Among the 3 LCV 2017–2021, the Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213 ranks Combined consumption (9.2 L/100, behind the Ford Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213), Tank range (870 km, behind the Ford F-150 Raptor EcoBoost 450), 0–100 km/h (9.8 s, behind the Ford F-150 Raptor EcoBoost 450).
II · GENERATION 2019 → · LCV
FordICE
Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213
213 hp, 9,8 s 0-100 : among the 3 LCV 2017–2021, the Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213 ranks Combined consumption, Tank range, 0–100 km/h. Here is what the Caralogy simulations say.
Power
213hp
500 Nm
0 → 100 km/h
9.8s
VMax 178 km/h
Cons.
9.2L
/100 km
Tank
80L
Technical identity card
Full specifications Ford Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213
Manufacturer data. Consumption and range estimated from the WLTP cycle; performance simulated by the Caralogy physics engine.
Powertrain
| Power | 213 hp |
| Couple | 500 Nm |
| Gearbox | Convertisseur de couple 10 rapports Automatique |
| Transmission | Integrale (AWD) |
Consumption
| Cons. WLTP | 9.2 L/100km |
| Tank | 80 L |
Performance
| 0 → 100 km/h | 9,8 s |
| VMax | 178 km/h |
Dimensions and environment
| Width | 1,860 mm |
| Height | 1,815 mm |
| Kerb weight | 2,006 kg |
| Cd | 0.42 |
Caralogy Methodology
Performance (0-100, top speed) simulated by the Caralogy physics engine (SCx, Crr, real torque curves). Motorway consumption values estimated from the manufacturer WLTP cycle.
See full methodology →Manufacturer data · WLTP-estimated consumption · Caralogy-simulated performance
Among the 3 LCV, the Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213 ranks in fuel consumption. Caralogy simulates its real-world cost: motorway simulation, consumption simulation and performance simulation.
Caralogy Analysis
Tailored to this vehicle?
Caralogy Verdict
Suitable for
LCV among the best in segment: Combined consumption (9.2 L/100).
Less suitable for
Frequent urban trips with stop-and-go. At 9,2 L/100 km on the combined cycle, consumption rises in the city without electric assistance. An HEV or PHEV would be more economical for this use profile.
Alternatives to consider
If the priority is Tank range, the Ford F-150 Raptor EcoBoost 450 (1st with 925 km) takes the lead. If the priority is 0–100 km/h, the Ford F-150 Raptor EcoBoost 450 (1st with 5.4 s) takes the lead.
Fuel consumption: 9.2 L/100 L/100 (Combined consumption)
The Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213 consumes 9.2 L/100 on the WLTP combined cycle. The segment reference is the Ford Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213 (9.2 L/100).
Tank range: 870 km (Tank range)
On a full tank, the Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213 covers 870 km on the combined cycle. The segment reference reaches 925 km.
Go beyond this analysis
Recalculate everything for your own profile with the three physics simulators that power this page.
Running cost for your profile
Adjust mileage, driving mix and charging type to estimate your annual energy budget.
Launch simulator →Long-distance trip
Simulate any motorway trip: time, charging stops, total cost.
Simulate a trip →Chronos & accélération
0-100, 0-200, courbe de vitesse, positionnement segment.
Voir la performance →Segment positioning
Where the Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213 stands against LCV
Comparison across 3 LCV marketed between 2017–2021.
Combined consumption1e / 3
9.2 L/100
Min 14.7 L/100 · Ford F-150 Raptor EcoBoost 450Max 9.2 L/100 · Ford Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213
Tank range2e / 3
870 km
Min 831 km · Ford F-150 EcoBoost 400Max 925 km · Ford F-150 Raptor EcoBoost 450
0–100 km/h3e / 3
9,8 s
Min 9,8 s · Ford Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213Max 5,4 s · Ford F-150 Raptor EcoBoost 450
Cross-energy alternatives
Same needs, different powertrain.
Frequently asked questions
Ford Ranger Wildtrak EcoBlue 213: what you need to know
Well-argued answers to the most asked questions about this model, based on Caralogy data and simulations.
870 km on a full tank (9.2 L/100 on the combined cycle) - autonomie du segment.
Running costs depend on your profile (mileage, charging type, city/highway mix). Use the Caralogy consumption simulator for a personalised estimate.
Caralogy does not reproduce manufacturer figures: we recalculate every number through physics simulation, starting from SCx, mass and the power curve. This is why our figures at 130 km/h differ from WLTP. Full methodology on the dedicated page.