When it comes to things like fuel economy and emissions, vehicles are tested under certain conditions that are pre-determined by various agencies, which means that real-world results often vary. This is to be expected and precisely why those same agencies dub those figures as “estimated,” but regardless, it’s still interesting to see how much of a difference there is. Recently, the Ford Ranger was subjected to real-world efficiency testing, and it produced some notable variances compared to lab estimates.
This bit of information comes to us from the Australian Automobile Association’s (AAA) latest round of real-world vehicle testing. Since its inception a year ago, this test has covered 58 different vehicles, of which 31 percent consumed more fuel than automakers have reported via lab testing, while 21 of those models produced on-road emissions that exceeded current or upcoming Australian regulatory lab limits.
In terms of the 2024 Ford Ranger, AAA tested a four-wheel drive model with the 2.0L four-cylinder bi-turbo diesel engine, and found that the pickup consumed two percent more fuel (7.8 L/100km versus 7.6) than it did during its mandated lab test, and also emitted two percent more CO2 emissions (205g/km versus 201). These results certainly aren’t uncommon, however, as many other vehicles have thus far underperformed in at least one of the two tests – including the Ford Puma, though the Ford Everest actually beat its lab test results recently.
“We can now say with confidence that while some vehicles produce fuel consumption and emissions in line with lab tests reported by carmakers, many do not,” said AAA Managing Director Michael Bradley. “That can have real impact on consumers and fleet buyers. If people rely on the lab tests, they could end up with a car that costs more to run or is dirtier than they expected. The results raise a question for regulators about whether car dealerships should be required to reveal real-world testing results to consumers at point of sale.”
We’ll have more insights like this to share soon, so be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for more Ford Ranger news and continuous Ford news coverage.
Comments
Guess people don’t understand the word “Estimate”.
Must be a slow news day for ol’ Brett!
Sorry to disappoint you with news Bob, but at least you took the time to read it, comment, and make a weak attempt at a slight.
What is the test to test variability of the AAA real world test cycle?
Even in lab test conditions, which are tightly controlled, variability from test to test is not zero. It is safe to assume that real world variability is only going to be higher unless all the environmental conditions are controlled as tightly as in the lab.
Wow total idiots
Estimate was 7.6 l/100km. But actually used 7.8 L/100km
With a 2.0 diesel engine.
That is amazing fuel efficiency
A gas engine would use around 11L/100km
So let’s put this in terms for the USA
7.8L/100km =30.2 miles per gallon USA
These idiots that complain about diesel efficiency are totally out to lunch.
Today’s diesel’s are very clean and extremely efficient compared to gas.
Wake TFU idiots……..
Exactly, Ranger is class leading, why do we always see some Ford basher propaganda.
lol. why would anyone believe anything “aaa” reports? a year old entity no one knows of.
The amount I would care about slightly more emissions is zero. Build it tough, reliable, and to last.