Fuel Mileage question

[ratdude747]

It seems like my fuel mileage in my current 1995 ranger is a bit underwhelming. I've been doing good to get 16 or 17 on the highway, and 12-14 in town.

I was getting 16 in town and 17-19 on the highway in my old 1995 ranger.

Here's a comparison between the two:

Common:

-15" Explorer Alloys, Continental control contact tires
-Long bed with swiss wedge camper shell
-2WD, Automatic tranny
-Synthetic/synthetic blend oil (used both in both, no real difference in terms of MPG)
-Same interior electronics (Wilson 1000 CB antenna on roof, etc.)
-window rails/gutters on doors
-Rear Stabilizer bar

Old truck:

-3.0 Motor
-Bug Guard on hood
-16.5 gallon tank
-3.73 gearing (7.5")
-Belden wires, motorcraft double platinum plugs

New truck:

-4.0 Motor
-Aluminum Running boards
-20 gallon tank (or 21, whichever the large size is)
-3.08 gearing (8.8")
-No CEL, fuel trim in spec.
-Belden wires, Autolite double platinum plugs (not worn, at least on cylinder 1)



Is the 4.0 just that ineffiecient? Or is the gearing working against me instead of for me? Or is there something else going on?

 

[RonD]

Its the Gearing

Old 3.73 is a mid-range ratio OK on Highway and OK for around town
New 3.08 is low ratio, GREAT for highway, sucks for around town or towing

4.0l is matching 3.0l highway MPG because of this, it wouldn't if it was also a 3.73, it would be lower.

4.0Liter engine MUST use more fuel than a 3.0Liter engine at the same RPMs, just the laws of physics.
The low gearing, 3.08, is keeping the 4.0l RPMs lower at the same speed, the 3.0l had higher RPMs at that same speed, on the highway

Around town the 4.0l has to work harder to get the vehicle up to any speed because of the low ratio

3.08 ratio is a "commuter" axle, GREAT if you do alot of highway travel, not great for stop and go or towing
3.73 ratio is a "compromise" axle, OK for highway and OK for around town and towing, but not Great at either
4.10 ratio is a "towing" axle, not great for highway, but great for get up and go around town or towing

Original buyer would have ordered the 3.08 as an option, 3.73 as far as I know was stock, and 4.10 came with "trailer package" option

 

[ratdude747]

Its the Gearing

Old 3.73 is a mid-range ratio OK on Highway and OK for around town
New 3.08 is low ratio, GREAT for highway, sucks for around town or towing

4.0l is matching 3.0l highway MPG because of this, it wouldn't if it was also a 3.73, it would be lower.

4.0Liter engine MUST use more fuel than a 3.0Liter engine at the same RPMs, just the laws of physics.
The low gearing, 3.08, is keeping the 4.0l RPMs lower at the same speed, the 3.0l had higher RPMs at that same speed, on the highway

Around town the 4.0l has to work harder to get the vehicle up to any speed because of the low ratio

3.08 ratio is a "commuter" axle, GREAT if you do alot of highway travel, not great for stop and go or towing
3.73 ratio is a "compromise" axle, OK for highway and OK for around town and towing, but not Great at either
4.10 ratio is a "towing" axle, not great for highway, but great for get up and go around town or towing

Original buyer would have ordered the 3.08 as an option, 3.73 as far as I know was stock, and 4.10 came with "trailer package" option

I mainly bought it for long trips.

I had always heard that the 3.0 had "the same MPG as a 4.0 but the power of a 2.3", hence why I didn't think I'd see much of a change in MPG. With the different gearing and the different power curve of the 4.0 I thought I'd get much more highway power with no major fuel efficiency loss. While I did get the former, the latter less so (same MPG as the dog of a Dodge Durango I had before the last ranger ).


Also the original buyer almost certainly got it custom ordered, as it has all the interior options and two tone paint. Axle ratio confirmed from both axle tag and door label (and also the ridiculously low RPMs on the highway).

Oh well....

 

[chewy012]

It seems like my fuel mileage in my current 1995 ranger is a bit underwhelming. I've been doing good to get 16 or 17 on the highway, and 12-14 in town.

I was getting 16 in town and 17-19 on the highway in my old 1995 ranger.

Here's a comparison between the two:

Common:

-15" Explorer Alloys, Continental control contact tires
-Long bed with swiss wedge camper shell
-2WD, Automatic tranny
-Synthetic/synthetic blend oil (used both in both, no real difference in terms of MPG)
-Same interior electronics (Wilson 1000 CB antenna on roof, etc.)
-window rails/gutters on doors
-Rear Stabilizer bar

Old truck:

-3.0 Motor
-Bug Guard on hood
-16.5 gallon tank
-3.73 gearing (7.5")
-Belden wires, motorcraft double platinum plugs

New truck:

-4.0 Motor
-Aluminum Running boards
-20 gallon tank (or 21, whichever the large size is)
-3.08 gearing (8.8")
-No CEL, fuel trim in spec.
-Belden wires, Autolite double platinum plugs (not worn, at least on cylinder 1)



Is the 4.0 just that ineffiecient? Or is the gearing working against me instead of for me? Or is there something else going on?

My 4.0 2wd 5-speed with a 3.08 gets 21 on the highway. I just towed a uhaul trailer and got 16.5. your numbers seem low to me

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Rustbucket350]

I get around 20 mpg or so average in my 5 speed 4.0 Bronco II after I replaced about every sensor and fixed the minor vacuum leaks and I have 3.73s. With the old MAF and a leaking egr system I'd get about 8 city and 12 highway. If you have any exhaust leaks (before the O2 sensor) it can also affect the O2 sensor reading which will adjust the fuel mixture somewhat.