MPG: 3.0 vs 4.0? - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Ford Ranger Discussion General discussion of the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 07-03-2008
jrpro130's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,057
damn, I can barely squeeze 16 out of my truck. Hwy my scangauge reads 18-22, but I never ever see that out of even half a tank. I have been hitting 15mpg. I drive easy too.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-03-2008
dakota772's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tucson
Posts: 230
my 3.0L auto gets 15.5mpg city and 19-20mpg highway. I mostly drive city, but these numbers are pretty consistent. I have kept a running log of the mileage since Christmas last year.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-03-2008
Johnbaum13's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,343
I know I don't have a v6, but look at the numbers these guys are pulling down. The 3.0 is rated at 5 more hp and 11 more ft/lbs than the duratec 2.3, and with my d-tec 5 speed, I pull down a pretty consistent 28mpg, and I beat on it constantly. my average highway speed is 80mph and I usually shift at about 4500rpm with my foot down. Just something to think about. If you're worried about speed and power, go with a 4.0, but otherwise, the 2.3. the 3.0 is a loser in this game. BTW, a 2.3 5-speed will out run a 3.0 5-speed. It's power to weight. The only place a 3.0 wins over a 2.3 is in pulling a trailer, and even then, its not much of a victory. I have driven both, and I would not choose a 3.0 to live with.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-03-2008
Prerunner-Ranger's Avatar
Level I Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lancaster, CA.
Posts: 2,280
I get about 20MPG
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-03-2008
EM3's Avatar
EM3 EM3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Logan, WV
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMES7273 View Post
yea, my father has a 2004 F150 with a 4.6 and he gets almost 20 or 21 mpg city. makes me sick, but i love my ranger so i dont think that i could part with it.

I've looked hard at the F150 but my Ranger is almost paid off. I have 10 or 11 payments left and with 25K miles on it and in theory it should run another 5 years no problem. The thought of 5 years of car payment on a new one kind of makes me cringe plus the rise in gas prices. It hit $4.14 here yesterday. Oh well I still love my Ranger also. My last one in 94 was a 4 banger and that mileage spoiled me.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-03-2008
Mark98xlt's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Parma Ohio
Posts: 13
I own both a 3.0 auto and a 2.3 5 speed even though the 3.0 is auto its still a dog compared to the 2.3.

The 2.3 is really a blast to drive with a stick behind it and it definitely blows the tires off my 3.0.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-03-2008
Rangerguy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,120
My 4.0L SOHC get about 15-16 City and usually about 17-20 on Hiway. Depends on my foot. Best MPG to date: 23+ Hiway on a trip to Reno. Not great, but hey its a truck.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-03-2008
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
What are you getting now Kevin? That is in your FX4? I can get a good 15mpg just driving around town.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-03-2008
2002FX4's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by zabeard View Post
What are you getting now Kevin? That is in your FX4? I can get a good 15mpg just driving around town.
I'm gettin' slighty less than you, ~13-14 mpg. But keep in mind as compared to your 37x13.50 tires, I'm rolling with abit more meat (38x15.50).


I really can't complain about the mpg I get with my 2wd 5 speed (2.3L). And as someone mentioned, you really can't beat the 2.3 coupled with the 5 speed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnbaum13 View Post
The 3.0 is rated at 5 more hp and 11 more ft/lbs than the duratec 2.3, and with my d-tec 5 speed, I pull down a pretty consistent 28mpg, and I beat on it constantly. my average highway speed is 80mph and I usually shift at about 4500rpm with my foot down. Just something to think about.
Not sure where you got those numbers, but I can't agree with 'em.

Ford lists the following:

2.3L I4 - HP: 143@5,250, Torque: 154@3,750

3.0L V6 - HP: 148@4,900, Torque: 180@3,950

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/r...eatures/specs/
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-03-2008
leadfoot's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 894
I get 14 mpg mostly city. 4.0 OHV 3.73 235 tires
Not romping on the gas.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-06-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
I get 18-20, a little more on a long highway cruise with a 3.0 5-speed 4.10's and 265/75/16's.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-06-2008
Johnbaum13's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2002FX4 View Post




Not sure where you got those numbers, but I can't agree with 'em.

Ford lists the following:

2.3L I4 - HP: 143@5,250, Torque: 154@3,750

3.0L V6 - HP: 148@4,900, Torque: 180@3,950

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/r...eatures/specs/
I apologize, I was off on the torque a bit. I was just going from memory on what I had read back in '05 When I bought mine.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-06-2008
Roddy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2002FX4 View Post
I can agree with the horsepower ratings of what you're referring to. But with regards to torque, which is (in my opinion) what gives a manual trans its advantage, the numbers are quite abit higher for (even the newest) 3.0 over the 2.3.


Regardless, thanks for the responses so far guys!

There is pretty much ZERO noticeable difference in power between the 3.0 and the 2.3L duratec.

At my local track i saw a 2.3L duratec run a 17 flat with a 5 speed and intake, while a 3.0L 5 speed with intake and exhaust ran 17.8-18.0's all night...and a 3.0 auto was running mid 18's...

I have driven pretty much every variant of the ranger for engi8ne combo's and the 2.3L duratec feels more powerful than the 3.0......

I honestly wish Ford made a 2.3L duractec extended cab ranger/b-series... i would have bought one (07-08 model)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-06-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Foster City, CA
Posts: 23
You could also wait for the diesel F150 that is coming out next year. It has an engine that in Europe gets the equivalent of 31 MPG. That is probably my next truck. I'll need the room for kids and the MPGs for my wallet
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-06-2008
Roddy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,332
^^^ ill beleive it when i see it. And with the way deisel fuel prices are going there will be almost a zero cost benefit.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-06-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnbaum13 View Post
I know I don't have a v6, but look at the numbers these guys are pulling down. The 3.0 is rated at 5 more hp and 11 more ft/lbs than the duratec 2.3, and with my d-tec 5 speed, I pull down a pretty consistent 28mpg, and I beat on it constantly. my average highway speed is 80mph and I usually shift at about 4500rpm with my foot down. Just something to think about. If you're worried about speed and power, go with a 4.0, but otherwise, the 2.3. the 3.0 is a loser in this game. BTW, a 2.3 5-speed will out run a 3.0 5-speed. It's power to weight. The only place a 3.0 wins over a 2.3 is in pulling a trailer, and even then, its not much of a victory. I have driven both, and I would not choose a 3.0 to live with.
Peak power is not power band.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-06-2008
Melt's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by roddy1 View Post
I honestly wish Ford made a 2.3L duractec extended cab ranger/b-series... i would have bought one (07-08 model)
they dont? Can you only get the 2.5 xcab if you want a 4cyl these days or what

my 2.5 BEST ever was 29mpg with a tailwind ... normally it gets 23 - 24 hwy
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-07-2016
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by 07rangersport View Post
my 07 4.0 3.73 stock tires i get about 18 in the city and i usually get about 21-22 on the highway. although my records are 21 in the city and 25 on the highway. i'm usually pretty heavy in the pedal too.
i find that MPG extremely hard to beleive, specially with the big 32's. Come clean, what kind of mods do you have in your truck?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-07-2016
JAMMAN's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Grove City, OH
Posts: 87
It will be interesting to see if he answers, especially since his last post was august 9th in 2009.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-07-2016
morris's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Detroit.
Posts: 7,833
I'll answer. I saw similar numbers. Very similar, 17 in the city and on the highway I could easily get 21/22. My duras were 31.5" and I had a manual trans. I also had 3.73's. He isn't exaggerating.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-19-2016
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by morris View Post
I'll answer. I saw similar numbers. Very similar, 17 in the city and on the highway I could easily get 21/22. My duras were 31.5" and I had a manual trans. I also had 3.73's. He isn't exaggerating.
I guess the 3.73 is what really helps the MPG then
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-19-2016
TheArcticWolf1911's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Evansville, Indiana
Posts: 1,569
x2 on the gearing. My 4:10 gears absolutely nosedive the gas tank.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to achieve better mpg? FX2.3 General Ford Ranger Discussion 34 11-02-2010 06:13 PM
Exahust leak / old 02 sensor = bad mpg wydopnthrtl General Ford Ranger Discussion 2 01-06-2009 09:11 AM
98 3.0 MPG Log (shows how mods affected MPG) Marcaronio 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 23 05-11-2007 08:11 PM
How many MPG with 4.0 99 jtslmn720 General Ford Ranger Discussion 31 04-28-2005 08:44 AM
MPG seem to be shrinking, need help Strider0O0 General Technical & Electrical 23 04-05-2005 02:19 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:37 PM.