The myth of MPG

[Lefty]

Funny. I have a fiat 500 four cylinder that gets forty five MPG. The thing is I live in the city. My Fiat car computer tells me that my average speed is twenty three MPH. The Fiat actually gets twenty two MPG.

I have an old Ranger Vulcan V6 which is supposed to get maybe twenty or twenty one MPG. I get eighteen or nineteen MPG in the city. The two vehicles are so very different, but the mileage is pretty much the same.

 

[JoshT]

Funny. I have a fiat 500 four cylinder that gets forty five MPG. The thing is I live in the city. My Fiat car computer tells me that my average speed is twenty three MPH. The Fiat actually gets twenty two MPG.

I have an old Ranger Vulcan V6 which is supposed to get maybe twenty or twenty one MPG. I get eighteen or nineteen MPG in the city. The two vehicles are so very different, but the mileage is pretty much the same.

I think you might need to take a look at how differently you drive the two, you might not even realize it.

My driving is mostly highway, not to mention my vehicles are a fair bit different, so not trying to compare to your driving.

The 1999 Ranger a was 4.0L 4x4 auto prior to V8 swap. I don't know what it was rated for, but it consistently got 15 MPG combined. I think may have picked up a couple of MPG from the swap, but still got a lot of figuring to do there and don't really care about MPG in it.

The 2000 F-250 7.3L 4x4 manual was consistently getting 19-20 MPG. That mileage with that amnount of torque on tap is something else making it hard to let go. On the flip side, it might get better mileage, but the fuel is also more expensive.

The 2010 Forte is rated at 23/31 MPG. I consistently show 28-29 MPG tank average on the built-in monitor, I have gotten it over 30 on the interstate, and I'm not friendly with the skinny pedal. The times I've checked it at the pump the monitor was accurate.

The 2021 F-150 2.3L auto 4x4, I'm showing it to averge 21 MPG. Haven't driven it on anything long distance to know what it can do. Putting it into sport mode doesn't seem to decrease the mileage much if any.

Don't even ask about the F-100, it used to be single digits. I think the Holley Sniper bumped it up to low double digits, but I don't try to track it, also don't drive it much at all. Like the swapped Ranger, don't much care about the MPG, but interested to how it might change with future mods.

Either Fiat was being overly optomistic on what they rated the 500 at, or you might be a little happier with the skinny pedal (compared to Ranger) than you may think. Just my opinion, I'm several states away, can't say how my vehicles or MPG would fair in your area. Also can't guess at how I'd do driving your vehicles and, having stood beside a Fiat 500, wouldn't want to spend enough time in one to find out.

 

[19Walt93]

When you're sitting at a stop light you're getting zero mpg, repeatedly accelerating from a stop and dealing with traffic will both hurt mpg, as will driving in cold weather. You have to drive where you have to drive, don't bother to check the mileage every time.

 

[Lefty]

When you're sitting at a stop light you're getting zero mpg, repeatedly accelerating from a stop and dealing with traffic will both hurt mpg, as will driving in cold weather. You have to drive where you have to drive, don't bother to check the mileage every time.

Exactly. Why even worry about it? Why not put big tires underneath? Tweak motor a bit? Rev it up as you please? It won't matter anyway, especially on the Vulcan.

City driving requires good fade free brakes for sudden stops. Also a good suspension tweaks for emergency stops, especially on the express ways. It's more important, actually, than your insurance. After all, almost any kind of fender bender means that your provider will want to toal your baby out.

 

[bobbywalter]

mpg is a generalized expectation.

 

[sgtsandman]

The problem with the advertised mpg for a given vehicle, is they are often given for ideal conditions that result in the best numbers. So, they might actually be true, in the right context and condtions.

I doubt the vehicle had any kind of load in it, other than the driver, and probably was on the flattest terrain they could find with no accessories of any kind adding drag. Like mud flaps, hood guards, window visors, and so on. I believe the speed which they are tested at hasn't changed either (55 mph). Speeds higher than that cause the fuel mileage to drop due to increased drag.

 

[Lefty]

I think you might need to take a look at how differently you drive the two, you might not even realize it.

My driving is mostly highway, not to mention my vehicles are a fair bit different, so not trying to compare to your driving.

The 1999 Ranger a was 4.0L 4x4 auto prior to V8 swap. I don't know what it was rated for, but it consistently got 15 MPG combined. I think may have picked up a couple of MPG from the swap, but still got a lot of figuring to do there and don't really care about MPG in it.

The 2000 F-250 7.3L 4x4 manual was consistently getting 19-20 MPG. That mileage with that amnount of torque on tap is something else making it hard to let go. On the flip side, it might get better mileage, but the fuel is also more expensive.

The 2010 Forte is rated at 23/31 MPG. I consistently show 28-29 MPG tank average on the built-in monitor, I have gotten it over 30 on the interstate, and I'm not friendly with the skinny pedal. The times I've checked it at the pump the monitor was accurate.

The 2021 F-150 2.3L auto 4x4, I'm showing it to averge 21 MPG. Haven't driven it on anything long distance to know what it can do. Putting it into sport mode doesn't seem to decrease the mileage much if any.

Don't even ask about the F-100, it used to be single digits. I think the Holley Sniper bumped it up to low double digits, but I don't try to track it, also don't drive it much at all. Like the swapped Ranger, don't much care about the MPG, but interested to how it might change with future mods.

Either Fiat was being overly optomistic on what they rated the 500 at, or you might be a little happier with the skinny pedal (compared to Ranger) than you may think. Just my opinion, I'm several states away, can't say how my vehicles or MPG would fair in your area. Also can't guess at how I'd do driving your vehicles and, having stood beside a Fiat 500, wouldn't want to spend enough time in one to find out.

If anything, I prefer to drive this little truck harder. It may not be the fastest but it's geared like a mountain goat. And speaking of mammals, I love jack rabbit starts. It helps whenever I have to drive cross town in heavy rush hour traffic. Weight doesn't seem to matter either. The pickup bed is loaded half of the time.

Sometimes I've driven with mileage in mind and done one or two MPH better. Dual exhausts help. Maybe also the K&N filter, synthetic oil, and an Efan. I got twenty to twenty one mpg in the summer driving inside the city. I score about the same on the highway, maybe a little better.

 

[superj]

19 is my 3.0 on the highway. 15/16 in town since all in town is bumper to bumper stop and go for me to get on and off base.

the ranger with 5 speed, 3.0, and 4.10 is a blast to drive. it definitely feels like a sports car when you do the sway bars and lower it a bit. and the short shifter helps it to feel even more like a sports car.

 

[Lefty]

19 is my 3.0 on the highway. 15/16 in town since all in town is bumper to bumper stop and go for me to get on and off base.

the ranger with 5 speed, 3.0, and 4.10 is a blast to drive. it definitely feels like a sports car when you do the sway bars and lower it a bit. and the short shifter helps it to feel even more like a sports car.

Indeed, SuperJ. City or highway, winter or summer, lead foot or not, that Vulcan V6 gets pretty much the same MPG, no matter what.

 

[youngbuckwithapickuptruck]

my 350kmi 2000 2.5l work truck gets 24mpg hwy when it used to get 27mpg hwy at 200kmi about 10+ years ago.
what can a compression test kit from autozone tell me? jw.

 

[bobbywalter]

my 350kmi 2000 2.5l work truck gets 24mpg hwy when it used to get 27mpg hwy at 200kmi about 10+ years ago.
what can a compression test kit from autozone tell me? jw.

this is wear. everything .... ring and pinion.....transmission....and rings and bearings.

i know i sure as fawk cant pick up the same stuff and carry it as well as i could now that i could 10 years ago.

though...it is probably in large part the shitty fuel we have now....e15 is getting more common....i would suspect that and injector/air filter differential to contribute the majority of the loss....and tire wear.

 

[sgtsandman]

my 350kmi 2000 2.5l work truck gets 24mpg hwy when it used to get 27mpg hwy at 200kmi about 10+ years ago.
what can a compression test kit from autozone tell me? jw.

I'm going to go with Bobby this. Overall powertrain wear and the fuel we have access too. I have noticed a dip in mpg for both of my trucks, more than winter blend fuel and things I have done to them that will reduce mpg.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Ratings are weird.

Our Bronco easily beats its rating.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

My blue 00 Ranger, up until the ethanol crap gas, was consistently getting 22-24 mpg around town and 28-31 on the highway. Enter crap gas and it went to 17 around town and 19 highway.

My green 00 Ranger got 13/14 all the time with the 4.0 and changing to the 5.0 AWD got me… 13/14… I think there’s still some gremlins to chase out or squash though.

My 92 Ranger got 13-ish when I got it. After a bunch of work including a bunch of transmission stuff, it was getting about 15 and slowly improving a little when it got clobbered.

My Choptop has been getting 13/14 for quite some time. I fixed a bunch of things and replaced the bad auto computer for a reman manual computer and mileage shot up for a couple weeks, then promptly dropped right back to where it was. I’m not happy about that and I’m not sure what the problem is now.

My F-150 gets 13/14. The ol 300 seems to be a tad thirsty but very effective.

Dump truck got 8 around town and 9 on the highway until it started gulping oil, then it went to about 6. I’m hoping to be at least back around the 8/9 mark when I get it fixed back up. 460 will pass about everything but a gas station. The only bright spot is that it gets the same fuel economy with 2 ton in the bed and a trailer with an 8k machine on it. Empty or full, it doesn’t care.

 

[Curious Hound]

Both my trucks get around 15-16-ish, depending on driving conditions and load.

There are too many variables changing all the time. That little fiat mentioned above might get even more than 45mpg. If you were to drive it at 25mph non-stop for a few hours. Thar's because it doesn't weigh anything and aerodynamic drag is negligible at 25mph. But take that to 75mph and you'll see a hit in mpg numbers. Aerodynamic drag isn't linear. It's exponential. So if you double your speed, the drag goes up 4 times.

City driving is a whole different story. Starts and stops and idling at lights, stop signs and traffic jams. And it's never identical the next day. Not much aerodynamic drag and few high speed runs.

My Ranger is an aerodynamic heavy (<5,000lbs) mess. So, I try to keep it off the interstate highways. Tooling around on country roads at 35-50mph suits it just fine.