better gas than expected?

[RavoHimself]

so i might be picking up a 93 ex cab, 4.0, stick, 4x4. i was expecting like 19/ 20 based on my bros 97 4.0. i just googled it and this is what i found

1993 Ford Ranger Pickup 4WD 6 cylinder 4.0 liter R (M5) Manual 18 23

http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/11/12/ford-ranger-gas-mileage/

heres the link. if this is true i'm rather pleased

 

[straycat]

Only when it was new and the mileage was hyped up by Ford. Car and Driver and Road and Track never gave that year Ranger the same gas milage review. It was a bit worse. Now, add years later to a very worn truck....if you add a lift kit and taller tires and accessories....that add up to not really good gas mileage. If you want a gas sipper buy a small car.....

 

[Mac]

The EPA has since changed their rating standards to more real world testing and do result in lower ratings. Too many people were complaining about their car/truck not meeting what was "promised".
Dave

 

[spin]

First post for me, but www.fueleconomy.gov says 16/21 for that truck.

 

[gribly]

22mpg here with a Navajo, that was with stock tires. Gets 16 now.

 

[James86]

Every vehicle I've owned met or exceeded the EPA ratings it came with. Even my current truck gets about 14 1/2 combined on E85 and it was rated for 14 city 18 hiway on gas last I looked during the cash4clunkers period...

 

[straycat]

First post for me, but www.fueleconomy.gov says 16/21 for that truck.

Not what a real test would prove. Read the reports in the magazines that really test all vehicles and show what they really get. This is how they get rated by real drivers who do this for a living. A new vehicle will always get better gas milage when new and less when they are older and more worn.

 

[97ranger19]

stock tires 4.0 auto 1997 ranger i get about 19-22 if i drive like a saint