Another MPG project (will update regularly.)

[gmpreece]

I have a 2wd STX, 3.0, 5 speed, 3.73 gears. I drive close to 80 miles round trip every day to work. I do not baby my truck, but I do try to watch my gas mileage. I average my mileage at every fill up and I am getting 23 mpg on every fill up. I drive over two small hills and I am on 4 lane highway only about 10 miles of my trip. I use overdrive when I need to, and I will gear down to get up those hills. I like my 3.73 gears and I do not see where 4.10 gears would be any better. I cruise at 60 miles an hour at about 2100 rpm. Personally I would like 3.55 gears to drop my rpm's at cruise speed. I also run my a/c a lot in the return trip home.

 

[AllanD]

I have a 2wd STX, 3.0, 5 speed, 3.73 gears. I drive close to 80 miles round trip every day to work. I do not baby my truck, but I do try to watch my gas mileage. I average my mileage at every fill up and I am getting 23 mpg on every fill up. I drive over two small hills and I am on 4 lane highway only about 10 miles of my trip. I use overdrive when I need to, and I will gear down to get up those hills. I like my 3.73 gears and I do not see where 4.10 gears would be any better. I cruise at 60 miles an hour at about 2100 rpm. Personally I would like 3.55 gears to drop my rpm's at cruise speed. I also run my a/c a lot in the return trip home.

Your 3.0 would probably get better mileage at 2300rpm at the same road speed that 4.10's would give you.
(if you want me to be exact going from 3.73's to 4.10's would require 2308rpm for the same road speed as you now get at 2100rpm)

3.55's WILL give you worse mileage.
there is NO question whatsoever that 3.55's will make things worse.

If you switched to 4.10's you could probably squeek another
1.0-1.5mpg out of your 2.3.

I'm driving a 1987 supercab with a 4.0, 5sp and 4.10's and I run 235/75-15 tires. I cruise at 65-70mph and I manage to get 20-21mpg.
If I keep things down to 60-65mph I can get 22mpg
My personal best (to date) is 22.1mpg.

I'd probably get better mileage if I had my truck aligned.
I'm currently running moe camber than I like.

I'm going to be gearing down to 3.73s, but my situation is different from yours, I have a 4.0 and a 4.0 doesn't like to rev.

a 3.0 NEEDS to REV.

It should annoy you that I have a 4.0 4x4 and I only get 1mpg
less than you do.

Trust me, I really do know what I'm talking about

AD

 

[MAKG]

Not true. However, maximum/minimum have nothing to do with it. The gap is set at whatever the specification calls for. You haven't gapped many plugs with a feeler gauge, have you?

Personal attacks really enhance your position, and add credence to your statements. shady

Oh keeryst, this is getting old.

Shady, you're absolutely right on the technical point; flat feeler gauges make for wide gaps.

But is it really necessary to be so argumentative? Yes, I know it takes two to tango and Bob isn't exactly helping things. But the point can be made very simply and authoritatively with a 5 minute line drawing or even creative ASCII art.

You guys bicker like an old married couple.

 

[gmpreece]

Your 3.0 would probably get better mileage at 2300rpm at the same road speed that 4.10's would give you.
(if you want me to be exact going from 3.73's to 4.10's would require 2308rpm for the same road speed as you now get at 2100rpm)

3.55's WILL give you worse mileage.
there is NO question whatsoever that 3.55's will make things worse.

If you switched to 4.10's you could probably squeek another
1.0-1.5mpg out of your 2.3.

I'm driving a 1987 supercab with a 4.0, 5sp and 4.10's and I run 235/75-15 tires. I cruise at 65-70mph and I manage to get 20-21mpg.
If I keep things down to 60-65mph I can get 22mpg
My personal best (to date) is 22.1mpg.

I'd probably get better mileage if I had my truck aligned.
I'm currently running moe camber than I like.

I'm going to be gearing down to 3.73s, but my situation is different from yours, I have a 4.0 and a 4.0 doesn't like to rev.

a 3.0 NEEDS to REV.

It should annoy you that I have a 4.0 4x4 and I only get 1mpg
less than you do.

Trust me, I really do know what I'm talking about

AD

I have a 4.0 in my Explorer and it gets only 17mpg on the same trip I make everyday with the pickup. My son had a 03 Ranger FX4 Level II with 4.0 and 4.10 gears and the gas mileage sucked so I know what I am talking about. Where did you get a 1987 with a 4.0? Anytime you can lower your rpm's you can save gas mileage, I do not know where you think by raising rpm's you can get better mileage? Higher rpm's can also cause more damage to your motor in the long run it you keep it at a higher rpm for a longer time. I guarantee that if your driving conditions on a daily bases were the same as mine that you would not get the same mileage you are now. The best that I have done with my truck was on a trip to Virginia and it was mostly highway, I averaged 26mpg. It does not annoy me that you get that mileage, I am happy that you can do that, with the prices we have to pay for gas, I like to hear when people can save money. I had a 87 supercab STX that I bought new with the 2.9 motor 4.10 gears and 5 speed, it would get around 22mpg. I have been around the block a time or two, owned my own trucking company for 10 years, trust me I know what I am talking about as well.

 

[rickcdewitt]

Personally I would like 3.55 gears to drop my rpm's at cruise speed. I also run my a/c a lot in the return trip home.

my truck had 3.55's and the 2.9l.it is more of a torque motor than the 3.0 and it wasen't happy at all towing or 2 lane driving.3.55 would be too tall for a 3.0,o.k. for the 4.0l in my truck now with tires and gears equivalent to 3.55.but it makes more torque under 2,000 than a 3.0l makes at all....

your examples were 4.0l as well not the car motor(3.0)

 

[AllanD]

I have a 4.0 in my Explorer and it gets only 17mpg on the same trip I make everyday with the pickup. My son had a 03 Ranger FX4 Level II with 4.0 and 4.10 gears and the gas mileage sucked so I know what I am talking about.

I disagree, the '03 is the 4.0 SOHC and that is a completely different animal making your example "out of place"

Where did you get a 1987 with a 4.0?
I made it. 1993 4.0OHV Explorer engine
opening the hood of my truck and expecting to see an '87 Engine bay and finding a '93 Explorer engine bay (down to the last detail) rarely fails to
produces a reaction


Anytime you can lower your rpm's you can save gas mileage,

You are mistaken because you are repeating "common belief" which ignores that the original gearing had the engine operating at a lower rpm than optimum.

I do not know where you think by raising rpm's you can get better mileage?

If you DESIGN an engine to operate at low rpm it will be efficient at low rpm, but if you operate an engine designed to operate at
high rpm engine at low rpm? Well.... that dog just ain't gonna hunt.

Basically your disbelief doesn't make me wrong.
It just makes me think you are unaware of the truth, mechanical physical
reality doesn't really care about your belief or opinion, it simply is what it is.


Higher rpm's can also cause more damage to your motor in the long run it you keep it at a higher rpm for a longer time.

"Higher" is a relative thing, the 3.0 engine doesn't even reach it's torque peak until 2800-3000rpm (Depending on year and specific calibration) it's power peak is at 5000rpm redline is over 6000rpm.

operating it 200rpm higher than you are now hurt it? That's funny!
It's trivial to wear & tear considerations

Operating a 3.0 Vulan engine at any rpm less than 4000rpm for ANY
length of time short of hell freezing over is as likely to hurt it as
jerking off is to actually make you go blind or grow hair on your
palms

I guarantee that if your driving conditions on a daily bases were the same as mine that you would not get the same mileage you are now.

You guarantee that eh? I live in the mountains of eastern
Pennsylvania and Most eastern states simply aren't all that
different (exept the tidewater region of Maryland, Virginia
and the carolinas) isn't all that different.

The best that I have done with my truck was on a trip to Virginia and it was mostly highway, I averaged 26mpg. It does not annoy me that you get that mileage, I am happy that you can do that, with the prices we have to pay for gas, I like to hear when people can save money.

I had a 87 supercab STX that I bought new with the 2.9 motor 4.10 gears and 5 speed, it would get around 22mpg.

Uhhh....No you didn't. 4.10 gears weren't offered with a 2.9 V6 and a 5sp trans until they were made optional ONLY with the 4.0 engine (and it's bigger 8.8" rear) in 1993 and even then they are incredibly rare.

the 4.10 pinion was deemed too fragile to subject it to the normal driveline shock normal to manual trans vehicles.

So Either that truck was converted to a 5sp or the gears were changed.
your '87 STX came with 3.73's unless it came with an auto
because 4.10's are auto trans only with the 2.9
(they were available with a 2.3 and a 5sp, but since all STX trucks
from 1987-1989 were 2.9 powered...)

Before I swapped a '93 4.0 into my '87 STX supercab I had a 2.9 and I could
get 26mpg with it... crossing PA on I-80 at 70-75 with the A/C on full blast
Though more typically I'd get 23-24mpg with it.

I have been around the block a time or two, owned my own trucking company for 10 years, trust me I know what I am talking about as well.

I could have guessed you were involved with trucking companies
without your saying so....

Hey, remember what they used to tell Cummins and Catapillar drivers the first time they climbed into a truck powered by a Detroit?

"Drive it like you are mad at it"

this was because the Detroit
wouldn't operate "down low" like the Cummins and Cat's
(let alone a Mack) and you had to keep it "spinning"
though "spinning" for a diesel is a different thing)

the same can be applied to the Ford Vulcan 3.0 engine.
when drivers of 2.9's and 4.0OHV's get behind the wheel
of a vehicle powered by one. In short it's a revvy little bitch.

Best economy from most engines occours near the engines
torque peak rpm. and on a 3.0 engine that is effectively 3000rpm.
your 3.0 WILL tolerate running at 3000rpm literally until hell freezes over.
Infact I doubt you could hurt one by running it at 4000rpm for several
tanks of fuel (back to back to back)

They do that all the time in the vehicle the engine was designed for... a Ford Taurus which typically came with FAR smaller tires (typically 205/65-15's which are ~24" Dia) and their transaxle's internal gearing gave an axle ratio of 3.92!

So what gearing would be closer to ideal with the 27" tires and your 3.0?
4.10's? No. in a 2wd 4.56's would give the same RPM Vs. Road speed as a Taurus!

So my suggesting 4.10's isn't at all out of line.

I've given out honest advice based on experience and actual knowledge
you've responded with disbelief and quazi-relevancies

I personally don't claim to know everything
but your questioning something right in the middle of my personal
area of expertise? a golden opportunity to teach.

FACT: You WILL get worse mileage if you switched to 3.45's or 3.55's

I've had people disbelieving that and similar statements for the entire exsistance of these forums and the (TWO) forums that preceeded it,
so I'll give you a challenge... a simple test try driving a 5speed 3.0
powered ranger for best mileage. after you've done that try driving
the SAME truck but pretend 5th gear isn't there. you must drive at
the same speed.

MOST people find that NOT using 5th (overdrive) they get better mileage.
Interestingly the difference between 3.73's and 4.10's is similar to the difference between 4th gear and 5th gear in a 5sp trans.

LOAD on the engine within it's design rpm range is far more important for efficiency than specific rpm. However that 200rpm makes the difference between NOT getitng the necissary "swirl" in the compustion chambers at the lower rpm and at the lower rpm more throttle opening is required.

that 200rpm get you further up the "slope" of the torque curve where smaller throttle openingc creates the same torque/power/cruise speed.

It's all about finding a happy medium.

I understand one basic truth that it appears hasn't hit home with you (atleast not yet) the ENGINE doesn't give a rats ass what YOU want or believe, but if you don't do what makes it happy it'll make you unhappy
by guzzling extra fuel.

I'm just trying to tell you what'll make it happy.

Oh, and BTW the 4.10 gears in my truck are a remnant of my driving the same truck with the 2.9. and they weren't original in that truck either

you could also ask how did I get an '87 with an 8.8" rear axle
and a Dana35 front axle... or an M5OD-R1 trans and a 13-54 T-case?
Or a one-piece driveshaft?
Or PLASTIC fuel tanks?

I'm not the only one that's done all these things... Wait a second... each of these things isn't a "unique" modification but having done ALL these things probably is unique, and FWIW anyone else who's done them (except for the 4.0) I probably did it first... by a LONG MARGIN....

Or "modifications past" fitting a 4.0 clutch flywheel and starter
onto a 2.9 engine... who do you think did it first and showed
others the way?

I'm not "a" Technical advisor on these forums, I'm argueably
"THE" technical advisor.

Not a Ranger Messiah , but possibly a Ranger Buddah...
(If I sit crosslegged like Buddah you'll see the resemblence but if anyone tries to pat my belly they'd best keep quiet when I break both their arms

I didn't learn this stuff by arguing on the internet.
I spend my time teaching people how to fix shit.
I can DO, yet I teach.

So I'm not your average 46year old Ranger geek...
Then again actually I probably am because I'm likely
the ONLY 46year old Ranger geek

AD

 

[gmpreece]

I could have guessed you were involved with trucking companies
without your saying so....

How could you tell? I am not into trucking anymore, too damn expensive

Hey, remember what they used to tell Cummins and Catapillar drivers the first time they climbed into a truck powered by a Detroit?

"Drive it like you are mad at it"

Thats true for the older Detroits, the new 60 series is a hell of a lot better, and rpm ranger is more inline with a Cat.

this was because the Detroit
wouldn't operate "down low" like the Cummins and Cat's
(let alone a Mack) and you had to keep it "spinning"
though "spinning" for a diesel is a different thing)

the same can be applied to the Ford Vulcan 3.0 engine.
when drivers of 2.9's and 4.0OHV's get behind the wheel
of a vehicle powered by one. In short it's a revvy little bitch.

Best economy from most engines occours near the engines
torque peak rpm. and on a 3.0 engine that is effectively 3000rpm.
your 3.0 WILL tolerate running at 3000rpm literally until hell freezes over.
Infact I doubt you could hurt one by running it at 4000rpm for several
tanks of fuel (back to back to back)

They do that all the time in the vehicle the engine was designed for... a Ford Taurus which typically came with FAR smaller tires (typically 205/65-15's which are ~24" Dia) and their transaxle's internal gearing gave an axle ratio of 3.92!

So what gearing would be closer to ideal with the 27" tires and your 3.0?
4.10's? No. in a 2wd 4.56's would give the same RPM Vs. Road speed as a Taurus!

So my suggesting 4.10's isn't at all out of line.

I've given out honest advice based on experience and actual knowledge
you've responded with disbelief and quazi-relevancies

Then tell me why we have overdrive trannys and automatics with 5 and 6 gears?

I personally don't claim to know everything
but your questioning something right in the middle of my personal
area of expertise? a golden opportunity to teach.

FACT: You WILL get worse mileage if you switched to 3.45's or 3.55's

I've had people disbelieving that and similar statements for the entire exsistance of these forums and the (TWO) forums that preceeded it,
so I'll give you a challenge... a simple test try driving a 5speed 3.0
powered ranger for best mileage. after you've done that try driving
the SAME truck but pretend 5th gear isn't there. you must drive at
the same speed.

I'll tell you what, on my next fill up I will try your way, and I will post both fuel receipts with the actually mileage of each fill up.

MOST people find that NOT using 5th (overdrive) they get better mileage.
Interestingly the difference between 3.73's and 4.10's is similar to the difference between 4th gear and 5th gear in a 5sp trans.

LOAD on the engine within it's design rpm range is far more important for efficiency than specific rpm. However that 200rpm makes the difference between NOT getitng the necissary "swirl" in the compustion chambers at the lower rpm and at the lower rpm more throttle opening is required.

that 200rpm get you further up the "slope" of the torque curve where smaller throttle openingc creates the same torque/power/cruise speed.

It's all about finding a happy medium.

I understand one basic truth that it appears hasn't hit home with you (atleast not yet) the ENGINE doesn't give a rats ass what YOU want or believe, but if you don't do what makes it happy it'll make you unhappy
by guzzling extra fuel.

I am not a smartass kid trying to give you a hard time. I too am a Ranger geek, but you are a little older, I am 42. I know my way around the garage, as well as you do, I understand torque curves and peek rpm range, but I also know that higher rpm's are harder on a Engine that lower rpm's.



I'm just trying to tell you what'll make it happy.

Oh, and BTW the 4.10 gears in my truck are a remnant of my driving the same truck with the 2.9. and they weren't original in that truck either

you could also ask how did I get an '87 with an 8.8" rear axle
and a Dana35 front axle... or an M5OD-R1 trans and a 13-54 T-case?
Or a one-piece driveshaft?
Or PLASTIC fuel tanks?

I'm not the only one that's done all these things... Wait a second... each of these things isn't a "unique" modification but having done ALL these things probably is unique, and FWIW anyone else who's done them (except for the 4.0) I probably did it first... by a LONG MARGIN....

Or "modifications past" fitting a 4.0 clutch flywheel and starter
onto a 2.9 engine... who do you think did it first and showed
others the way?

I'm not "a" Technical advisor on these forums, I'm argueably
"THE" technical advisor.

Not a Ranger Messiah , but possibly a Ranger Buddah...
(If I sit crosslegged like Buddah you'll see the resemblence but if anyone tries to pat my belly they'd best keep quiet when I break both their arms

I didn't learn this stuff by arguing on the internet.
I spend my time teaching people how to fix shit.
I can DO, yet I teach.

So I'm not your average 46year old Ranger geek...
Then again actually I probably am because I'm likely
the ONLY 46year old Ranger geek

AD

I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you and I never intended to with my replys. I will admit when I am wrong, and I was wrong about my 87 Ranger it did have 3.73 gears instead of 4.10's. I was not comparing my Explorer 4.0 with my sons 4.0 in his Ranger, sorry if you took that the wrong way.

 

[mountaineergreen]

Well, I have tried (old habits die hard) to keep my 3.0 in 4th in my trips to and from work. I drive 55-60ish (no cruise) that speed translates to right around 3k in fourth. 5th drops the rpms to 2400 or so. I have observed better mileage doing this by a little, but my driving sometimes includes towing a trailer, driving faster or slower due to other traffic and the occasional out of town trip, so its difficult to tell 100%. I do believe it helps though.

But, mine has 3.45's in its 7.5, so I dunno.

 

[thegoat4]

FWIW, I've set a lot of spark plugs with feeler gauges with no performance problems. Granted, I don't run these engines on dynos, but who does? These aren't exactly Hondas with fart cans.

 

[Just_Randy]

I'm pretty sure Allan is right! (Whatever weight I might carry around here...)

I've long noticed in my 1995 intrepid with the 3.5 liter (because it has the mpg in real time) that I get better mileage the faster I drive. I usually try to keep it around 80 (10 over in these parts) on the e-way to save gas. I've owned the car for 10yrs and write down everytime I get gas, the mileage, cost, gallons, etc. That's a long time to notice little things like that.

I've also had the sneaking suspicion that my 300I6 in my F-150 got better mileage if I didn't lug it around, but I have no hard proof of that. Also a vehicle I've had for at least 10 yrs.

My Ranger I've only had about a year, but I've been fairly sure it gets better mileage in 4th rather than 5th.... Especially with the bigger tires I have on it. It just seems like its straining less and I don't seem to push the pedal as hard or have to move the pedal much to go up hills.

Btw, I think the best thing you can do for mpg is air up your tires more than 35psi. The ride is bumpy and watch those curves! A little bump turns those tires into basketballs on the road! But it saves gas.

Btw again, the flat feeler is not as accurate as the round. Draw it up on autocad n see. But I don't think its that big of a deal. You might be a couple .001 off unless the electrode is really bent outta shape. I've been using regular flat ones for years because the round ones don't always have the size I need (like for atv's n bikes).

 

[lifted4.0]

i have been exploring the K&N CAI for my 4.0, but most of the people on the site despise of it. but to me it seems like a decent addition (all you need it to do if flow more air than the stock box and filter just as much, which i dk if it does)

i dk if you were planning on putting the CAI system or just the filter, but if you are putting more air into the engine, it makes sense to make it easier to get out with opening up the exhaust.

my first mod on my 4.0 was a 2.25 inch cat back flowmaster and it feels like it is quicker, faster, louder, and i added 3-3.5 mpg depending on how much my lead foot wants to get out im am now getting 21 mpg and i put 1000 pounds 3 days a week for lawn mowing (usually they are pretty cheap to, my exhaust was 220ish, someone bent it for me, and i installed it)

 

[AllanD]

That's th next thing to be picked at... the all to common (mistaken) BELIEF
that a "Catback" improves power.

when the greatest restriction in the exhaust isn't the muffler or the cat,
but the manifolds.

You spend $300 on something you either believe that it "works" as
advertised or admit you were suckered.

AD

 

[Big Jim M]

Ok Lifted

i have been exploring the K&N CAI for my 4.0, but most of the people on the site despise of it. but to me it seems like a decent addition (all you need it to do if flow more air than the stock box and filter just as much, which i dk if it does)

i dk if you were planning on putting the CAI system or just the filter, but if you are putting more air into the engine, it makes sense to make it easier to get out with opening up the exhaust.

my first mod on my 4.0 was a 2.25 inch cat back flowmaster and it feels like it is quicker, faster, louder, and i added 3-3.5 mpg depending on how much my lead foot wants to get out im am now getting 21 mpg and i put 1000 pounds 3 days a week for lawn mowing (usually they are pretty cheap to, my exhaust was 220ish, someone bent it for me, and i installed it)

So what you say here is if FORD with all their engineers had of spent the SAME amount of money on exhaust and installed a cat back flo-master instead of what they DID use ALL of similiar Ford vehicles would now have 3-3.5 MORE mpg...same as YOU are getting?

Damn! That seems so SIMPLE I wonder what all them engineers had in their heads when they designed that vehicle..

All this time I thought Ford had some ideas and intelligence in their working staff. It seems so simple, just spend 6 or 700 bucks and you can get all those things FORD could have put on there for free..

I keep thinking to myself...WHY didn't they use all the good stuff?

Big Jim

 

[lifted4.0]

not necesarily the power im more concerned about..do the math and that 3.5 mpg pays for the muffler in less than a year..and the way gas prices are, i like the sound of that, im not dealing with what flowmasters website is saying here, just what it did for me, and what it will do for me in the future...

 

[AllanD]

you just don't get it.

The engine will only flow what it can draw in.

If the factory aircleaner assembly supplied enough air using the Lincoln tunnel as an air duct isn't going to make you more power.
and in point of fact the same air cleaner element used on '95-up 3.0's
is also used on 4.6 powered mustangs.

If it feeds them why do you need more?

What really cracks me up is seeing a cold air intake system added onto a '98-03 Escort. the Escort uses the same air filter element as most ofther fords of the same vintage, so what exactly did that idiot think he was buying?

IMO the people who buy these things are like a
petulant 3year old who insists on a grownup sized
cup of whatever they are drinking even though he never
finished the smaller sized cup...

Basically you don't need more because what you already had
was "more than enough"

I get 21-22 with my 4.0 powered 4.10 geared 4x4 supercab
the only "mod" on my engine is a set of Borla headers.
the very least thing the headers do is make my engine
~25lbs lighter.

CAI systems will draw one of two responses from me
a) refering to the makers of those things: "Con artists"
b)Refering to the buyers of them who believe they do
something: "Suckers"

They are like fishing lures.
Most fishing lures aren't designed to catch fish.
they are designed to catch the wallets of fishermen.

After that the maker doesn't care if it catches fish or not.

as I've said before, most "modifications" (aka "Mods")
lie somewhere between "turd polishing"
and "mental masterbation" (insistant self-dilusion)

Cold Air intake systems are ENTIRELY in the latter catagory.

AD