
We travel at 65. The 6700 mile spring Az-Fla-Pa-Az trip was all interstate and all at 65 in the right lane. Yeah, everyone passes but it's low stress for us, and she drives 50% of the miles by choice. I never felt like a rolling roadblock and even the 200 miles on I-95N had we done 75 everything would have still passed us. In the entire trip there was one oh s*** moment and it was a sudden slowdown thing. I'm a big believer in lots of truck for the job, the only thing that unsettles our outfit is a car hauler blasting past, it will wiggle a bit, otherwise just rock solid driving.

Respect that you're pulling a 30 foot trailer with that truck. I couldn't do it.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't advocate that just anyone do it, not saying that I'm God's greatest driver, but I've got tons of towing miles under my belt, as well as a whole lot of car control experience.

Now, as I age in the next few years we'll probably up the truck and, if not downsize, at least change the trailer to something more appropriate to empty nesting.

However, if Ford brings the PHEV to market here in the States, that would be an interesting choice. Especially since now, you can't build a decent towing truck out of the 2.7EB F150. It looks like they killed off using that engine in anything with the max tow package and force you into the 5.0 or 3.5.
 
ctechbob said:
PHEV
Click to expand...
PHEV - plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. I had to look it up.

Are there any PHEV 1/2 ton trucks now?

ctechbob said:
Especially since now, you can't build a decent towing truck out of the 2.7EB F150. It looks like they killed off using that engine in anything with the max tow package and force you into the 5.0 or 3.5.
Click to expand...
The 3.5L in a truck that's going to tow would be a non-start for me. My Durango has a 3.6L with which I have towed a tandem axle U-Haul trailer on a round trip from Chicago to Austin. The 3.6L is way under powered to pull a flat front trailer like that. I had to tow most of the way in 7th gear at 2,500 RPMs just to maintain 70 MPH.
 
Wayne said:
PHEV - plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. I had to look it up.

Are there any PHEV 1/2 ton trucks now?


The 3.5L in a truck that's going to tow would be a non-start for me. My Durango has a 3.6L with which I have towed a tandem axle U-Haul trailer on a round trip from Chicago to Austin. The 3.6L is way under powered to pull a flat front trailer like that. I had to tow most of the way in 7th gear at 2,500 RPMs just to maintain 70 MPH.
Click to expand...
I don't think there are any plug-in trucks at the moment other than the full EVs.

The Ranger is supposed to have 28 miles of battery-only range, which would get me to and from work on my work days, and then 400 lb/ft or torque for towing. I could add a few miles back in a 13 hour shift by plugging into the 110v at work. I just think that would be a great truck for me to have. (Not that I hurt for power now, but more is always better, right?)

To be fair, I'm talking about the 3.5 EcoBoost motor which is a towing beast when it comes down to it.

The 2.7 EB is a fantastically overbuilt brick of a motor that can do its fair share of yanking things around. They're putting it in the Ranger later this year, but Ford in its great decision-making that it has been doing lately, has basically said you can have it in a light-duty F150 and that's it. Anything else requires one of the two larger motors.
 
Last edited:
ctechbob said:
To be fair, I'm talking about the 3.5 EcoBoost motor which is a towing beast when it comes down to it.
Click to expand...
That makes more sense. Yeah, the 3.5EB is a beast.

ctechbob said:
The 2.7 EB is a fantastically overbuilt brick of a motor that can do its fair share of yanking things around. They're putting it in the Ranger later this year
Click to expand...
That's going to make for one heck of a fast truck! I wonder if they will de-tune it a bit? Else, they will have to beef up the rear-end to handle towing.
 
Wayne said:
That makes more sense. Yeah, the 3.5EB is a beast.


That's going to make for one heck of a fast truck! I wonder if they will de-tune it a bit? Else, they will have to beef up the rear-end to handle towing.
Click to expand...
Already in the Ranger Raptor and the Bronco Raptor, both of those use the same underpinnings I believe. Actually, both of those use a 3.0 Liter version of the motor.

405hp / 430 lb-ft. - In the Raptor

I think they said the 2.7 was going to be 315hp / 400 lb-ft

I'd really like to have a mini-Raptor as a playtoy, but I'm not swimming in $20 bills, so I'll just have to settle for my 2020 XL.
 
Wayne said:
I didn't know they made a 3.0L EB Since when?


That has to be one screaming quick Ranger. Probably the highest HP Ranger ever?
Click to expand...
I think it debuted in the Bronco Raptor.

It is a good chunk of power for sure, just right! It is crazy what power you can reliably get out of an engine these days, and meet all the emissions stuff. Granted, you deal with that complexity in one way or another, but it is still mind-boggling.

Nope, I'm wrong, forgot about the Lincoln and Explorer stuff:

1696043586459.jpg
 
550 HP in the Aviator. That's 183 HP/L. Simply amazing power density. I'll bet if you run that motor at wide open throttle, the computer will de-rate it because it can't get rid of the heat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top