you see alot of question about improving MPGs. I am tickled to death with what my new '89 beater is doing. I'm getting 26 mpg on the highway with a full load of equipment ( 400-500 lbs ) in the bed and doing 65-75 MPH the entire time. Around my home, I'm getting 21-22. I had a '90 back in 1990 ( bought it new ) and it didn't do as well as this old truck is doing. So . .some of them are just sipping fuel :o)

 

that's awesome man! I can break 20mpg's on my 2.5 but I have to baby the hell out of it. Stay up with it mechanically and you shouldn't have any issues -Mike-

 

same here. I ran 91 ocatne fuel in my 98 2.5L and drove it LIKE A BABY and when I say that, I mean it. went about 53 all the time all highway. I have a K&N, Dual-Exhaust and the Regular Cab stepside with a 5-Speed- 2 wheel drive. I drove 468 miles on 11.93 gallons of fuel. Believe it or not- it's true. I proud of the ole girl!

 

I've been running 87 octane fuel in my 97 2.3L, can I run any other type of fuel (Idk If I'm just limited to the 87 octane...scuse me if it's a stupid question :P)

Dave

 

Thats 39.22 mpg!!!!!!!!!! If thats true, thats nuts...

 

There are guys with Rangers doing alot better than that. There is a website that is a forum on hypermiling that I looked at while writing a report. There is a 4.0 Ranger on there doing 38.XXMPG!!!!! Most all of them are getting over 100% of the EPA estimate.

 

i am getting 28-30 out of my 97 xlt 2.3 5 spd...and everyone around here says thats not possible but good set of plugs and plug wires, clean air filter, and good oil and be easy on the clutch anything is possible...

 

i also have a 97 xlt ext. cab 2.3L 5 speed and live in a city and even with all the stop lights i average around 22-25 mpg.

 

I am getting 18-21 with my 4.0 and I thought it was doing good but I just used some sea foam to clean everything out and I am installing a jet performance module by the end of the week so lets hope that boosts it up a lot.
Anyone have other ideas on what I can do to boost my mpg?

 

dont drive fast, dont punch it at from a dead stop...install a vaccum guage and keep the neddle in the green and u will gain a few mpg but u will be driving like a granny but hey it works...

 

I do what you say don't do and I tihnk I am getting about 18-20. But I have fun..

 

lol the vaccum guage idea was my auto mechanics teachers idea and i borrowed ours from the shop for a day and hooked it up to my intake vac line for my purge valve...and wow...i coulnt drive to keep it in the green if my life depended on it but he does and he gets 40+ mpg outta his lil geo with 230,000 miles

 

I have a 99 2.5 5 speed, I always get 23mpg with a mix of some highway some city driving.

 

by best so far was 24mpg on my 3.0 driving 40+ miles a day highway at 60

 

i get 16mpg and get excited!

 

4.56s and 35s i killer on gas...friends 2001 z71 with 6 inch lift 15x10 wheels and 35in buckshots gets like 10

 

on a flat highway with little or no wind, in 5th gear, i can get 55mph turning about 2,200 rpms. on the other hand i can get 72 mph turning 3000rpms. just wondering what would be the better one for fuel economy?
i always thought it would be the 55mph but now i'm not so sure???

 

I wondered something like that too.

I drove to south dakota going 60 average and it took 4 and a half hours.

Then I drove back going 80 and it took 3 hours.


So which one used less gas? Because I cut off an hour and a half driving 80.

 

15-16 mpg stock tire size, cai, recent tune up and almost all highway driving i hate my truck and cant wait til its paid off to get rid of it

 

i'm not sure that the time it took you is important .. it's how many gallons of fuel it burned to cover those miles.

i guess what we have to do is make long mileage runs (around 200 miles should do it ), essentially on cruise control ... and see how many gallons the engine uses at 55mph vs. say 70mph..

it just seemed to me that i got a lot more speed out of 3000 rpms .. without a huge increase in rpms compared to 55mph...

i'm sure you can see where i'm going with this .. that faster is more efficient i just have to prove it somehow. this goes back to what the OP was saying at the very top of this thread.

 

Just keep in mind wind resistance goes up more at higher speeds so it requires proportionally more engine output, although that't not nearly as much fun to be in the right lane all day! You'll probably find that the slower speed is more efficient. I read that in designing the Bugatti Veyron it required exponentially more horsepower to overcome the wind resistance at 200+ MPH! They have to get several hundred more HP for a few more MPH increase at those speeds.

 

^ not to mention the veyron has the aerodynamics of a prius ha... yeah depending on the vehicle 54mph is the most efficient speed

 

it took me a full tank of gas both ways. I think I had a tiny bit more gas on my trip back, err i ended up with a lil more extra.

 

mine gets about 12 that is good right?....lol

 

rightly so.. and the ranger is not exactly what anyone would call aerodynamic...lol

however.. we're not talking about 200mph only between 55 and say 70mph..


that fancy vw would only be in first gear!

maybe the tonneau cover would help...