OK, so thought this would be a good topic. I've owned 2 prior Rangers (an 83 & 94) with 2.3l 4 bangers and sticks before my current 2000 3.0 V6 automatic. Always thought the two before this one were great on gas, but this one with the V6 and supercab (a flareside) has me hurting with today's gas prices. Not super hard on gas, but way more than I would have thought for a tiny little lightweight truck.

So, wondering what you've done to improve your gas mileage as well as prep the truck for years on the road. I've always drove mine to near half a million miles before getting rid of them, and a large part of that has been of course frequent fluid changes.

Part of the fluid changes have involved using sytnethics to reduce wear and extend life. Before 100,000 miles I'll use Castrol Syntech full synthetic, but when my vehicles get above 100,000 miles I'll switch to a high mileage oil. As much as a fan as I am of Castrol, I seem to like Valvoline Maxlife for high mileage motors, and am now using their full synthetic (Walmart...cheap) rather than the usual semi-synthetic MaxLife.

For the differential, at 100,000 miles I'll drain it and put in Mobile 1 full synthetic gear lube. For the power steering and brakes, a full synthetic for those too to prevent wear and moisture. For the manual trannys on my prior 2 rangers I used a synethic, but am wondering what kind of synthetic I can use for the auto tranny in my current Ranger.

If you've got any likes or dislikes in synthetics gear lubes, brakes/power steering, etc, please share them. Way I look at it synthetic tends to not only reduce wear, but also as a result reduce gas consumption a bit.

Beyond all these things, the other important factors for gas mileage and maintenance are cleaning the intake, IAC, MAF, etc. Spraying the intake isn't a complete job. I like to remove the IAC and intake once a year and clean them of carbon by hand. Really helps mileage and smooth running/power.

To maintain fuel economy, the usual Chevron fuel injector cleaner to remove carbon every oil change, using Sea Foam every 5 oil changes or so to clean the intake and valves, along with motor flush about the same time frame to get the sludge out of the motor, frequent air filter changes, etc.

For the master cylinder and power steering, short of flushing them completely I'll at least suck out old fluid via the filler caps with a turkey baster and replace, repeating the process 4 to 7 times over a few weeks to help renew the fluids. I'll only crack lines on either system about every 5 years for a complete flush.

With my prior 4 banger Ranger, I removed the intake pipe with the funnel air restriction and replaced that with PVC pipe. Seemed to help gas mileage and help pep at take off. Is there a similar sound muffler in the 3.0 v6 intake? Any other gas mileage increasing mods for this motor such as a chip re-program? Don't care about horsepower. Plenty of that. Just want to squeeze more gas out of her per mile, as well of course to keep her on the road for around half a million miles.

 

Well, heres the truth.

Lets start with fluid changes. I do agree with you in part, but here is the mistaken perception that we will begin with. You say you have always liked synthetics. Thats an interesting comment, as it appears you have never used them. Castrol does not make a synthetic. What they make is something that a lawyer (not an oil engineer) and a judge (not an oil engineer) deem to be called a synthetic simply because it has molecules in it which do not exist in nature. The process that Castrol, and most other companies use, modifies existing oil molecules enough that they can meet that definition, but the term has nothing to do with the properties of the resulting molecule. True synthetics use a much more complex and sophisticated process in which completely synthetic modules are formed and the process produces specific target molecules that have desired properties.

In the US only one company makes a true synthetic oil, and that is Chevron. They hold all the patents, and they own all the facilities that manufacturer the good stuff. Castrol, Valvoline, and most others should be called modified oils, not synthetic. Chevron sells their base stock to a number of other companies, namely: Amsoil, Redline, Royal Purple, and Joe Gibbs. These other companies add the necessary additives that convert the base stock into the desirable motor oil.

So whats the real functional difference between true synthetics and modified oils? Modified oils have little advantage over conventional oil. They might have slightly increase shear and thermal resistance, but for the most part they have the same lubricating properties. True synthetics produce better lubriscosity, and can withstand much higher temperatures without breaking down. Next, what happens to oil when it is exposed to moisture or corrosive compounds. Conventional and modified oils have to have large amounts of additives that counteract oxidation, and to neutralize acidic compounds. When conventional and modified oils are heated and exposed to the air, they break down and form acidic and corrosive compounds that can chemically wear the engine. Additives in the oil are the only thing protecting the engine. These compounds turn dark as they break down, hence why oil turns black as it gets used. True synthetics can withstand much higher temperatures before they begin to oxidize, And they require can withstand exposure to acids and other corrosive compounds without being broken down, and in turn offer greater protection to the engine against chemical wear.

The difference is night and day. The false synthetics (modified oils) can last between 5,000 - 7,500 miles at most before they have sufficiently broken down and an oil change is needed. True synthetics can last 15,000 - 30,000 miles, sometimes even longer while still protecting the engine better, and only filter changes about every 7,000 - 10,000 miles and replacing the lost fluid is required until the oil has finally reached the end of its useful life.

The difference becomes even more profound in turbocharged applications, where the high heat from the turbo causes conventional oil to coke up inside the turbo housing. The modified oils fare no better. True synthetics however handle the high temperatures in the turbo just fine without breaking down.

Even all this however does not address some things. Due to environmental regulations, the amounts of certain additives in modern oils have been reduced. A conventional oil from the late 1980s will protect your engine better than many so called synthetics will today. Back then, a zinc phosphate compounds known as ZDDP was used extensively. Basically it utilizes a self lubricating metal, which forms a protective coatings over high stress parts to seal the metal and protect those parts from wear in cases where oil film along is not enough. Areas that require this type of lubrication include: pushrods, slider cams, distributor gears, oil pump drive gears, etc. Bearings are lubricated by oil alone, and the piston rings are lubricated by both. Many engines are suffering component failures that were rare 20 years ago. Even with synthetic oils, these component failures are happening. The reason is the EPA has severely limited the amount of ZDDP that a motor oil can contain.

Some companies have developed workarounds for this problem. Basically the EPA regulations only apply to motor oil. If terms other than motor oil are used, and the proper disclaimers are put on the packaging, then the oil manufactures can use higher levels of ZDDP. Joe Gibbs, Amsoil, Redline, and Valvoline all offer racing oils and other special purpose oils that contain much higher levels of ZDDP. The correct rule of thumb if you want an oil that provides maximum protection, is if it says "Motor Oil" on the package, it has low levels of ZDDP. If it is labeled as a Break-In oil (which should pretty much only be used for break in), Hotrod Oil, Racing Oil, High Performance Oil, etc. and has a warning label about street use or that it may damage EGR or emission control devices, then it has more ZDDP in it, and will provide much better protection than an oil that does not. And the truth about its affect on emissions? Only vehicles that burn oil or have faulty PCV designs are affected by ZDDP in the oil in a way that is detrimental to emissions.

For the transmission, fully synthetic makes little difference. Transmissions require fluid changes at 30,000 mile intervals regardless of the type of fluid. Yours will require MerconV, which is a synthetic blend. Most of the synthetic fluids meet the older Mercon/Dexron3 which is inferior to MerconV. Synthetic fluids in the other systems is beneficial. Lower friction and better corrosion protection is always a good thing. On the transmission it is more important to make sure the fluid you use is the specified type, rather than worry about whether it is synthetic or not, and to change it every 30,000 miles along with a new filter. Do not have the system power flushed.

Cleaning the intake and combustion chambers is a good thing.

As for reducing intake restrictions and increasing fuel economy. I have rarely been able to see consistent verifiable results. Some claim it increases fuel economy. I highly doubt that, and here is why. The computer calculates how much fuel to use based on how much air enters the engine, which is measured by a MAF (Mass AirFlow) sensor. Some final corrections based on intake temperature is done. If you reduce intake restriction, you would increase air flow (assuming the throttle is open enough to support it), which would in turn increase the amount of fuel used in proportion to the increase in flow. So in other words, reducing the intake restriction makes no real difference at all On older carbonated cars it made a difference, intake restrictions would act a bit like a choke, which would cause lower pressures in the carb, which in turn would draw out more fuel. But modern fuel injected engines are not prone to that issue, and so intake restriction has little to no effect on economy (unless it gets really bad to the point where it starts to affect volumetric efficiency).

Mods that lean out the motor might increase economy slightly, but they will decrease engine life. Basically the 3.0L in particular is prone to exhaust valves warping and the exhaust seats wearing. A leaner mixture accelerates this. once the seats start to wear, fuel economy will decrease, the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.

With today's ethanol laden fuels, it is unlikely you will be able to get anywhere near half a million miles. Ethanol takes its toll on the valve seats and valves, it dries them out. It also burns slightly leaner, which increases the temperatures that the exhaust valves have to deal with. One thing you can do to counter it is to have marine grade exhaust seats installed, that involves pulling the heads and having valve work done. That can be expensive, but if you do that, you can have the heads ported and that can increase performance and economy slightly.

 

You've about covered it all.

On the brake fluid, I'd recommend a flush at least every 3 years with Motorcraft PM-1 DOT-3 fluid, to keep the absorbed moisture under control so that the ABS system valving doesn't get mucked up & to keep the wheel cylinders flushed with new fluid.

On the differential, our Rangers come from the factory with synthetic fluid & its supposed to be a lifetime fill, if the differential hasn't been dunked, or at least good for around 120K miles if in severe service.

The Mercon V tranny fluid is a semi-synthetic so its base oil is a good bit better than the old Mercon recipe, but I perform the Tech Info thread Full tranny fluid pumpout with a filter change around every 30K miles, with either Motorcraft Mercon V, or a licensed Chevron fluid.

I use the specified factory air filter & change it as specified by Ford. My engines factory cold air intake is unmodified, as our engines air flow isn't restricted such that it would reduce air flow on an unmodified engine. Since our engines intake air is monitored by by the MAF sensor, the computer knows how much air is entering the engine & automatically adjusts the fuel injector squirt time to keep fuel trim in check.

Now if the sensors that the computer uses to help it decide that air fuel mix, are sending it corrupt info, that can mess up its fuel trim control. SO, things like old, slow, lazy, worn out O2 sensors, or dirty MAF sensor, or out of spec IAT, or ECT sensors sure can confuse things & cause it to corrupt the air/fuel ratio & mess with driveability or mpg.

So if we remove & clean the MAF sensor, we need to be careful to use a non residual cleaner, whos recipe is designed just for cleaning the MAF sensor & thats plastic safe. We must be careful not to damage the sensors heated wire, or dirty up the cleaned MAF sensor when reinstalling.

Then after that MAF cleaning, or parts replacement, like O2 or temp sensor, or injector cleaning, ect, we need to remove the battery B- cable to wipe the computers KAM, reconnect the B- cable & perform a cold & warm idle relearn routine to avoid possible driveability problems & to let the computer know a repair has been made, so it can begin to build new fuel trim tables.

Don't use over size tires.
Look for low rolling resistance tires & keep them aired up to spec.

Remove excess weight from the cab or bed.

Use the specified octane & choose a Top Tier fuel, which has a good bit more detergents that must also keep the combustion chamber clean.

Drive with a light foot on the go pedal.

In case of your 3.0L, if its a flex fuel vehicle, gas with more than 10% ethanol won't help our mpg & if the flex fuel sensor is acting out, mpg will be much worse.

Also on the 3.0L, you'll want to keep an ear out for any squeek, or other untoward noise coming from the cam/sync sensor, located atop the engine, passenger side firewall area, where the distributor was located on earlier models. Its a common problem part that can mess with ignition timing & the oil pump is driven off it, so if its drive fails, the oil pump stops pumping & the engine will shortly sieze & that'll Really hurt mpg!!!!! lol

Lastly use the OEM specified finewire iridium enhanced center electrode, with platinum pad ground side wire design spark plugs of the proper heat range & wires, as they're designed to take the double work load out waste spark ignition puts on them, so spark gap will stay in spec longer.

More thoughts for consideration.

 

Great info guys!
One theory I have on this issue relates to what KhanTyranitar said about the lack of ZDDP in todays' motor oils. It seems a little too much of a coincidence to me that there has been a noticeable increase in failed cam synchros while at the same time the use of ZDDP has been phased out...

 

Lubes with the more expensive moly, or borate esters, like Vanlube 289, Low sulfur, phosphorus and metal free antiwear additives: Synergistic action of salicylaldehyde N(4)-phenylthiosemicarbazones and its different derivatives with Vanlube 289 additive have our engine oil needing way less of the ZDDP ad & are more effective. The ZDDP only works when all else fails & there is direct contact between the two metal parts the oil film is supposed to keep apart, so having other types of extreem pressure lubes plated on the metal surface that can take the heat & pressure & still keep the parts seperated, without destroying themselves, is a better deal for we users, but our oil now costs a little more!!!!

ZDDP above .008 adds to sulphated ash, not needed for our stock engines & not good for the cat converter if the engine uses oil & levels above .008 aren't needed from a wear standpoint & not good for iron parts above about .012 concentration.

Lots of new lube chemistry out there in the past 10 years or so, especially in the nano lube realm, so its kinda hard to keep abreast of the new recipies & how they work, but lube base oils & ad recipies are Way better now days, than just 10 years ago.

Not sure what causes Fords Vulcan cam sync sensor wear problem, but its said to not get a good oil misting lube job where its located, so maybe we need to lube it with a good quality, long lasting synthetic moly loaded grease, when installing?????

 

I know all about moly. Moly works well in the right conditions, but here is the problem with it in an engine. In very small amounts it won't cause harm, but it won't protect either. It is a serious threat to the bearings. Basically the moly is much much harder than the material the bearing is made from, so as it starts to coat over the bearing, it pills up, and gets pushed into the bearing surface, scratch and gouging it. Ive seen quite a few bearing failures caused by moly.

If the new lubes were superior alternatives, the distributor gear failures wouldn't be so rampant.

If the lubes today were superior now, then they wouldn't cause freshly rebuilt classic small block motors with slider cams to fail within 15 minutes of running. This new stuff is terrible.

The Ford Vulcan cam sync sensor runs the same as the old distributor did, basically same gear. Its the same issue the 2.3L Lima engines are having, and many of the Chrysler motors, and the classic GM motors, and basically everything that has a distributor or auxiliary gear or a cam gear. Many automakers have changed to designs that don't require a gear for that reason. This approach can prevent them from having issues on newer engines, but it does not protect older engines, and the newer engines are not lasting nearly as long as the older counterparts.

Here is an interesting fact, GM was hugely involved in the studies showing ZDDP as harmful to the catalyst system. But heres the truth. Many of the GM vehicles are picking up excessive concentrations of zinc through the PCV design which is a tautly design. Many other automakers were not having large scale catalyst failures the way GM was having because many other automakers have much better PCV designs. GM worked with a lot of oil engineers, and EPA people to develop the first low zinc oils. They were a disaster in testing, nevertheless GM required consumers to use these new oils in order to keep their warranties valid. To prevent the engine failures, every engine that leaves the production line has to be broken in on an engine dyno, and they use a product that GM had to get approved as an assembly lube, but they use it as an oil additive. Can you guess what it is? Its called EOS, and its a ZDDP additive that not only makes a good assembly lube, it actually contains the exact concentrations of ZDDP that if you take a motor and fill it with 5 quarts of oil, and add one tube of EOS, you get the exact amount of zinc in the oil that the previous oil had in it. GM engineers found if they did not use the additive on engine break in, the engine would have serious component failures within a few thousand miles on the road.

When installing the cam gear, you can coat it with a good quality ZDDP assembly lube.

 

Engine Oil Myth Busters link I posted in the oil & lube forum, is GM's Bob Olree's take on engine lube from their perspective & down in the post he goes on a good bit about their findings on ZDP, its an interesting read. https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...h-busters.html

 

Any way, back to the op's origional question, that being on how to wring out more mpg from our rides.

With computers on board running the engine fuel trim, we can opt for computer retuning of the engine to get somewhat better mpg, but we'd have to give up some on another driveability factor, so it would be a balancing act, mpg against what other things we want the vehicle to do.
Some chips enable us to switch between a couple of programs, like max mpg, then switch to best towing/load hauling performance. Question then becomes if we'll ever recover the chip cost in fuel savings, over the lifetime, or ownership time of the vehicle????? No easy answer to any of it, as folks have so many different needs, operation enviorment & drive cycles, that its difficult to say do this or that & have all folks reap a positive outcome.

Certainly keeping the vehicles scheduled maintenance up to date, with fluids & parts that meet or exceed the manufacturers specifications, keeping the specified size tires aired up, wheel alignment in spec, lighten our load & driving with a light foot, can benifit all. Beyond that its kinda a coin toss what will work best when one is operating down in Texas heat & another is up in Dakota or new england cold country!!!!

 

See my '87 Thunderbird has an aftermarket computer that lets me retune it at will, but there is a lot of custom stuff on it. Can I get good gas mileage by leaning out the mixture? Sure, so whats the tradeoff? The engine runs much hotter is one tradeoff, the throttle response is also decreased. Since mine is turbocharged, it has to run richer once boost kicks in otherwise serious engine damage such as melted pistons or blown head gaskets would result. But the same principles apply to NA applications like yours, leaner mixtures result in hotter combustion temperatures, which can damage the engine and shorten the life of engine components.

Reducing driveline friction is always good, as Pawpaw stated, proper tire pressure is a huge deal. Often overlooked is the engines cooling system. A system that overcools causes the engine to stay in warmup mode longer. In terms of intake and exhaust modifications, there is very little you can do in those areas. The factory systems are well designed. Free flowing mufflers can slightly increase peak performance, but rarely help, and sometimes even hurt fuel economy. Aftermarket air filters often contaminate the MAF sensor, which hurts economy and performance.