The 3.0 wastes the same fuel as the 4.0?

[bluebombersfan]

I have a 2006 sport with a 3.0 and the specs on consumer guide shows mpg as 18 and 23 mpg. It also shows the 4.0 at 17 and 23 mpg. Is this correct?

How can a bigger engine use the same fuel? Also when I check the 2010 specs of the 4.0l it drops down to 15 and 20 mpg. Why would a newer engine drop mpgs? I thought the purpose of technology is better mpgs. Why does ford go backwards in some years?

I guess I feel a little dissipointed at times because when I purchased my 3.0 L that it would be more economical then the 4.0 L. The 2006 models seem to both use the same amount of gas.

I have to say though after driving a 96 4 banger for so many years even this 3.0 feels pretty awsome. The biggest difference I noticed was the tourque right of the bat. But the newer 2.3's are almost the same as the 3.0 so I think I would have been happy with the newer 2.3 in my sport ranger.

 

[EMB1230]

It's because trucks, suv's and vans all have crappy aerodynamics. It's the same with the Aerostar and Windstar, the 3L gets the same mileage as the 4L Aero or 3.8L Windstar. Actually the 3L should get worse since it has to work harder. I don't think that the ratings are dropping, every few years they are reevaluated and adjusted to be more realistic.

 

[bluebombersfan]

It's because trucks, suv's and vans all have crappy aerodynamics. It's the same with the Aerostar and Windstar, the 3L gets the same mileage as the 4L Aero or 3.8L Windstar. Actually the 3L should get worse since it has to work harder. I don't think that the ratings are dropping, every few years they are reevaluated and adjusted to be more realistic.

??? I'm not sure what your talking about. The 2.3L has to work the hardest of all and still kickes but in mpg's. Mind you the 2.3 has slightly smaller tires but still. I think the problem is this vulcan 3.0l engine had very little improvements over the last couple decades. If you want mpgs there's the 2.3, if you want power there's the 4.0L. The 3.0L vulcan seems to offer neither.

Also the newer 2.3 L has almost the same power of the 3.0L. meanwhile all this time the 3.O seems to be an unchanged un-improved motor.
I supose you can look on the bright side and say that you'll save a couple dollar bills at the gas pump compared to the 4.0l. And the fact that it was an initial cheaper purchase price then the 4.0l. But other then that it's obvious why this motor was discontinued. Power and fuel consumption wise this motor has been unchanged for the last 2 decades.

 

[PlumCrazy]

My 3.0 has over 250k on the clock and still runs like a top and pulls 20-22 mpg mixed city/highway.

My 95 4.0 has never pulled more than 16 mpg. My old tired 2.3 rarely did better than 15 mpg. I admit the 2.3 was rode hard and put away wet, but regardless of how I drove it sucked on fuel economy and power.

-PlumCrazy

 

[straycat]

It is strange how some trucks can get better gas milage with a lift kit or without one and with different gearing and tires. My lifted 2wd 99 Ranger 4.0 with automatic trans sits on 33x12.5x15 BFG KO tires and I have a 4:10 rear gear and I get 24 mpg on the highway at 70 mph. I get around 18-19 mpg around town with the crap stop and go traffic.

 

[PlumCrazy]

Its all about driving habits. My 4.0 on 35's gets beat on and wound out every time I take it out and my mpg shows it. My 3.0 has nothing to prove and has to get me to and from work everyday so it has a pretty easy life besides the 200-300lbs of tools a carry.

-PlumCrazy

 

[MrRangerSir]

Both my trucks are 93 standard cab, long box, 4X4, AT, 3.73 gears, 235/15 tires and the fuel mileage is nearly identical between the 3.0 and the 4.0. Typically low 20's. Big difference in power. The 4.0 is adequate where the 3.0 sucks.

FWIW, I also have an E350 motorhome with a 7.3 diesel that also gets around 20 mpg.

 

[Mac]

Difference in size really doesn't mean everything. I was getting the same mileage in my '05' sohc 4.0 4x4 in identical truck that was a 3.0 and 4x2. Same driving habits, same route. Both were 20-22 mpg. Sure the 4 bangers can get better mileage but load them down and how are they then? I had a '98' 2.5L that topped out empty at 73 mph. Totally different designs, ohc motors are just more efficent. The Europeans were way ahead of us in designing effienent motors by many years. Look at the new 420hp DOHC Mustang, same approx weight as a Ranger and it is rated at 15/26 mpg. Sure a lot better aerodynamics but not that much, .33 vs .45. I've gotten over 20 mpg with 503 rwhp in my old '07' stang, new one is better. Several who have swaped a V-8 into a Ranger are getting over 20 mpg.
Dave

 

[EMB1230]

ohc motors are just more efficient.

You mean DOHC, right? SOHC are basically the same as a pushrod when it comes to valve layout/configuration. Having said that, IMO, OHC engines, whether single or dual, just are a more logical layout.

 

[bluebombersfan]

Difference in size really doesn't mean everything. I was getting the same mileage in my '05' sohc 4.0 4x4 in identical truck that was a 3.0 and 4x2. Same driving habits, same route. Both were 20-22 mpg. Sure the 4 bangers can get better mileage but load them down and how are they then? I had a '98' 2.5L that topped out empty at 73 mph. Totally different designs, ohc motors are just more efficent. The Europeans were way ahead of us in designing effienent motors by many years. Look at the new 420hp DOHC Mustang, same approx weight as a Ranger and it is rated at 15/26 mpg. Sure a lot better aerodynamics but not that much, .33 vs .45. I've gotten over 20 mpg with 503 rwhp in my old '07' stang, new one is better. Several who have swaped a V-8 into a Ranger are getting over 20 mpg.
Dave

I think the aerodynamics between the Ranger and the mustang are huge!! Especially on the highway. plus the ranger has clunkier tires. It's no surprise that it can get that kind of mpgs on the highway. You can't really compare the aerodynamics of a sports car to a truck.

 

[Mac]

I think the aerodynamics between the Ranger and the mustang are huge!! Especially on the highway. plus the ranger has clunkier tires. It's no surprise that it can get that kind of mpgs on the highway. You can't really compare the aerodynamics of a sports car to a truck.

Just did compare them using the same tires, same speed, same weight. Only variables would be the frontal area and Drag factor. Drag coeffiencent listed below, stays constant regardless of speed. With a Ranger going 70 mph, you are using almost half of it's power just to move thru the wind.
Good reading since you seem interested. Got a spread sheet derived from that info.
http://mb-soft.com/public2/car.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients#Typical_values_and_examples

 

[EMB1230]

It really is the Highway mileage that takes a dive with tall vehicles. If you compare a Mustang 2.3 manual to a Ranger 2.3 manual 2wd, they get the same city, but the Mustang will get much better highway. The Taurus/Ranger 3.0 Auto comparison is a little different. The Ranger gets worse City AND Highway, something about going frmm FWD to RWD and also the gear ratios were different, which is also why a Taurus is also quicker than a Ranger.

 

[adsm08]

As said before, size is not everything when it comes to fuel economy. A much bigger factor is power to weight ratio, and where the power is made. The 3.0 and 4.0 engines weigh about the same, but the 4.0 stomps the 3.0 for power, and the 4.0 makes it's real power down low where it matters. The 3.0 peaks above 3000 RPM. The 3.0's lower displacement is what gets it up to the level of the 4.0 in fuel economy.


As for the regress in economy ratings between the 06 and the 10 has nothing to do with the truck or the engine. In 2009 the EPA revised and updated the fuel economy tests to better reflect current real world conditions. Up to that point the standards used had not been updated since before my truck was new (last revision was in the mid-80s). The EPA recognized that conditions such as traffic flow, stop and go, speed limits, and such had changed since the 80s and that it was time to update the testing methods. This resulted many vehicles, not just the 4.0 Ranger, loosing a few MPG on their city ratings. A few actually gained on the highway though.

 

[EMB1230]

A much bigger factor is power to weight ratio, and where the power is made. The 3.0 and 4.0 engines weigh about the same, but the 4.0 stomps the 3.0 for power, and the 4.0 makes it's real power down low where it matters. The 3.0 peaks above 3000 RPM.

Exactly, the 3.0 peak is way too high for a truck. The Lima's and Cologne's peaked at a relatively low rpm, the Vulcan and Durtec, it was at a much higher RPM.

 

[Mac]

You mean DOHC, right? SOHC are basically the same as a pushrod when it comes to valve layout/configuration. Having said that, IMO, OHC engines, whether single or dual, just are a more logical layout.

Nope, I meant OHC of either varaity. Found this and it's the end of the comments that really makes sense, able to redesign the heads because of the lack of pushrods.
Dave


Compared to OHV pushrod systems with the same number of valves, the reciprocating components of the OHC system are fewer and have a lower overall mass. Though the system that drives the camshafts may be more complex, most engine manufacturers accept that added complexity as a trade-off for better engine performance and greater design flexibility. The fundamental reason for the OHC valvetrain is that it offers an increase in the engines' ability to exchange induction and exhaust gasses. Another performance advantage is gained as a result of the better optimised port configurations made possible with overhead camshaft designs. With no intrusive pushrods, the overhead camshaft cylinder head design can use straighter ports[1] of more advantageous crossection and length. The OHC design allows for higher engine speeds, which in turn will increase power output for a given torque.