disappointing mileage

[truckit]

I have a stock 06 2.3 automatic longbed xlt. I drive like a grandpa and still only get 20 -22 mpg. My old 1990 5 sp manual got around 28mpg. any suggestions?

 

[The purple one]

The auto will eat a little more gas then the stick.

 

[kpreilly]

My 01 2.3 auto with a short bed gets about the same

 

[press 1 for english]

I have a stock 06 2.3 automatic longbed xlt. I drive like a grandpa and still only get 20 -22 mpg. My old 1990 5 sp manual got around 28mpg. any suggestions?

The revised EPA fuel economy for your configured truck are 19 city 24 highway. If you want real good fuel economy, then a truck is not a rational choice.

 

[03ranger4x4]

19 seems shitty even with the auto though, my ranger has a 4.0 v6, and gets 15-16mpg....it seems that a 2.3 vs a 4.0 should be a bigger difference then 19-20 and 15-16

 

[Dar70]

You are getting right where you should. As mentioned above our trucks get 19 city/24 highway the 4.0l without 4x4 gets 16c/21h. (That was with the revised epa rating a few years ago. Originally before 2007 it was rated at 21c/26h.) You should be able to do a few more. I have managed 27 mpg. Mostly I probably get 21-24. Im happy with that. It is afterall a truck. The 4.0 gets about 3 mpg less.(6 less with the 4x4) That may not seem like much but mutiply it my your tank size and its a big difference. 60 miles per tank extra than the straght 4.0 and 120 miles per tank than the 4x4. Over the course of the year that adds up.

Seriously though if it does bother you that much you may want to consider getting rid of your Ranger. My GF bought a Ford focus and with mixed driving she gets about 28-29 MPG.

 

[Kayak Mud Puppy]

I get 28 mpg in the city. 2007 XLT 2.3 Auto Reg Cab.