4 Cylinder/Manual Ranger gas mileage?
 

I am looking to buy a 4 cyl ranger just to drive back and forth to work. I would prefer the 2001+ OHC 2.3 but I am open to more options. What kind of gas mileage could I expect driving mostly freeway? I am thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 26-28. Is that a fair assumption?

I own a 2003 reg cab / 2.3 / 5 sp flareside with 4.10 gears.

I had been after a "Splash" since they first came out, but with long legs, they were uncomfortable after a short time. When they modified the cab with a couple extra inches, that's all it took. I found one and purchased it.

I drive mostly highway/interstate, so it's 55, 65 and 70 mph. I drive at that speed. I commute 140 miles/day, 35K per year. My Ranger (purchased at 10,500) has now 135K on it after only 3 1/2 years. I have documented the mileage over that time. The things I've done to squeeze out a couple more miles is a soft tonneau which netted about 1.8mpg and kept the original diameter tires. (though a bit wider)

I continue to get mileage in between 30 and 32, day after day, tank after tank. In the winter it may drop to 27. In the summer, (bed loaded with tonneau) I got the single best 250 mile trip mileage at 34.1. The same trip with a 12' enclosed cargo trailer, bucking a headwind and thunderstorm got me the lowest mileage ever of 19.6. I pulled my son-in-law's Grand Cherokee and got 24.6 for 60 miles. Drove it out to Utah and back through Colorado and Wyoming running anywhere from between 70 and 85 and still netted 28mpg on a 2400 mile run.

It's a great little combination. Nice little maneuverable truck. Full frame which is survivable in a crash. Well built and great mileage with limited towing capability, but better towing and hauling than some cheap little car.

The 2.3 is a great engine. Plenty of giddy-up for a small truck and still enough horsepower to not have to be shifting much on a longer drive. I was wishing for a turbo in Colorado, but hey...

I was kind of thinking about the turbo. It's the same 2.3 as the Mazda 3 isn't it? If so, couldn't you use the Mazdaspeed 3 turbo setup? I know the mounting configuration is different.

Another thing I would have liked to have seen is a 4x4 4 cyl.

2001 was the last year for the Ranger to have the 2.5 SOHC Lima engine. The 2002 and newer models have the 2.3 DOHC Duratec engine. I'm not sure what the fuel economy ratings are for the Lima engine. The Duratec engine had a range of 20 to 26 mpg with the manual transmission, 19 to 24 with the automatic. I'm getting 23 highway in the summer an 19 with mostly local mixed driving in colder weather in a truck with an extended cab and bed cover.

I attribute the increase in mileage from the Lima to the DuraTec to the horsepower. It doesn't have to work as hard to move itself down the road.

And while the 2.3 is based on the Mazda 2.3 there are a number of changes with some of them possibly to the block for RWD. I haven't seen anyone turboing them with parts from a Mazda turbo'd engine. I would think it would be abundant if it was easilly done.

Attachment 202476

Looking at one like that but it is white. It has 134K on the clock but I am sure that is not too bad for a 2.3. At just under 4k it is priced right.

MPGs...if you please!
 

I don't think you can go wrong with either the Lima or the Duratec. I have the 2.5L Lima engine with an Automatic tranny and routinely pull low 20s in the city, mid/upper 20s on the highway (see data in my Signature). I run the rack on the truck fulltime as I make many trips to the lumberyard, so I'm sure that I would do better with it removed and with a tonneau cover. Ruffinit is producing excellent numbers with the manual tranny. With the manual, you can glide out of gear and keep the truck in a more optimal gear when climbing hills.

Great little trucks when it comes to being miserly on fuel. None better really, although the Toyota Tacoma comes pretty close.

Kevin

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/p...ictureid=71861

I wan't it! Arkansas sucks for finding pretty much any car I want lol.

Sold!
 

I really enjoyed my truck over the past 12 years. Starts every time without issue, gives me respectable MPGs city/highway, and hauls everything I've needed to rebuild my home. Neighbors borrow it all the time as do my co-workers. I used it for a startup basement finishing business I had with a close buddy and it was our business truck for the first few months. I wish it had a little more pep but I really appreciate getting good gas mileage, so the tradeoff was worth it. Working towards 100K and the truck still looks good for its age and what its been through over the years. I use it as the daily driver to work so I think that you won't be disappointed in your Ranger should you get it. What year is the truck you are looking at? $4K might be a good price for a truck a little newer than mine with similar miles clocked (less at 134K). If its 2003 or so, I'd think it's a good deal provided it's clean. Did you do the KBB on it?

Kevin

In my 95 B2300 (Ranger with Mazda badges) 2.3L Lima 5speed and 3.45 axle ratio, I can get 25-28 Hyw MPG. Only downside is, OD and A/C are not compatible. Well, not if you want the air to blow out anywhere other than the defroster.....
Gonna be swapping in 4.10's soon. I bet the hyw MPG doesn't drop much, if any.

Long story short, avoid 3.45 rear gear at all costs. Too high for a 4 cyl 5 speed. Sometime around 97-98 they dropped the 3.45 and went to 3.73 gears as the "base" ratio.
Other than that, even the older Ranger's can get decent mileage, so don't overlook a good clean low miles older model. If it's cheap enough, and has the 3.45 axle, that can be rectified fairly easy.

I'm getting upper 23's with a 50/50 mix of hwy/city driving. 2000 regular cab, 2.5l and 5 speed trans.

So fix your vacuum leak. If your system defaults to defrost, it means you are loosing vacuum. Replace the PCV valve, PCV elbow if its cracked, and all suspicious vacuum hoses. If you haven't done it before, consider replacing the intake gaskets too.

My Dad's '96 2.3L has been known to get 29 mpg.

I own a 2010 Ranger XL 2wd with a 2.3 DOHC and 5 speed. I have yet to take a long hghway trip with the Ranger, but in mixed commuting rush hour traffic, (50/50 city & freeway) I normally get between 23-26 MPG, and have gotten 29 MPG when a moderate freeway trip of 3 hours was added to the mix. A typical fuelup averages 56 Liters (14.8 US Gallons), and will normally be good for about 550 Kilometers (343 miles). I still have the window sticker from when I bought the truck new, it claimed 39 MPG highway, although I`m sure that was based on the older, larger Imperial Gallons Canada used to have before the Metric system took over in the mid 70`s. An Imperial Gallon is 4.54 Liters, compared to 3.78L for a US Gallon. My Ranger has 3.73 gears, but keep in mind the later Rangers have 15" wheels on the 4 cyl,`s where the older trucks were 14". My truck has a 200-250 lb fiberglass canopy, but the extra weight is likely offset by the aerodynamics, as I noticed no differance in mileage.
I agree with Rouge Wulffe, to "tall" a rearend gear is not good, I used to have a 1986 Ranger 2.3 5 speed, and with the 3.08 gears it had, 5th gear was only useable at 60 MPH or higher, and only on flat ground. Any hill at all would pull the engine down too much and require a downshift to 4th.

I have posted a similar question. I am interested in Rory428 and Rouge Wulffe opinions. I own a 86 ranger but have a 88 carb 2.3 with a m5r1 5 speed the gears in it are 3.45. Problem is at 45mph it revs 2200rpms or more in 5th. The lower gears in the m5r1 are very close ratios so I'm thinking I could loose some low end torque to drop my overdrive rpms. The next highest ratio would be 3.08. Is it your opinions that it would turn it in to a zero torque truck in 5th?