unusually good fuel milage 2009 Ranger
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 6
Likes: 1
From: Grand Rapids, MI
unusually good fuel milage 2009 Ranger
Been tracking fuel mileage for my 2009 Ranger work truck with 2.3L and 5 speed manual. Tracking over the past 6 months has seen mileage go from an average of 17mpg to 30mpg. Started timing lights on my usual routes and steady acceleration and long coastdowns if I know I have to stop. The top mileage achieved over a two week period on a single tank has been 38mpg, average as noted before is 30. Simply amazing how changing driving habits and taking advantage of a manual tranny makes such a big difference. Kinda neat to know the ol' gal can rival most economy cars in fuel mileage.
Member
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 12
Likes: 1
From: RR, NM
My 2004 2.3L manual gets 27-28 MPG consistently. Most of my driving is in town and short 55 MPH stretches. I drive like an old man and rarely get it over 60 MPH. What I like about the 4 cylinder models is that they have the same size tank as the V-6 models giving you much more range.
Member
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 62
Likes: 33
From: Volcano, CA
That's darn good. This is my first Ranger (4.0 SOHC, extended cab, 4x4) and it's living proof that a smaller truck, with a smaller engine than a full size truck with a V8, can still achieve lousy gas mileage. I'm averaging 15-16....
Member
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 187
Likes: 18
From: Port Charlotte, FL
I haven't actually tracked my mileage yet but it is pretty good. 4.0 ohv. Tank size is maybe 20% larger than my Hondas. But fill ups are about the same. And my Honda gets mileage in the 30s. So I'm guessing this truck is somewhere in the 20s.
Member
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 187
Likes: 18
From: Port Charlotte, FL
I've been thinking about this disparity in gas mileage in the 4.0L. Some ppl say they get horrible mileage and others say theirs gets great mileage.
I wonder if it's the OHV compared to the SOHC engines? I've heard about the normal operating RPM range of someone that had the SOHC, they where talking about shifting at 3500 rpms and not letting the rpms drop below 2500 to avoid lugging the engine. But with the OHV it's happy at much less RPM if I'm driving aggressively or trailer pulling I my shift high point is 2500 rpms. Its usually happy shifting between 1k to 2k rpms. I dont really lug the engine unless RPMs drop below 750 while driving. If I'm driving it easy I'll shift between 1100 and 800 rpms. Its perfectly happy in that range. And still plenty of torque to take accelerate about normal (not agressive) traffic speed w/o going over 1200 rpms.
so maybe the OHV is set up for economy and the SOHC has a lil more focus on high revving performance at the expense of economy?
I wonder if it's the OHV compared to the SOHC engines? I've heard about the normal operating RPM range of someone that had the SOHC, they where talking about shifting at 3500 rpms and not letting the rpms drop below 2500 to avoid lugging the engine. But with the OHV it's happy at much less RPM if I'm driving aggressively or trailer pulling I my shift high point is 2500 rpms. Its usually happy shifting between 1k to 2k rpms. I dont really lug the engine unless RPMs drop below 750 while driving. If I'm driving it easy I'll shift between 1100 and 800 rpms. Its perfectly happy in that range. And still plenty of torque to take accelerate about normal (not agressive) traffic speed w/o going over 1200 rpms.
so maybe the OHV is set up for economy and the SOHC has a lil more focus on high revving performance at the expense of economy?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
