Mileage

[1994xlt]

Hey yall, what do you guys get from your ranger I drive a 1994 ford ranger xlt extended cab with 4x4 an my god I’ve been getting 10!!!!!! 10 MILES A GALLON and I’m yes I’m not the easiest on the throttle but I’m not absolutely gunning it everywere like right now I’m at 52 miles and at a quarter tank so I think somewhere I’m loosing mpg if I’m getting 10 and the rated mpg for these was 14-16 mph I am driving mostly city driving and it is cold could that be why? I don’t know just curious about it. Thanks

 

[1994xlt]

Hey yall, what do you guys get from your ranger I drive a 1994 ford ranger xlt extended cab with 4x4 an my god I’ve been getting 10!!!!!! 10 MILES A GALLON and I’m yes I’m not the easiest on the throttle but I’m not absolutely gunning it everywere like right now I’m at 52 miles and at a quarter tank so I think somewhere I’m loosing mpg if I’m getting 10 and the rated mpg for these was 14-16 mph I am driving mostly city driving and it is cold could that be why? I don’t know just curious about it. Thanks

It does have no cats and it has the original muffler I do believe? Not sure on the original muffler part.

 

[gaz]

@1994xlt
The 4×4 Explorer 1994 OHV 4.0l was rated @ just over 22 mpg highway with an automatic and just over 23 mpg using a manual transmission (these numbers are for the sequential fuel injection OHV 4.0l version, not the Federal which are 10% lower)).

If your Ranger achieves lower fuel economy than the Ford Explorer's expected numbers, I believe that improvements in your vehicles fuel economy can be attained, due to horse power to weight ratios; the Explorer weighs significantly more than the Ranger with the exact same power output, hence the Ranger should appreciate improved fuel economy over the more massive Explorer.

Since there were two versions of the Ford OHV 4.0l in 1994, the Federal and the California Emissions versions (sporting sequential fuel injection worth +10% fuel economy) I would first determine which version your Ranger is using ..)

 

[1994xlt]

It’s got the federal emissions

@1994xlt
The 4×4 Explorer 1994 OHV 4.0l was rated @ just over 22 mpg highway with an automatic and just over 23 mpg using a manual transmission (these numbers are for the sequential fuel injection OHV 4.0l version, not the Federal which are 10% lower)).

If your Ranger achieves lower fuel economy than the Ford Explorer's expected numbers, I believe that improvements in your vehicles fuel economy can be attained, due to horse power to weight ratios; the Explorer weighs significantly more than the Ranger with the exact same power output, hence the Ranger should appreciate improved fuel economy over the more massive Explorer.

Since there were two versions of the Ford OHV 4.0l in 1994, the Federal and the California Emissions versions (sporting sequential fuel injection worth +10% fuel economy) I would first determine which version your Ranger is using .

 

[gaz]

@1994xlt
How did you determine this

 

[1994xlt]

@1994xlt
How did you determine this

Truck wasn’t sold in California, there’s probably a sticker under the hood too tell me 100% I assume if so I’ll check in a bit here

 

[pacstud]

98 2.5 RWD Manual

24mpg

I drive like an old person. I may also be an old person.

 

[gaz]

@1994xlt
While there are several identify features the simplest way is to look at the engine, driver's side...if you have the EGR system despite where it was sold, it is the California Emissions SFI version.

 

[1994xlt]

Okay I’ll check that out I’ll look up what it looks like and get back

 

[gaz]

@1994xlt
If you have the EGR system, there will be an approximately ¾" stainless steel tube branching off your exhaust manifold, connecting to the EGR sensor on the upper intake manifold (driver's side as in pic ).

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

So…

Just because the truck wasn’t sold in California doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have California emissions. Single 2.25” pipe flows just fine for stock, 2.5” for modified/forced induction.

No cat is Federally illegal and not having one hurts performance. I’ve put universal aftermarket cats on most of mine. Personally I’m a fan of Flowmaster 40 series or super 44 on a 4.0 for the muffler.

10-12 mpg indicates problems. There are a pile of possibilities. I try to keep up with full tune-ups as needed to ensure that everything is good from that angle. Spark plugs should be Motorcraft or Autolite and either copper or double platinum. I prefer double platinum. Fuel filter every 20-30k. Air filter as needed. Plug wires when I replace plugs, standard wires from Autozone work fine for stock or nearly stock motors and they are lifetime warranty so I just take them back when they need replacing. Oil with a Motorcraft filter (K&N, Mobile1 and other higher end filters are ok, NEVER use Fram or STP).

Oxygen sensors typically last 10 years or 100k miles before the catalyst that makes them work is used up. Buy Bosch for replacements.

Other sensors can wear out/fail.

MAF (Mass Air Flow) can usually be cleaned but sometimes needs replaced.

IAC (Intake Air Temperature) sometimes fails but usually gets coated in oil and carbon and can be cleaned.

PCV valve when it gets weak/stuck will let oil into the intake that messes with stuff.

Coolant temp sensor is one that often gets overlooked, your truck has two sensors, one is the single wire for the dash “gauge” and the other is a 2-wire for the computer. If the 2-wire sensor goes bad, you don’t see that indicated on the dash, but your computer will think the engine is cold and will run rich.

Then there’s the big one… the computer (ECU/ECM). The capacitors in there have a lifespan and a blown capacitor or three will cause problems. The only way to find out is to open up the computer and check. Then you have 3 choices if they are blown… 1) repair the computer yourself with new capacitors and anything else damaged, 2) try a junkyard computer (there’s no guarantee you’ll find one without the same problem or won’t develop a problem so this is a risky one), or 3) get a remanufactured one/send yours to be remanned.

My Choptop was getting 12 mpg with a 4.0 being run on a 91 Ranger system. I finally bought a remanned computer for it (it’s a manual and I had been running it on an auto computer because I was having trouble finding the correct computer). Popped the cover off the old computer and found all three capacitors popped and took out a couple resistors. Put a new oxygen sensor in because it wasn’t that expensive. Runs better than it ever has now and my fuel economy has jumped significantly. I’m not sure what it is right now but I’m betting at least 15-18 mpg. Not bad for running on 35” tires

 

[19Walt93]

If the cats were removed, what else did they modify? A cold air intake is a bad idea in the winter, for example. Is the engine getting fully warmed up? A low temp thermostat will hurt mileage in cold weather. Are you running 5w30? Thicker oil hurts mileage, especially when cold. The stop and go driving in a city really hurts mileage and you can't fix that.
Was it getting 10mpg before the weather cooled off? We used to figure cold weather reduced mileage by around 10% and snow tires cost another 10%. Oversize or aggressive tires will reduce mileage and if the pressure is low it's worse. When you're idling the truck to warm it up-like many people do- or sitting at a red light, you're getting zero mpg. We had a big increase in low mpg complaints when remote start systems appeared because people didnt-or wouldn't understand that gets zero mpg. My personal experience when NH adopted gasoline polluted with alcohol showed a 5% drop in mileage.
I'd rather see an engine warmed up a little before driving, even at the cost of reduced mileage.

 

[1994xlt]

If the cats were removed, what else did they modify? A cold air intake is a bad idea in the winter, for example. Is the engine getting fully warmed up? A low temp thermostat will hurt mileage in cold weather. Are you running 5w30? Thicker oil hurts mileage, especially when cold. The stop and go driving in a city really hurts mileage and you can't fix that.
Was it getting 10mpg before the weather cooled off? We used to figure cold weather reduced mileage by around 10% and snow tires cost another 10%. Oversize or aggressive tires will reduce mileage and if the pressure is low it's worse. When you're idling the truck to warm it up-like many people do- or sitting at a red light, you're getting zero mpg. We had a big increase in low mpg complaints when remote start systems appeared because people didnt-or wouldn't understand that gets zero mpg. My personal experience when NH adopted gasoline polluted with alcohol showed a 5% drop in mileage.
I'd rather see an engine warmed up a little before driving, even at the cost of reduced mileage.

It was getting 13 when it was 70-80 out, I’m running the oil the motor says it takes, I let it warm up 10 mins in the morning it’s been 20 or colder outside it’s go stock tires, it’s not leveled or anything, has stock intake,

 

[1994xlt]

@1994xlt
If you have the EGR system, there will be an approximately ¾" stainless steel tube branching off your exhaust manifold, connecting to the EGR sensor on the upper intake manifold (driver's side as in pic ).

My truck ain’t got a EGR system

 

[superj]

What size and brand tires?

Tires can cause a significant lose in gas mileage, not by size, but by weight.


I get 19mpg on the highway in my 04 with 5 speed and 3.0 but only 14-15mpg in town because of traffic.


i run michelin defenders in the stock size 235. I tried some cool lo9king tires that were 30s and my mileage dropped about 3 mpg. You didn't norice any driving change but wow, the gas mileage changed. I took them off after one tank of gas.