v8 swap mpg

[85_Ranger4x4]

The OP wants to do the swap in his 99 Extended cab 4X4, not a squarebody. If the CoD listed is for an 01 level 2, it should be very similar to the OPs truck. If the CoD shown is for a base model 2wd ranger, then we can assume the OPs CoD would be slightly worse right? Either way, the aerodynamics of the Ranger, are worse than a newer F-150 like yours, or the lightning. Saying that his truck would have better aero than your F-150 isn't true.

I am just saying in the grande scheme of the truck world the 98+ Ranger isn't THAT bad for aero. It doesn't have the hurdles to overcome that say, my Ranger has to deal with. Pushing my brick through the air with a 3 speed turning 3k rpm I can still get over 10mpg out of mine.

They only have the best of the best of my style of F-150 listed, it is only downhill from there. I have a REALLY hard time believing that my F-150 (or even a Lightning for that matter) has a better CoD than a Cobra Mustang... they show an Astro van at .40 for crying out loud.

 

[stmitch]

I agree the newer trucks have an aerodynamic edge over the square bodies, and you're right, that it could always be worse, but for the OP's situation it's unlikely to change.

Aerodynamics and CoD are basically functions of the shape of the vehicle. The most important area aerodynamically is the frontal area. The leading edge of the grille/headlights/ bumper and windshield are pretty vertical and square in a Ranger. They're more rounded and laid back in both the F-150 and Astro van. It's easier for the air to pass over and around the other vehicles, and then easily detach itself too.

 

[Ozwynn]

more like if you are concerned with fuel consumption then V8 is not for you. Maybe swap in a supercharged or turbo 4 cyl or a Volkswagen TDI

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I agree the newer trucks have an aerodynamic edge over the square bodies, and you're right, that it could always be worse, but for the OP's situation it's unlikely to change.

Considering the brick F-150's with their 150hp 302's still managed mid teens I still don't think a stockish Ranger (which is also lighter) with an HO is going to do that bad if you keep your foot out of it.

Teddyzee gets 25mpg out of his lowered third gen with a worked over HO and T5...

 

[Ozwynn]

Teddyzee gets 25mpg out of his lowered third gen with a worked over HO and T5...

not going to get that out of a 4x4 rolling tall tires with 4.10 gears... probably mid to high teens.

 

[PetesPonies]

I swapped a 302 into a Bronco II. I am carbureted, '84 BII. I said when I did it I thought I could do as well as the lousy 2.8 was doing in there. I was getting BEST 17 MPGs with the 2.8 in normal everyday driving. I built the 302 for efficiency and I am happy to say I get about 16 MPG in everyday driving. I used a '68 block and cam. I used 1.72 roller rockers with E7 heads. I used an '82 aluminum highrise 2V intake and a 2100 carb.I am running stock type log exhaust manifolds and I built a 2 1/2" single exhaust. I used my stock C5 trans ( no OD ), converted it with a C4 VB and changed the 2/3 servo. I run 235/75 tires. I am now using 2.73 rear gears, but will be switching to 3.08s soon so I can match the front diff and have 4wd usable again. Overall, very happy. I know EFI would get me more MPGs and 2wd would help as well. But for a carbed V8 in a BII . . getting 16 MPGs . . very happy.I knew I could get as ( almost) MPGs as that lousy 2.8; terrible engine for a BII.

 

[BLOODBANE]

I get around 6 or 7 mpg in my 84. Of course I built the 347, running a C-6/Dana 20 combo with 4:56's and 35" BOGGERs and lockers. It wasnt built for economy. It was built for when I mash on the stupid pedal, I built my Samurai for economy (still only get around 18 out of it).

If you want economy, go with the diesel

 

[stmitch]

Teddyzee gets 25mpg out of his lowered third gen with a worked over HO and T5...

I've seen Teddy claim over 21mpg before, but I've never seen him claim 25 (not saying it didn't happen, I've never seen him say that). Just being able to hit 25mpg on a single tank once or twice doesn't mean that's a realistic expectation either.

Also, Teddyzee's truck has several fuel economy advantages compared to the OPs truck. Ted's truck is:

lowered a bunch (reduced frontal area and less air under the truck where things get really aerodynamically nasty)
2WD (lighter and less drivetrain loss)
T5 (manuals are almost always more economical than an auto like the OP wants to run)
No big tires (bigger tires add unsprung weight and rolling resistance)
lower gear ratio (I don't think Teddy runs 4.10s, so his RPMs at highway speed will be much lower)

Some 5.0 swaps into rangers might return 20mpg on a regular basis, but with the specs the OP wants to run, it's highly unlikely. Regularly seeing 20mpg with a 5.0 swap into an extended cab, 4WD, auto trans Ranger with 4.10s would be very impressive to see but I'm certainly not holding my breath.