Thinking about trading

[Mickey Bitsko]

Thinking about trading my 2000 xlt 4x4 4.0 for early 90's f-150 ext cab 5.0 auto.4:10, I have 3:73
Main purpose to get a little more room and power [ I live in the mountains ]
BUT... I like my 18-20 mpg [ and I love my ranger ] .
Soo... what kind of mileage should/can I expect from a 5.0 auto or stick [ not hearing a lot of good about the manuals in those early 90's]

what do y'all think?

 

[RonD]

1993 F-150 5.0l ex-cab 4x4 with auto would do about 11-14mpg, 2WD or Manual would only add about 1-2MPG
As you know driving habits are the biggest factor with MPG

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

1993 F-150 5.0l ex-cab 4x4 with auto would do about 11-14mpg, 2WD or Manual would only add about 1-2MPG
As you know driving habits are the biggest factor with MPG

Hmm. Thats not encouraging. Some of the sellers [C/L ] boast a little better, but i'm not surprised really.
I figure I'll get the truth here.
I have read on this site that 5.0 swaps in rangers do a little better...no ?

 

[RonD]

Yes, less weight for a Ranger.
Ranger average curb weight is 3,100lbs
F-150 average is 4,000lbs
So almost a 3rd more weight with the F-150

If you put 900lbs in the back of the 5.0l Ranger it would get similar MPG to empty F-150, maybe slightly better because of less wind resistance, lol.

1993 Ranger with 4.0l when new posted 18mpg/combined

1993 MPG for F-150, regular cab with 5.0l when new was 15mpg/combined
When you add the extra weight for ex-cab and 4x4 MPG goes down

F-150 4.9l I6 was the same, less HP but more low end torque, same MPG because of similar displacement

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

Yes, less weight for a Ranger.
Ranger average curb weight is 3,100lbs
F-150 average is 4,000lbs
So almost a 3rd more weight with the F-150

If you put 900lbs in the back of the 5.0l Ranger it would get similar MPG to empty F-150, maybe slightly better because of less wind resistance, lol.

1993 MPG for F-150, regular cab with 5.0l when new was 15mpg/combined
When you add the extra weight for ex-cab and 4x4 MPG goes down

F-150 4.9l I6 was the same, less HP but more low end torque, same MPG because of similar displacement

Yeah.. that all makes sense.
I really do like my ranger and it does anything I need done and run the a/c.
For heavy lifting I have 92' f-350 , so , I think I'll sit back and relax..

Thanks RonD

 

[Andy D]

I know I'm an old fart, But you guys who jack up your rigs and put monster tires on a little bitty Ranger, then complain about lousy mpg... Thats a throw away , I'm not saying the OP is complaining. I'm a flat lander, but with 3.73s and 235 75 15s your Ranger should climb pretty good. Keep the fluids topped and run a cooler if you have an AT. Ballast between the rear wheels for winter. Look into larger brake hardware. Keep the Ranger, especially with a F350 for big stuff. Enjoy the Ranger, there won't be any more of them.

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

I know I'm an old fart, But you guys who jack up your rigs and put monster tires on a little bitty Ranger, then complain about lousy mpg... Thats a throw away , I'm not saying the OP is complaining. I'm a flat lander, but with 3.73s and 235 75 15s your Ranger should climb pretty good. Keep the fluids topped and run a cooler if you have an AT. Ballast between the rear wheels for winter. Look into larger brake hardware. Keep the Ranger, especially with a F350 for big stuff. Enjoy the Ranger, there won't be any more of them.

I am an old fart also, 3:73 w/245 75 16 stock wheel/tire size. Not complaining about my ranger capabilities, just doing a little fishing.

Andy D, thank you for comments
I think i'm done with my fishing expedition.

thanks again guys

 

[Andy D]

I sorta thought you were a fellow boomer from your handle. I got my first subscription to MAD Magazine from my sister in 1957

 

[BLOODBANE]

I know I'm an old fart, But you guys who jack up your rigs and put monster tires on a little bitty Ranger, then complain about lousy mpg... Thats a throw away , I'm not saying the OP is complaining. I'm a flat lander, but with 3.73s and 235 75 15s your Ranger should climb pretty good. Keep the fluids topped and run a cooler if you have an AT. Ballast between the rear wheels for winter. Look into larger brake hardware. Keep the Ranger, especially with a F350 for big stuff. Enjoy the Ranger, there won't be any more of them.

Im an old-ish fart, with big tires, kinda jacked up and only get around 5-6 mpg out of my Ranger. Of course it wasnt built for mpg, it was built for HP/torque. 425HP out of a 347 Stoker takes fuel to feed it. My 2000 F-350, dually only gets 12mpg at best (V-10, I wish it was the 7.3). My 2001 Dodge with the big Cummins and a 6sp gets around 23....

 

[RonD]

Ford started offering the 7.3l diesel in the 1995 F250, it can get 15-20mpg if kept in good running condition.

Nice thing about diesels is that they tend to get the same MPG empty or fully loaded and pulling a trailer, lol.
So you get the extra room, the extra HP and more torque than a gasser V8, and same MPG as Ranger, although diesel tends to cost $.05-.$10 more per gallon than regular

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

I sorta thought you were a fellow boomer from your handle. I got my first subscription to MAD Magazine from my sister in 1957

Been on the planet since 48'