2025 Ford Ranger RAPTOR 4WD MPG
| EPA combined | 17mpg |
|---|---|
| Citybest tested version | 16mpg |
| Highwaybest tested version | 18mpg |
| Engines tested | 3.0L 6-cyl |
| Transmissions | Automatic (S10) |
| Drive | Part-time 4-Wheel Drive |
| Fuel | Regular |
| Class | Standard Pickup Trucks 4WD |
| EPA annual fuel costat 15,000 miles a year, at the fuel price used in the year of publication | $3,600 |
| CO₂ tailpipe | 525g/mile |
Notes
- Only one version of the 2025 Ford Ranger RAPTOR 4WD was tested: 3.0L 6-cylinder, Automatic (S10), Part-time 4-Wheel Drive.
- These are laboratory figures, not a prediction of your fuel economy. EPA runs a standardised dynamometer cycle so that any two cars can be compared on identical terms. Real driving diverges from it in every direction — short trips before the engine warms, cold weather, roof boxes, tyre pressure, a heavy right foot and sustained speeds above about 60 mph all cost several mpg each. EPA's own guidance is that the label figure is a comparison tool, and that individual results vary widely.
- The test method changed in 2008, and older figures are not comparable. EPA revised its procedure for the 2008 model year to reflect higher speeds, air conditioning use and cold-weather operation, and the revision cut published city figures by roughly 10–20%. Figures shown here for pre-2008 vehicles have been restated on the current method where EPA restated them, but a number quoted from an original 1990s brochure will look better than the same car does here — the car did not change.
- The annual fuel cost figure moves with the fuel price of the year it was published, not today's. It is useful for ranking one car against another and close to useless as a budget.
2025 Ford Ranger RAPTOR 4WD fuel economy
2025 Ford Ranger RAPTOR 4WD — 17 mpg combined, 16 city and 18 highway on the best tested version.
EPA tested 1 version(s) of this model year. Engines: 3.0L 6-cyl. Transmissions: Automatic (S10). Drive: Part-time 4-Wheel Drive.
Reading a laboratory figure honestly
These numbers exist so that two cars can be compared on identical terms, and for that they are excellent. As a prediction of what your own car will return, they are a starting point and nothing more.
The gap between the label and reality is not random. It opens up with short journeys taken before the engine reaches temperature, with cold weather, with sustained speeds above about 60 mph where aerodynamic drag dominates, with roof boxes and bike racks, with under-inflated tyres, and with hard acceleration. Each of those costs several miles per gallon on its own, and they compound.
The direction is almost always the same: real-world economy comes in below the label rather than above it, and the shortfall is largest for the cars with the highest ratings.
Nearby sizes
Read more
- A Pending Code Is a Warning You Get Before the Light Comes OnMost people only ever look at stored codes. The pending list is where a fault shows up first, and the permanent list is the one that fails an emissions test.
- P0300 Means the Engine Could Not Blame One CylinderP0301 names a cylinder and points at that cylinder. P0300 names none, and points at something all of them share.
- P0420 Is Measured by Two Sensors, Not by the ConverterThe module never measures the converter. It compares two oxygen sensor traces, and five different faults can make that comparison fail.
- P0171 Means the Module Ran Out of Room to Add FuelP0171 is not a sensor complaining. It is the module reporting that it has added as much fuel as it is allowed to and the mixture is still lean.