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

[Sloryd66]

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

It’s a 4.4% difference or .8/mpg give or take. According to hundreds of submissions to Fuelly….17-18mpg avg for the 2.5L 4 is the norm. It’s 23 years old so I live with it and switch off to driving my newer Jetta to work during the week which averages 24 in mixed driving.

 

[Blmpkn]

Please don't buy a chip from those shysters.

Please don't buy a chip from anyone. They're all snake oil.

FFS... the linked website doesn't even care enough to make its fake testimonials even slightly realistic

 

[Bill]

It’s a 4.4% difference or .8/mpg give or take. According to hundreds of submissions to Fuelly….17-18mpg avg for the 2.5L 4 is the norm. It’s 23 years old so I live with it and switch off to driving my newer Jetta to work during the week which averages 24 in mixed driving.

When you said that is the norm, I had to look it up. The original EPA is 18/23. It just seems so low to me, but that's what it is. I almost bought a 1999 with a 2.5L just before I bought the one I have now. I decided I wanted the newer engine for the extra power and fuel economy. Age shouldn't affect fuel economy if everything is in working order and oil changes have been done on schedule. I can still squeeze 30 mpg out of my 2.3L. Most of the time it is in the 26-28 mpg range, depending on how much city vs highway driving I do.

 

[snoranger]

My ‘02 with the 2.3l duratec gets 29-30 mpg. I’ve owned a few 2.3/2.5l trucks and got a best of 25-26 mpg.

 

[racsan]

my ‘88 2.3 manual (in a 2wd supercab chassis, 3.73’s with 205/75/14’s) got a very best 19 mpg -once. most of the time it was 23-26. My current ranger is a reg cab longbed 2wd , 2.3 manual, 4.10’s with 235/75/15’s gets 21 at best.
My favorite ranger was the ‘93 supercab, 4.0 manual, 3.73’s , 4wd & 235/75/15’s and it got 16-18 with a very best of 19-once.
Id take another 4.0 pushrod ranger anyday, while 4.10’s wake up a 2.3 , it still doesnt have the tourque of a 4.0 , it still amazed me that the 93 4x4 V6 got that good of milage, as equipped mine weighed in at 4,300 pounds. It still my favorite of all the rangers Ive owned.

 

[Bobs Ford Anger]

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.

Id think twice about that chip. 60hp from a chip isnt realistic at all,

 

[superj]

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.

Only very limited parts of texas are flat. Specifically, the southern parts from around three rivers and down, and west Texas.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Please don't buy a chip from those shysters.

Please don't buy a chip from anyone. They're all snake oil.

FFS... the linked website doesn't even care enough to make its fake testimonials even slightly realistic


View attachment 74753

It is even less realistic that some poor sap would put a chip in a 2001 Chrysler LHS...

 

[ekrampitzjr]

Gotta love those testimonials. "I put a Superduperchip in my Ranger and now I have 400 rear-wheel hp and 80 mpg! OMG! It really works!"

 

[sdevine]

Hey! Sorry I had been away! Y'all had sent me on a mission to find real solutions, and I think I have found a good path. For now, I am going to leave the rear diff where it is, but the 4.10 sounds interesting. The whole story is that the performance and drivability were way down, it was running way too rich, stalling at intersections, would do nothing but stumble in 5th gear. No worries- I stayed away from the chip! I saw that Sarah N Tuned was having the same symptoms with her V6 Ranger, and that she solved it with a new standalone ECU. After much research, I decided to do the same. So, the mods so far are a wide band O2 sensor, removal of the EGR, and a new ECU sporting a Megasquirt processor. My mileage has gone from 16 mpg city to 22 so far, and all the drivability issues are gone. I haven't taken any long trips yet to see what the highway mileage is, but I am hopeful for 26+. It has some zip to it finally, but not anything crazy, just what I would expect to have in a small truck. I am putting it on the show if you would like to follow along-

 

[Bobs Ford Anger]

Please don't buy a chip from those shysters.

Please don't buy a chip from anyone. They're all snake oil.

FFS... the linked website doesn't even care enough to make its fake testimonials even slightly realistic


View attachment 74753

jet makes a real chip available from jegs. pls note that its based on aftermarket exhaust and other mods.

 

[Shran]

jet makes a real chip available from jegs. pls note that its based on aftermarket exhaust and other mods.

Waste of money. I acquired one and put it in my old race truck that had a fox body 302 HO engine in it. Made zero difference, it actually fell out of the ECM somehow during a race and got lost on the track. Couldn't even tell it was gone.

 

[Silvertooth]

My 1988 ranger ext. Cab 2.3l 5 speed, gets about 24mpg.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

It was sometime around 85 i believe when EPA changed their method to get somewhat closer to real world numbers.

Theres a ford commercial from 83 or 84 claming an 1/2 ton with the "fuel saver" package (3sp+ O/D, 300 I6 with some obnoxious rear gear, 2.47 IIRC and a vacuum based upshift light) was EPA rated 30 or 33 hwy.

So yeah, EPA numbers were a real joke back then.

 

[sdevine]

Much has happened since this conversation- I removed the PCV, and replaced my ECU with a standalone programmable ECU, and the difference so far is big. The engine runs so much better, and I tuned it for optimal fuel flow and it runs better in all phases. I am getting 25 mpg on the highway, and 19-21 city now. The chip was a bad idea, thanks for heading me off- the ECU is the better solution. The next phase of this project is that I am back looking at rear diff improvements- the truck zips around nicely now, and since I live in flat lands, I am considering going to an 8.8 with a 3.08 gear ratio. This may boost economy as well. Bear in mind that I don't carry heavy loads, and I am not rock climbing. The rear diff needs attention anyway, so I am going to start looking for a replacement.