Mileage Myth

[thegoat4]

I've heard before that 3.0 and 4.0 get the same fuel economy, and that's obviously crap. Looking at the mileage thread in the 4.0 forum, 20 seems to be good for most folks in there.

For my truck, 3.0 2wd stick extended cab stock everything city driving in austin gets me right at 20mpg, and that's with a ton of stop and go and jumping to cut people off. Towing knocks it down to 15-17, and a load in the bed has no discernable effect even if tall.

Highway, if I stay in 5th going 60-65 (no cruise control) I can get 27 easy, and once I got over 32 from Dallas to Austin. I think I had a tail wind. Towing, 18-22, 60-65mph again, 4th gear. If I drive like the rest of the idiots on I35 I still get 23-24 unloaded.

That said, I'd sure like a diesel 3.0. I can see it now: 50mpg stump-puller.

 

[Jspafford]

I have a 1999 3.0L I would love to trade you so you can see how shitty the mileage is. I don't think 15MPG is good at all for a regular cab, automatic 4x4. My 4.0L ranger DID get better than this truck, and it least I could punch it in the 4.0L and break the tires loose.

You are one of the exceptions to the rule. Be happy about it.

 

[sonicboom919]

My 2004 extended cab 3.0 5 speed get great milage, in my opinion. I get 26 on the highway and 19-20 doin hardcore stop and go drivin...and it's damn peppy off the line. I love it!

 

[michowski]

my 93 gets about 14-15 city.

 

[Zerocide]

my 99 3.0 gets about 17-19 on regular gas. 14-15 on e-85.

 

[99stepside]

Damn, i think there might be something wrong with my engine. I have a 3.0 auto 4x4 and get 8-12 street and 15-16 highway if im lucky. i also have a 2001 auto 4.0 EDGE and it gets way better mileage than the 3.0. i thought it was because my 3.0 is a 4x4 and the edge isnt. is that the case????

 

[Dangeranger3]

Damn, i think there might be something wrong with my engine. I have a 3.0 auto 4x4 and get 8-12 street and 15-16 highway if im lucky. i also have a 2001 auto 4.0 EDGE and it gets way better mileage than the 3.0. i thought it was because my 3.0 is a 4x4 and the edge isnt. is that the case????

My guess is that your lift and tires have something to do with it.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

i cant imagine a 3" body lift and 32's would make that much of a difference.

my 93, 4x4, with 31's will hit 24MPG.

 

[baddis]

when i went to 31's my mileage went up

 

[Half Nuts]

I thought we were more or less on agreement about the mileage on the 3.0- you have to drive it a little "harder" than the bigger motors to keep it in the zone- up around 3k RPM and the motor tends to get maximum economy. Modifications aside, the engine is working at it's best efficiency in that range, so if you're unhappy with your fuel mileage, take a close look at how you drive.

 

[dangeranger01]

I have 30s on mine, It is a reg cab 4x4 and I got 19mpg in town this last tank. And im not one to baby stuff around, it gets hammered on. On the highway going from Phoenix to WA with 3 people in the cab my street bike and clothse in the bed it got 25-31mpg. I was very surprised. And i dont have cruise either.

 

[Maverick]

I wish my rig got as good mileage as everybody elses 3.0 (I wonder about the truth behind these claims). I average 15-16 in town with short freeway runs mixed in, with 19.5 being the best I've ever gotten.

 

[Danger-Ranger96]

i can't imagine what my truck is like on fuel, i just put $25 worth of regular in it yesterday and now its on Empty, keeping in mind that i drove around yesterday but i do know for sure that my truck probably only gets around 10-15 mpg lmao. gotta love the 4.0L

my friend has a 93 with a 3.0L and i know he gets better mileage then i do. my friend has a 91 probe with the 3.0L Vulcan and that thing gets wicked mileage lol

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

I wonder about the truth behind these claims

your free to come for a drive with me any day of the week

20 pretty consistantly...24 if i stay out of 5th on the highway.

 

[Will]

I have 30s on mine, It is a reg cab 4x4 and I got 19mpg in town this last tank. And im not one to baby stuff around, it gets hammered on. On the highway going from Phoenix to WA with 3 people in the cab my street bike and clothse in the bed it got 25-31mpg. I was very surprised. And i dont have cruise either.

25-31 is a 20% spread.

My 4.0 5-speed Ranger made 21mpg pretty regularly on the highway--cruise on at 65. I suck without the cruise.

Case in point, 2wd Mazda B2600i--my brother and i went on a 1,100 mile round trip. On my legs I got 26, on his he got 31. No cruise and I'm just not steady. I have a hard time seeing a 3.0 Ranger get much more than 25mpg. And not a 4x4 one certainly.

EPA says 15/21 3.0 and 15/20 4.0

My gut tells me that a steady driver would get nearly the same with either.

The thing is, it takes a certain amount of power to drive this truck down the road. These engines are the same technology; if you spun them with an electric motor and measured the friction it would be nearly identical as they have the same number of bearings and pistons. The real difference is that to 4.0 CAN burn more fuel. It is the driver that makes the 4.0 a pig. If you accelerate at the same rate that the 3.0 driver accelerates, you'll do as well with fuel.