Uh Oh.....MPG controversy....

[adsm08]

Probably needed in order to create enough of a bow wake to overcome the brick like aerodynamics a Suburban has.

Probably. I've never experimented with it myself, but guy I worked with years ago had a 99 that he had bought new and said it seemed to hit peak around 70 MPH.

 

[Curious Hound]

I'm told that the late 90s Suburbans were closer to 70.

GM owners will say anything.

 

[sgtsandman]

Probably. I've never experimented with it myself, but guy I worked with years ago had a 99 that he had bought new and said it seemed to hit peak around 70 MPH.

I would have been too scared to take the '78 Suburban we had in the family. Solid vehicle but boy was the steering on that thing touchy!!!! That and it wallowed like a beached whale going down the road.

 

[Ranger850]

I would have been too scared to take the '78 Suburban we had in the family. Solid vehicle but boy was the steering on that thing touchy!!!! That and it wallowed like a beached whale going down the road.

same for 78 to 88 to 98 to 08. lol

 

[qbalaska]

I've had my ranger for about 2 weeks and put over 2800 kilometers on it. Drove through Germany to Austria and then to France on 2 separate trips. Speed limits in Europe are crazy: change all the time on their Autobahn (freeways) due to construction and other factors. Anyway, I set the Cruise on the France trip at 65MPH and computer said I got 23.3MPG with almost all freeway driving. Because of the distance and the fuel costs in France, I took 2, 5 gal gas cans with me so I wouldn't have to fill up until I got home (don't have to pay the crazy European taxes because of my military status in Germany). Based on my calculations the MPG was pretty accurate.. One the way back, I put my foot into it a little more and was averaging 75MPH, and my MPG was at 19.7. Everything was the same except the speed so its pretty evident the speed, as we all know, was the major difference. I don't think I've ever seen anything from EPA stating at what speed a vehicle has to be going to get the estimated MPG but wonder if they aren't still using the 1980's highway speed of 55MPH: wouldn't surprise me at all!

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

IDK but the highway speed in most places is still 55. Interstates are 70 in most places.

 

[88workcar]

Y'all don't kill me for saying this lol. I'm new here lol. The pushing a brick theory has always been my mindset. In 1987 I bought a 87 ranger, 2.0 carb, generic as possible. No AC in that one. If I am remembering correct it got 27-28 when driven correct. I have not purchased a "NEW" vehicle for myself until Sept last year. I bought a 2018 Ram 4 door loaded Ecodiesel. A BIG BRICK right now that truck has 21,240 miles on it and the avg mpg is 27. Pulling two race boats at 70 it gets 21 and yes there two loaded or not 55-60 is best for MPGs. I finally got my ranger 01, 3.0 to not stack miles on the new truck. My ranger has been getting 19mpg. I have vowed to make that better. I am sure that I can help it some lol.
(it's the dodge part I don't want to get killed over lol, I'm really a FORD man)

 

[Uncle Gump]

Man... the things you read when you don't have your gun!

Good luck making the Ranger a better fuel miser...

 

[Bill]

Y'all don't kill me for saying this lol. I'm new here lol. The pushing a brick theory has always been my mindset. In 1987 I bought a 87 ranger, 2.0 carb, generic as possible. No AC in that one. If I am remembering correct it got 27-28 when driven correct.

That was a 2.3L (Lima) and the EPA ratings were 23 city, 26 hwy. My 2007 2.3L Duratec is rated at 24 city, 29 hwy, which is relatively accurate. I've been able to squeeze out almost 31 mpg on a long highway trip in moderately warm weather. Mileage appears to peak when temperatures are in the 90s. It may be better when the temperature is over 100, but I end up turning the air conditioner on. City driving nets me 22-24 around here due to a lot of stop and go that is more stop than go. I've owned a 1995 and a 1997 with a 4.0L. I think the best mileage I got on either one was 21 mpg when I had some wind helping me along.

 

[Earl764]

I've had my 2019 close to 10 days and have gone through one tank. With a lot of in town driving + some highway, my average 22.2MPG.

I don't know what octane or brand the dealer filled it with. I filled up today at 87 with a "top tier" brand with the various detergents. Will see how it goes.

 

[88workcar]

elec fan on the way, going to get at it lol

 

[racsan]

My ‘88 2wd 2.3 5speed manual with 3.73’s , supercab body got 27 at very best, most of the time it was 23. The ‘93 4x 4.0 manual 3.73’s super cab got 19 at best 17 most of the time. The ‘92 2wd 2.3 reg cab longbed, manual 3.73’s got 19 at best, 17 most of the time. (It had a compression issue and mileage was worse if you used overdrive, I drove it as a 4-speed) current truck is a (mostly) 94 2.3 longbed manual with 4.10’s. Have no idea what the mileage is, depending on what tires I’m running the speedometer is 7 or 10 mph off. Came with 3.45’s and I changed out the whole axle so it could tow better (and I could ditch the 14” tires, have plenty of 15”s around) . I’d guess it gets low 20’s, with the 3.45’s it might have came close to 30.

 

[sgtsandman]

From my experience with a 1998 Ranger with a 2.5L engine, switching from 3.45 to 4:10 gears was a zero sum game. There was no mpg difference. The truck went from over working the engine to having decent get up and go and better use of the available powerband.

As far as figuring out the mpg with the new tires, you take the new tire size and divide it by the original tire size to get the conversion factor. From there you multiply you indicated mileage by the conversion to get you corrected mileage. Figuring out mpg there goes as normal.

To figure out speed, you can do it one of two ways (or both). Get on to a tire size conversion site to get the speed difference or use a gps to see how fast you are going. Newer Ranger speedometers read about 2 mph fast (meaning that if you are traveling at 60 mph, indicated, you are actually going 58 mph).

So, in my case, the stock tires were 235/75R15 (29”). The new tires are 31X10.5R15. 31/29=1.107. Multiply 1.107 by your indicated mileage to get your new mileage and then divide the mileage by the number of gallons fueled to get your mpg. This only works right if you fill the tank before the trip and after the trip.

The tire size difference gives and indicated speed difference of about 6 mph. Factor in the 2 mph fast speed reading of the speedometer and that will give you about what your new speed will be. Using a gps to compare, it works out to about 3-4 mph faster (with some variance) than what the speedometer is indicating.

For those wondering about how this will effect fluid changes, the difference isn’t great enough to really matter if you are using a good oil and filter. There is some fudge factor built into the recommended oil changes anyway. I’ve been doing this for years and had the used oil tested by a lab a few times to make sure and the results have always been good. I’ve actually been told I’m changing my oil too soon and could wait longer.

 

[TimberWolf2018]

Y'all don't kill me for saying this lol. I'm new here lol. The pushing a brick theory has always been my mindset. In 1987 I bought a 87 ranger, 2.0 carb, generic as possible. No AC in that one. If I am remembering correct it got 27-28 when driven correct. I have not purchased a "NEW" vehicle for myself until Sept last year. I bought a 2018 Ram 4 door loaded Ecodiesel. A BIG BRICK right now that truck has 21,240 miles on it and the avg mpg is 27. Pulling two race boats at 70 it gets 21 and yes there two loaded or not 55-60 is best for MPGs. I finally got my ranger 01, 3.0 to not stack miles on the new truck. My ranger has been getting 19mpg. I have vowed to make that better. I am sure that I can help it some lol.
(it's the dodge part I don't want to get killed over lol, I'm really a FORD man)

Electric fan if you dont have one
Premium fuel when under heavy towing.

It also depends on the model and trim. My Lariat sport fx4 with a tow package and cap just won't get the same mileage as an entry lvl Ranger.
I have driven mine both like a grandpa and like I stole it. Huge difference in mileage between the two driving styles.
The problem is that it is so much fun to drive it like the latter I forget I am the former.

I had an 88 2.0 carb. I loved the crap out of that little Ranger and took it everywhere for about 12 years. It was so much fun....lol
But I like this one more!

 

[cbxer55]

My 98 3.0 has never gotten over 19 mpg, highway or otherwise. Likely my fault, put a chip on it years ago, and one of it's functions is to richen it up a bit. Most of the time I see around 1 to 16.

Speaking of oil changes. Jan. 2010, my sister asked me if she could borrow the Ranger for a year. I had just gotten an 04 Lightning, so I let her take it. One year turned into four, it's now late 2013, my Lightning is in a body shop after being T-boned by an asshat that was in a hurry while yakking on a stupid phone. I get the Ranger back from her, finally. On the windshield is the oil change sticker from the last time I had changed it, in late 09. My sister doesn't change oil, but she never took it in for a change in four years and 40,000 + miles. And it still runs and runs great. The "oil" that came out when it was changed was absolutely black as the ace of spades and stunk badly of fuel. Didn't appear to have anything resembling viscosity. I still have it, change the oil at 5000 mile intervals, it's always used maybe a quart in a 3000 mile oil change, with the exception of the very small drip oil leak it's had forever.

So yeah, maybe most of us do change our oil too frequently. My Lightning, supercharged V-8, I don't risk it. 3000 miles and that's that. 7 quarts. My motorcycles, 3000 miles. But on them, the oil takes care of the transmission as well, so the oil is worked harder due to gears shearing the polymers.