Ford Ranger gas mileage

[Deleted User]

Can anyone explain to me whythe official EPA mpg on the Ford Ranger 3.0 and 4.0 liter engines has varied so much in the past seven years? I am interested in purchasing a used Ranger in this range of years. I would prefer a 4WD 4.0 liter with manual transmission. Since 2001, this engine has been OHC and 207 hp.

When I look at the pre-2008 EPA window sticker figures, the 2001 is listed at 16/20 (city/hwy); 2002, 2005 and 2006 are 16/19; 2003 and 2004 are 15/19; and the 2007 is 17/20! Even more strange, the 2005 automatic is listed at 16/20, higher than the automatic for all other years and higher as well than all manual transmission year figures, save for 2007.

What gives?? Are there any true differences in the real world? Or were there pne-year-only gearing changes that caused the same engine to be more efficient? Over time, the differences between 15/19 and 17/20 could add up, so I'd like to know more about this before I buy. Thanks!!!

bolivar

I can answer about one item. In 2007, the government changed the test criteria. Which lowered almost all the milage estimates.

And, a Ranger is a truck. A brick on wheels.

For my 1994 4L automatic 2WD extended cab, I got about 14mph in town and the best ever gotten on highway was 18.5mpg. And this was the 165hp 4L, you are now looking at 207hp motor.

The 4 cylinder 5 speed manual will get somewhat better milage. But, in my opinion, that motor is a slow brick.

Don't buy a truck for milage. 4WD will just make it worse.

I loved my Ranger. But my Honda Ridgeline with 4 doors, 247hp, and full time 4 wheel drive gets better milage than the Ranger, especially on the highway.

[Deleted User]

Thank you for your response. However, it does not get at what I was asking. The government has lowered all estimates as you point out (for 2008, not 2007...though the site now lists 2008-type lower estimates for all prvious years too). I was talking about pre-2008 estimates, and their variations from year to year with the very same engine (207 hp, 238 torque). My question remains, are these variations based on anything real?

BTW, I have owned three Rangers, 1986, 1993 and 1998 4WD models with 2.9, 3.0, and 4.0 engines respectively. They all got better mileage than what you report with yours. Yes, trucks are rather brick-like, and the 20 mpg or so I got with the 98 4.0 would have likely been even better on the highway, had it been a sedan.

But again, all I am looking for is an answer to why the 2001 to 2007 4.0 EPA mpg figures varied at all, given the truck was not redesigned, the engine was not changed, and it was prior to the EPA estimate changes of 2008.

bolivar

As I said, I don't have an answer.

Maybe someone else can help.

robin2226

I am on the market for pick up truck and the gasoline cost is an importance factor for my purchase. I scan through the pickup truck engine and mileage , here what I found out.

Ford Ranger , 2.3L ,mpg: 21/26
Che. Colorado, 2.9L , mpg: 20/26
GM Canyon : 2.9L , mpg: No list
Nissan Frontier: 2.5L , mpg: 22/25
Toyota Tacoma , 2.7L , mpg: 20/25

You can see that Ranger has the smallest engine but the mileage very much the same as bigger engine.

Why the pich-up truck (in general) has very low mileage ????? I can see the same (or smaller) engine size in the sedan and their mileage is around 30-35 range. It about 33% (or one third) more.

bolivar

Trucks have terrible aerodynamics. Cars are much bettter, which give better milage.

Since trucks supposedly are used to carry loads and tow things, many have a drive line geared toward this. Which reduces milage.

Because of the same thing, loads and pulling, sometimes the same motor in a car and a truck will have different cams and also 'logic' in the computer. They are set up to generate more power at lower speed, which reduces mileage.

rsmc

I am in the market to replace my 98 Dodge Dakota 4wd with 155K miles and was considering the Ford Ranger, Dodge again, and Toyota Tacoma. I tossed out the Ranger as a friend of mine has a 07 Ranger with 4WD and said he loves it but only gets about 10 mpg in town and not a whole lot more on the road. Not something I want. I think Toyota is where I will go. More money but a better truck.

imduke

My '01 4wd auto gets about 16 / 19 in hilly country. I don't race it but change oil every 3,000 w/ filter and trans w/ filter once a year. plugs once a year too. I'm happy and it is in great shape. NO marks on my Sport model.

luckylucien

I bought a 2007 Ranger sports cab. I average about 13 liters per 100km, which works out to around 18 miles per US gallon, or 21.7 miles per Imperial gallon. I don't really think this is real great mileage. I used to get around the same mileage in my '98 F-150. Any comments? BTW, gas is about $1.20 a liter in BC, that is $4.55 a US gallon. 'So we have $4+ a gallon gas here in BC. :mad: :confuse:

jaymzs

My 01 Ranger Sport Ext Cab w/ 4.0 and auto 4x4 gets 13 to 14 around town consistantly A/C on .
JIM

golfman4

I have a 99 Ranger, 4 cyl, 5 speed manual, 177K miles. AT 60-65 it gets 26-28 mpg, at 70-75 the number drops off to 22-23. At 80 (yeah I was in a hurry one nite in FLA ) it got 20. So the choice is yours.

thecarbuff

hey, ive just stared my "behind the book" thingy whatever its called and, pretty soon, in like 2 weeks, ill be able to drive but with someone else in the car but im getting really close to being able to drive

and ive been doing a bit of early car research, and weve agreed on a small, regular cab truck, and i saw the ranger, i really like this truck, but theres so many other trucks

so i need to know the straight out facts because i'm just starting to get busy

school is starting, im having to read novels :sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick:
:sick::sick::sick:

thecarbuff

thx

xscout

Looking at EPA mileage estimates, the Ranger 3.0 and 4.0 with a manual as well as the 3.7 Dakota and Ram all get within 1 MPG of each other. The same goes for the GMC and Chevy 1500 with 4.3 and a manual. Do all of these trucks really get about the same mileage despite the size and weight differences?

gordo16

The rear-end ratio vs. how you drive has a lot to do with what you actually get. My window sticker says 21 city/26 Highway for my 2008 Ranger 2.3L, 5 spd with 4:10 gears. With 4:10s the engine never "lugs" ( i.e. loses intake vacuum) from 30 MPH on up in fourth (direct drive). I religiously use Cruise Control on the highway - set the tach at 2750 RPM which is about 70 MPH and listen to my favorite tunes!.

Results, on my last trip ( Maine to Maryland and back) I drove 1157.1 miles on 37.796 Gals of gas-slips. Math says that's 30.6 MPG, average and includes driving around town while I was there and almost two hours of stop and go traffic jams through NY and CT on the way home. On the first tank - strictly highway and no traffic delays I got 32.4 MPG!

My old 4 cyl '93 Ranger had 5 spd. with 3.08 gears and never got as good mileage. The engine had to "lug" too much causing the intake vacuum to drop which means poor mileage.

I have no reason to "BS" you! Hope these facts help.

xcoderanger

I own an X code 1990 ranger the x in the vin indicates a roller cam engine and yes it's 4.0 does anybody have an idea what kind of gas milage I should be getting?
:shades:

bolivar

X Code? Roller Cam? Never heard about either of these discriptions.

All 4liters are the same. (Until they went to the overhead cam in what, 2000???)

On my 1994 4Liter, extended cab, automatic, with a cap on it all the time, it got about 14mpg in town, the VERY best I ever saw was 18.5mpg on the highway.

stevedebi

"On my 1994 4Liter, extended cab, automatic, with a cap on it all the time, it got about 14mpg in town, the VERY best I ever saw was 18.5mpg on the highway. "

I had a 1992 4L, extended, 5 speed stick, and I got 18 city / 23 highway.

bolivar

23 highway?

At what speed? My highway driving in the south/mid west meant 75 mph with the AC on.

stevedebi

"At what speed? My highway driving in the south/mid west meant 75 mph with the AC on. "

It was at 68 - 73 MPH as I recall, that was a long time ago! My highway trips were between LA and Albuquerque, so my A/C was running as well. The speed depended upon the state - Arizona has the highest speed limits, but I believe that CA and NM had 65 MPH at the time, so I drove 68 in those states.

I had the limited slip rear end as well, which I believe actually reduces MPG.

Keep in mind that I had the 5 speed, and the fifth speed is basically an overdrive. NOT an automatic...

jrp5143

I own a 1992 Ford Ranger 6 cylinder 4 speed + overdrive. It sometimes will go into reverse just fine and at others it shifts into reverse but when you let up on the clutch nothing happens the truck remains in neutral and a very loud grinding occurs. You can feel this grinding in the shifter knob. It now occasionally does this between gears however the sound goes away when accelerating or stopped, it only seems to happen when decelerating or reverse. Also, it sometimes won't "catch" gears when I shift and will instead cruise in neutral with this odd grinding noise. I drained the tranny oil and replaced. No luck. It tends to be fine when it is cold, however gets increasingly difficult when the truck has been driven for a bit. I've talked around trying to gain advice, some people say the tranny's gone others tell me its a bearing on my clutch. I have never had a truck that grinds and whines at me so I'm not sure what to think and would like some other people's opinions before dropping my tranny. thanks.

xscout

I've only had my 2008 Ranger 6 days, but I am very happy with the results of my first tank of gas. I averaged 27.4 mpg of city / highway driving. I do not live in a congested area or regularly use an interstate type highway so this is local road driving with long runs between traffic lights or stop signs. Ranger has the four cylinder with 5 speed manual transmission and 3.73 rear end.

xscout

After about 5 weeks of driving it looks like 27mpg is going to be a solid average for around town driving. I can't complain about that! This is a 2008 four cylinder with the five speed manual and 3.73 rear end.

ztljimbo

1995 2.3l 5sp manual 154,500 miles
I get about 21.5 mpg combo of town & highway
Not bad for an old lady.

dpbottleman

Bought a 2001 XLT super cab 4 door Ranger with 152,000, 3.0 V6, automatic super looking condition outside and inside the cab, looked brand new, but gas mileage was extremly bad, approx 8 per gallon. Changed air filter and man was it nasty, ugly and just down right dirty! Added a K & N filter, cleaned the mass air flow sensor with CRC mass air flow cleaner, added one can of fuel unjector cleaner, filled up tank, now Im getting 20 miles per gallon. So if you buy a used truck that looks good on the outside better do something about the indside, I guess some folks just like to look good, but not go good! thanx, dpbottleman near Houston

sdominguez

I have a 95 XLT Ranger 178K GREAT TRUCK!!! I can count on 427miles to a tank of gas easy!!!

dsmarshall05

I have recently noticed that my little 2001 ford ranger, 4-cyl, 106,000 miles is getting about 30 to 34 miles for every quarter tank of gas all highway.... is this normal? What could be wrong, or what could I do to improve this?

sivicman

I have a 2010 Supercab with a 2.3L 4 cyl., manual transmission 2WD, and I use Mobil 1 5W-20 in the engine and I get 22/23 mpg in suburban driving. I've never taking it on a long trip yet to see what type of mileage I could get on the highway.

bobeskimo

Dumb question. But, whats the steps in changing the mass air flow sensor? I used to work on cars with my dad a long time ago, but haven't touched them in quite a while. I just bought a 2000 Ford Ranger to drive around in the weather, but it's gas mileage sucks. I have changed the air filter, changed the plugs and wires and replaced the fuel filter. I'm stuck on what else I could do. Please help!!

Evelangley

Omg I'm in the same boat with you. I was researching something on it and ran across a YouTube video and it referred to something under the glove compartment that would reset it, I think. I don't know but the gas mileage is AWFUL !