302 fuel economy

[mercman]

Hey,

Thinking of swapping the 2.8 in my 85 B2 for a 302, plan to back it with a np435, or jeep ax15. I am concerned with fuel economy though, and contemplating the 2.3 solely for economy. What kind of fuel economy are you guys running 302's getting with your various set ups. Thanks

 

[rangerslim]

If you are worried about economy, don't do it.....

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

2.3 + turbo = 302 power (or better) + 2.3 fuel efficiency!

 

[wade]

You don't do a Ranger V8 Conversion for fuel economy. You want economy? Buy an older 3-cyl Geo Metro and fix it up. The price on them is going up. Better hurry! My 4-cyl Metro gives me 30 mpg in town. I have a friend with a 3-cyl Metro getting right at 50 mpg in town. A Ranger V8 Conversion maybe 12. Learn how to use the Search button.

 

[Bruce]

1988 Ranger 2 wheel drive EFI 302 AOD with 3.27 gears in rear end and we are averaging 23.5 miles per gallon rural driving. Took a small trip and got a little over 24.5 running 75 to 80 MPH.

 

[mercman]

Thanks Bruce,

That's the kind of info I was looking for, I'm not looking to build a commute car. This is my trail rig, but I do drive it there and back. I just don't want to build something that gets 8mpg either. Just currious as to what to expect. If most of you are getting under 15 I will have to go with a 2.3, and a lot of gears.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

If most of you are getting under 15 I will have to go with a 2.3, and a lot of gears.

An underpowered rig will put down the gas the same as an overpowered rig.

 

[Capt Jay]

The gas milage is poo. End of story. If your worried about it............Don't. If you don't really care, do it. It's a blast but it sucks the fuel.

 

[baddad457]

No matter what the engine's fuel mileage potential that you end up putting in (talking V8 here) you're going to find it not to be what you expect, to to the "lead foot" factor. And the need to keep recreating that she-ite eating grin that the extra, new found power puts on your face, everytime you nail the go pedal. Add in the mix of a lifted 4wd and big tires, the potential for 15 mpg is about 5 mpg out of reach.

 

[85coupe50]

I have an 88 ranger long bed with a 91 F150 5.0 conversion with a AOD and 4.10 gears and I got an average of 25MPG on a 1500 mile trip where I drove consitantly 5mph over the speed limit.

I imagine if there were 2.73 gears in there it might get better as well as a H.O. Mustang PCM wich is not a batch fire setup like the F150 is.

They don't get BAD mileage but they can if you have a heavy foot all the time. I will figure that I will get 15-20 average on my daily commute when I start driving it 30 miles highway and 24 miles city every day 54 mile round trip. Yes I know how may of each city and highway miles.

 

[Iron Ranger]

2.3 in my 92 supercab is severly underpowered. I only get about 14-16 mpg because I ususally have to drop to 4th, sometimes 3rd gear just to maintain my speed.
Higher RPM's= Lower MPG. Just because it's a 4-banger doesn't always mean better mpg

 

[mudranger]

In my 84 shortbed with 31X11.5 BFG muds and the 2.3 with 373s I was getting about 12 mpg, with the thing wound all the way out to be doing 65 mph on the highway.
When I put in the 5.0 HO with an AOD and 410's with a locker (i also swapped in an 8.8)
with the same tires, I started getting 17-18 mpg, and I idle along at about 70 mph at 1800 rpms....
Having said all that, if I put my foot in it, the mileage goes WAY down, but man does it put a smile on my face!

 

[mercman]

Thanks to those that replied with their set ups, and mileage numbers. I am going to go with a 302. If I can replicate those numbers I will be in good shape. Thanks again.

 

[superdave1984]

The key is the overdrive transmission. Without it, expect crappy gas mileage. When I had mine with the 302, I got about 12 on the highway with 3.45 gears and a standard three speed auto trans.