3.73 vs 4.10

[mhughes165]

I have to disagree, my Ranger gets similar fuel economy to a 4 cyl 5-speed and I'll often lean a lil on the throttle and skip gears on the upshift. Everyone I've talked to around here with a 4 cyl gets pretty much the same fuel economy as me. Of course, it's also rather hilly around here... I'd imagine out west more where it's flatter, fuel economy numbers can change. I did talk with a guy who had a 4.0L 2wd with 4.10s in the rear and he was complaining one day that he never got better than 16 mpg around town in it, though it was an auto...

I'm a believer that properly breaking in a motor can have an effect on fuel economy despite the fact that many seem to think it's now all a myth. I babied the hell out of my Ranger for the first 5,000 miles, then started building up with working it harder after that. IIRC, I also changed oil and filters twice within the first 5k. My first tank of gas lasted over 400 miles. The second I made it 200 miles. Then it settled down and slowly built up and by 10k on the clock I was regularly between 18 and 20 (usually right at 19.5 mpg) around town with a cap and 500# of gear. When I took off the cap for a tonneau cover and cut the gear load in half I was usually around 21.2 mpg around town.

I can agree on the comment about getting a car if you don't want truck economy. Although, has anyone paid close attention to the numbers that the majority of cars and mini-vans put out these days? It's not much better than I get out of my Ranger...

well, i know around here i can easily get from babying a 4cyl 5spd 80's ranger pull 30mpg out of every tank, the best mileage i ever got with a 2.9 was 22mpg, its all about driving habits, most people that drive 4cyl rangers get on it a bit more to keep up with the same acceleration say in ur case a 3.0 has at less throttle, if ur never in a rush anyway then u can consistently get 30mpg out of a 4cyl 5spd ranger(or close to it anyways)