3.73 or 4.10 rears?

[nels1954]

I just bought an 2008 XLT extended cab with 4 cylinder 5 speed. So far I've logged about 800 miles. Most of the milage has been open road freeway. I am getting 23 MPG. I was expecting to get better milage. I do not know the gearing of the rear end.

 

[jax4bangin]

I recently had a 1995 Ranger that was a four cylinder 2wd 5 speed and 3.73 rear end. Now I have a 2008 Ranger four cylinder 2wd 5 speed 4.10 rear end. I noticed with the '08 Ranger I don't have to push down on the gas pedal as far because of the 4.10 rear end. I haven't calculated fuel mileage yet, but I'm guessing low 20's as of right now, but once I have the truck a little longer, I'll have an idea. With the '95 Ranger before I got rid of it, I was only getting about 20 mpg city. So I would pick the 4.10 rear end if you could.

its not just cause of the 4.10 gears. its cause the lima was a dog compaired to new duratec..(to the OP) i get over 30mpg consistantly with the regular cab/ manual tranny/ 3.73 gears. i have herd that the 4.10s wont hurt mileage much and especially if ur driving in hills i wud say thats a good choice

 

[Dr. Dirt]

3.73

Purchased a 2009 Reg. Cab Sport 5spd manual 2.3 with 3.73. The 1st 500 miles avg 23-26 mpg. Currently with 1000 miles getting 28-30 mpg. EPA estimate sticker shows 21-26 mpg.

 

[jax4bangin]

yea in most cases the EPA sticker is hard to achieve but not with this lil duratec motor. i get down to 26mpg around town when i drive like a D-bag

 

[milje]

Purchased a 2009 Reg. Cab Sport 5spd manual 2.3 with 3.73. The 1st 500 miles avg 23-26 mpg. Currently with 1000 miles getting 28-30 mpg. EPA estimate sticker shows 21-26 mpg.

I think they use a new method for setting the EPA mileage which makes it show lower. When I bought my truck I believe it was 24/29, then a year or two later with no changes it was 21/26.


I have a regular cab, short box, stick, 3.73 gears. In the summer I consistantly get 30+ mpg on the highway (once got damn near 40 on a 100 mile stretch, burned a touch more than 2.5 gallons on my drive to college from my parents house). It's really hilly around here and my truck has no problems with 3.73's.

Went down to Kentucky last spring, loaded my truck down pretty good (two dirt bikes, a weeks worth of gear for two people, me and my buddy), around 900 pounds in the bed plus us in the cab. Averaged 25 mpg on the freeway going around 70 and had plenty of power, even when I got into the mountains.

 

[MikeInIdaho]

wow, I've never been able to break 25 mpg in mine. I usually get right around 20. It's an '06 reg cab 5sp 2wd 4 banger. My parents swear up and down that they were getting mileage in the low 30's; I'm starting to wonder if they were exaggerating a bit. I know that the colder weather will make it drop a few mpg's, as will the "winter fuel blend" all the gas stations have right now. Guess I'll wait 'till it warms up a little and see if it goes up some.

I concur that 3.73's would be more ideal if you do lots of freeway driving, 4.10's if you're going to putt around town most of the time. I've got 3.73's in mine and like it a lot.

 

[heeler]

What a timely thread to wonder into while googling things about the newer Rangers.
You see i just did a complete collision total on my 02 SuperCab XLT equipped with the the now defunct 3.0 engine.
I am now in the process of trying to buy a new Ranger and actually found a left over 08 XLT SuperCab equipped pretty much exactly like my now dead 02.
Problem is the 08 3.0 liters supposedly get worse fuel mileage than the previous versions.
The dealer who is selling this one actually warned me not to expect to get the same mileage with this one as the old one.
So i was starting to actually thinking of getting the Supercab XLT with the 2.3 engine.
I bought a new 92 XLT short bed and that was without a doubt the doggest engine i have ever owned.
Couldn't get out of it's own way!!
Not sure what they did to the present engine to get it up to the H.P. they now claim,which is in striking range of my 3.0.
I guess that's technology at work.
Anyway being an older guy i thought of equipping it with the automatic transmission which i do believe is using the 4.10 rear end.
Anyone getting great mileage out of this engine in that set up??
I am going to have to pull the trigger in a few days on a purchase so again coming across this forum on this very subject was most timely.
I guess i need to drop my previous prejudices about the 2.3 engine and test drive one.
My fear is gas will be out of sight in price the way it was last year and i want to get the best mileage i can and still own a truck.
Thanks for any help here.

 

[milje]

I bought a new 92 XLT short bed and that was without a doubt the doggest engine i have ever owned.
Couldn't get out of it's own way!!
Not sure what they did to the present engine to get it up to the H.P. they now

I guess i need to drop my previous prejudices about the 2.3 engine and test drive one.

The only similarity between the new 2.3L and the old 2.3L is the displacement. New one is a whole new engine.

 

[heeler]

Purchased a 2009 Reg. Cab Sport 5spd manual 2.3 with 3.73. The 1st 500 miles avg 23-26 mpg. Currently with 1000 miles getting 28-30 mpg. EPA estimate sticker shows 21-26 mpg.

Are you sure you have the 3.73 in your 09??
The reason i ask is because i was pricing 08's and 09's with options over at Edmunds.com and they show for the 08 models that the 3.73 can be ordered with the standard transmission but when you go over to the 09 models they no longer show the 3.73 as an available option.
Perhaps it's an Edmunds mistake???

I plan on test driving a 2.3 this Friday at a dealership so i can get a feel for it.
It's inlikely i will be able to find an 08 exactly the way i want it so i just might have to order a 09 XLT SuperCab.

Of these two rear ends could some of you tell me what sort of rpm's the engine is turning at an indicated 70mph?
The more info the better such as transmission type as well as rear end set up.
Thanks again folks.

 

[MikeInIdaho]

I'm not 100% sure what she's turning @ 70, but it's definitely less than 3 grand, probably closer to 2500-2700 rpms. That's with 3.73's and a (Mada R1)5-speed, though. Of course, a truck w/ 4.10's will be spinning a little higher than that at the same speed.

My truck came with your run-of-the-mill 7.5" open rear end w/ the 3.73's. The gearing is just right for tires in the 225/235 (28-29") range. I'm running 225/75's on there now and acceleration is still good. I'll be getting some 29x8.5" TSL radials for some summer treads here pretty soon, too. And a trac-lok. And new shocks and....

There's really not a whole lot to these little trucks, especially if you stick w/ a base model. Just keep oil/coolant/gas in it and drive it like you stole it, you'll be good to go

 

[Dr. Dirt]

heeler,
The 2009 2.3 Sport Reg Cab short bed model manual comes only with 3.73 and the auto is only with the 4.10....I had the dealer print out a Vehicle Information Report on the unit and it shows build spec's and window sticker also shows 3.73. Xl and XLT may vary but the Sport is packaged this way.
BTW up to 31 mpg cooling it down the freeway

 

[hmiwb]

I have the 4.10s and manual in my extended cab. I love the combination and am getting excellent fuel mileage in the low 30s and high 20s.

 

[hmiwb]

I'm sure impressed with my new 2.3 manual supercab 4.10. It's smooth, torquey, pretty quiet, and the fuel economy is great so far. It's not even broken in yet.