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)

 

im thinking of doing the same thing... except with the 91-92's

 

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.

 

And so do the 94 2.3's and you don't even get any hp with all that consumption!

 

my 3.0 v6 got around 13 mpg when i had stock tires on. it is a 4x2 auto.

 

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.

 

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.

 

i had/have no complaints about mileage with my ranger...the lightning is something else. lol

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

my grandpa has a 99 ranger I4 with auto and a reg cab, short bed, he gets 26 consistantly

 

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.