Archives

I’m considering buying a used Ranger (reg cab, 4x2, 2.3L, 5M). I was also strongly considering getting a Fit or Yaris, but low mileage Rangers only a few years old can be had for a lot cheaper. Plus I’m a do it yourselfer and a truck would come in handy once in a while. I’ve noticed a couple people (xcel and ilaveo) have gotten fuel mileage up to 40 and higher. I do ok compared to the 07- EPA ratings with the vehicles I have now and I have a SGII, but I’m not sure my hypermiling skills/tolerances are or ever will be good enough to do that well in a Ranger. Anyone have any thoughts? Most of my driving consists of in-town driving, not bumper to bumper, but some stop and go and up to 40-60 mph stretches for a few miles. However, I’d like to get decent highway mileage as well. I’m in central Florida and would like to visit the many nice places throughout Florida. I feel like I’m holding myself back just because I don’t want to waste the gas with my Jeep. So it boils down to this: Would it be possible to achieve a solid 40 mpg in mixed city/highway driving with a Ranger? I would be willing to make some mods (i.e., tonneau cover, change fluids, etc.).

Thanks,
Phil

I'm averaging almost 29 in my '96, but this is with the old dual plug lima engine ('88-'98). If you get one with the DOHC 2.3 Duratec ('99+) you could probably attain a realistic average in the low to mid 30's, with more power.

40mpg would be a far reach, but hey, if you're up for a challenge show us all how it's done!

Hi Phil:

___That is a tough question. Around town being aggressive, 40 + is really easy. On the highway, you have to either be hypermile aggressive at 50 + mph w/ a ton of 4th gear HS P&G’s, draft or be willing to DWL along at 50 to hold 40 mpg with a completely setup Ranger … and it will barely hold too.

___I am looking at your Jeep w/ a stick sig and I suspect a ranger would do a bit better above EPA on a percentage term than the Jeep but not much. In other words, without throwing the book at it, I believe a 30 to 32 lmpg would be in your future? The Yaris can kick @$$ too but most non-hypermilers are pulling 33 – 37 in them. An aggressive hypermiler should push well into the mid 50’s but there has to be a lot of tolerance for working your tail off while pushing to those levels.

___I would do the calc’s at 120% of EPA (85- 07) combined on the Ranger and maybe 110% for the Yaris/Fit. Used Rangers w/ a stick can be found for a song as you have seen ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Wow, 40 mpg in mixed city is very good for a small MT non hybrid sedan(Civic,Corolla).A the Ranger is more or less the same weight-2800 lbs-but with more drag.
You would have to use all the tricks-shutting down the motor at redlights,and shutting it down while driving and gliding,regular P&G, max out the tire pressure or maybe go a bit above the the MAX on the side wall.
How well do you do with your current vehicle?40 mpg is probably two times the EPA city rating for a Ranger.Initially I would expect you to get about the same multiple of the EPA city with the Ranger as you get with your Jeep.
Luck,
Charlie
PS I've noticed that the Ranger-used-is a good buy around here also.(New Orleans).

Beatr - I noted your comments having looked through some Ranger forums. Unfortunately they don't have any fuel mileage threads/polls like can be found for the Civic, Yaris, Fit, etc. I was hoping I could find a poll showing that the average Ranger driver got 30 mpg. A hypermiler could easily tack on 5 to that!

Wayne, thanks for your input especially regarding highway miles. It gives me a better idea because I generally drive the speed limit +/-. Highway speed limits around here are 65-70, so 50 would be really difficult. 30-32 mpg is what I estimated too :(. But yes I also suspect I would do significantly better than EPA in the Ranger than the Jeep. It's extremely difficult in the Jeep. I've had all seats out except the driver's, took out the front driveshaft, etc., did a lot of the tricks in the book, have a SGII and barely hit 20 mpg in one tank. Due to error from just one tank, it might not have even been 20!

Charlie, with the amount of effort needed for the Jeep, I think the transition to a Ranger would be easier. I rent cars pretty regularly for work, and I can do better than EPA without as much effort. I wouldn't mind using the tricks you mentioned. Depending on how that goes, I could also try some modifications. I wonder how well it would do if I took off the bed? :D

Well, I'm really tempted to try it. They're pretty cheap so if it doesn't work out they way I want I could probably sell it for minimal loss.

Thanks for your responses,
Phil

30 mpg in a 2.3 mt 4x2 Ranger is not hard in mixed driving. The aerodynamics stink though, so for me getting 40 requires warm weather and driving slow. My tonneau cover is nice to have both for aerodynamics and as a cargo cover--IMO an inexpensive one would be worth the cost (starting under $100). I'm guessing that using A/C will be a concern in Florida that I don't know much about. Unfortunately, in my limited experience, buying a beater truck is more of a crapshoot than buying a beater car.:(

40 I suppose is within the realm of possibility. I average around 22 in our truck at work, but it's on really short trips (usually ~2 miles or so), and is saddled with an auto trans. I do what I can as far as that's concerned, but since I make deliveries, saving time > any other considerations.

I've been driving a 1996 Ranger 4.0 for a few years now. I had been getting around 20MPG most of the time...city and highway. 've just started using hypermiling techniques, though, and have noticed definite increases in mileage, though not as much as many others.

~24 on a 6.5 mile trip to work (on a good day), up to 29 on a 30 mile trip at 60mph, and 24.5 on a round trip from Bowling Green, KY to Dayton, OH (close to 600 miles).

Definite improvements, but I feel that more can be done.

Maybe this isn't the place for it, but could someone explain "bump starting" while moving with a manual transmission? My only experience is with helping to push cars that wouldn't start, and that doesn't give me much to go on. I'm afraid of screwing up the clutch/transmission if I do it wrong.

Think this is bump starting: Your Ranger is in motion....say you want to coast a quarter mile and cut the ignition (but electricty is still on, steering wheel not locked)...as you get the point you want to start the engine, you turn the ignition on, but don't crank the engine, then engage the gear. Generally, I use the highest gear possible to bump start - if it's highway speeds, I may do a half bump start to get the engine spinning, then do it a second time to reduce the shock.

If you are not familiar with this, try practicing this in an area of little to no traffic.

Why not go for the fit or yaris and rent a truck for the times you absolutely need one. You can fit a bunch of stuff in the fit or yaris, and either one is a lot easier to hypermile for big numbers.

anyone who says they get 40 MPG in a ranger is ****ing lieing....30 is possible, but 40 is not..

Hi Duffster:

___That was an interesting statement coming from an ill-informed newbie. All I can add is you have a ton of reading and a bunch of learning ahead of you. 40 is a gimme in std. around freezing temps. In the summer, 50 + is a gimme locally and 40 + out on the highway.

___Sorry to be so harsh but calling everyone here a liar? Sounds like you need a clinic and soon …

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Duffster:

___That was an interesting statement coming from an ill-informed newbie. All I can add is you have a ton of reading and a bunch of learning ahead of you. 40 is a gimme in std. around freezing temps. In the summer, 50 + is a gimme locally and 40 + out on the highway.

___Sorry to be so harsh but calling everyone here a liar? Sounds like you need a clinic and soon …

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I wouldn't call 40 a gimme in freezing temps for me --I gotta work for it.

I'll just let folks guess about my first impressions of Duffster.

Rich

Hi Rich:

___We have had a few of these types around here as of late, haven’t we ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hahahahaha - Can't get 40 in a Ranger??!!! TorqueNada is a heavy pig in comparison to xcel and ILAveo's trucks, but I've done it and multiple times as well. Best segment to work during the summer was 50.0 for 11.5 miles. Just a couple nights ago with 20F temps I was up to 38.1 for 50 miles from Decatur to Bloomington... if I hadn't gotten whacked with snow I would have pulled that up.

I'm a newbie here and new to the concept of Hypermiling. I have a 99 Ranger std cab with the 2.5l manual transmission. Do you have any ranger specific tips for increasing the mileage? I noticed a definite improvement in my overall mileage by adding a soft tonneau cover. My best mileage has been around 22 city and 27 highway. Highway speeds here in Oklahoma are 65-70. Thanks for any advice.

Hi Dwschoon:

___Welcome to CleanMPG!

___Everything that work for a hybrid and non-hybrid will work with a Ranger within limits. Unfortunately at 70, you are throwing it away as fast as you can fill it. A well setup P/U with HS P&G using a 12 mph delta in the 50’s and low 60’s and maybe 4th only should get you into the mid 30’s range in the older Ranger. Around town, the sky’s the limit depending on what you face in your daily grind.

___As for Oklahoma’s speed limits, anything above 50 works fine in a RR. At least that is how it was two weeks ago when I was through there?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

OR, if you're looking for a bargain FE ride, look to a 2003+ Focus. I'm sure you can find one under 100k miles for a price.

EDIT
I say 2003+ because by this time they had worked out the bugs.

Thanks for the info. I am trying to wrap my head around the P&G concept. During the glide phase, do you actually cut the engine, clutch, or just coast in gear? Sorry, but I had always heard that maintaining a constant speed was best for mileage, so the concept of speeding up and slowing down is foreign to me. I am just trying to understand what is done. I read the tutorial, but there was a lot about the prius hybrid system that doesnt apply to me. Thanks.

Why not go for the fit or yaris and rent a truck for the times you absolutely need one. You can fit a bunch of stuff in the fit or yaris, and either one is a lot easier to hypermile for big numbers.

That is my thought as well. There's a chance I'll not need to rent a truck though. My neighbor, pastor, and FIL all have trucks. Why do I need one too? I'll let them use tools, do manual labor, or whatever in return.

dwschoon,
you might do some reading about DWL and DWB for a start, don't get into P&G until later. You can do some serious mpg with DWL in 5th gear on an interstate floating between 50-60 mph... I'd guess you should be able to pull 30-32 without breaking a sweat. Heck in a 4.0L Ranger with AT a few weeks ago I got a 29.6 ... yeh there was a little bit of a tailwind.

The tonneau cover is a help of about 1-3 mpg depending on wind conditions.

Be sure to air up your tires to the max sidewall number for a prestart. Good luck to you and let us know your progress and any questions.

Tonight on the way home I took the expressway - 15.9 miles total distance, the first .5 miles and the last 1.1 miles are surface streets. I did just DWL and DWB, no NICE-ON coasting except for the exit ramp, and only shut off at 2 signal lights on the last 1.1 mile stretch. Fought headwind for about 9 of those miles. Speeds on expressway were between 50-61, stayed near 54-56 mph most of the time. Ended up with a 31.2 mpg. Throttle control makes a difference, I do depend on my ScanGauge for feedback.

40 is a gimme in std. around freezing temps. In the summer, 50 + is a gimme locally and 40 + out on the highway.

Something occured to me about this post you made. Most people get better mileage on the highway, but you have reversed it. So you have essentially negated all the fuel wasting the engine does in city driving with your hypermiling techniques while staying in the sweet spot for your Ranger pickup.:lightbulb: Is that it in a nutshell?

Hi 93Hatch:

___Pretty close. The way I like to think of it as “if you are not applying power, why is the motor on.”

___Good Luck

___Wayne

i notice when i hypermile aggressively, i get better city mileage since my engine is hardly on and when it is, it is always putting most of its gas to good use, now i was considering a way to shutdown (since i have a v6) two or three cylinders' fuel injectors with a switch. i have to do more research and find out how those situations turn out for my particular engine, just a thought.

i notice when i hypermile aggressively, i get better city mileage since my engine is hardly on and when it is, it is always putting most of its gas to good use, now i was considering a way to shutdown (since i have a v6) two or three cylinders' fuel injectors with a switch. i have to do more research and find out how those situations turn out for my particular engine, just a thought.

I'm not sure you want to do selected cylinder deactivation on a vehicle that wasn't built for it -- it seems to me that the firing pattern would have to be modified to skip the ones that are off?

It probably could be done, but likely not much if any gain since the engine would still be pushing against those temporarily dead cylinders compression strokes. You would likely have a pretty rough running engine as well, perhaps even enough to trip a misfire code in the ECU. From what I understand, engines that are designed for cylinder deactivation hold the exhaust valve open? and they are programmed to switch around what cylinders deactivate. Way back in the 70's Cadillac played with 8-6-4 and it was not real pretty, due in part to fouling plugs, excessive carbon buildup, and a few other fun things.

I have looked into doing an injector kill switch like DiamondLarry did, or something similar, and will probably fiddle with one this summer.

Like the others above the Jeep generally got better mileage in local driving as well. It definitely got worse mileage in what most people consider highway driving (65+).

Thanks for your replies. I just wanted to follow-up on my progress in this thread. I looked at an 06 Mazda B2300 (same as a Ford Ranger) this morning. I hooked up the SGII to it to get some idea. I drove it fairly hard just for testing purposes, and I got 26.5 AVG MPG, whereas the Jeep probably would've gotten ~17. We made a deal and I'll be picking it up tomorrow. Judging by people's experiences 40 MPG doesn't sound likely, but I'm hoping for 32-35.

I also bought an 06 Yamaha XT225 dual purpose bike a couple weeks ago. After doing a lot of research I found a couple reports of 100+ MPG. Reports were as low as 60 MPG, and it seems the average of most people was around 75-80.

I sold my previous bike which got 44 mpg and I plan on selling my Jeep soon and that got about 19 mpg. Overall I'm increasing my fuel efficiency by about 100% for the bike, and 50% with the truck. Not bad, and in the process I'm getting money back!

Phil

Well, I got gas today. I tried to practice several techniques, mainly DWL, RR, and NICE-ON. I tried to FAS, but I dont think my power steering pump likes me to turn without the engine on. Sometimes after a FAS, my steering would shake after the engine was started and I turned the steering wheel. I was encouraged by the results though. I drove about half city and half interstate driving. It took 12.4 gallons to travel 340 miles for 27.4 mpg. I am hoping to improve as I get more practice.

well it currently is just a thought, but even if the engine is running against the compression of the other cylinders, energy in = energy out, so it would be negated, similar to a weighted spring. now i understand that would take some modification of the ecu in order to get that to work, but i think if an older car with gas only and no fuel saving ideas in mind was able to do some kind of fuel efficiency conversion, then that would help a lot of ppl who are in the low mpg range. of course given there are so many different engines, it may be better to build it for one type starting with a small engine and mating it to a decent electric motor. i dunno, get something common, and rebuild it with all the knowledge of what makes a car more fuel efficient...

I am going to buy a truck for some summer projects. The total projected miles driven through December will be <750 miles. The plan is to buy from an individual and have with a set maximum budget (small).

Available are:

98 Ford F150 (6cyl 5spd 133,000)
95 Ford Ranger (4cyl auto 148,000)
2000 Ford Ranger (4cyl auto, leather, tonneau, 83,000) 20% more than budget
97 Chevy S10 (4cyl auto 148,000)

I am leaning towards a 2001 C1500 Chevy Silverado (V6,5spd,131,000)for 30% less than private party and within budget. The kicker: NO AC
I usually don't use it anyway.

The potential of the Ranger is the greatest, but the shortbed C1500 should be able to get 30+ mpg. I need to get one by next weekend and this is what I have found available within 60 miles.
Any thoughts??

Hi Mike:

___All I can add it that those Ford Auto’s are going to kill you but fortunately you are only placing 750 miles on it.

___Any chance of renting one as your TTL and insurance are probably going to cost more than a rental let alone the fuel for that few miles?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I have been borrowing a couple for the last year from friends. With my current work schedule, it allows me lots of "project" time. We have had a lot of flood and ice damage here and I have been helping people with repairs and I have a construction project at home that I am getting ready to start.

This is a pre-ranger, but this weekend I took my old 1987 Mazda B2000 (5mt) out for a drive. Torquenada is a good name for it. Filled up before and after. Driving blind (no SG).

89 miles, 2.75 gallons = 32.4 mpg, and it's rated 22/27 city/highway. 133% of epa combined, with no feedback as I drive.

Since this thread has revived so much, I would really appreciate it (and probably so would others) if somebody could explain the very best years & set up for high mpg Rangers. Reading through, it's very useful for folks to get case by case input, but maybe a "best case scenario" would be worth adding to this thread.

Somewhat OT, in 2004-05 I had a 1983 Mitsubishi diesel 2wd 5mt pickup that would readily get 36+mpg in warm temps before I'd ever heard of hypermiling. With a turbo and a straight-pipe it had plenty of power, probably enough to run with a Ranger. But it was unable to start at 15 degrees or less, and I lived in MN at the time; plus it left me stranded on the side of the road 3 times in just a few months, so I can't recommend the truck except as a Sunday driver. Still, was a blast, and even sort of fun to fill up as the cashiers often thought I had just added the wrong fuel...

Hi Kinder:

___Just considering Ranger’s, forget about the 3.0 and 4.0L ICE’s and any with Auto’s as they are the worst Fuel Efficient small trucks on the market. From 2001 on, the 2.3L equipped Ranger’s with the stick are very similar and are rated the best. Per the EPA that is :rolleyes: I personally do not know of any other small P/U’s that come close.

___Everything else? The 2.7L Tacoma with a stick should come pretty close to the 2.3L equipped Ranger w/ the same.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Thanks Wayne! That is exactly the info I was hoping to get! Viva cleanmpg.

energy in = energy out, so it would be negated, similar to a weighted spring

This is only true if all the valves on that cylinder are held shut. Otherwise, the cylinder acts as an air pump, pumping air from the intake out the exhaust. If the throttle is mostly open, pumping losses are minimized, however, work is still being done and frictional losses from the valvetrain in those cylinders are still present.

After deactivating cylinders, you'd basically have a 3 cyl engine with the drag of a 6.

yes, understandably, you are right. i guess my spring idea was a bit off.:Banane25:.

the valves def. wouldnt work staying open the entire time. I think what I was going for was more of shut off of the 3 cyl during idling i.e during coasting....it'd probably be better if a full conversion was done dont ya think? i.e. a small electric hybrid conversion? i love this car, not so much the engine but..u know..everything else..so anything to keep it on the road i guess. :rolleyes:

now i was considering a way to shutdown (since i have a v6) two or three cylinders' fuel injectors with a switch.

I've got another reason why this isn't such a good idea - If you drop say, one cylinder, you are tainting your exhaust with unburned oxygen, effectively tricking your computer into thinking that you're running lean, causing it to pump in more fuel to stay stoch.

The Isuzu Pup diesels are decent on fuel. Some of them get 35-40 mpg from what I hear. Not an easy pickup to find on short notice, and alot of them had rust issues. Evidently the Chevy Luv was essentially the same thing with different cosmetics.

First day with the B2300. I got ~30.5 MPG over the course of 40 miles of local and highway driving (~60 MPH). I got ~38 over a 7 mi. trip. These are prelim numbers so hopefully it's underestimating. I'm not ecstatic yet, but considering those figures are 10-20 MPG better than what I do in the Jeep, it's pretty good.

Now I know why it's called "torquenada". The Jeep isn't exactly fast, but it doesn't lug like the B2300 does when shifting early.

I started looking for the Isuzu/Luv oil burners a few weeks ago. I found a few, but I didn't feel that $5K or $6K for a 20+ year old truck with over 200,000 miles was a deal.

Don't forget VW Rabbit Pickups and Toyota diesel pickups. There's usually a few of them on ebay. Someone ought to bring back econobox pickups, instead of the trend lately for retro muscle cars.

For those that think that only a Wayne can get better than 40 mpg in a Ranger... well today is a new day :D

On the way back from Decatur to home, a trip of 186 miles mostly via Interstate, I managed to do better than that, and not doing anything extreme... well except a couple times :o

I stayed near posted speed limits within towns (the first 40-something miles is a state highway with towns, and the last 1 or 2 miles), otherwise I pulsed and NICE-ON coasted with a target range of 51-57 mph. My average speed for the whole trip including town segments was 51 mph, so you can see I was not dogging it. Temps were I think low 50s, dropping into 40s as it progressed, with crosswinds that gradually faded too.

Final score: 41.5 mpg for 186 miles at 51 mph average!! :Banane57:

I ended up buying a 96 Mazda B4000 Friday. I found a dealer wanting to move it and bought it for less than trade in price. I'm really going to have trouble hitting 40 with it. :mad: It is a 4.0 liter auto 4x4. I got it home and pressed the tires (31-10.50-15) to 50 psi from 33. It definitely rolls better. It has an even 100,000 miles on it. I changed the air filter, I have 0-30 Amsoil, new plugs, antifreeze, and spark plugs to install tomorrow. It has a hard bed cover, running boards, and it HAD DEER WHISTLES.
I got home about 4:30 Friday and a guy returned my call from the morning. He has a 1984 S10 diesel with 110,000 miles that he is asking $2800. Oh well, maybe later.

Nice work, Ken!!! :thumbs_up: :woot:

SlowHands - that's awesome! You've brought truth to the title of this thread for long distance driving. I see you have a SG and tonneau. Soft or hard? Anything else?

I sold the Jeep Saturday. It got 19.4 MPG on it's final trip. :rolleyes: I didn't want to get rid of it, but it was a FSP.

Phil

Phil, there's nothing much different than stock on TorqueNada. Grill block with a piece of scrap aluminum, tires normally at 52 psi front 50 rear (I need to check them...). The tonneau is actually a 'test' chunk of plywood the width of the truck, about 30" long, mounted at the rear of the bed. It gives nearly the same performance as a full tonneau, but still leaves the front half of the bed easily available for groceries and small stuff. I planned to do something a little prettier come springtime, but now seeing that Tacoma thread I have to kick it up a notch for appearance :)

I would suggest a soft tonneau if your main goal is FE. I have had the extang black max for about 2 years on mine and it is worth every penny. It is much cheaper than a hard tonneau, and I think it is much more efficient. Since it is a snapping type, I can access the front of the bed without taking it all off. I have driven through some very hard rain, and have never gotten any water in the bed. The hard tonneaus, though they might look better, are actually quite heavy. Mine weighs next to nothing, so I think it will allow more FE than a hard one.

52 PSI! I have mine at 33 and it already feels a bit stiff. The max on my tires is 44 so I'll make my way up and see how it goes.

I like soft tonneaus, but I'm considering getting a folding hard tonneau for security. I had a Foldacover for a Tacoma I previously had and I liked it a lot. The ones I'm looking at weigh between 35 and 50 lbs, so I don't think that's too signficant. The price is however.

Speaking of grill blocks, I was thinking about doing it for aero purposes, as the temps down here are usually pretty warm. Check out the front end conversion on this S-10. http://www.minitruckinweb.com/webonly/030908mt_forbidden_fantasy_2008/photo_41.html
The intention probably wasn't for aero, but ecomodders would think it's fantastic.

The mirrors on the newer Rangers are pretty large. I was thinking about getting some low profile mirrors like I've seen on custom low rider minitrucks like this: http://www.minitruckinweb.com/webonly/030908mt_forbidden_fantasy_2008/photo_14.html
I thought they were more common, but it took a while just to find that photo. Maybe they're out of style now.

Phil

I have my tires at 45psi(44 sidewall) and they are fine. I didn't even notice a difference in ride quality when i pumped them there from 32psi. My truck is rough riding no matter what. I can see how you might need more security. I don't have a locking tailgate, so it wouldn't matter too much if I had a locking cover. I haul stuff all the time too, and have never been particularly worried. Lots of people around here have covers, so it may be that would be thieves don't look in covered trucks as much.

Lugnuts, if you bring the pressure up about 4-5 psi each week you'll be unlikely to notice any difference in ride quality, but you will notice a difference in the way it glides, corners, and brakes.

That link shows a nicely done front end... but I might have a bit of trouble with that ride height getting in and out of my driveway ;) I looked at some of the other trucks on that page and boy some of those people sure put in a lot of work.

Speaking of ride height, they could probably put some brushes on the undercarriage and earn some money as street sweepers! :eek:

I agree -- lots of very impressive work on those vehicles.

Took a 224 mile RT to Fort De Soto yesterday. 34 MPG AVG RT.
31.8 going there at or just below speed limit
36.2 coming back further below speed limit (i.e., 63 MPH in a 70, 55 in a 60)

These are still prelim SG #s on the first tank. But it looks like there is hope for 40. I was running 33 PSI all around (29 recommended). I'll try 44 (max rated) on the next long trip. Hard or soft tonneau after that. Hopefully these two mods will do it!

Phil

Hi Phil:

___With an SG-II. 44 in the Conti-Trak’s and 55 mph, 35 + is a gimme :) 40 + with a little work ;) 50+ with a lot of work :D

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Best tank yet in my Ranger--12.239 gallons over 506.0 mi for a 41.34 avg MPG. Slow Hands may be interested to know my Ranger passed his--I'm at 140.0 of EPA compared to his measly 139.9.:p

#$%*!! Good grief man!! Excellent job there ILAveo!! You've been raising the bar higher and higher...I gotta step it up.. But really congrats on that tank! :D

Lugnuts, I'm driving a 2002 4cyl 5spd Ranger, and had a '98 before that. Both routinely gave me 30 mpg before I started applying more agressive hypermile methods (p&G, shutting down at lights, drafting trucks, etc).

My last 3 tanks have been over 35mpg. It takes some work to get that, but between 30 - 34 is easy. I'd like to get a scan gage just to see how much more I can squeeze.

Plus, it's a decent truck. Can't beat the price, either.

30-34 is easy for me too. I can get up to 40 on local trips. But long distance it's not so easy. I was able to do only about 35 on a ~250 mi RT mostly highway with 65-70MPH zones. Did about 63MPH in 70MPH zones. Already have an SGII and I'm at 44PSI. I was considering aero-modding.

I saw a local Ranger driving around with no bed, hood, or rear window. Not sure if his intention was to ecomod by lightening the load or if the parts got stolen!

Well I don't have much mileage data for this truck yet, so if I can do better soon, I'll increase my avg more quickly and get in the running with ILAveo and SlowHands. :)

Phil

Nuts - 40+?
Man I've been working hard to get 35mpg for a tank in my 2002 4cyl 5man ranger.

Though as I read the posts I realize a few things - first I've been driving blind without a scan gauge. I also have yet to incorporate many techniques beyond driving slow (max 58mph on the highway), accelerating slowly, and DWL. I haven't been FAS or even keying off at stoplights and half of my commute time is on the wonderfully congested roads near Boston.

So I realize what I need to do.

1. Get a scan guage II
2. Turn off the engine more
3. Move out of the city (though then I couldn't walk to as many places or use the T to save on fuel - but I'd get better #s ;-)

I did have a good increase in mpg after getting an HCH for my wife and learning to get 62+ in it for my commute when she wasn't driving it. I then drove my ranger in a similar manner and went from a best of 30mpg for a tank to 35mpg. The first time I saw the trip OD going over 450 miles I thought some co-workers were tired of hearing me talk about high gas mileage and put extra fuel in my tank.

OK I'm off to get a Scanguage II.

It was great to stumble upon this Ranger specific thread. Wish i had found it quicker. I just replaced my old 95 2.3L engine with the same thing about 6 months ago. If I had asked maybe a 2002 engine with better mpg could have been installed. Oh well I have been looking at some of the younger, used Rangers lately. My budget will not yet allow 5-6 k for a vehicle. Living with SSD as ones main source of income is not much fun. Maybe after I move and rent or sell my house.

Anyway; improving my mpg will bring me closer to a newer vehicle. I recently increased my tire pressure to 37 front 35 rear. The results are a very stiff and jolting ride. Sometimes I think it bounces more than it rolls through turns with rough surfaces. Maybe my front struts/shocks need replacing but I would rather have that money go to a newer truck. I noticed very little improvement when I replaced the rear shocks.

I have noticed that several different tire sizes are being used on Rangers. Mine is currently using:

M&S 215/70R 14 Epic Plus Multi-Mile. Tread wear 440 Traction A Temperature B 35psi max pressure.

I have seen Rangers using anything from:

185/70R 14 to 225/70R 14. The smallest tires I used on my 91 Ranger were 205/70R 14

There are also some that have 15" wheels; Mostly 4wd models. Is it true that smaller tires get better mpg? If so how small should I go next time I get tires?

You're best off staying with the original size tires - otherwise you will have speedometer and odometer errors: sure you can compensate for them in a ScanGauge, but there is less hassle to staying with original size tires.

I currently have Michelin LTX 15" tires sidewall rated 35psi, I think 225/75? that are a larger profile than the original spec'd 60 series tire for this truck (previous owner did the switch). I have to compensate a little over 10% to correct for speed / distance, ie in car speedo shows 50, I'm actually doing 55.

I do run my tires 'a bit' over sidewall pressure, it doesn't take much to get used to the ride really, in a week you won't even notice... except that you will likely try to find the smoother path more often than ever before ;) It is not real likely you need new shocks and struts... do a 'bounce check' at each corner: push down really hard, maybe even jump on the bumper and then off in one motion, if the shocks are good, it will settle in about 2 shakes. If it keeps bouncing like 4 or 5 times, yeah they might be bad.

I did a highway trip last weekend of about 130 miles, and got 40.2, it was at 4

You're better off staying with original spec size tires, otherwise you will need to compensate for speedometer / odometer error. On TorqueNada, the previous owner put on larger 75 series tires, ends up that I need a bit more than 10% correction: ie at indicated 50 mph I'm really doing 55 mph.

ScanGauge will help you a lot, and the older 2.3 has a neat trick at steady state speeds: someone here coined the term 'Hang Time' - I did a highway trip last weekend that came in at 40.2 for 135 miles, would have been 41.1 except for getting some bad gas. This was done mostly with dwl and hang time.

Oh, sure I did set a new personal best this weekend: 57.2 mpg for 16.6 miles... primarily pulse and glide, on rural roads... it was part of a competition, so I think it will stand as a personal best for a while :D

Good luck with your Ranger!

I was laughing today when I saw a Ranger like yours and the image of you dancing the jig after you set your record appeared!:eek:


SlowHands last Sunday>:Banane44:

OK - continuing the Ranger thread.

After reading that Wayne felt 40 mpg was easy in the ranger it was killing me that I was only in the low 30's lately. So I started paying more attention - I also finally picked up a ScanGauge last week.

I did 3/4 of the tank without the SG - and even though I did 3/4 while driving blind I managed to get my FIRST 500 MILE PLUS TANK - and at the same time got my best tank mpg avg - 36.5 mpg. This was just using the same things I've been doing DWL and NICE-ON primarily, along with driving the speed limit or a little under on the highway.

With the SG installed I found I can do 36+ mpg on my 20 mile commute going to work and 42+ mpg coming home. Having the SG really helps (though perhaps mostly by keeping me motivated).

As part of my first full tank with the SG installed I did a 147 mile trip mostly all but 5 miles of it on 65mph highways - I managed to average 40.2 mpg. It would have been higher but there was a mile of stop and go for road work and brief thunderstorm. Staying above 40 on the highway was a little painful there was a LOT of DWL (checking my rear-view constantly to make sure I wasn't going to get run over while doing it) and also Hang Time (though I didn't know it was called that - I just found I could hit some great numbers at around 55mph).

I tried some P&G but have to get more advice on how to do this well in the Ranger - do I shift down to 4th or stay in 5th? And what speed range seems to work best for those who are doing it? Also are you doing a FAS or NICE-ON?

I have 17" tires on my ranger right now, if the truck lasts long enough to get a new pair I will be sure to step it down to the 15" (original size). I had the larger pair put on back in college before I was concerned with mileage and now I wish I wouldn't have. Anyways, those scangauges are expensive, besides the pleasure of meeting mileage goals is it really worth it to drop 170 bucks on those things?

Regarding the cost of an SGii and wether it's worth it here's the calculation I did to help justify, um I mean rationally decide.

Cost of SGii: $150
Cost of Gas: $4.06 (assume it will stay at this average)
Assumed increase in FE: 10% (mine ended up being 12.3% so far)
Yearly Milage: 9800 (for last year)

Gallons needed at Old Milage: 302
Gallons needed at SGii Milage: 274

Yearly savings: $111.30

So it would take about 16 months to break even.

But if I can keep up a 12% increase in FE or gas prices rise then it'll be a year or less for it to pay for itself. Also I must say it's kind of fun to have.

I don't know how SlowHands can get 57.2 on that distance!

Last Thursday I installed a folding hard tonneau cover, so hopefully it will help get closer to that. On the way back from a site I got 38.6MPG on a 44.7mi trip. The first 20 miles I was getting over 40MPG - it was mostly 40-45MPH. The last half of the trip was mostly 55-60MPH.

slooooooowwwwwwdddoowwwn! - I think it's worth the money to get a SGII. Ron's calulations are based on only 9800 mile/year, which is well under the average person's. You'll recoup the costs faster if you drive more than that. The SGII is worth it based on that alone, but there's A LOT of other info that it provides. Check out the Scan Guage website.

Phil

Under normal circumstances I would say it definitely is worth it, however, I am closing on a new home on Friday and both my wife and I are getting ready to attend Law school come August. That said, maybe I can get it for x-mas or something...;-)

Hey! It appears I have been removed from the list of gas vehicles in the Millage logs. I was using millage figures stored there to simplify things. I had to dig out the old receipts and figure things out the hard way again. Is there some way to see my vehicles history?

Your vehicle is still there -- the listings have been reduced to a default of 50 vehicles per section (in order of lifetime fuel economy) to improve load time. You can change the number shown by adjusting the values in the drop down menus at the top right. Also, for your own vehicle a listing always appears at the top of the overall summary page (default when you click the Mileage Logs link).

Your vehicle can be seen here: itbarthur4u's UrbanRanger (http://www.cleanmpg.com/index.php?page=garage&displayunits=MPG(US)&viewcar=1005)

Lugnuts, thanks for the compliment. It was a lot of work to get that 57.2 on the WFEC course. I never figured I'd be able to get anywhere near that on my regular commute as the best I had ever done was a 52.0 for 11.5 miles. Well, about a week or so ago, I set a 57.6 for that distance, and then the next day did a 59.2 :eek: I had a couple more runs that were over 50.

I have my sights set on 60... :D

This is an old thread, but I thought I'd jump in here in because it's relevant to my new truck. I just bought a new Ranger pickup with the 2.3 and manual transmission. I needed a truck for the forseeable future and this one had the best mpg ratings out there. Not to mention, the best sales price around. I have a Scanguage II and am absolutely amazed at how well this thing can do under certain conditions. If one could just drive all day at 40 mph in 5th gear I believe 40's could be easily attained, but we don't live in an ideal world and on many of the roads I travel, such driving would get me run over. Still I'm very pleased with the truck and can only wish that a small diesel was available as I know it would do even better.

I'm glad to see this thread ressurected.

I hadn't seen it before and didn't know that there were others here that had my exact same truck. Several others are close (within a year or two).

My first goal is 150% in the current FE challenge (based on '08 EPA ratings). I'm sitting at just above 141%, but I have quite a few miles on it already so I need to step up to 157% tanks to make it.

I still haven't hit a 40 mpg commute, but I have managed 38.5 (26 miles). 40 is within my sites now (and I would have it if the commute wasn't so hilly).

Welcome to the forum hmiwb and good luck with your new Ranger! I think it's the last year of the current generation.

I started this thread before I got my Mazda badged version of the Ranger. It's good that you brought up this thread since I just hit the 1 year mark a few days ago. I haven't been able maintain 40+MPG, only about 32 overall over about 7,000 miles. However, I have been able to do it on individual trips, the best being a 41 mile trip to the airport. It's mostly highway and I went very early in the morning and paced with a slow moving tractor trailer (from a safe distance) and stayed around 52MPH. I got just over 40MPG on that trip.

Considering I'm single, work from home, work on projects, and want to get decent fuel mileage, this truck has been working out great for me.

Thank you for the welcome. I just finally went over 1000 miles on my Ranger so I changed the oil/filter and the transmission fluid to synthetic. I was surprised how much metal was on the magnet on the transmission drain plug and how much junk appeared to be in suspension in the fluid. I'm glad I changed it now. I have managed a trip on slower back roads that gave me a nice 32 mpg. My overall average is a little over 26 mpg but I hope it will get better as things loosen up and break in. So far no problems at all so I'm very happy with my little Ranger.

This week I got my Ranger back out for use as my daily driver for the warm season. I filled its tank for the first time since November this evening. My winter tank netted me 34.8 MPG. I'm hoping to get it back north of 40 mpg soon. I forgot the Ranger's scangauge scale factor over the winter, so I don't have reliable trip mileages to report yet.

Good luck with your truck!

I am hoping to find one of these to replace my van this year. 40 mpg sounds good!

Not close to 40 mpg yet, but working on it. I'm happy with the upper 20s and low 30s I'm getting right now. I just raised the air pressure in the tires to 42 psi. That made a really noticable difference in how easily the truck rolls so I'm anxious to see if it makes a difference in mpg. I have a stick shift and it's easy to feel the difference when starting out and when the clutch is in while shifting. It had about 27 lbs in each tire as delivered.

I have got mid 30s in the summer in an old van with a V6, I can't see why I cant do 40 or more if I get a ranger with a 4 banger and a 5 speed stick...

I am hoping to find one of these to replace my van this year. 40 mpg sounds good!

With the Ranger you will have the same kinds of problems that you have with your Mitsu.

Highway speeds are a killer. In the Ranger's case it's not due to high RPMs, but a high CD factor (0.49).

However, if you can find routes that keep it at 30-40 mph, mileage goes through the roof.

Finally with the warmer weather I've gotten 2 trips near 40mpg. One 40.2 for 18 miles, the second 39.7 for 17.9 miles.

It helps that I was able to commute home one night later than usual and missed a lot of traffic - and the second time I left work at 2pm and again missed sitting in too much traffic, but was up to 41.5 before hitting a few patches of traffic and dropping below 40.

During the winter here in Boston I'd be luck to get above 33 for my commute.

With the Ranger you will have the same kinds of problems that you have with your Mitsu.

Highway speeds are a killer. In the Ranger's case it's not due to high RPMs, but a high CD factor (0.49).

However, if you can find routes that keep it at 30-40 mph, mileage goes through the roof.

Mabye, but If I can get low to mid thirties going 55 on the highway with a minivan with a v6, I gotta believe I can get better numbers with a ranger and a 4 banger, no?
Plus i cant haul much cargo with the mitsu, thats the main problem with that car, not good for my biz :rolleyes:

Hey i see you like fishin' check out my blog, I have caught tons of fish this year, and take lots of pics! :)

Mabye, but If I can get low to mid thirties going 55 on the highway with a minivan with a v6, I gotta believe I can get better numbers with a ranger and a 4 banger, no?

Steady state DWL at 55 on a level road will get me between 28 and 55 instant mpg. That depends completely on the wind direction since it seems to blow a fairly constant 20 mph. With no wind, instant shows about 40 (at ~50 degrees, temps are another variable).

I was actually watching today, and my Ranger hits about 2K RPM at 50 mph. Not bad, but it's the cd that really kills the Ranger's highway ability (I really do believe it's worse that your Villager).

You are experienced enough to use P&G, so that can do some good things and you would probably be able to manage 40 mpg tanks at a minimum (of course that depends on traffic).

I was actually watching today, and my Ranger hits about 2K RPM at 50 mph. Not bad, but it's the cd that really kills the Ranger's highway ability (I really do believe it's worse that your Villager).


No way! the van is much taller! I removed the roof rack, but that didn't make much difference, though it made it quieter.
Mabye they are factoring the exposed bed, that could be a drag I suppose.
It wouldnt be a factor for me because I would have to use a cap on mine that is level with the roof for work. So I would think it would be better than the van by a little.
Plus I keep my tires at psi level I can't mention here! ;)

No way! the van is much taller!

I just found it. The CD for the '98 Villager is .35, compared to the .49 for the Ranger.

I think the big difference is the slant of the windshield.

Bummer!! thanks for the research though! Still I think even if I get similar results on the highway or even a little less, I can more than make up for it on the slower stuff where my van really is a FSP! ny average speed for a work day on my scan gauge usually comes out in the low to mid 40s unless I I get some long runs, but those pay better anyways so the fuel hit wont hurt as much in those cases.

Still I think even if I get similar results on the highway or even a little less, I can more than make up for it on the slower stuff where my van really is a FSP!

This is very true...

Between 30 and 35 I show 35+ instant if I am going up a slight hill, against the wind, in cold weather (<25). In warm weather, flat land, with no wind I can show 60+ (and a 25-35 P&G does really well).

My trips around the base here regularly net me 39 mpg, and I'm a fairly new hypermiler.

hmm sounds good to me!
I am fairly new too, only 2 more months left of my rookie year though! (started in june 08..;) :D

....For some reason, many people think 40+ MPG in a Ranger is nearly impossible. In past threads, I told how I bought a 2006 Ranger brand new, with all the right equipment: 5 speed, 4 cyl, regular cab, long bed, 20.2 gallon fuel tank, cruise control, sliding rear window, etc.

Over 16,000 miles I averaged 41.35 MPG. And I achieved a 1000 mile tank (50.22 mpg) driving from Seattle to Phoenix. 40 MPG takes good driving and developing good habits. 50 MPG takes some real work, with slower speeds, lots of coasting, etc.

Wow, 50? nice driving Billy! what speeds did you average on your 50 mpg trip?

Michael, you can see details here:

Ford Ranger, 1000 mile tank... (http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=135882)

Oh my, I read this and even replied in the thread last summer! LOL I have such a great memory, just wish I could remember where I put it! :p

No worries, Michael. :)

well, not for you anyways hehehe:D;)

And I achieved a 1000 mile tank (50.22 mpg) driving from Seattle to Phoenix...

I wish I could manage a 1000 mile tank (got over 500 now), but that would be over 60 mpg (it's just a 16.5 gallon tank).

I hate to see a good thread die. Finally a day when I didn't feel pressed to get to work in a big hurry and I was away from the rush hour time slot. I didn't do anything special, just set the cruise at 55 instead of the usual 65-70. 38.2 mpg for my 45 mile commute. Yes, 40 mpg should be easily achievable but I would not attempt it during rush hour. 2009 Ranger 4 cyl, 5 speed manual. My next goal...

I just bought a 06 ranger with a 4 banger for work yesterday. wow 38 cruising at 55! I hope mine can do that! sure would help on the fuel expence when I need to do long runs!

It can do it. But my guess is that he had a slight tailwind?

The highway section of my commute is my mileage killer, but a lot of that is due to the severe hills on it.

I keep forgetting that when we were talking about you getting a Ranger. I don't think you will have the hill problem I do in Minneapolis, so you might very well be able to keep a 45 mpg average with your skills.

My secrets so far? Not much of a secret. Keep momentum going when you can, avoid speeds over 40 (unless you are going downhill or building for an uphill), shut off the engine when you don't need it.

You might see it in the seekly thread, but I managed 39.2 yesterday afternoon dealing with hills and a headwind.

I had a tiny bit of traffic or I would have broken 40.

My secrets so far? Not much of a secret. Keep momentum going when you can, avoid speeds over 40 (unless you are going downhill or building for an uphill), shut off the engine when you don't need it.



That is pretty much what I do. except the avoiding over 40, that just isn't an option because I am a courier and got to get things there on time. I will not excede speed limits though, and on really high speed highways with65-70 psl I will go under the speed limit, unless it is an emergency rush delivery.
My average speed after adding in all off the inner city pickup and drops ends up around 40 for the typical day, usually putting on around 200 miles.

A slight tailwind? Perhaps, but nature has a way of averaging those things out. I can only use cruise for the super-slab portion of my commute. Some of it takes place on surface streets at slower speeds which helps mileage if I can time the lights right. This morning I set the cruise at 65 mph and that netted me 29 mpg for the same commute. I'm not complaining, it does very well for a pickup truck.

This morning I set the cruise at 65 mph and that netted me 29 mpg for the same commute...

I don't have CC, but that sounds like the FE I used to get at the same speeds.

A slight tailwind? Perhaps, but nature has a way of averaging those things out. I can only use cruise for the super-slab portion of my commute. Some of it takes place on surface streets at slower speeds which helps mileage if I can time the lights right. This morning I set the cruise at 65 mph and that netted me 29 mpg for the same commute. I'm not complaining, it does very well for a pickup truck.

At 65 I can usually use the scangauge to find the sweet spot at about that speed that will get me 31 or so. Maybe you're still breaking in?

41.4 mpg from the dealership in Buffalo (MN) to my place in Minneapolis. 45 miles, 3/4highway the rest suburban streets, avg speed 45 mph...

This is according to a newly hooked up scangauge, so its a grain of salt...

I think this will be quite a bit better on gas than the van though! ;)

Don't Rangers have Dfco? I am not showing it on the scangauge like I do with the van.

41.4 mpg from the dealership in Buffalo (MN) to my place in Minneapolis. 45 miles, 3/4highway the rest suburban streets, avg speed 45 mph...
...

Sounds about right...MPG=MPH somewhere in the low/mid 40's.

I think they DFCO, but need to be warm first. I rarely try DFCO, so I don't remember.

Sounds about right...MPG=MPH somewhere in the low/mid 40's.

I think they DFCO, but need to be warm first. I rarely try DFCO, so I don't remember.

Interesting. what do you do when coming up to a stop, coast out of gear? Whatever you do, it looks to be successful!

I think they DFCO, but need to be warm first. I rarely try DFCO, so I don't remember.

I ended up using it yesterday afternoon. At least on mine, it starts feeding fuel when you drop to 1750 RPM.

I have one hill I use it on, and putting it in 2nd just keeps it down to the psl of 35.

I did have to change the cut-off number in the SG for it to show up. On mine, it starts feeding fuel again at about 1350 rpm.

On a trip back from Decatur last week, I pulled a 34.4 mpg for 186 miles just doing DWL, working speeds between 50 mph and 65 mph, the average speed for the whole trip was 56 mph.

Thanks for the info guys! good to see there are long time ranger drivers that can give me some tips!
I am kind of disappointed the dfco turns off that high in rpms. the van has it as soon as I get my foot off the gas and all the way down to 1000 rpm. mabye the scangauge is wrong on that though. what do you do in heavy traffic or when coming to a stop?
In my mitsubishi mirage that doesnt have it, I just throw it out of gear and shut the ice off while coasting, and relying on the brakes to lose speed. I was hoping I wouldn,t need to do that in the truck because it has power brakes.

Also, what water temps do you get on your scan gauge? mine seems awfully high, and it has no grill block of any kind. no other indications of it running hot, regular temp gauge is right in the center. could be the scan gauge is reading it wrong?

I've read that the Ranger runs hot on purpose. That's normal.

If you can get into DFCO you should feel a slight surge as it leaves (because engine braking suddenly lessens when fuel flow begins and adds power to the crankshaft).

Also, what water temps do you get on your scan gauge? mine seems awfully high, and it has no grill block of any kind. no other indications of it running hot, regular temp gauge is right in the center. could be the scan gauge is reading it wrong?

It does seem high. Even in the middle of winter with no grill block I was reaching 265 degrees.

Holy moly! 265! I woulda had a heart attack! i was nervous running at 235 last night. my van never got above 215 even with the grill fully taped! of course most people would never even know all this stuff without a scangauge hehe...

Yeah... I reach 265 every day (and it stays there once it gets there), but the highest I have ever gotten was 267.

It runs hot, but it's very good about keeping the temp from going any higher. Once I hit 265 it doesn't go any higher unless I am heading up a nasty hill with a partial grill block.

It does seem high. Even in the middle of winter with no grill block I was reaching 265 degrees.

I'm in Florida and mine only goes up to the 230s. I'm not certain but I think the 2001.5 and later 2.3L Rangers have the same powertrain.

Lugnuts001 does have a point. Mine might have some differences from the ones you all have.

If I were a real world driver I would regularly be running with temps of 255- 260, but since the engine's off half the time, I'm usually running 235-247. I think the thermostat doesn't open up like I think it should. When I top 260 I turn on the supplemental radiator (AKA the heater.)

Wow, i put on almost 200,000 miles on my first ranger without even ever knowing the temp!
last nite mine got up to the mid 230s, then I would do some ice off coasts to get down to 220. i was worried it was overheating, but looks now to be pretty much normal, I feel alot better, thanks all.

i was worried it was overheating, but looks now to be pretty much normal, I feel alot better, thanks all.

I feel sorry for some of the individuals on this site that are driving uncommon cars. If they find out something like this they don't have people available with extremely similar vehicles to compare with.

How many Ranger drivers do we have here? 10+?

Yeah my Mirage is one of those uncommon cars ;)
What I read on this site influenced me alot on buying the ranger. :)

The gearing of the Ranger would probably be your biggest enemy since most trucks are geared for pulling and loads rather than FE. I had a '84 Mazda B-2000 and it only averaged about 30-32 MPG and it's a smaller truck than the Ranger, but it wasn't fuel injected. I think you'd be working your butt off trying to get 40 out of a Ranger. I'm only averaging about 44 MPG in my '88 Escort with a 1.9L 4 speed manual tranny.

..... I think you'd be working your butt off trying to get 40 out of a Ranger. I'm only averaging about 44 MPG in my '88 Escort with a 1.9L 4 speed manual tranny.

I don't recall doing that well in my '91 Escort Wagon (1.9 Auto). The Ranger cruises nicely up to about 55. The brick-like aerodynamics kill you above that, but the tranny has a decent high gear.

Well, got my first tank logged ended up with 500.3 miles, used 13.89 gallons for 36.mpg.
Mostly highway miles up north and out west a couple of times. I was pokin' a little, but wasn't going extremely slow. usually 50-55, sometimes a little faster. but coasting ice off through occasional towns when I got the chance.
i was worried that the scangauge was giving me very optimistic numbers. I was even bummed more when the low fuel light came on and stayed on at 480 miles.
I was hoping it came on early and that I would only need 15 or so to fill at 500.
so I was quite suprised when it popped at 13.40! I thought no way, its a short fill!
I usually just go with what the pump gives me and let them average out, but I really wanted to find out for sure this time, so I squeezed the handle,and it popped again right away at 13.75. now way. one more time, this time it popped alot quicker 13.89! OK I believe it is full now ;) I guess the fuel light comes on early in this thing!
Well, I am happy, this little truck really gets good fe! I was hoping for 10 mpg more than my van, and got that goal the first tank!, and hey I beat the EPA.....of my Mirage! (33):D

The gearing of the Ranger would probably be your biggest enemy since most trucks are geared for pulling and loads rather than FE. I had a '84 Mazda B-2000 and it only averaged about 30-32 MPG and it's a smaller truck than the Ranger, but it wasn't fuel injected. I think you'd be working your butt off trying to get 40 out of a Ranger. I'm only averaging about 44 MPG in my '88 Escort with a 1.9L 4 speed manual tranny.

You know, I was sceptical too. even after nailing a few over 40 mpg trips without a whole lot of work, I wasn't convinced, thinking the scangauge was way over reporting. but after seeing what my little ranger can do these few days, I think I will have many over 40 runs this year.
Now if you are talking 40 for an average on tanks, that may be hard, since I am a courier and have to put up with everything from high priority rush delieverys were I gotta get it there fast, to gridlock, to crawling through downtown construction. I don't think a 40 average is in reach for me. (not that Im not gonna try ;) )
BUT
If I was just using it to commute to a job and back every day, and could pick out my routes where I could drive the way I want, I think I could average well over 40 with minnimal effort.

I also hypermile an older subcompact car with a 4 speed, and I had the same problem getting out of the mid to upper 40s, until I discovered the problem, to low of gearing for highway speeds! I started avoiding roads where I had to go over 50 and I started getting into the mid fifties, with one at 63!

With the miles you drive, it's probably cost-effective to do some Phil Knox work on your truck.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/phil-knox-aerodynamics-photo-albums-3541.html

This one especially: http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-aerohead-albums-pickup-images-picture151-texas-tech-shows-aeroshell-most-promising-truck-aero.jpg

Hey, those are pretty cool! Thanks andrew.
right now I have an aluminum top level with the roofline.
The fiberglass toppers are more smooth, but they are heavier too, I don't know if it makes much of a difference.

Hi Michael:

___Best tank was 51 mpgUS with no mods becaue imho, they really do not add all that much... Your Ranger can do damage to the EPA at anything below 60 mph but its going to take a lot of work unfortunately :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Michael:

___Best tank was 51 mpgUS with no mods becaue imho, they really do not add all that much... Your Ranger can do damage to the EPA at anything below 60 mph but its going to take a lot of work unfortunately :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne


Well, I did beat the EPA of my Mitsubishi with my first tank :D
I usually stay below 55, and only 60 if i have a delivery that is running late..

I think I am going to pass on the aeromods, I think that would go over like a lead zepplin (and look like one too) for the delivery biz ;)
driving 5-10 mph slower has little effect on my delivery times unless it is a long out of town run.

What about changing the rear differential gearing to something really low? Probably would be easy to find one at your local salvage yard for little $$$

Just a quick search shows a 3.73 and a 4.10, if you have the 4.10 a 3.73 would be a big gain for mpg. You may even be able to get a lower ration from an aftermarket supplier.

No, I don't think I want to mess with it, it already gets great mileage. now my older vehicles, I might be interested in changing the gearing, like my mitsubishi is way to low geared for highway cruising speeds above 45 mph. any suggestions?

The mitsu might not be possible, being a transaxle and not having a seperate rear differential like the ranger. There are some options for a few cars with transaxles for gearing but they tend to be more for the street racing crowd - like eclipse/civic cars.

A quick search didn't turn up any optional gears for the mirage. The other way to change the gearing is to change the tire size to a non stock size.

yeah, dont want racing gears for the sultan of slow, hehe.
mine is a four speed, and my friend said he could put a five speed in from another mirage. that had my interest til I found out the five gets lower mpg! probably geared more for performance than economy is my guess.

Thats strange!? Most 5 spd trans v 4 speed trans have a higher 1st and 2nd but a lower 5th gear for hwy speeds. If you can find out what car the 5 speed came from we could probably find the exact gear ratios and compare you yours and find out for sure.

I think I want a higher 5th for highway for lower rpms, no?
anyways, I found out by checking my cars epa, vs the same car with a 5 speed, it was 1 or 2 higher I believe

Another quick look shows that there may be 2 different 5 speed manual transmissions. The VL has a standard 4 speed, the other models have a 5 speed, but the gs looks like it may have a unique engine/trans combination which was probably geared more for mph than mpg. A 5 speed from a non gs car may be something to consider.

I will check it out, thanks scott!

Back on topic
Ranger gave me 5 trips between 5 and 20 miles that were over 40 mpg!
the best one was 11 miles at 43.5 mpg!
Just a steady throttle at speeds under 60 on the highway gets me up there!

Nice work, Michael! :)

Thanks sean!
those numbers are from my scangauge on default setting, so reality might slap me come fill up time! ;)

150 miles today 38.5 mpg. tank up to 36.1, pretty good recovery after yesterdays medeocre average had my tank at 33.7:rolleyes:

Well, I was right, scangauge was still overreporting by over 3 mpg! I was kind of suspicious that those low 40s runs were coming way to easily, then even more today when going up a big incline I was still getting 32 mpg all the way up. Then when the fuel light came on 30 miles sooner. ended up with 33.3 mpg. that first day with the big run into the 40 mph wind killed me. oh well, it is a truck and I still beat the epa of my Mitubishi even, so i cant really complain!

It only gets better from here, Michael. ;)

Got my first over 40 trip since scangauge reset

41.1 mpg Bloomington to Plymouth 23 miles mostly highway...

Wow, i put on almost 200,000 miles on my first ranger without even ever knowing the temp!

The only reason I feel safe with my readings of 260+ is that the manufacturer's temp guage still reads just like it did for the first 80K miles.

I'm getting better and better with mine, but I still haven't managed a 40 mpg tank.

The good news is that I will probably hit Expert in 2 or 3 tanks! I just noticed I am within about 1.5%.

i get some nice 40 plus trips but as soon as I get to the down town crawl, my average drops like a rock! I would have to quit my work to get a 40 mpg tank I think. you never know though. if i could get a long run that is not a rush, warm, no wind, and no traffic it could happen ;) still much better than the van though! I tried all summer for a 30 mpg tank and got as close as 29.6 but never hit my goal.

i get some nice 40 plus trips but as soon as I get to the down town crawl, my average drops like a rock!

As long as I can avoid stopping, or dropping below 25 mph I find traffic to be no problem at all. Between 25 and 37 I can stay in 5th gear and get 50+ mpg. That's the part of my commute that saves me from the nasty highway and hills.

I'm getting closer to that 40MPG goal! SGII is reading 37.4MPG for the tank. I've had several short 40+MPG trips doing less than 10 miles. What helps the most is I've been driving locally almost exclusively (mostly < or = 45MPH speed limit), staying at or below the limit and averaging 30MPH overall. I'm at 300 miles so far (according to SGII, the tripmeter says 303.4 though).

FYI Taliesin, I checked the max temp for the past two days and it's 220 both days. Even though I'm in FL, most of these miles are in the evening when it's in the 70s or 80s.

As long as I can avoid stopping, or dropping below 25 mph I find traffic to be no problem at all. Between 25 and 37 I can stay in 5th gear and get 50+ mpg. That's the part of my commute that saves me from the nasty highway and hills.

yes, I agree give me slow but moving traffic and my numbers soar! downtown for me is a traffic light on every block all timed wrong because of construction. the only good thing is even if I in there for a long time it is still not a lot of miles...

here I am parking at 80 S 8th st. (IDS tower)downtown Minneapolis. the roads and parking are so absurd i got out and walked 4 block to two different buildings to get packages

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/Cyberfish8/mt%20pilgrims%20pics/downtown.jpg

Nice driving lugnuts001! aint it great to beat the epa of most small cars made in a pickup! :)

I haven't managed 40 mpg yet, but I can smell it.

Last two tanks have been 38.7 and 38.3.

It seems my shorter fills are doing better for FE. Could it be that this 7 year old, 90K+ mile tank has something in it that's causing a problem?

Hi All:

___Since it was basically sitting in the drive and had not moved in over 6-months, I gave my Ranger to my parents and its last ride allowed a solid 50.3 mpgUS :ccry:

___I will borrow it maybe 2 to 3 times a year but it is in a good home as it will have a tank run through it every 3 to 6-months instead of year and a half.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I haven't managed 40 mpg yet, but I can smell it.

Last two tanks have been 38.7 and 38.3.

It seems my shorter fills are doing better for FE. Could it be that this 7 year old, 90K+ mile tank has something in it that's causing a problem?

Nice tanks!
I got a pretty good one cooking myself, 400 miles and still a quarter of a tank left.
That is weird you get less mpg with longer fills, less fuel means less weight to haul?

What do you use your truck for? do you haul some pretty good sized payloads?

Hi All:

___Since it was basically sitting in the drive and had not moved in over 6-months, I gave my Ranger to my parents and its last ride allowed a solid 50.3 mpgUS :ccry:

___I will borrow it maybe 2 to 3 times a year but it is in a good home as it will have a tank run through it every 3 to 6-months instead of year and a half.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Wow, nice last run! you are beating the epa of a Prius even! Glad you found a good home for it, may it continue to service your parents for many years! :)

What do you use your truck for? do you haul some pretty good sized payloads?

Unfortunately, none of those tanks are with a payload. :o

I do end up hauling about 200# of fishing equipment sometimes, but everything listed here is sans load.

The Ranger is still the better choice than the Ram, but those are my only choices for a daily driver right now.

Yeah I have plenty of runs with an empty bed too, just picking up tiny packages that fit in the front seat, if I had my way I would be loaded to the gills all day! But thats the transportation biz for ya! ;)
Wow 200 # of fishing equipment? what are you fishing for?
I fish almost every weekend, just went fly fishing yesterday.
I got lots of stuff too but i can usually stuff it inside my Mirage, when it is working ;)

Well I thought i had a really close to 40 mpg tank going but at fill time I wasn't even close, only 36.2 mpg
Wow getting a 40 is harder than I thought it would be. Anyone that can do it has got my respect for sure!
Had some good runs today, got a 43 on about a 18 mile run today...

Wow 200 # of fishing equipment? what are you fishing for?

If it swims, I'll fish for it (excluding mammals).

I used to haul all my fishing equipment all the time. This includes 8-10 poles ranging from 4' to 15', unltralight to heavy. 3 poles (9', 12', and 15') are dedicated to catfishing in some pretty hefty current that requires 4oz weights at a minimum (and a minimum cast distance of 50 yards, 100 is much better), so plenty of weight there too (lots of rocks, so you loose quite a few). Then add the gear for all the other types of fishing...

I hauled 200# of fishing gear all the time, but never used more than 80# at a time (and only that much for the catfishing). I have cut this down to one or two poles all the time (quick bass fishing trips during lunch or after work, so maybe 10#) and then hauling more for dedicated fishing trips.

I keep getting the feeling I'm right on the edge of finding a secret that'll get me to 40+, but it keeps eluding me. Maybe just finding a few more spots to P&G.

I caught a duck once! :D have you looked at my blog yet? I get some great fishin pics up every week.

Here is one thing i learned that makes me willing to fas more. You probably know this already if your ranger is like mine. I find that instead of turning the accessories off then on again, I found that if i carefully start pulling the key toward me until the tach goes down to 0 and holding it there a second before putting it back on all the way, I can kill the ice without temporarlly turning off the radio, turn signals, etc..
plus the scangauge seems to go 9999 a bit faster when i do this too. sometimes it will fire up again if i go to on too quickly. but usually it works fine.

I caught a duck once! :D have you looked at my blog yet? I get some great fishin pics up every week..

Unfortunately I can't get to that site from here. I'll have to check on one of the rare times I get the internet at home.

Here is one thing i learned that makes me willing to fas more. You probably know this already if your ranger is like mine...

I hadn't found that one yet. I'll have to try it. Loosing turn signals during a fas has been bugging me (I can live without the rest).

Hi All:

___... I gave my Ranger to my parents....

___I will borrow it.... but it is in a good home ....

.....

___Wayne


That's the best way to "own" any vehicle.

That reminds me, I need to stop lending cars to my sons.:)

Had my first 50 mpg trip today! 10 miles from bloomington to minneapolis, everything came together perfect. Hot weather, a tailwind, all highway with most in a 45 mph construction zone. Mostly DWL and nice on glides. when i got close to the downtown exit i saw I was getting close and shut off the ice for the last glide into town to the first stoplight to get me over! :D
Actually the scangauge reported 49.2 mpg, but i have it set to report about 1.5 mpg low to push me a bit harder ;)

Hi Michael:

___Way to go!!!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Hi Michael:

___Way to go!!!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Thanks for setting the bar high! and encouraging people to go for it! I saw what you did in your last run in your Ranger and said I want some of that! :D

I've not made it to 40 mpg in my Ranger yet, but I've managed some 36 and 38 mpg runs. Great mileage for a truck!

I've not made it to 40 mpg in my Ranger yet, but I've managed some 36 and 38 mpg runs. Great mileage for a truck!

yeah were beating the epa of all those tiny cars wizzing by us eh? keep it up! i predict you will get 40 and more !

I hadn't found that one yet. I'll have to try it. Loosing turn signals during a fas has been bugging me (I can live without the rest).

Have you tried it yet? it is nice to be able to do a fas when aproaching a turn without losing your blinkers and confusing drivers around you!

Have you tried it yet? it is nice to be able to do a fas when aproaching a turn without losing your blinkers and confusing drivers around you!

I have done it, and I am working a little more on it. Just turn it towards ACC until the RPMs drop, hold it, then back to RUN. I've almost got it to the point where I can do it without thinking about it much. I still overshoot it a little sometimes. It's a small spot there, but it can be found.

Cool! :thumbs_up:

Still not there, but the smell is beginning to be overwhelming.

The only thing that stopped me was one morning that I was half an hour late. I only managed 35 mpg that morning.

The final result for this tank was 39.85 mpg.

I finally did it.
604 miles on 14.961 gallons
40.4 mpg

Wow you are getting good! nice work! :thumbs_up:

The tonneau is actually a 'test' chunk of plywood the width of the truck, about 30" long, mounted at the rear of the bed...

I'm starting a test as well. It'll be 48" long, but it looks like it will be really easy to remove and install for when I need more than 2' of bed.

I haven't got the cover on yet. I have the materials, but just haven't gotten around to cutting and placing.

However, I have managed to get my 3rd 40+ tank in a row.

And to toot my own horn, my FE challenge mpg just passed xcel's lifetime mpg. :)

Most excellent! :D:thumbs_up:

I feel pretty good about my Ranger right now.

My FE challenge rating just met ILAveo's lifetime average (and that's a pretty tough goal to meet). I don't think I'll be able to match that next time.
I just logged my 6th 40+ tank in a row.

I'm going to try like crazy for a #7, but cold weather is already moving in. We've had a few mornings in the 40s already.

I've set up my sig to show the learning curve I've gone through. My lifetime average of 34.4 is weak compared to the more recent ratings, but all that proves is that I am learning more and more.

Well, I was right, scangauge was still overreporting by over 3 mpg! I was kind of suspicious that those low 40s runs were coming way to easily, then even more today when going up a big incline I was still getting 32 mpg all the way up...

Yeah, I'm reaching back in time on this thread, but I noticed your mpg going up the hill here.

And I realised that I usually DWL up a hill at 30 mpg (35 if I can get away with it). On the highway part of my commute that will drop me to 45 mph from 55.

And then going downhill I'll go for 50-60 (or FAS if I can get away with it).

Mine might have some differences from the ones you all have.

I was looking at my Ranger not long ago and I noticed/remembered that I have "special" wheels on mine.

And it looks like they are starting to flake and wear out.

It it possible that these old wheels are heavier than the stock wheels, therefore affecting FE?

Either way, I am looking at taking it in soon for the 100K mile maintenance. I should see a little improvement from that as well, especially since I will have the steering looked at. It just started to shudder when taking corners.

Maybe it is all those speed bumps taking a toll? :(

Maybe it is all those speed bumps taking a toll? :(

I don't think so. These are the wierdest speed bumps I have ever seen. About 6" high and very gradual at 20' long.

I think it's just age finally catching up to it. 7.5 years and just shy of 100K miles. I rather expect some things to start wearing out now since the only things I have replaced are the tires and the clutch.

Yeah... I really need to see about chaning the brakes and battery. :o

I don't know about the brakes -- my Elantra is the same age and has the same number of miles, still has the original clutch and still has the original brake pads. <shrug>

My 03 has a little less mileage, but may beat the Elantra in Ton-Miles ;). Only thing I've spent maintenance/repair money on is wiper blades, washer fluid, and oil and filter changes.

I'll put some money into it this Spring though, it could use tires and the Driver's side parking brake cable is seized(currently disconnected) so I'll be recabling the parking brakes and putting fresh brake shoes on it when the weather warms up--Taliesin might want to check his brake cables--having to tear into your seized brakes in a random parking lot stinks. The front end feels a little loose too, so I probably could use fresh tie rod ends. The paint flaking off my steel rims doesn't bother me enough to make me want to buy new ones.

Taliesin might want to check his brake cables--having to tear into your seized brakes in a random parking lot stinks...

I had them check the brakes and battery when I had the 100K maintenance done, and even the brake pads were fine. The battery had to be replaced, but I can't complain about that since it was 7.5 years old.

And I might be pulling the 40 mpg tanks a bit sooner this year. Filled today with:

552.2 miles
14.707 gallons
37.5 mpg

Barely stayed above EPA this winter in mine, lots of highway driving at the psl plus cold and snow, not good...

I don't know about the brakes -- my Elantra is the same age and has the same number of miles, still has the original clutch and still has the original brake pads. <shrug>

hard to wear out your pads when you are always coasting to a stop eh? :p

Pretty much. ;)

hard to wear out your pads when you are always coasting to a stop eh? :p

Well... Only a little over a year of hypermiling on them.

Though I have always been kinder to my brakes than most people.

I have always been a hypermiler and didn't know it. I have never averaged below highway EPA with a vehicle.

I have a 94 2.3 m5 ranger, I'm curious about what you guys think of this guys mods "Trash"

especially the cam timing changing and larger fuel injectors.

also, everyone with my era of ranger, pre-obdII should check out the website called the rangerstation. at the bottom left of there tech library page they have a nice walk through on how to hook up one of the mid 80's ford luxury car tripminder milage computers.

Hi Bonvagabond:

Welcome to CleanMPG.

I pulled the link to your Ranger site because except for the gearing, the rest is totally bunk. If you want 40 + mpg, you have the ability as it is spelled out. Playing games by pulling the CAT, adding a high flow air filter and lowering compression is dreaming in the worst way... And then to shoot for 30 mpg? Damn near hit 35 the last time I had the 5,000 pounder attached to the 03 Ranger and there is a lot more where that comes from while still meeting any emissions standard in the world!

Good Luck

Wayne

Yeah, was underwhelmed with his numbers. I'm an engineering student, but don't know enough about engines, I thought the cam timing change thing might be something. Also I could see the larger injectors maybe helping "IF" somehow it did let it idle lower like he talks about "AND" the computer would meter the air/fuel exactly the same as a smaller injector "UNLESS" you stomped on the gas, which non of us would do of course. :-)

Doing pretty well, I swapped my 79 bronco with a 7.5 liter engine, 10.2mpg mixed, for a 94 ranger 2.3liter. Haven't driven it yet, in middle of swapping in a spankin new clutch. Amazon had some weird overstock/misprint deal, 36 bucks for a clutch kit instead of 136 which it shot up to the next day. So I was meant to get a little ranger :-)

Only mods I am going to do are:

pizza pan hub caps

buddy has a free to me explorer rear axel with a track lock in it to make it act better out in the boonies without killing mpg like 4x4, also has a 450lb greater load capacity and much bigger brakes, to help the little truck act like a big truck and keep me from getting a big gas guzzling truck. I am a shipwright by trade, so I do actually need a truck.

aero bed cover, I think it will be soft and snap/tie on, so I can take it off and stuff it behind the seat if I need to carry more stuff.

Finish hooking up tripminder economy computer.

keep on truckin'

Hi Bonvagabond:

Welcome to CleanMPG.

I pulled the link to your Ranger site because except for the gearing, the rest is totally bunk. If you want 40 + mpg, you have the ability as it is spelled out. Playing games by pulling the CAT, adding a high flow air filter and lowering compression is dreaming in the worst way... And then to shoot for 30 mpg? Damn near hit 35 the last time I had the 5,000 pounder attached to the 03 Ranger and there is a lot more where that comes from while still meeting any emissions standard in the world!

Good Luck

Wayne

I think that you are probably right, Wayne. I spend a fair amount of time at a couple of the Ranger forums and I've done quite a bit of reading there and elsewhere on the web. Modern vehicles are largely optimized around the average consumer, which leaves some room for improvement, but it takes a deeper understanding of mechanics and engineering to leverage. Also, no miracles in a bottle - secret potions to make the engine run cleaner and faster. My informal mileage studies in my vehicles over the past year or so indicated to me that driving habits are key in the attempt to optimize FE. I read through your introductory post, learned the CleanMPG vernacular amongst things, but also that many of the driving techniques you mention were already in my toolbox. Good to know I was on a path well worn.

Anyway, glad I found the site. Looking forward to optimizing my FE for whichever vehicle I drive. Mainly my Ranger these days, but either Honda when the mood, or weather, suits it.

Kevin