I'm talking about automatics only BTW.

I know the Ranger's 2.3L has seen some revisions over the years so I’d just like to know which model year more or less gets the best mileage? The Fueleconomy.gov site isn't much help as the real world mileage is ridiculously off. Those folks who post their supposed real mileage must drive with a cast iron foot. For example, some people have posted that they're only getting 22-25 MPG out of a Geo Metro. I think that speaks for itself.

Anyway, my '95 Ranger with 112HP still gets about 24-25 MPG highway on average even at 215,000 miles. The best I've ever gotten was 26 on a 250+ mile trip to Clintwood Virginia (near Kentucky) and that's with the A/C blasting most of the way. I know the newer model 2.3L Rangers have more HP and I've heard the gas mileage is now pretty lackluster because of it. Is this true?

 

first thing.. dump the auto.. manual 4cyl rangers are the best in MPG department..

also never put it on 32's.. if anything lower it with tiny skinny *** tires on small 15x7 light alum rims.. lol..

 

95-97 (newer dash)

anything obd2 is going to get better gas mileage.

zach is right, the auto trans kills the 4cyl gas mileage because of the drag.

 

Yes why limit yourself to automatics ? Unless you have a health problem that would make it hard to drive stick, if you want to own a Ranger , you had better learn. I have never driven an auto Ranger I would be happy with owning especially with the 2.3L . Trust me the 5-speeds in the Ranger are very forgiving to first timers it's what I taught my wife to drive stick in,and she has no coordination whatsoever(sorry dear,but you know it's true) and it's way cooler to drive stick anyway! Plus it opens up a whole new world of killer deals on cars nobody wants 'cause most people today cant shift for themselves.

 

I do way too much town and city driving to own a stick so that's out of the question. Maybe if I didn't do so much stop and go driving, but there's no way I'm going back to a stick. Hence the reason I said automatics only.

 

That's fine bro, everyones just trying to help and if your goal is mpg a manual is the way to go. I just change my 302 truck to a manual and got 4 mpg more with it.

 

It's cool man. I know that a stick would be better in general and not just in the mileage department, but it just wouldn't suit my driving conditions. My right arm would be worn out at the end of a single trip.

 

once you learn to drive a stick you dont even know your doing it.. your gonna have one insane driving schedule to have it warn out..

 

I guess it all depends on what you're used to. Personally, I refuse to drive automatics and with all the cars/trucks I've owned over the years, only a couple have been automatics. It totally doesn't phaze me to sit in 2mph stop and go traffic for 5 hours in downtown New York city, I actually think it's more relaxing because you don't have your foot on the brake all the time, or in one single position.
Now...cruise control...that's something else

 

Well I have a 2005 2wd Ranger xl with the 2.3l and manual tranny and I just got 29.9 mpg on the last tank. I put 416 miles on it before filling up and the pump stopped at 13.9 gallons.

Normally I get 28 mpg, but I flipped my side mirrors back and aired up my tires to max psi of 45 and that helped me get the extra 2 mpg.

I did this just for the heck of it after reading some stuff from www.cleanmpg.com. It suprised me that it actually worked. Next thing I might try is getting some duct tape and cardboard and blocking my front grill off some.

It's going to look ghetto as heck, but all well. The money I end up saving over a period of time can help me pay the silly thing off a little bit faster maybe.

 

for one, putting the tire psi at the max is dangerous because only the very center part of the tread is touching the ground, giving you almost no traction.
the door sticker says the proper tire pressure to run with the stock tires, its there for a reason.

two, have fun replacing your tires WAYYY before you should have to, its not worth the extra mpg.

 

The newer 2.3s (DOHC) do have more power, but also get better gas milage because of their inherent eficiency. My 2.3 is rated at 145hp, and I average 28mpg with a lead foot. Of course, I'm lowered on "skinny tires", and running syntetic oil and a k&n filter. The oil alone gave me an extra 3mpg when I switched.

 

I know, but it was just a test to see if that stuff actually worked. An extra 1.5 mpg isn't enough to worry about anyways since I drive 20 miles round trip to work.

 

My 93 2.3L just hit 167k miles, and I am averaging roughly 23 mpg.

 

i have a 2.3l and im getting 22-28