I last owned a 2.3L Duratec Ranger which was averaging, using a fuel tracker (in Canadian winter, all highway), about 19-20 mpg, which is not good. I notice other people with a 3L V6 are averaging about 18 or so. Is it true that the difference in mileage between the two is that minimal or was something wrong with my old ranger? I also see on old posts people bragging about 25-30 mpg on a 4 banger which is just ludicrous so does anyone have any data to verify or disprove my observation?

 

I'm surprised you weren't doing better than that with a Duratec. The 3.0 really is pitiful on fuel economy. 18 or so on the highway is doing well.

 

Earlier, 2001-2003 2.3l Duratec, with automatics didn't do that well
2004 and up had no IMRC which help bring it up a bit

Winter fuel at 20mpg seems 1 or 2 mpg lower than expected with mostly highway driving
Manual trans adds about 3MPG on average
Winter gasoline has less energy that summer gasoline, colder air in winter also requires more fuel

2.3l Duratec and 3.0l Vulcan have basically the same horse power but 2.3l DOHC is newer technology so will do a bit better on MPG

A gallon of gasoline has XX amount of energy stored
So engines with same power rating will consume the same amount of fuel
Most gasoline engines were about 25% efficient 20 years ago, that means 25% of the energy in that gallon of gasoline went to pushing the vehicle down the road, the other 75% just heats up the coolant and air around the engine.
Yes, that sucks big time, lol, if gasoline was $4 a gallon, $3 goes to heating up "stuff", and only $1 gets you where you want to go.

But they are getting better, 28-30% in the newer designs, less heat and more power for the wheels.

Diesels were 30% efficient over the years and diesel fuel stores more energy than gasoline so they always got better MPG, but some diesels are getting close to 40% now

Power to weight matters as well, if an engine is under powered for the weight of the vehicle it can't run in its most efficient range, a more powerful engine can mean better MPG but the problem there is "more power", drivers tend to like the "more power" so 0-60MPH is not slow and steady up to highway speeds, the term "rocketman" comes to mind, lol, and MPG of course goes down

In general you don't get a pickup truck for MPG or for comfortable ride, you get it to haul stuff
Now you can look for best MPG and a good ride in different models of pickups, there are some OK choices, but they are just OK compared to cars
Highway speeds are when you get best MPG in any vehicle, and trucks are "bricks" with 4 wheels at speed, and cars are aerodynamic so don't have the drag any truck will have.
And 4x4s or "lifted trucks".............even worse

 

20 in an extremely cold winter doesn't seem too bad to me. That's probably 25mpg in the summer.

 

Okay, it seems that the 4 cylinder still does a decent bit better on gas than the 6
.

 

Yea the 3.0 really didn't last long after the duratec was put in the ranger. Just wasnt a point to keeping an old 6 cylinder that got less mileage and the same power as the 4 cylinder. The 4.0's stuck around though since they did still make alot more power than the 2.3.