96-97+ ranger mpg ratings

[Zander]

Hi I have a quick question, I was looking at the 90's 4x4 Rangers with the 3.0 and stick shifts and noticed that they're rated at 17city/22highway from 1993-1996 but starting in 1997 and on through the 2000s they are only rated at 15city/20highway. So my question is, was there a mechanical change that occurred after 1996 that caused the rating change or was it something else? I just thought I'd ask on here I've always gotten good info here in the past. Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Alex

 

[stmitch]

The 96 to 97 year changeover didn't have much change mechanically. 98 was a big year for changes to the Ranger. They got revised exterior styling, new front suspension designs, and the regular cab trucks gained some length in the cab. I'm not sure how those changes affected curb weight if any. Google says the lightest Rangers got heavier, and the heaviest Rangers got lighter between 97 and 98. Sounds like it really depends on the drivetrain/cab/bed type.

The 3.0 also got a new intake manifold beginning in 98, which increased HP and tq. Typically increases in power comer from burning more fuel, so that's a possibility as well.

One other thought, and I'm not positive but in general it seems like the older trucks had numerically lower axle ratios. It wasn't uncommon to see Rangers with 3.27 or 3.55 gears. Seems like most of the 98+ trucks had 3.73s or 4.10s, which would result in higher RPMs while cruising, which of course nets worse fuel economy.

They also update fuel economy testing standards occasionally, so that can make it seem like older models get better fuel economy, when in reality the testing wasn't accurate for real world situations. I don't know if this occurred in the time frame you're referencing or not, but it could explain some of the difference in ratings.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

One other thought, and I'm not positive but in general it seems like the older trucks had numerically lower axle ratios. It wasn't uncommon to see Rangers with 3.27 or 3.55 gears. Seems like most of the 98+ trucks had 3.73s or 4.10s, which would result in higher RPMs while cruising, which of course nets worse fuel economy.

That is a double edged sword, especially with lower hp engines.

My parents '94 Explorer had 3.27's and it spent about as much time wound up in third as it did in overdrive because it ran out of steam on hills.

And on top of that they are pretty underwhelming off the line.

Might test better (especially somewhere really flat) but in my area it sucked.

 

[stmitch]

That is a double edged sword, especially with lower hp engines.

My parents '94 Explorer had 3.27's and it spent about as much time wound up in third as it did in overdrive because it ran out of steam on hills.

And on top of that they are pretty underwhelming off the line.

Might test better (especially somewhere really flat) but in my area it sucked.

That's definitely true in the real world. I'm assuming that fuel economy tests are done like emissions tests, where the vehicle performs a map of predetermined speeds/loads on a dyno to simulate driving a specific route. They might simulate driving up/down hills in that test, but it's not necessarily comparable to real world driving. That's why VW got busted for their emissions cheating. Their "real world" emissions were crazy high vs the "as tested" emissions, and people got curious.

Which ties into my other point about a potential change in the testing. If the test was altered in an attempt to make it more comparable to "real world" situations, it could've resulted in a lower number, even if nothing on the vehicle changed.

 

[Zander]

Thanks for all the answers, yeah I figured it was probably just the way they measured the gas mileage, I just thought I'd check and see if there may have been some mechanical change that could have made a difference. I know with the s10 the mileage took a hit when they adapted the 2.2 to run on e85 in the late 90s,i didn't know if the same thing may have happened with the ranger.