v8 swap mpg

kcarsey · Mar 7, 2014

Post up your mpg numbers in your efi 302 swapped ranger. Particularly looking for 4wd rangers with 4r70w but any input appreciated. Also tore size, gear ratio, etc. Trying to make a final decision between 302 and diesel swap in my 99' 4x4 off road extended cab. Hoping for 20mpg highway with 33's. Thanks

RonD · Mar 7, 2014

1999 Explorers with 5.0l are 500lbs heavier and "claimed" 18mpg hwy, so more like 16 in real world.

You are adding maybe 100lbs with engine and with larger tires?? extra weight plus extra wind resistance

20mpg would probably be out of range, maybe 18 mpg on an all hwy trip, staying around 50mph....with a tail wind all the way.

Diesel's get better MPG since there is more energy per gallon than gasoline, but they are also heavier and a narrower powerband

kcarsey · Mar 7, 2014

I keep seeing guys with 20+ mpg numbers but I'm guessing most are 2wd with 3.27 or 3.55 gears and a 5 speed. I'd be doing 4.10 and 33's with auto so I'm prob dreaming.
I want to keep the truck near stock fit and finish that's why I like the 302 but I think I can do as well with a diesel swap.

okietheranger · Mar 10, 2014

I get about 11 or so on hwy. rebuilt 5.0hO with e cam 6" lift on 33" and no435 tranny and 373 gears!

6.2 · Mar 10, 2014

if mpg is a main concern go with a cummins 4bt.

RonD · Mar 10, 2014

kcarsey said:
I keep seeing guys with 20+ mpg numbers but I'm guessing most are 2wd with 3.27 or 3.55 gears and a 5 speed. I'd be doing 4.10 and 33's with auto so I'm prob dreaming.
I want to keep the truck near stock fit and finish that's why I like the 302 but I think I can do as well with a diesel swap.

Ranger owners are a good bunch, very helpful for the most part.

But when it comes to MPG many people......well, don't lie out right, but lets just says the truth is given a quick nod as they pass it by

Gasoline V8 in a truck, even a lighter truck, would be lucky to get 15mpg driving around town, you might be able to flirt with 20mpg on a long trip if you stayed below 55mph, and there was no head wind.

dangerranger83 · Mar 10, 2014

Im carbed, 5.0HO np435, 3.73s and 32s. Im getting 8mpg in town and 10 highway. But one guy running the same setup was getting 16 and I know I have room for improvements, just need to get the time to adjust my carb.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

stmitch · Mar 10, 2014

A v8, extended cab, auto trans, 4wd truck is going to weigh around 4000lbs easily. That's a fairly heavy vehicle. The 4.10s will hurt your hwy fuel economy too. Add in heavy, oversized tires, and it's a recipe for less than stellar fuel economy.

85_Ranger4x4 · Mar 10, 2014

stmitch said:
A v8, extended cab, auto trans, 4wd truck is going to weigh around 4000lbs easily. That's a fairly heavy vehicle. The 4.10s will hurt your hwy fuel economy too. Add in heavy, oversized tires, and it's a recipe for less than stellar fuel economy.

Should have fairly decent aero though... I mean if my 5000k 5.4 F-150 can flirt with 20mpg on stock rubber I think a decently set up late model Ranger with a V8 could come somewhat close.

I would be tempted to forget the 4BT and wait for the late model half ton Ram and Colorado diesels to hit the salvage market in a few years if you go the diesel route...

6.2 · Mar 10, 2014

Old diesel over modern diesel any day.

So much shit on the new ones.

Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk

stmitch · Mar 11, 2014

85_Ranger4x4 said:
Should have fairly decent aero though...

What?! Ranger's have horrible aerodynamics. The windshield is super upright. The underside is really cluttered and aerodynamically "messy". They have huge panel gaps that cause lots of turbulance. The coefficient of drag on an 01 Ranger is like .49. An 04 F-150 Lightning has a CoD of .36. (Just for comparison, an 06 Civic coupe has a CoD of .29)

6.2 · Mar 11, 2014

Well depends what you compare it to.

Compare it to a semi rangers are very aerodynamic

Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk

85_Ranger4x4 · Mar 11, 2014

stmitch said:
What?! Ranger's have horrible aerodynamics. The windshield is super upright. The underside is really cluttered and aerodynamically "messy". They have huge panel gaps that cause lots of turbulance. The coefficient of drag on an 01 Ranger is like .49. An 04 F-150 Lightning has a CoD of .36. (Just for comparison, an 06 Civic coupe has a CoD of .29)

Compare to a first or second gen and get back to me.

It obviously won't be great compared to a car but as far as trucks go it shouldn't be that bad. My 2002 F-150 has pretty much the same shapes and whatnot, drags around another half a ton wrapped in a much bigger carcass and can still got close to 20mpg with a V8 and the tires that Ford put on it. Still gets 15-17mpg hwy with 32" mud tires. Same body as a newer Lighting but much taller, 4wd, extended cab and has a steel box. With the exception of everything being bigger it has the same crap under it in pretty much the same locations as a '98+ Ranger.

For the .49 it just says "Ranger". Well all know what a Lightning is but it isn't that fair to compare say... a Level II FX4 to a Lightning.

http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List

6.2 said:
Old diesel over modern diesel any day.

So much shit on the new ones.

If an old diesel is legal to swap then delete stuff on the newer one. :icon_idea:

My thought was you wouldn't end up with a huge rough running four cylinder.

With an old one you are stuck with huge or tiny, there isn't much in between.

6.2 · Mar 11, 2014

Oh right. Forgot there's laws on swaps down there.

I'd still take a proven 30+ mpg 4bt over s new diesel that's had the crap removed

Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk

stmitch · Mar 11, 2014

85_Ranger4x4 said:
Compare to a first or second gen and get back to me.

It obviously won't be great compared to a car but as far as trucks go it shouldn't be that bad. My 2002 F-150 has pretty much the same shapes and whatnot, drags around another half a ton wrapped in a much bigger carcass and can still got close to 20mpg with a V8 and the tires that Ford put on it. Still gets 15-17mpg hwy with 32" mud tires. Same body as a newer Lighting but much taller, 4wd, extended cab and has a steel box. With the exception of everything being bigger it has the same crap under it in pretty much the same locations as a '98+ Ranger.

For the .49 it just says "Ranger". Well all know what a Lightning is but it isn't that fair to compare say... a Level II FX4 to a Lightning.

http://ecomodder.com/wiki/index.php/Vehicle_Coefficient_of_Drag_List

The OP wants to do the swap in his 99 Extended cab 4X4, not a squarebody. If the CoD listed is for an 01 level 2, it should be very similar to the OPs truck. If the CoD shown is for a base model 2wd ranger, then we can assume the OPs CoD would be slightly worse right? Either way, the aerodynamics of the Ranger, are worse than a newer F-150 like yours, or the lightning. Saying that his truck would have better aero than your F-150 isn't true.

v8 swap mpg

New Member

Official TRS AI

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Official TRS AI

5.0 HO under the hood!!!

March 2011 STOTM Winner

Forum Staff Member

Active Member

March 2011 STOTM Winner

Active Member

Forum Staff Member

Active Member

March 2011 STOTM Winner

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals