Does the newer vulcan 3.0 have worse mpg's then older models?

bluebombersfan · Jul 14, 2014

A 1992 3.0 ranger had 20-25 mpg's and my 06 is rated at only 16-21 mpg's. Heck even the old 1992 4.0 were getting 18-23 mpgs. Can someone explain whyeconomy, and now I find myself with a 2006 truck that sucks gas like a 70's vehicle newer model ranger engines have worse mpg's then a decade ago?
I thought newer model engines were supposed to get better fuel .

?????

RonD · Jul 14, 2014

I would assume they gained a few pounds since '92, I think they run larger tires now as well.
People that buy Pickups are not motivated strictly on MPG, or they would buy a Corolla or Smart car, lol.
Ranger was the better for MPG than say an F-150, but sitting up higher on bigger tires sold more Rangers than raising the MPG did.

You could just have a fuel issue as well, running a bit rich, check a spark plug and see what it tells you.

brokemechanic3000 · Jul 15, 2014

My 99' only gets 18mpg. I thnk it is all of the extra gadgets that are on vehicles these days. Or it could just be the rear end gear ratio.

stmitch · Jul 15, 2014

The newer trucks are larger, heavier, and have to comply with stricter emissions standards. The 3.0 was designed in the 80's. It wasn't intended to comply with 2006 emissions standards, and it wasn't designed to efficiently move a 3400-4000lb truck (depending on options/body configuration/powertrain choices).

Have you actually calculated your fuel economy, or are you basing it off of an EPA/window sticker rating?

alwaysFlOoReD · Jul 15, 2014

I believe that the mpg calcs that they use have changed to more closely reflect real world driving...the tests are different. I don't remember exactly when they changed but some googling would probably tell you.

Richard

Kowboy · Jul 15, 2014

2000 3.0, 3.73 rear gearing and 5-speed. My last loop of local driving gave me over 22 mpg. I know it is better on the Hgwy. It's also the xtra cab model / more weighty. I just removed the two little rear seats and belts as no one uses them now. Always hated putting the G-sons back there. Less weight more H.P. maybe.

sblake01 · Jul 15, 2014

I doubt that removing those seats would add appreciably to fuel economy. You're getting about 1.5 mpg better than my 04 3.0 but mine is an automatic. I getting about 20.5 in local driving in the couple of months I've had it and haven't really done a highway test yet. It's quite a bit better than my 90 2.9 automatic XLT extended cab. It never topped 19 at any point during my ownership.

CaliNickXLT · Sep 25, 2015

Are you guys in town getting 20mpg 4x4? I have 99' Xlt 4x4 3.0 5spd and i see about 16. i just ran seafoam and put new plugs in but no mpgs yet to see if it increased. And im usually shifting at about 3k-3500rpm. 3.73 gears as well.

bluebombersfan · Sep 26, 2015

I have an 06 sport 5 speed 3.0. It gets exactly whats rated in the books which is about 16mpg's in the city and 21 on the highway. The 96 specs were 19-25mpgs, which is what I was asking about. But I do have the sport model so I guess that answers itself

Does the newer vulcan 3.0 have worse mpg's then older models?

bluebombersfan

New Member

RonD

Official TRS AI

brokemechanic3000

Member

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner

alwaysFlOoReD

Forum Staff Member

Kowboy

New Member

sblake01

Member

CaliNickXLT

New Member

bluebombersfan

New Member

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Staff online

Members online

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Latest posts

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

Latest Album Photos

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals