Newer (90's) versus Older (80's) Ranger fuel economy

[sdevine]

Alright Ranger Experts! I have some questions and perhaps this will be a good discussion. I have been researching fuel economy on the Ranger 4cyl trucks, and the best mileage was the 1983 model boasting 34 mpg. I have the 1992 XLT with the 2.3, and mine never gets more that 20 if I am lucky. Now, I realize that I am still working through some issues, but the numbers published are not better that 18-21 mpg on my year model. This is 2wd with the manual 5 speed. Why the big disparity? It's not like the 1992 model is a speed demon or huge hauler either. So, does anyone know what is different, and what can be done to boost economy- since I am not getting big performance, I would like better mileage.

On the same note, what mods are people doing to boost economy and or performance? I ran across a couple things so far- change to a lower gear ratio in the rear dif, or add a performance chip like the PCR. My truck is running a 7.5 inch with a gear ratio of 3.45. I understand that the 8.8 dif is better with limited slip and the R5 rear dif would be close to my ratio at 3.55, and is a popular upgrade. What has your experience been with changing gear ratios?

Engine performance- Are there any popular mods to the EFI 2.3 with 8 spark plugs that yield better mileage? I found the PCR chip that makes big claims to horsepower and economy- which the 2.3 has neither of. Give me some ideas please!

 

[Ranger850]

I drove 1983 Ranger with a carb'd 2.0. Never did I get near 30 mpg. I had a manual 4spd though. and I was a high school kid.

 

[dvdswan]

I get between 24-26 with my 3.0L auto. Don't know the axle gear though. Never seen 30+ in any little truck though.

 

[Sloryd66]

My 99 B2500 with the 2.5L is lucky to get 20 with a lot of highway driving and grandma’ing it everywhere with 4.10’s in it. I thought it would take a huge hit after the recent lift and going to 265/65 (30.5”) tires from the 225/75 (29.5”) but it’s remained pretty much the same. I’m averaging about 17-18mpg. I recently had a pvc valve fail creating a vacuum leak and it threw a code and tanked the mpg down to about 12mpg until I fixed it. It’d be nice if I could get a little more power out of mine…especially with the A/C on which is most of the year here in Florida. I couldn’t imagine what I’d get if it wasn’t flatlands like it is here.

 

[superj]

i bet my little truck would get mid 20s with the 3.0 and five speed if i drove around 55-60 mph. driving 80-85 on the highway and i get 18.5 every tank. and if i am in town a complete tank, i get 18.

i would like the truck to get better since my full size crew cab 5.6 liter v8 4x4 titan gets almost the same on the highway but for some reason, it never works out.

when my dad had a fleet of 2.3 powered rangers and mazdas, we normally got in the low 20s driving them all over south texas. great trucks and engines, thats for sure

 

[superj]

fuelly is showing exactly what you said though. that early ranger gets great mileage while all the later are in the low 20s and high teens.

Ford Ranger MPG - Actual MPG from 3,654 Ford Ranger owners (fuelly.com)

 

[CrabGuy]

My 04 4.0L 4x4 w/ 4:10's consistently gets 20-21 mpg driving the interstate @70-75 mph to and from Oregon. I'm very happy with that and was actually surprised. I've had smaller engines in mid sized trucks and the mileage was always less than that if any long grades or higher altitudes were involved. I had a 94 4x4 Ranger with the 4.0L, manual trans that never got over 18 no mattter how I babied it.

 

[fastpakr]

My '84 B2 with a 2.8/5 speed got (IIRC - it's been a while) 26 once when I was intentionally trying to max out a tank. Low 20's on the highway was typical. The '86 that I had a couple of years later could manage 24mpg in the same situation. I've never gotten above 22mpg with a 4.0, and after the 5.0 swap I'm getting 13-17mpg.

 

[Bill]

Alright Ranger Experts! I have some questions and perhaps this will be a good discussion. I have been researching fuel economy on the Ranger 4cyl trucks, and the best mileage was the 1983 model boasting 34 mpg. I have the 1992 XLT with the 2.3, and mine never gets more that 20 if I am lucky. Now, I realize that I am still working through some issues, but the numbers published are not better that 18-21 mpg on my year model. This is 2wd with the manual 5 speed. Why the big disparity? It's not like the 1992 model is a speed demon or huge hauler either. So, does anyone know what is different, and what can be done to boost economy- since I am not getting big performance, I would like better mileage.

The EPA rating for the 2.0L with a manual was 28 mpg on the highway. I doubt it achieved that in the real world. EPA fuel economy for a 1992 2.3L with a manual is listed at 28 mpg. I think most people get around 24-26. As for disparities, power steering, air conditioning, and other option became standard over time. These options use a little gas to power. They also add weight to the vehicles.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

Sometime back then they changed the tests, so the same truck would get a lower, more realistic fuel mileage. That may be why the discrepancy.

 

[superj]

That's true.

 

[sdevine]

All good inputs! So it seems well established that the way the mpg was calculated changed, as to make it more in line with real life driving. There is still a discrepancy that Bill pointed out of adding power steering, A/C etc. So one of you is running 4.10 gear ratio and still getting better mileage than me! Ha! My research uncovered that the lower the gear ratio, the more economy and less acceleration you have- to a point I am sure. My gear ratio is already lower. It seems that this is an area that people have not explored much, so I am going to start looking for mods that might help. The first I found is this chip at https://performancechiprevamp.com/ford-ranger-performance-chip. I am going to look into this and see what I can find out, as well as other mods that might help boost performance and or mileage. If anyone wants to join me on this quest, then search out what mods you find and let me know. If it is within reason, I will try them out. I am going to start with the chip and perhaps upgrading my rear diff- which I think is going to need attention anyway.

 

[fastpakr]

That 'chip' looks like one of the myriad resistor mods that have popped up over the years. They're nothing but snake oil.

 

[19Walt93]

I bought my father's 83 Ranger 2wd,short box, 2.0, 4 speed stripy in 89 after he died. It had 3.08 gears and 195/75r14's, didn't have enough power to pull it's hat off, and got low 20's with me driving carefully for mileage- in the NH hills.
One note- lower gears means higher numerical gears- 4.10's would be lower than 3.45's. Maybe because top speed would be lower with 4.10's, but that's how their defined. With your 3.45's in overdrive (approx .70:1), your final drive ratio is 2.4. If Texas is as flat as I think it is, that might work, here you'd spend your life in 3rd and 4th gear so going to 3.73 or 4.10 would be apt to increase mileage.
An early Ranger would be lighter and that would help mileage, as would burning 100% gasoline instead of E10 or E15.
I have never owned a vehicle that I couldn't consistently exceed the EPA mileage estimate.
I like your credo "Never give up". Remember, it's not being stubborn, it's being persistent and determined. Stubborn is what people without discipline call it.

Another thought. If you're up for a teardown, the 2.3 in Pintos, Mustang II's, and fox bodies used to respond well to planing the head to boost compression- up to about .030". You'll have to get an adjustable cam sprocket to correct the timing and forget about 87 octane gas.

 

[Bill]

My 99 B2500 with the 2.5L is lucky to get 20 with a lot of highway driving and grandma’ing it everywhere with 4.10’s in it. I thought it would take a huge hit after the recent lift and going to 265/65 (30.5”) tires from the 225/75 (29.5”) but it’s remained pretty much the same. I’m averaging about 17-18mpg. I recently had a pvc valve fail creating a vacuum leak and it threw a code and tanked the mpg down to about 12mpg until I fixed it. It’d be nice if I could get a little more power out of mine…especially with the A/C on which is most of the year here in Florida. I couldn’t imagine what I’d get if it wasn’t flatlands like it is here.

If you changed the tire size without recalibrating the speedometer, your new mileage calculations are invalid.