Bit of 5.0 insight ?

[8302ranger]

Just wondering if anyone had a bit of insight on why a fox body 5.0 with a t5 can get, and does get 25 highway MPG. While the same engine and tranny in a 2wd Ranger will only see 15-18 highway MPG ?????????

Am I missing something ?

 

[straycat]

Body design, weight, how the wind resistance flows across the front end of a Ranger and with a lift it is worse. Some pickup beds cut down fuel milage as well. With my tonneau cover in place I notice I get a bit more mpg. I have checked the gas milage several times and I do get more mpg with it in place. What kind of gear ratio the truck is running has to do with it as well.

 

[RangerSVT]

My 89 mustang got 26 mpg with the 308's, when I went to 373's, my mpg were 16...Also, if you can stay off the skinny pedal, that will help too
SVT

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

I agree with straycat; aerodynamics and gearing and weight, in that order. I have two '97 f-150's with the same 4.2L motor and manual 5-speed tranny. The extended cab short box with 3.08 gears and a bad rod knock gets ~ 75 Km more per tank than my lighter reg. cab short box step-side with 3.43 gears. Think hand out the window; vertical = Ranger, horizontal = fox body.

Richard

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Some guys with lowered 3rd+ gens say they get mid 20's too.

Aside from the back window really they wouldn't be that much different either weight wise or aerodynamically than a car.

 

[Hahnsb2]

I don't see why you can't get low 20s. My Dakota has a bigger engine and is heavier than a ranger and will do 20-21.

 

[RangerSVT]

What gears do you have in your ranger??
SVT

 

[adsm08]

A mustang is more aerodynamic than a brick.

 

[Mac]

Given the same weight, same drive train, it's really like said -- the frontal area and the coefficient of drag and even the tire tread design. Been working on a spread sheet just to see using those and several parameters, what is the HP to move at 60 or 70 MPH. A Corvette takes 27 hp doing 60 mph while at 70 it takes 41. A Ranger takes almost 60 at 70 just to move thru the air.
Dave

 

[robertc1024]

+1 Wind resistance goes up at the square of the speed.

 

[8302ranger]

Given the same weight, same drive train, it's really like said -- the frontal area and the coefficient of drag and even the tire tread design. Been working on a spread sheet just to see using those and several parameters, what is the HP to move at 60 or 70 MPH. A Corvette takes 27 hp doing 60 mph while at 70 it takes 41. A Ranger takes almost 60 at 70 just to move thru the air.
Dave

Thanks. I guess you all just confirmed what I had thought! But Mac's bit here put it all into perspective.

Mac; I would love to see that spread sheet of yours!

+ Is anyone seeing 20 plus mpg in a 5.0 Ranger ? If so, whats your setup ?

Thanks again.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

They recently had a MPG thread in the V-8 swap forum.

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94852

 

[Mac]

Mac; I would love to see that spread sheet of yours.

Well, still never finished it, was missing some of the formula's but what Robertc said confirms one of them, how to figure the increase of "Dynamic Pressure"(drag) as speed changes. Another thing hard to find was the coefficient of drag of a Ranger. Whole thing started out trying to explain to someone why a gear swap from a high gear (3.08) to a 3.73 can actually result in a higher top end in a low HP'd vehical.
Dave

 

[AgPete139]

Yup, same as above.

And as far as my convertible Foxbody, I never get more than 21 mpg. Driving habits can fix this, but I can't help it.

 

[8302ranger]

Some guys with lowered 3rd+ gens say they get mid 20's too.

Aside from the back window really they wouldn't be that much different either weight wise or aerodynamically than a car.

I do understand simple physics, but by looking at this http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car4tablef.jsp?column=4&id=9223 it would tell me that either 93+ Rangers became less fuel efficient, or they are no better aerodynamically compared to a 2nd gen.