Ranger, for me? need some feedback. - 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
  #1  
Old 04-09-2005
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
Ranger, for me? need some feedback.

Well gas prices are starting to hurt and my effer gets a solid 12 mpg. so its time to look for an alternative vehicle. i was thinking of getting a 93-97 (will consider later models up to 2001) ranger. looking for a 4 pot in either a reg cab or ext. cab version (perfered). lookin for realibility and gas milage.

so what kind of gas milage do all the STOCK 4 pots get. please dont say what u get with larger tires or anything because this lil guy will stay stock .

also what about the 3.ho v-6? i heard they arent the best on fuel and the power isnt that great...i know my cuz's 93 splash 4x4 with 31s is a turd...but it has 200,000+ on it and has 3:55s...

do they offer an auto with the 4 pot? what gears would be best? (thinkin 4:10s)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-09-2005
ranger024x4's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: nova
Posts: 5,061
im thinking of doing the same thing... except with the 91-92's
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-09-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Orange City, FL
Posts: 1,601
the ultimate gas ranger would be a manual 2.3 dohc reg cab, with 3.55s gears.

don't look at older truck if you want better gas mileage, technology has evolved within the last 10-20 years allowing for better fuel milegage, look into a 98+ 4 banger.

3.0s suck gas so I Don't recomend those at all.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-09-2005
MrRngr94's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by PickupMan92
3.0s suck gas so I Don't recomend those at all.
And so do the 94 2.3's and you don't even get any hp with all that consumption!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-09-2005
rangererv's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dearborn Michigan
Posts: 4,376
my 3.0 v6 got around 13 mpg when i had stock tires on. it is a 4x2 auto.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-09-2005
Wowak's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Merritt Island, FL
Posts: 2,223
I CONSISTANTLY get around 19.5MPG with a 3.0L, 4.10 gears, and 32" tires, all city driving or going 80mph on the highway. I've driven reg. cab 4 bangers with the 5 speed and they're ok, I don't think I'd really want the extra weight of a supercab or 4x4, although back when you could get a 2.3L 4x4 Ranger my dad thought they were great.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-09-2005
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 2,123
I got 21 city MPG with a 1993 2.3l, and that was after 140,000 miles. But that was in a mustang.
I also don't think the 3.0l is that great on gas milage. I get better milage with my 4.0l auto, extended cab than my 2003 3.0l manual regular cab. But I do have 3.55's and my old truck has 4.10's.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-09-2005
gbgary's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: dfw
Posts: 465
i had/have no complaints about mileage with my ranger...the lightning is something else. lol
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-09-2005
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
thanx gary, really needed to hear that.

well i like the 93-97 series trucks and i know how to work on them. im not to crazy about the 98-01 styling but ill take them into consideration. i was talking with a good friend who said his dads 96 ranger with a 4 pot/5 speed/4:10s consitantly gets 25-29 mpg mixed driving...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-09-2005
pacodiablo's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,126
MPG depends on the condition of the truck. Things like O2 sensors are probably pretty worn on a '93-'97. Generally they get around 20 or more with mixed driving.

Yes, you can get an automatic with a four cylinder.

And keep in mind that with 4.10s your gas mileage might suffer some, but those might be the only gears Ford put in four cylinder automatic trucks. I don't know. My truck has 3.73s, but it has a manual.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-10-2005
optikal illushun's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
im willing to sacrifice a little milage for a little more pep. plus with 4:10s ill just drive slower. i know this sounds lame but i dont think id like a manny and for the sake of city driving it'll be better.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-11-2005
shadyluke's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Grove, PA
Posts: 2,077
My reg cab 1998 2.5l had 3.45 gears. That truck constantly got 21mpg on the highway and about 17-18mpg with city driving. I don't know whay that truck had such small gears but with a 4 banger and those gears you would never make it up the hills in the coalregion. I also recommend the 2.3l that motor always seamed stronger to me. However with 4.10 you may be alright.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-11-2005
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
my grandpa has a 99 ranger I4 with auto and a reg cab, short bed, he gets 26 consistantly
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-11-2005
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Somewhere, XYZ
Posts: 4,351
I don't know how anyone gets better than 24-25 MPG in a Ranger, regardless of how it is equipped.

I bought a '99 Ranger XL Sport 4x2 Reg. cab w/ the manual trans brand new off a dealer lot. I ran it until July of '03. I kept a log of every drop of gas that went into that thing until December of '01. At that point my running average was 22.40 MPG, and that was bone stock except the addition of a soft tonneau cover. That running average peaked at 24 and was at it's lowest at a touch under 20, so I'd call it pretty accurate.

From everything I've seen or read, the 3.0L V6 is a bad deal. It has less power than the 4.0L SOHC, but only minimally better efficiency specs. It is an older design, so it isn't entirely shocking. The Ranger would probably still have the similar older-design OHV 4.0L V6 if it weren't for the fact that the 4.0L was also offered in the Explorer, which sold well and hence probably got a lot more R&D time..

I'd go w/ either the I4 or the 4.0L SOHC V6 if I were you.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
new to this forum... here's my truck lets here some feedback..... good or bad Matt162b Member Introductions 8 07-07-2010 08:40 PM
Need Feedback FORZDA Exterior Semi-Tech 6 09-09-2007 06:48 PM
Tirepackage.com....need feedback JoshK General Ford Ranger Discussion 15 06-11-2007 06:58 PM
ideas for my truck need feedback psychobilly New Ideas 5 06-29-2006 11:24 PM
Got an Idea...need feedback pastfinder New Ideas 17 06-29-2006 09:27 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 08:22 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.