Fuel Econ Build

[goebeld]

I am having fun with my 99 ford ranger 3.0 ffv extended cab modifying it for better fuel econ and will get some more power out of it at the same time. Currently I am getting 22-23 mpg driving it like a grandma. I have ordered and am going to soon install a: 1) K and N cold air intake system 2) Throttle body spacer 3) magnaflow catback 2.5 inch with single exit exhaust. Any guess what my fuel economy numbers will go to?

My next stage that I will be doing in the next month after I note the gains from the current mods, is an underdrive pulley, an electric fan setup, and synthetic diff, trans, and engine oil.

After that I am not to sure. Will headers and 1.7 rockers help out econ or do they just gain power? Does anyone make a chip that helps with econ?

Your comments and suggestions are welcome, this is my first post on the Ranger Station!

 

[gotmudd]

I am having fun with my 99 ford ranger 3.0 ffv extended cab modifying it for better fuel econ and will get some more power out of it at the same time. Currently I am getting 22-23 mpg driving it like a grandma. I have ordered and am going to soon install a: 1) K and N cold air intake system 2) Throttle body spacer 3) magnaflow catback 2.5 inch with single exit exhaust. Any guess what my fuel economy numbers will go to?

My next stage that I will be doing in the next month after I note the gains from the current mods, is an underdrive pulley, an electric fan setup, and synthetic diff, trans, and engine oil.

After that I am not to sure. Will headers and 1.7 rockers help out econ or do they just gain power? Does anyone make a chip that helps with econ?

Your comments and suggestions are welcome, this is my first post on the Ranger Station!

with 1-3 you might gain as much as .5 - 1.5mpg, as far as headers and 1.7 rockers the only thing i can see you gaining is power/performance, you'd probably get more out of the synthetics and underdrive pully and e-fan mpg wise. quite frankly i wouldn't snivle about 22-23mpg, i wish i had that or even close in the stuff i drive but my junk is either fullsize or high performance. word of warning [ i could be wrong ] but i heard once you go synthetic you should stay synthetic, again not sure of last statement, it was word of mouth. let us know of gain/benefits

 

[exbass94]

Throttle body spacers don't do anything, K&N intakes don't do too much either, and I'm personally just not a fan of K&N filters in general. Synthetic fluids can be good and have their advantages, and you can switch back to conventional at any time.

 

[MAKG]

With 23 MPG, none of the mods described here are going to do anything at all except make potential places to break things. You are competing with the factory at its own game, and you WILL lose against a billion dollar budget.

If you want to do better than that, buy a car. Preferably very small.

 

[Raze]

Hmm, I get 21-23 MPG mixed useage from my '07 3.0 5spd Sport w/4.10 rear-end. Only things I've got is a tonneau and a K&N drop in. Over on RPS they swear up and down that the underdrive pulley and E-fan mod are the best bang for the buck, soon as mine's outta warranty those are the first things I'm going to do. Other good ones would be to lower your rig/air dam and get much lighter rims to lower unsprung weight. Taller gears w/a rearend swap would also buy alot, just some ideas...

 

[goebeld]

Well It will be interesting to see what will happen. I am hearing every thing from the factory is perfect and cant be beat to 1.5 mpg. Any one else have any thoughts on the 1.7 rockers?

 

[Hahnsb2]

Taller gears w/a rearend swap would also buy alot, just some ideas...

It likely wont, 3.0s like to spin, try cruising around 2700-3200 for best economy.

 

[goebeld]

It likely wont, 3.0s like to spin, try cruising around 2700-3200 for best economy.

I have seen that posted on this forum a lot and have a hard time believing it. After about 2800 my engine just plain sounds like it is working harder. I know that sounds very subjective but once it gets to about 3,000 rpm I have to give it more throttle for it to keep accelerating (like from 1/4 throttle to 1/2). I guess I will just have to try it. Right now I find I get the best econ shifting at about 2800-3000 while accelerating and then put it in the highest gear it will take without lugging while maintaining speed. I do the speed limit everywhere except the freeway around her is 70mph and I do like 60-65. I accel slow and try to coast as much as possible before I know I have to use the brakes

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

all internal combustion engines achieve their best fuel economy at their peak torque for a given throttle setting. the 3.0's peak torque is at about 3500 RPM, but that is at WOT...you will achieve best fuel economy closer to 3,000rpm. dont believe me? get a vacuum gauge. the driver is by far the largest variable when it comes to fuel economy. driving by a vacuum gauge helps to lessen the impact of different driving styles by allowing you to actively monitor your engines load. i can gain between 3-4 MPG on the highway just by using 4th gear rather than 5th, which moves me up from around 2200 RPM to closer to 3k at 60mph.

performance modifications (other than increasing displacement or forced induction) are all about efficiency. anything that helps you make more power with the same displacement is increasing your engines efficiency. the problem is keeping your foot out of the throttle with all your new-found pep, but if you can manage it, you will gain fuel economy from things like headers, roller rockers, under drive pullies, ect.

throttle body spacers on multi-port fuel injected engines are useless, as are "cold air kits" since your factory intake is already cold air. on top of that, your factory intake is equipped with a preheater which helps to improve cold driveability and warm the engine up faster (a cold engine guzzles fuel). most aftermarket intake kits eliminate this efficient system.

cat back exhaust systems should only be installed for the look and sound. your factory 2" system is tuned to maintain exhaust velocity at highway speeds, and is more than sufficient for your engines needs.

switching to an e-fan is probably the worst idea of all. your factory mechanical fan is driven by a thermo-viscous clutch, which only draws as much energy as needed to meet cooling demands. on top of that, there are very few e-fans on the market that can pull as much air as your mechanical fan. combine that with a lack of proper shrouding and an e-fan can easily let you down when the demand is high.

sorry for the long post, but i was watching this thread and telling myself i wouldnt get drawn into yet another fuel economy argument...but i finally couldnt take the misinformation that was spewing forth any longer.

 

[goebeld]

What about this article. Its old but I figure that physics never go out of date... unless they are wrong http://www.viragotech.com/fixit/FuelEconomyEngineEfficiencyPower.html.

Why did Ford put in a 5th gear if you dont use it on the highway? Seems like an awful waste of money to me and makes the car look bad in fuel econ and top gear accel tests.

I used to own a vw with an in dash instant fuel econ gauge. The higher the gear I drove in without lugging the better my fuel econ. The VR6 motor likes rpms a lot more than my ranger. Why is the fuel consumption pattern different on my ranger? Maybe I should get a fuel econ gauge that plugs into my obdII port.

 

[fixizin]

A very flush mounted decklid would probably yield greater gains than all the dubious mods you've listed, and give you a 6' long lockable storage trunk.

Sounds like you have the 5-spd manual instead of the auto, so you're already way ahead of the game. Our beloved 3.0 Ranger is not particularly light nor aerodynamic, so 23 MPG is pretty close to the max. already. 30 MPG is out of the question.

Me, I'm gonna sniff around and see if .gov (or Mr. Pickens) will give me $$ to convert to CNG, and then throw in a bunch of CNG to boot!

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

Why did Ford put in a 5th gear if you dont use it on the highway? Seems like an awful waste of money to me and makes the car look bad in fuel econ and top gear accel tests.

because people dont like spinning 3k rpm down the highway, it "feels" bad, manufacturers have noise and vibration considerations when designing vehicles, and because a 5 speed will outsell a 3 speed any day (its a bigger number). in short, because 5 speeds is what the people want.

 

[goebeld]

A very flush mounted decklid would probably yield greater gains than all the dubious mods you've listed, and give you a 6' long lockable storage trunk.

I already have a deck lid. However the bottom plastic piece of the front bumper ripped off when I was off roading. I will replace that as im sure it helps with aerodynamics

 

[goebeld]

I installed the K and N cold air intake and throttle body spacer this morning. Took an hour to install both. It sounds great! The engine sounds the same at cruise and whistles a bit under light accel. When I floor it it really growls a lot more than it used to... There is a noticeable increase in accel. I will put the magnaflow 2.5 inch catback single exit on this afternoon. Hopefully I can still hear the intake over it cause I love the sound of it. It will be very hard to keep my foot out of the gas with how great it sounds. I have a 1/4 tank left. After this 1/4 tank I figure I will start driving for econ and see what kind of numbers I get. After 3-5 tanks I will put on the e-fan and underdrive pulley...

 

[Wicked_Sludge]