Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Flush
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2
- Vehicle Year
- 1996
- Transmission
- Manual
I'm doing some research on 4x4 Rangers with the 3.0 v6 and according to the original EPA estimates there was a pretty significant drop in fuel economy in these trucks in the 90s. From 93-96 they were rated 18city/24hiway but by 2000 they were down to 16city/20 hiway. That is a 20% reduction in highway mileage, which I think is pretty significant.
Anybody know why this may be the case? Changes to the 3.0 to get more power out of it hurt economy? Changes to base model 4x4 gear ratios? As far as I know the EPA rating method did not change over that time. There was a big change in 2008 to the EPA method but the numbers I posted are the orginal window sticker numbers and I believe used the same exact testing method.
I guess I'm just curious if a 96 Ranger (with 3.0) really would get 4 mpg better mileage in a apples to apples vs a 2000, and if so, why?
Anybody know why this may be the case? Changes to the 3.0 to get more power out of it hurt economy? Changes to base model 4x4 gear ratios? As far as I know the EPA rating method did not change over that time. There was a big change in 2008 to the EPA method but the numbers I posted are the orginal window sticker numbers and I believe used the same exact testing method.
I guess I'm just curious if a 96 Ranger (with 3.0) really would get 4 mpg better mileage in a apples to apples vs a 2000, and if so, why?
