Archives

Going into the gym yesterday, I saw a new Ranger pickup. It was nondescript...except it had the green leaf by the highway icon on the back I see on the FEH. Does that mean it runs on E85 or CNG?

I think CNG. E85 vehicles are usualy plastered with E85 stickers. I saw one the other day that had a 4"x4" or so square E85 sticker covering the gas door.

The leaf means it is a low emissions vehicle, my father has the same symbol on his 2001 Ranger. I would bet xcel's Ranger has the same symbol also.

GaryG

Hi Gary:

___I sure wish I had one of those Leaf emblems on my Ranger but unfortunately, the 03’s never had them :(

___What bothers me about this is how a symbol that really sets the FEH apart from all other Ford’s and all other automobiles in fact is in some form being diluted with a similar symbol on cars and trucks that really have no business being considered in the same league? Not that E85 capable automobiles are a bad thing (they are not for a number of reasons) but they sure are not your FEH by any stretch of the imagination either … On another note, look at that Ethanol futures on the Home page. It makes me want to build a still and start selling the stuff on the corner ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Being a "Ranger-Guy", i can tell you the leaf is for e85, the vehicles are 'flex-Fuels' that can run on any misture of Gas or E85.
http://www.babcox.com/editorial/us/elements/20628.gif

It is similaro to the Taurus one (above).

My Ranger should say DORF on it. And it should have a little yellow leaf on it.

psy

My Ranger should say DORF on it. And it should have a little yellow leaf on it.

psy

Okay, someone has got to ask so it may as well be me. DORF? :confused:

DORF. The inner-city school version of dwarf.

DORF. The inner-city school version of dwarf.

Or is it an acronym? "Dead On Road Ford" ? :confused:

Being a "Ranger-Guy", i can tell you the leaf is for e85, the vehicles are 'flex-Fuels' that can run on any misture of Gas or E85.
http://www.babcox.com/editorial/us/elements/20628.gif

It is similaro to the Taurus one (above).
Bingo! And to add to this: To the best of my knowledge, the only Ranger config's that are E85 capable are those equipped w/ the 3.0L Vulcan V6 from certain years. This was likely a result of it sharing the engine w/ the Taurus. The Ranger did not receive a lot of attention from Ford R&D. Most enhancements and improvements were hand-me-downs from more popular/profitable models that shared components, like the Explorer or Taurus. The Vulcan 3.0L is no exception.

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/3_0performance.html

Bingo! And to add to this: To the best of my knowledge, the only Ranger config's that are E85 capable are those equipped w/ the 3.0L Vulcan V6 from certain years. This was likely a result of it sharing the engine w/ the Taurus. The Ranger did not receive a lot of attention from Ford R&D. Most enhancements and improvements were hand-me-downs from more popular/profitable models that shared components, like the Explorer or Taurus. The Vulcan 3.0L is no exception.

http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/3_0performance.html

My dad's 2001 V6 Ranger only had the green leaf and no FFV information. In the link you provided, it said that:

"The Vulcan is a straightforward pushrod design, with 2 valves per cylinder. Bore is 3.504 in and stroke is 3.15 in. The engine was designed to use electronic fuel injection from the start (there was never a carburetor-equipped version), and was also sold in a "flexible fuel" configuration that could burn normal gasoline, E85 (a blend of 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol) or any mixture of these two fuels."

The "was also sold in a flexible fuel configuration" is the key to that statement I think. The green leaf without the FFV meant the vehicle was classified as at least LEV. I didn't know what the green leaf was until I got my FEH. When I noticed it on my Dad's Ranger, I thought is meant he had a FE I-4, but found out later it was a V6.

If the green leaf was for FFV only, I would think it could only run on ethanol mixtures and not on normal gas. My dad's Ranger was not designed for E-85 but still retained the green leaf for running on straight gas. My 2002 V8 Explorer has LEV on the window, but no green leaf anywhere.

GaryG

Hey, I could be wrong.. it happens.

But I was pretty sure the leaf logo equated to FFV/E85 support on both the Taurus and the Ranger. In fact I was under the impression that Ford strapped that logo on ALL of it's FFV/E85 capable vehicles. (Although 3.0L equipped Rangers and Tauri are the only ones I've seen in the wild.)

Incidentally I've been told that engine design is not the biggest hurdle when making a FFV/E85 vehicle; the plastic and rubber bits on the fuel delivery, injection, and intake systems are. Supposedly ethanol likes to dissolve these bits. I have always thought that the difference between 3.0L Rangers that were E85 capable and those that were not was one or more rubber/plastic bits.

A couple web-links supporting what I've been told:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-e85-ethanol-flex-fuel-works1.htm
Still, you'll need to look closely to identify one of these E85 ethanol flex-fuel vehicles. Some early E85 ethanol flex-fuel Fords carry a small road-and-leaf logo and decal reading "FFV,"..

http://proteus.pca.state.mn.us/publications/mnenvironment/fall2000/fuel.html
Ford FFVs may be identified by the "road and leaf" logo...

This page (http://www.aa1car.com/library/e85.htm) lists only the following Ranger years/packages as FFVs:
1999-2003 Ford 3.0L Ranger Supercab 2WD
1999-2000 Ford 3.0L Ranger Supercab 4WD
2000-2002 Ford 3.0L Ranger 4x2 extended cab pickups

Another fun bit of Ford/ethanol trivia is that the Ford Model T was a FFV. Reportedly Ford wanted farmers to be able to grow their own fuel in a pinch.

Hey, I could be wrong.. it happens.

But I was pretty sure the leaf logo equated to FFV/E85 support on both the Taurus and the Ranger. In fact I was under the impression that Ford strapped that logo on ALL of it's FFV/E85 capable vehicles. (Although 3.0L equipped Rangers and Tauri are the only ones I've seen in the wild.)

Incidentally I've been told that engine design is not the biggest hurdle when making a FFV/E85 vehicle; the plastic and rubber bits on the fuel delivery, injection, and intake systems are. Supposedly ethanol likes to dissolve these bits. I have always thought that the difference between 3.0L Rangers that were E85 capable and those that were not was one or more rubber/plastic bits.

A couple web-links supporting what I've been told:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-e85-ethanol-flex-fuel-works1.htm


http://proteus.pca.state.mn.us/publications/mnenvironment/fall2000/fuel.html

The statements in your quotes certainly give merit to "Most owners of these vehicles probably are not aware of their vehicles' alternative fuel capability. I didn't see FFV any where and this 2001 standard cab is not listed as a FFV vehicle. It doesn't make sense they would exclude the standard cab in the list, but I'll have my dad look to see if the manual allows FFV E-85 to be used. He moved to AR last year and I can't look myself. It would be nice if he had that choice though.

GaryG


This page (http://www.aa1car.com/library/e85.htm) lists only the following Ranger years/packages as FFVs:


Another fun bit of Ford/ethanol trivia is that the Ford Model T was a FFV. Reportedly Ford wanted farmers to be able to grow their own fuel in a pinch.

On the Ranger cab and bed sizes dictate wheelbase, which in turn dictates which gas tank you have. Shorter wheelbase configs have smaller tanks while larger configs have larger tanks. I would not be surprised if the fuel tank and/or other fuel delivery system components for some configs were E85 compatible while others were not.

The tank size bit gets interesting when folks start comparing how many miles they net from a tank.

Still, I'm surprised to hear of a Ford that has the leaf logo yet is NOT an FFV.