5.0 mpg

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

06-25-2007

My91Ranger

Member

Thread Starter

iTrader: (1)

Join Date: Apr 2007

Location: Roseville, Michigan

Posts: 2,254

Likes: 0

Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

5.0 mpg

Now I most definately did not buy a 5.0 ranger for it's fuel economy but i'm getting just over 18.5 mpg with the truck, and the most i've ever got is 19.75 The truck is efi with shorty headers and a moderate cam.

I was wondering what you other 302 guys are getting, just out of curiosity.

Reply Like

The following users liked this post:

kxri318 (05-03-2023)

06-25-2007

Lord Of War

Member

iTrader: (2)

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Thornton, Colorado

Posts: 4,606

Likes: 0

Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts

That sounds pretty good if you ask me.

Reply Like

06-25-2007

RangerJustin

Member

iTrader: (1)

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: SoCal

Posts: 4,428

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

better than my 3.0 was getting...

Reply Like

06-25-2007

04BlackFX4

Member

Join Date: Jun 2006

Location: Maine

Posts: 1,159

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

well i dont have a ford anymore but my dodge gets 15 with the 5.2L (318)

Reply Like

06-25-2007

My91Ranger

Member

Thread Starter

iTrader: (1)

Join Date: Apr 2007

Location: Roseville, Michigan

Posts: 2,254

Likes: 0

Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

Yea don't get me wrong, I love the gase mileage i'm getting. My old truck was a 91 with 2.3. It was an absolute dog and only got 19's. Now I have over two and a half times the HP and about the same gase mileage.

Reply Like

06-25-2007

Mike9825

Member

Join Date: Jun 2006

Location: Willard OH

Posts: 489

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

which is why I want an F-150! my brother in law has an 03 Screw 5.4L 4x4. he gets about 19-20 on the highway, 15 in town. I get about 18 city, 22-23 highway.

A 5.0 Ranger has to be a gas to drive! LOL! -Mike-

Reply Like

06-25-2007

INT3RC3PTOR

RF Veteran

iTrader: (4)

Join Date: Jul 2005

Location: Minnesooooota

Posts: 8,201

Likes: 0

Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

if thats what mine gets im gonna be damn happy. cause my 3.0 was terrible 13-14...maybe at the most lol

i'll let you know what i get after my first tank through mine

Reply Like

06-25-2007

04BlackFX4

Member

Join Date: Jun 2006

Location: Maine

Posts: 1,159

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

3.0's....worthless motors really.. they should just get rid of it and have the 4.0 standard.

Reply Like

06-25-2007

Unregistered User

Posts: n/a

The milage between each application is going to variate. VBehical weights, driving habits of each individual driver.. Carb/Efi/ Timing, Cam Profile, Head flow/ spark system.. They all have a factor and can variate up to 10mpg ( big loppy cam and a carb might make 12mpg, a well tuned EFI setup CAN make 22mpg ). 10mpg is a lot/extreeme, but it is a reality.

Emissions laws/equipping are whats going to cause ( probably ) the biggest variance in efficiency between all the trucks.

Reply Like

#10

06-25-2007

Strider0O0

Member

Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: Philadelphia, PA

Posts: 3,588

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

i'd love to see 18 with my 4.0sohc. best i can get these days is 14

Reply Like

#11

06-26-2007

My91Ranger

Member

Thread Starter

iTrader: (1)

Join Date: Apr 2007

Location: Roseville, Michigan

Posts: 2,254

Likes: 0

Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

I completely agree with you 'D', but that's half the fun of this thread to see what others are getting with what type of set up. No one drops in a 302 for fuel economy.

For more detail on mine EFI 302, moderate cam, shorty headers, dumped exhaust, 3.73 rear gear, 31" tires, with an AOD transmission. Very loose emissions laws here in michigan...

Reply Like

#12

06-26-2007

01xltranger4x4

Member

iTrader: (3)

Join Date: May 2005

Location: MI

Posts: 3,200

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Hey logan what year and model is your 302 from?

Any sound clips of it with the cam?

Reply Like

#13

06-26-2007

My91Ranger

Member

Thread Starter

iTrader: (1)

Join Date: Apr 2007

Location: Roseville, Michigan

Posts: 2,254

Likes: 0

Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

The 302 is out of a 93 mustang and the cam is pretty heavy b/c it 'lopes' quite a bit at idle. Sounds wicked though. Kinda gives it away. I don't have any sound bites b/c I don't have a camera, but where in michigan are you?

Reply Like

#14

06-26-2007

01xltranger4x4

Member

iTrader: (3)

Join Date: May 2005

Location: MI

Posts: 3,200

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I am in Clio. As a matter of fact, my grandmother had a house in SCS before she passed away. We should meet up sometime, i'd like to check out the truck.

Reply Like

#15

06-26-2007

tmsoko

Member

Join Date: Oct 2005

Location: Plymouth, MI

Posts: 258

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

My kenne bell supercharged 5.0L explorer engine got 14.5MPG average in my 1999 Ranger 4x4 with 4R70W auto trans an 4.10 gears. Stock tires. 4520lb measured weight.

My 2005 4.0L SOHC 4x4 with 5speed auto (king cab just like the 1999) gets 17MPG average same driving route / style.

Reply Like

#16

08-04-2007

ranger_banger

Member

Join Date: Nov 2006

Location: cedar falls, iowa

Posts: 405

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmsoko

My kenne bell supercharged 5.0L explorer engine got 14.5MPG average in my 1999 Ranger 4x4 with 4R70W auto trans an 4.10 gears. Stock tires. 4520lb measured weight

now that is what i would loooove to do. 5.0 supercharged or turbo'd. i've been thinking about trading in my ranger and getting an explorer with the 5.0 and AWD and build that up. after tinkering around my brother explorer i've really fallen in love with them.

my life long goal is:

twin turbo'd AWD 5.0 explorer. please note i did say LIFE LONG goal haha.

Reply Like