Gas mileage?

[Bronco ii Man]

Heavy foot???

 

[Bronco ii Man]

Cause of a lot of mpg problems no one wants to admit!

 

[cschannuth]

The 2.9 rwd Ranger I just bought has 4.11 gears, I didn't think a 4 cylinder could go through gas so fast. I'm not able to change the pinion gear so I was wondering if I I could go to a bigger tire and wheel. Does that make any sense? I have the original 225x15 tires on the truck now.

Larger tires will reduce mpgs.

 

[sgtsandman]

If I remember correctly, the 2.3 Duratec engine is supposed to get about 29 mpg but that is mileage on the highway and best mileage is usually seen at speeds around 55-60 mph. Speeds above that, the mpg is going to drop. As far as mpg for the stop and go traffic in town, I have no idea what that would be.

As mentioned above, 3.73 would give the best mpg and performance compromise.

A 3.45/3.55 gearing and 4.10/4.11 gearing are going to give lower mpg.

3.45/3.55 is a "taller" gear, so performance is going to drop. In my opinion and experience, that gearing is too tall for a four cylinder engine. But I live in an area with a lot of hills and valleys in the Appalachian Mountain chain. A flatter area might be better suited.

4.10/4.11 gears are lower, so get up and go is going to be best at the expense of mpg. In my opinion and experience, that is the best match for a four cylinder engine but I've only driven older, less powerful four cylinder trucks. The Duratec engine is more powerful and more efficient.

So, a 3.73:1 axle might work out ok. The truck won't be as peppy but won't be a dog either. But you might gain a few mpgs in the process.

All that being said, we need to know what mpg you are getting in order to say if anything is out of place. Driving style and other details are a need to know as well. Abrupt driving and a heavy foot are going to kill fuel mileage regardless of what vehicle you have.

 

[plainolebill]

Checked the mileage and it's been getting right at 18, that's around town only. Auto transmission.

The terrain is pretty flat in the Willamette Valley but plenty of altitude in most of state.

 

[scotts90ranger]

If only short trips in town then it isn't going to be great, and starting and stopping is going to suck it down no matter what... my '97 has 4.10 gears and a 2.3L (different, but 5 speed manual too...). I've had 3 sets of tires on it in the last 2.5 years (just for fun, came with one, tried another then tried another, all cheap used tires), 27" tall, 28" tall and 29" tall, for the most part all got 22mpg with mixed driving but I had a heavier foot for the first while. The last set of tires I've had on for almost 30k miles and they're the 28" tires in high mileage passenger car form and if I behave I can sneak 25mpg in... the others were more aggressive snow tires and best was 23mpg.

Tread pattern and driving style/situation makes more difference... plus check your speedometer, depending on where you are in Oregon there's a speedo check station just north of Woodburn on I5 which is where I did my correction of 7% on my current tires, checked a dozen times anytime I'm driving south after work...

 

[plainolebill]

I'm nearly 80 years old and my hot-rodding days are long past. I was just a little shocked at how low the mileage is for such a weenie motor. This is nearly as bad as my old Scout Traveler (not really, it got 12mpg around town and on the interstate).

 

[sgtsandman]

I'm nearly 80 years old and my hot-rodding days are long past. I was just a little shocked at how low the mileage is for such a weenie motor. This is nearly as bad as my old Scout Traveler (not really, it got 12mpg around town and on the interstate).

I blame it on the vehicle form factor (it’s shape) and the engines in the Rangers have always been a bit underpowered, thus causing them to work harder and burn more fuel. The engines also are older designs that they just pulled off the shelf. So, for all those reasons, the fuel mileage takes a hit. I’m sure there are other reasons as well but that is why your truck isn’t doing any better than a truck designed and built in the 1980s.

There are some things you can do to tweak it. Tires, like what you have been experimenting with. A tonneau cover will help some too. But they won’t be huge numbers. A regearing of the axle to 3.73:1 might help if you have a 3.45/3.55 or a 4.10 axle but you are getting into a cost vs benefit area there.

The one benefit of the old powertrain design is they have been proven and issues to each engine and transmission are well known. That may or may not be a consolation for you.

 

[Garth Libre]

my 2.3 (lima-1994) gets 21 with 4.10’s, a manual transmission & 225/70/15’s. While its not “great”, it is acceptable and I can tow when I need to, Mine came with 3.45’s and from what Ive been told you can expect the same fuel economy from either 3.45 or 4.10, but the engine is working hard/lugging with 3.45’s and with 4.10’s its humming along at a higher rpm-where its making its power at. Ive found 3.73’s to be the best mpg with a 2.3 (lima anyways, Ive no experience with the newer “mazda” 2.3) My ‘88 2.3 2wd supercab had a manual & 3.73’s, it got a consistent 23-25 mpg and once got 27 on a highway trip. I would check everything else before messing with the gear ratio, start with compression test & a tune up. Ive heard that the newer (mazda) 2.3’s do better on fuel than the older lima series, they dont seem to live as long but will go over 200K.
When I was considering a newer ranger my research found that 2.3 manuals came with 3.73 & the automatics were 4.10’s. The ranger I looked at was a 2006. I passed on it as the stealership was asking way to much for it.

I have a 2010 with the 2.3 liter manual transmission and stock gearing. If I drive very sensibly (which such a moderate engine lends itself to) I get 30 mpg. If I drive normally, I get 28 mpg. If I'm hauling a lot, stop and go and in a rush, I get 25 mpg. I can average 29 for two or three tanks in a row if I just drive at 60 mph along with some short trips in town. If someone puts a gun to my head and I try every trick in the book, I can get 32 mpg for a tank. I think this is the best we can expect. My understanding is that the most economical Maverick can get 40 mpg. Now that's good for a car or a truck!