MPG enhancements - Page 3 - 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
  #51  
Old 03-13-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
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.
I remember all that time ago at Centralia you mentioned that. You also had a binding issue w/ the tcase shifter in the opposite way I did. Something tells me mine is out of tolerance one way and yours the other.

I've been too lazy for either the dynamat or the weights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
What I was referring to in the previous post is the characteristic growl that the Mazda box has at very low RPM. ...they all made the same noise.
Ah, I misunderstood. My trans does, of course, make the same growl.. however only if I really bog it well below 1000 RPM. I usually consider that too low and take it as a hint to down-shift. I rarely get the growl shifting at or near 2000 RPM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
It's right near the top of my gripe list for the Mazda boxes, second only to the plastic slave grenade, of course.
Ha!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-13-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Re: The calibration. Seems so far we have two possible theories:

-The 4.0L Ranger calibration does not cut fuel, where most do, because of other drive-ability or emissions concerns.
-My testing technique is flawed.

I don't suppose there is a way to test this any other way. Or maybe increasing the sample size would help here.. anybody reading this have a 4.0L SOHC, the 5-speed manual, and a scangauge II that reports MPGs? Wanna try this?


I suspect when you pop your frankenstein out of gear your trip computer will probably report '99' as well. There are (now) many deltas between my setup and yours though, not least of which is the trip computer.. oh, and that lump of iron under your hood! Betcha the auto comes into play too.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-13-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
Absolutely. Low RPM keeps friction low and opening the throttle reduces pumping losses - doing both together can give a real boost in fuel economy.
Got thinking about this on the way home. (Hey, it's a long drive these days!) Any thoughts on what the most efficient throttle position would be? If opening the throttle reduces pumping losses, then one would think that opening it as much as possible (wide open) would be best. But then doesn't the ECU alter its behavior at WOT? IIRC it goes open loop, kills the AC, and a bunch of other stuff. Open loop strikes me as bad for fuel economy. Am I off base?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-18-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
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.
Anyone know what the throttle position (TPS) reading should be w/ the throttle fully closed? My scangauge shows ~20 at its very lowest.

Maybe my throttle isn't closing all the way? Hence no cutoff?
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-18-2008
cereal83's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 217
Just buy a Yaris if you people are going to cry over gas mileage!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-20-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ft Wayne IN
Posts: 109
I have an 02 edge 4x4 and I put on the K&N and got a tonneua. the tonneau was for looks, and practicallity, but I was hoping for some fuel economy.

I get 15.5 on average driving 8mi to/from work everyday, and some highway miles.

I took my truck up to Chicago and did on average 67 mph.

This first tank was 19.4 then 18.4 (with some inner city chicago, sitting on the highway waiting...) then I got 17 driving Chicago City/Chicago highway.

but ya dont expect great mpg it is a truck, yes it sucks compared to full sized trucks, but wth...
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-20-2008
V8 Level II's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHBubba_Revisited View Post
Got thinking about this on the way home. (Hey, it's a long drive these days!) Any thoughts on what the most efficient throttle position would be? If opening the throttle reduces pumping losses, then one would think that opening it as much as possible (wide open) would be best. But then doesn't the ECU alter its behavior at WOT? IIRC it goes open loop, kills the AC, and a bunch of other stuff. Open loop strikes me as bad for fuel economy. Am I off base?
1) At low RPM, due to lower air volume and velocity, you don't have to go all the way to WOT to get to zero vacuum (minumum pumping losses).

2) The PCM can go into power enrichment at larger throttle openings but the cutoff point varies with RPM. The calibrations that I'm familiar with stay at stoichiometric below about 2000 RPM, even at WOT. I can't tell you exactly where in the RPM range that a 4.0L Ranger begins enrichment but it should be comparable.

To be on the safe side, I would use 3/4 throttle to avoid open loop while minimizing pumping losses. Can you bring up a parameter on the ScanGauge that indicates closed or open loop? How about something like inferred A/F ratio?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHBubba_Revisited View Post
Anyone know what the throttle position (TPS) reading should be w/ the throttle fully closed? My scangauge shows ~20 at its very lowest.

Maybe my throttle isn't closing all the way? Hence no cutoff?
The TPS can read values well below closed throttle. On initiallization, the PCM starts with a default value for throttle counts and then keeps track of the lowest value it sees while the engine is running. The closed throttle position is continuously reassigned to the lowest number seen.

So, if you are looking at absolute TPS counts, the closed throttle value will always be above zero. Relative counts should be at or perhaps very slightly above zero when the throttle is closed. I don't know which you are looking at on the ScanGauge.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-20-2008
Rescue's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan
Posts: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by cereal83 View Post
Just buy a Yaris if you people are going to cry over gas mileage!
i get the same mileage as my 85 chev with 350 bored .040 over and a mild cam........

suck it up ladies
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-20-2008
bazzman1953's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Irontown
Posts: 91
Like Juan Ponce de León searching for the fountain of youth, folks are searching for a magic snake oil or gadget that will increase their fuel economy. It doesen't exist. There is one thing that can make a 20% difference, though, and that is the onboard computer. No, I'm not talking about the ecm , but the brain pushing on the gas pedal. That is the hcm [Human Computer Module] that reads traffic conditions and adjusts speed accordingly. Less braking=more milage, more braking=less milage, simple.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-01-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
The PCM can go into power enrichment at larger throttle openings but the cutoff point varies with RPM. The calibrations that I'm familiar with stay at stoichiometric below about 2000 RPM, even at WOT. I can't tell you exactly where in the RPM range that a 4.0L Ranger begins enrichment but it should be comparable.
This must be what I am observing. Sounds like a tradoff: Go above 2k RPM in a lower gear and get into cutoff, or lope along in low gear at stoichiometric.

..or pop her out of gear, coast w/o engine breaking, and use fuel at stoichiometric.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
To be on the safe side, I would use 3/4 throttle to avoid open loop while minimizing pumping losses. Can you bring up a parameter on the ScanGauge that indicates closed or open loop? How about something like inferred A/F ratio?
The gauge does show open vs closed loop. However it does not show A/F ratio.. at least not that I am aware of.

Linear-Logic has released an updated version of the firmware running on the device. It has support for more fields and some inferred performance stuff. I have been meaning to send my devices in to be updated to the new version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwenzing View Post
I don't know which you are looking at on the ScanGauge.
Nor do I. Maybe the behavior is different on different vehicles. I notice my Miata goes far closer to zero.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-01-2008
short_circus's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: logan
Posts: 69
Well, my ranger averaged 13-16 mpg, and I don't drive aggressively. I also have already been driving at reduced speeds and am careful about braking and other bad driving habits (Every job I've ever had involved lots of driving, I'm pretty familiar with taking it easy for mileage sake) After doing many of the things people say don't work, my mpg average went up to roughly 20mpg, with a best tank of 25 mpg so far. Those of us who have to actually drive our trucks for a living need as good a fuel economy as we can muster. No, that doesn't mean I drive a truck TO work. That means the whole time I'm at work, I'm driving my truck, and I do so because a Prius can't carry 55 gallon drums full of minerals in the rear hatch.

The more efficient your engine runs the easier on gas it will be.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-02-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
Greg, what are the specs on your truck? Which engine do you have? Trans? 4 or 2WD?

Thanks..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-02-2008
short_circus's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: logan
Posts: 69
2003 XLT, 4.0, 5 speed, 4x4. Just a little over 126k on it right now. Got 21.5 mpg today, going on a large trip for work tomorrow and am hoping to get even better mileage,...highway all the way, no two lanes or stop and go traffic.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-03-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
I haven't been driving the truck lately. About 2 years ago now my daily commute went from ~4 mi/day to ~100 mi/day. I bought a 'toy' car which pulls commuter duty now. When the snow isn't, I'm driving that.

This spring I changed my commute route. I used to go 'around the horn' so to speak on a route that was all Interstate. 65 MPH speed zones that everyone goes 70-80 MPH in. I did 70 in truckzilla because I notice a significant drop-off in MPG's above that speed. In the toy/commuter I routinely cruised at 80 MPH. Now I'm on state highways (2-ways) w/ a mix of lights and different speed zones. My average speed is probably in the high 30 MPH range. On this new route I'm seeing as much as a 15-20% improvement in mileage. The route cuts about 10-20 mi/day off my commute too. Unfortunately it adds 5-10 min each way easy. But for the improvement in mileage I think it is time well spent.

Where I'm headed here is that it seems that state 2-ways are actually MORE efficient routes than pure Interstate. I'll be interested to hear if you can beat your 21.5 MPG w/ an 'all highway' trip.

My truck is nearly the same as yours. I have a little bit more heft w/ the FX4 LII package stuff (skids, arguably heavier wheel/tire package, etc). 21.5 MPG is a darn good day for me. My average, when driving conservatively is probably in the 18-20 MPG range.. given that is including Interstate, 70 MPH travel. Next fall we'll see if I can do better w/ my new route.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-03-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
Driving habits will affect your MPG more than anything else. Check your tire pressure, and keep your air filter changed (using the OEM paper filter).

Not only will the K&N not make any difference to MPG, but you risk contaminating your MAF sensor, and gumming up your IAC valve, and throttle body from the dirt and oil passed with the K&N!
I saw an improvement when I used a middle-high end dry flow replacable filter. IE, Fram. If you put a CAI on your truck and dont want to bother with the oil on the MAF (though that wont affect our trucks much because of the design of our MAF) then buy one of the AEM dry flows. Same warranty, same filtration when its clean, but no oiling. All you have to do is spray it off with a garden hose.

Exhaust gave me a pretty consistant 1-2mpg.

Higher gearing with a lighter/smaller tire/rim combination.

Spark plugs and wires.

Driving habbits FOR sure. I can make my truck get 15mpg or 22mpg. My choice.

Proper air pressure in the tires. Overinflation helps by 1-2mpg but is dangerous. Thus, stick with proper inflation.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-03-2008
short_circus's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: logan
Posts: 69
Got 22.34 MPG today all interstate. I realize that in most cases rural routes and such will give you a little better mileage,...but the terrain around here is nowhere near flat, so off highway around here your vehichle works harder (especially if its loaded, like mine is half the time). Averaging yesterday and today's mileage together and I get 21.88 MPG. Not bad I think.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-04-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
That is outstanding super-slab mileage! What speed do you typically cruise at? What tires do you run? Do you up the pressure?

Your truck is similar enough to mine.. yet your beating my highway number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBFranger View Post
Proper air pressure in the tires. Overinflation helps by 1-2mpg but is dangerous. Thus, stick with proper inflation.
Tire pressure is something I've been experimenting w/ lately. Ford says 'proper' for my config is something like 30-32 PSI. I've never run my tires that low, I usually aimed for 35 all around. Lately I pushed that to 40 PSI all around. Mileage seems to have come up a little bit (jury is still out). Fortunately handling does not seem to be impacted at all. Maybe my 5 PSI bump was too small to dramatically effect handling.

I am concerned about NVH and odd tread wear. NVH impact seems to be minimal. It is still way to early to make any judgments about tread wear.

Last edited by NHBubba_Revisited; 06-04-2008 at 07:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-04-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
If you experience over-inflated tread wear your tires are over inflated. It may not seem like you are losing traction under normal conditions, but you never know when you will need to make a hard stop on wet pavement and your ABS screws you over because it cant get the tires to grab.

Ford tells me 30-32PSI with 245/75/16's. I have 265/75/16's so I keep my tire pressure between 25 and 28. If you're running stock sized tires 35-40PSI might not be all too much but with big tires that is WAY too much.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-04-2008
Lefty04LevelII's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,447
This thread reminded me I need to find all my receipts an enter data into my excel mileage form.

Aside from that, thanks for the info Bob and Colin. I've been practicing some of the forms and techniques you 2 have covered. With me lifted (RCD), new 33x10.50x15 BFG MTs, and traveling as light as I can at times (helps with driver only weighing 152 too) I've been seeing 17-19 mpg, more so now that temps have warmed (heated....been in the 100s and 90s last 2 weeks). Hopefully I'll hit that magical 20-22 mpg again, even lifted. Unfortunately for me I'm of a double edged sword. I'm a little over a mile from work (ruck not effectively warming up enough to optimize mileage), but my commute is just that, 1 mile and about a whole 5 minutes of my time. I'd ride my bike if it wasn't for the fact that I have to purchase supplies for work at times. Of course that said I COULD just be a little more aware of my purchasing needs for work and pick a give day of the week to do such errands. That task is a little easier now since we're in fiscal budget freeze, but I'm still authorized to purchase food items for animal collection at work.

Colin, odd as it may possibly be....if your clunk you mentioned sounds to be coming from the rear have your rear driveline pinion seal checked. Mine just started leaking this Monday. I took her in Tuesday and had the seal replaced. I'm unsure of what all was specifically done other than the R&R, but it seems/feels to be less slop now. Speaking of slop, I've got the 2-4 hum as well. I don't recall said hum and other tranny difficulties from my old 93 5-spd 4.0.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-04-2008
robert99ranger's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana/Mississippi
Posts: 5,807
If ya need a truck, why not get a 4 banger 5spd. Thats what I got. I work on a farm and use it alot as a truck. I don't need a 4.0L V6 to get to the same place that my 2.5L 4 cyl can and can haul the same weight. Ya, you don't get to take off as fast but who cares. People who do that are trying to show off and make up for other areas. I run stock tires and do just fine. I have ran through mud and haven't gotten stuck yet (got to know how to drive it). You don't need 4 wheel drive. That just makes less mileage and only pu$$ies need it. Ya don't need to be going off roading. Your tax dollars pay for that asphalt stuff. Ya, I know its fun but fuel prices are going up and its just stupid to **** money away like that. I have sold all of my fun toys.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-05-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by cghstrojan08 View Post
If ya need a truck, why not get a 4 banger 5spd. Thats what I got. I work on a farm and use it alot as a truck. I don't need a 4.0L V6 to get to the same place that my 2.5L 4 cyl can and can haul the same weight. Ya, you don't get to take off as fast but who cares. People who do that are trying to show off and make up for other areas. I run stock tires and do just fine. I have ran through mud and haven't gotten stuck yet (got to know how to drive it). You don't need 4 wheel drive. That just makes less mileage and only pu$$ies need it. Ya don't need to be going off roading. Your tax dollars pay for that asphalt stuff. Ya, I know its fun but fuel prices are going up and its just stupid to **** money away like that. I have sold all of my fun toys.
A 4cyl most deffanitely can not haul as much as a 6cyl. More power, torque, and better cooling abilities. Towing too much with a small engine puts a lot of strain on the powertrain.

Stock tires are fine, but bigger tires are obviously better. I dont do much off roading but I do go out on the beach when I can and I'd rather not get stuck.

4wd isnt needed for mudding, but try and crawl over a fallen tree or stump with 2wd, you cant do it.

Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-05-2008
4X41AB's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sulphur, LA
Posts: 19
im thankful i dont have a diesel truck w/ prices @ 4.67 a gallon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-05-2008
robert99ranger's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana/Mississippi
Posts: 5,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBFranger View Post
A 4cyl most deffanitely can not haul as much as a 6cyl. More power, torque, and better cooling abilities. Towing too much with a small engine puts a lot of strain on the powertrain.

Stock tires are fine, but bigger tires are obviously better. I dont do much off roading but I do go out on the beach when I can and I'd rather not get stuck.

4wd isnt needed for mudding, but try and crawl over a fallen tree or stump with 2wd, you cant do it.

1. I have hauled plenty of heavy, full loads with my 4 banger. I have had the whole bed plum full of wood. I mean stacked above the bed sides. 4 banger Rangers do just fine. It is just that you can't take off as fast with a load (who cares) and can't go as fast (you don't need to). You are telling me that .5 or 1.5 more Liter engine is going to make a big difference in a Ranger.

2. We have some sand banks (I mean really big sandy) in our creeks around here. Uh, I haven't gotten stuck with my tires.

3. If there is a tree in the road, get out your chain saw. I actually carry one, doesn't everyone eles? Or, you can drive around it.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-05-2008
short_circus's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: logan
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHBubba_Revisited View Post
That is outstanding super-slab mileage! What speed do you typically cruise at? What tires do you run? Do you up the pressure?

Your truck is similar enough to mine.. yet your beating my highway number.

Tire pressure is something I've been experimenting w/ lately. Ford says 'proper' for my config is something like 30-32 PSI. I've never run my tires that low, I usually aimed for 35 all around. Lately I pushed that to 40 PSI all around. Mileage seems to have come up a little bit (jury is still out). Fortunately handling does not seem to be impacted at all. Maybe my 5 PSI bump was too small to dramatically effect handling.

I am concerned about NVH and odd tread wear. NVH impact seems to be minimal. It is still way to early to make any judgments about tread wear.
I've upped the tire pressure only slightly, to 35 psi, on stock size (245/75/16) tires. I also recently did a tune up, (wires/plugs, filters, fluids) I usually run 60 on the highway, speed limit everywhere else, and try to watch my acceleration/deceleration. Not bad, but I'm still looking for more.

As for why I need 4x4 and at least a 6cyl,... well, 2wd vehicles don't survive long in a coal mine lol.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-06-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by cghstrojan08 View Post
1. I have hauled plenty of heavy, full loads with my 4 banger. I have had the whole bed plum full of wood. I mean stacked above the bed sides. 4 banger Rangers do just fine. It is just that you can't take off as fast with a load (who cares) and can't go as fast (you don't need to). You are telling me that .5 or 1.5 more Liter engine is going to make a big difference in a Ranger.

2. We have some sand banks (I mean really big sandy) in our creeks around here. Uh, I haven't gotten stuck with my tires.

3. If there is a tree in the road, get out your chain saw. I actually carry one, doesn't everyone eles? Or, you can drive around it.
I guess you're just too thick headed.
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 07:13 PM
Exahust leak / old 02 sensor = bad mpg wydopnthrtl General Ford Ranger Discussion 2 01-06-2009 10:11 AM
98 3.0 MPG Log (shows how mods affected MPG) Marcaronio 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 23 05-11-2007 09:11 PM
How many MPG with 4.0 99 jtslmn720 General Ford Ranger Discussion 31 04-28-2005 09:44 AM
MPG seem to be shrinking, need help Strider0O0 General Technical & Electrical 23 04-05-2005 03:19 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 09:01 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.