And like me, fireranger, you watch the lemmings rush to the next light to repeat the process all over again.
Sigh...
I expected lousy milage in the winter since I keep my hubs locked and over 400lbs of weight in the bed plus winter survival gear in my cab. The LAST thing I need is to break down at midnight in a sub-zero blizzard. I pack the safety gear to wake up again in the morning, but not everyone does. 4x4 isn't a plaything at this time of year, but a possible lifesaver.
Winter blend still sux, though.

 

There are several things one can do to improve efficiency (which would be both performance and milage)! Remove all unnecessary weight for starters. Get everything within factory design tolerances (things like tire pressure, sparkplug gap, etc.)
Most of these are not expensive.

 

I still say a for sale sign is the cheapest way to get better fuel economy outta a ranger.

 

I was just wondering if there were options, I guess I could change my gears (they are 4.10's) but I like having them when I'm at work and might need them. I was thinking K&N but that went out the window after some honest opinions on them. Maybe I could do better by working on my patience which in turn would help me stay under the speed limit on the interstate.

 

Yeah.. I get horrible mileage out of my truck mainly because I do enjoy romping on the truck a good bit on my start up from a stop.. cant help it, if you saw a truck with a nice sounding exhaust.. wouldn't you like to hear it get up and go? I suppose I'm doing the other folks a favor!! haha, naw, I'm just a lead foot right now, only on the starts though... I always drive at the speed limit, and the only time I go over is when im on the freeway, I like to keep up enough with traffic that I'm not gettign passed by every granny and her son.



As stated in a previous post.. i really wish I coudl ride my bike to work.. the only downside.. is teh fact that I live about 3 miles from work, and every single bit of it is downhill form my house.. not jsut any downhill, but a steep downhill.. and I really dont want to have to bike up it in the rain every day (3/4ths of the time in Washington its either raining or snowing)



Mod-wise, money not taken into consideration... Look to do a coupel of these:
Cold Air Intake
Coil Pack upgrade + good plugs at a wide gap... the wider or hotter the gap, the better yoru fuel is burnt.. only an aftermarket coil pack or good plugs can accomplish this. Its not much, but its something in the long run..
A good exhaust can help free up the system a bit, soem claim it might give better gas mileage.. I personally think you'll never notice it mainly because you'll be romping on the gas a bit mroe often to hear that exhaust roar. But it is an option..

Removing excess weight.. if you dont use air conditioning, them things weigh an awful lot and take a bit of pwoer from the engine to run.. youll do a double kicker, more power, and less weight.


;lots of little thigns here and there to think about when trying to get goo dmileage.. but as always stated.. driving habits are the biggest of all.

 

Well living in Louisiana the air conditioner isn't going anywhere I use it all year except on the few days where I can roll the windows down and its not too hot. What does a coil pack upgrade run for?

 

unless you have the 2.3L :-D

 

About 80 bucks.. a coil pack gives you a hotter ignition on yoru spark plug.. allows you to gap it further then normal.


Check on underdog performance's site.. let me give you a link, one sec..


EDIT:
here ya go --> http://www.stuffforyourranger.com/st...roducts_id=162

Also helps to get the wires if you can afford it... higher quality wires to replace stock ones help a bit, they give a cleaner signal and help with mroe oomph.. the colors are cool too

It only took me about 45 minutes to an hour to install.. and thats because i got some wires to go with it.. the coil pack itself can be changed in about 10-15 minutes with a ratchet socket.. really quick and easy bolt on.

 

I disagree, your either going to get ignition/combustion, or a misfire!! There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant, or fuel burnt better or worse! With Ford's EDIS coilpack, and plugs and wires in good shape, there will be no advantage to aftermarket ignitions, or coilpacks! Matter of fact, the reliability of the aftermarket ignitions, and coilpacks are much worse than the OEM!

 

Actually.. if you dont optimize the fuel system to burn more efficiently.. some of that unburtn fuel mixture goes out the exhaust.. if you have a nice hot spark on your spark plugs, it gives a more rapid burn to your fuel (Not talking much mor ethen a few milliseconds) but it gives you pistons more oomph when it discharges in the engine, thats what aftermarket ones do. Gives you a better burn percentage, its not much in the least bit, but i tis better...

Also a side benefit, is it does give a good increase through the mid range throttle response.. part of that hot spark is doing that.. combine that with headers, intake, and exhaust.. and youve got a full range loadout... bit o fpower, bit of improved gas mileage.. bit expensive.. but if you own the truck for more then 10 years, itll pay itself off for sure.. and you get to enjoy it while its there :-)


Edit: I coudl be wrong on part of it.. but I honestly think Im pretty right baout it, always up for learning more and more though.. any good advice is.. well, good :-)

 

Again, not true....it's the fuel octane that determines how rapid it burns, NOT the SPARK!! The spark initiates the "BURN"! Again, there is no such thing as a "partial burn"....you either get ignition/combustion, or a total misfire! Low octane fuel burns much quicker than high octane....this is what causes "pinging", the rapid combustion of the low octane fuel.......

 

unless you have the 2.3L :-D


yea im getting 20 on the highway with mine now...sucks...4.10s amd 27.5 inch tall tires dont mix plus i cant keep tread on the back tires...i spin everywhere not trying..hopefully my 31s will be here this week so that will put my rear end back to 3.72.1..there goes my 24mpg city though...got to love our rangers

 

How about instaling an active fuel management system, that should increase your highway milage substantialy.

 

Things to do to improve fuel economy..
..short shift, never ever exceed 2,000 RPM. Acceleration matters less, you can still get on the skinny pedal, just get off it before the revs go to high. High RPM = frictional loss.. well, that's what I read anyhow. I have data that says it also = poor mileage.
..when coming up to a long hill, shift into neutral and coast. (Yes, in my experience this is better than relying on the supposed EFI cutoff which all but cuts fuel delivery when off the accelerator. My Scan Gauge tool seems to agree w/ this.)
..predict lights and stops, coast up to them whenever possible.
..slow down on the super-slab. Supposedly 55MPH is the sweet spot.. but that's honestly too slow for me. I've found cruising at 70MPH indicated is an agreeable happy medium for me and my commute (I495 in Northern Mass) where the posted limit is 65MPH. (My gauge reads a little fast, I'm probably at ~68MPH in reality.)
..get to 5th as soon as possible, cruise in 5th even in town. (See first item above.)
..keep tires inflated. I find ~36psi all around works w/ my stock 31x10.5R15 BFG ATs, although I've considered upping the fronts. Downside here is the potential for increased tire wear.

I use cruise religiously because I'm a fan of consistency. I have a long drive (~90 miles/day) and the speed up/slow down thing gets old. That said, I am not convinced cruise helps mileage, it may very well hurt it. I believe that coasting down hills and powering up the next may actually be more efficient.. but DO NOT DO THIS in front of me on my daily commute!!

I didn't believe this would work.. and for the most part it does not in other cars I've commuted w/. My OTR (that's 'other than Ranger') is a small, 1.8L 16-valve I4 that loves to spin. Short shifting at 2k is not realistic w/ that car as it does not have the torque. It is quite realistic in the Ranger.

If I drive like a 17-year old (read: like I want to) shifting at 4k RPM every time and simply gunning it off the line, then I see ~15-17 MPG. Driving as above I reliably see 18-20 MPG on every fillup. In the summer I've consistently logged 20-22 MPG for several tanks in a row driving conservatively.
Maybe you have a different experience, but I have fuel logs from 2 different Rangers (a 2WD 2.5L I4 and a 4WD 4.0L V6) that show a soft tonneau has absolutely no measurable impact on fuel economy.

Maybe you meant a hard cover, but I have a hard time believing those are much better. Modern pickups build up a pressure bubble in an empty bed pretty easily. And that is pretty effective.

For the most part I suggest people buy tonneau covers to keep the groceries dry, nothing else.
Ha.. I hear you there.

 

If you are coasting down a hill, the EFI cut-off is much more efficient than putting it in neutral.

It will engage anytime the RPM is higher than 1500 with you foot off the gas and it will disengage when your RPM drops below 1000.

 

Absolutely. Low RPM keeps friction low and opening the throttle reduces pumping losses - doing both together can give a real boost in fuel economy.

The low RPM/big throttle technique works great for manual transmission vehicles but cannot be done with most stock automatics. For auto Rangers, gentle acceleration, low RPM and reduced vehicle speeds will give the best results.



That depends on RPM, throttle position and how long the hill is. Going downhill with the throttle fully closed at about 1500 RPM or higher will turn off the injectors completely (after a short time delay) and the engine will use no fuel whatsoever. Also, FWIW, coasting downhill in neutral is illegal in most states.



In the past, a soft tonneau has given my Ranger about 1/2 MPG better on a highway trip. A hard tonneau might do better on the highway because of reduced turbulence.

The downside of a hard tonneau is that it is heavier and does not help reduce aerodynamic drag much at low speeds. Accelerating the extra mass will probably cancel out any aero gain in lower speed stop and go city driving.

 

Yes.. I probably neglected to mention that. All of my experience pertains to Rangers with manual transmissions as I have very little interest in the slush-boxes.
Maybe I'm below this 1500 RPM cutoff when I do this. Most of my experimenting has been done on country roads w/ speeds under 50 MPH.

I see ~2500 RPM cruising @ 70MPH indicated.. so it stands to reason I probably see ~1600 RPM @ 45MPH indicated in 5th. My 4.0L still has more than enough torque all the way down to 1100-1200 RPM for my tastes, so I cruise at those RPMs all the time.

So yeah, I'm likely below this 1500 RPM cutoff when in traffic in a 40 MPH speed zone.. it stands to reason this is why I don't see an improvement when leaving it in gear.

My new commute involves several interchanges where I go from cruising at 70MPH down a long ramp to a stop light or toll-both. I've been popping the trans out of gear at the top of the ramp and coasting all the way to the stop or toll both. I'll plug in the scan tool and experiment leaving it in 5th down those ramps instead.
Shocker.. what isn't?!
I will fully admit that I consider 1/2 MPG to be well, well within the margin of error w/ the way I calculate my mileage from my log books. W/ variances in fuel pump cutoffs I don't feel my figures are accurate to less than a 1-3 MPG window.

 

A contrasting point, which maybe Bob will have some informed opinions on:

I do worry that driving my truck like I do (very low RPMs) is potentially harmful to my transmission, clutch, and/or drive-train. I admit that I do sometimes shift VERY early, potentially too early. I also occasionally skip gears. I've gotten so used to shifting at low RPMs that I probably do what others would consider 'bogging' the engine.

At the same time I've never been especially impressed w/ the trans in this truck. The drivetrain is quite sloppy. If I am not careful w/ the clutch I can get quite a thud as the slop in the driveline takes up and I get on the power. Lower RPMs seems to make this more obvious. I live w/ the truck daily, so it is hard to gauge if it is gradually getting worse or if it has always been this way. Also I frequently have trouble getting the trans into gear. I try to leave the truck in neutral w/ my foot off the clutch at stop-lights in the interest of saving throwout bearing wear. But when the light goes green I drop the clutch pedal to the floor and the trans won't easily go into gear. If I really push on the stick it will eventually engage. I've gotten quite good at rocking the shifter just so, which requires less effort, but the shift is by no means effortless. Also if I go to another gear and then back to first the shift is effortless. (This makes me suspect syncros.)

Dave of Dave and Julie fame on ORR has posted quite a bit about the problems he's had w/ his trans.. and I adopted the shift-early style from his advice, so I often worry I am going to have similar issues. Not too long ago he pretty well destroyed his trans thanks to it running dry. He had no substantial leaks, but when he dropped his trans it was reportedly quite dry. Makes me wonder where the trans fluid went.. and if 'lugging' at low RPMs encourages this.

I also have the now all-too-familiar slave cylinder/throwout bearing clutch squeal creeping back. I know I'll have to attend to that before long. Fortunately this bearing seems to be failing much more gradually than my 1st did (@12k miles!).

 

You might have a little air in your clutch system causing the clutch to not disengage all the way. This will make the tranny hard to get into gear. Another indication of this is the clutch will engage with the pedal close to the floor.

 

I'm short on informed opinions but I do know that I don't appreciate the gear rattle in the Mazda M5ODR1 or M5ODR2 transmissions. I tried the short shift/open throttle drive techniques a few times but I couldn't stand listening to it. I finally just gave up and decided to drive around the noise by sliding the clutch a little longer and using more R's. The V8 apps that use the R2 are not nearly as bad because the engine's firing pulses are closer together than the 4's and 6's. You can still induce it but you have to dip lower in the RPM range.

Unfortunately, difficulty going into gear from neutral is the classic symptom of a slave cylinder on its way out. I will say this though - the M5ODR1HD in my LII was notchy and occasionally reluctant to go into gear even when the slave was at its best. The HD has different synchros in the lower gears and that may account for the difference in feel compared to the other two manual Rangers I've owned.

 

My clutch does not seem to have problems disengaging. On level ground the truck does not creep in 1st w/ the brakes off and clutch pedal on the floor. For some reason I doubt it could be resolved by bleeding the clutch. Although I'm about to clear 60k.. I might spring for a full fluid swap, including clutch and brake fluids.

I don't mind the gear rattle so much. Mine does it at all RPMs in 2 & 4 anyway. I think I've just gotten used to it. .. It is kind of handy in 4th: it reminds me I'm not in 5th yet and should shift once up to cruising speed. Kind of like a real low-buck shift indicator light.

 

I only tested this a few times, but so far no-dice.

I tested on several long, down-hill highway exit ramps. In all cases I was cruising at about 70MPH indicated. My scangauge read ~68-69 MPH and ~2500 RPM. Instantaneous mileage would hover in the 18-20 MPG range on level ground.

I tried simply canceling the cruise (tapping the brake) and coasting in 5th. When I do so mileage hovers in the 60-70 MPG range and falls off w/ speed.

I also tried canceling the cruise and then shifting into neutral and coasting. When I do so mileage hovers in the 80-100 MPG range and falls off w/ speed.

In fact when coasting in 5th I could get the MPG indication to go up ~10 MPG by simply mashing the clutch pedal.

This suggests that I am seeing better mileage coasting in neutral than I am coasting in gear and that my EFI controller is not cutting fuel delivery. Is there any chance the 4.0L SOHC Ranger FI program is different than others and does not perform this cutoff? Could something else (intake temps?) change the behavior?

This is all assuming that my scan-gauge is a reasonably accurate measure of instantaneous fuel economy.. maybe it isn't? Maybe it does something odd.

Interestingly enough I set it to also monitor 'LOD', which is supposedly engine load:
When going down-hill at ~45MPH in 5th gear w/ no throttle I see ~30% 'loading'.. as soon as I pop it out of gear it jumps to 35%, which would indicate that idling in neutral actually puts more load on the engine than engine braking does. Makes sense I suppose.

I still don't understand why I seem to see better mileage coasting in neutral than I do in gear, given the EFI system is supposed to cut the fuel off.

 

My LII shifter used to rattle in 3rd especially - it seems that the shifters in every twin stick LIIs are noisy in one way or another. I got rid of some of that with Dynamat and some weights on the base of the shift lever.

What I was referring to in the previous post is the characteristic growl that the Mazda box has at very low RPM. I've owned 3 manual Rangers and a 6-cylinder manual F150. I used to work on V8 manual manual F-series every day. They each had either the R1, R2 or R1HD Mazda transmissions and they all made the same noise. It's right near the top of my gripe list for the Mazda boxes, second only to the plastic slave grenade, of course.

 

Interesting.

I suppose anything's possible but I don't remember a late model Ford calibration that doesn't cut the fuel on decel. It's a no brainer to do that because the engine needs no fuel while slowing until the RPM gets low enough to risk an engine stall. One reason to keep it flowing might be if there is a drivability concern such as a noticeable bump when the injectors come back online at low speed. A bump can be felt on many calibrations but is usually mild. Another reason could be if the on/off injector feature causes cat temp excursions in mountain road driving.

My A/F meter used to go to the "full lean" LED on decels with the 4.0L, suggesting that it was in fuel cut. I'm in the process of changing that "rich/lean" meter out for a wide band that will display the numerical A/F ratio between 10:1 and 20:1. So, I don't have and probably will never be able to get any really good supporting data about the 4.0 cal. With the 5.0, my Explorer trip computer regularly jumps to its display lmit of 99 MPG on decels, again suggesting that it is in fuel cut mode. I'll have to try poppng it into neutral during highway speed decels to see how that compares.