ranger mpg
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 586
Likes: 1
My 99 extended cab 4x2 with the 4.0 OHV (pushrod) and 5 speed auto (5r55e) and 3.55 gears gets around 16-17 normal combined. On long highway trips at 65-70 its almost 20. Towing 5000 lbs it's 10-11 depending on hills.
Being a 4x4 yours should vary a bit, but it gives you a ballpark.
Being a 4x4 yours should vary a bit, but it gives you a ballpark.
Postmaster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 7
Yeah, the 4.0L is not the best gas mileage. The 3.0L is only marginally better, but has much less power. The 2.3L or 2.5L gets excellent gas mileage, but is known to be underpowered.
Trending Topics
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
From: KC Kansas metro
That's about right.
My recently acquired 2000 3.0 4x4 auto gets around 17 on the highway with a best of 18.333 gently driven.
With the recent snow I drove it most of the week in 4x4 commuting my 56 miles round trip and still got over 17 but was rarely over 50 mph, keeping up & down shifting (gear-hunting) to a minimum.
It does kind of irk me that a 2011 full sized F-150 4x4 SC is rated the same mileage as the 4.0 Ranger (19 hwy with a 1 mpg differential 15 v 14 city).
I heard Ford phased out the Ranger because they thought it was eating into their big truck sales and wanted to maintain the sales leader record, maybe they will bring back the F-100 and put a little diesel in it. (Then we can put those in our old Rangers, ha ha). Sorry to go off topic there a little.
With the recent snow I drove it most of the week in 4x4 commuting my 56 miles round trip and still got over 17 but was rarely over 50 mph, keeping up & down shifting (gear-hunting) to a minimum.
It does kind of irk me that a 2011 full sized F-150 4x4 SC is rated the same mileage as the 4.0 Ranger (19 hwy with a 1 mpg differential 15 v 14 city).
I heard Ford phased out the Ranger because they thought it was eating into their big truck sales and wanted to maintain the sales leader record, maybe they will bring back the F-100 and put a little diesel in it. (Then we can put those in our old Rangers, ha ha). Sorry to go off topic there a little.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Posting Guru
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,533
Likes: 1
From: Dexter, MI
A better explanation of why Ford dropped the Ranger is that the improvements in fuel efficiency of the F-150s resulted in an F-150 getting nearly the same mileage as the Ranger and the 150 yields Ford a higher profit.
I guess I'll keep my '91 4 banger Ranger for another 200 to 300 thousand miles and get better fuel mileage that either of those vehicles. Too bad, Ford won't make any profit from the likes of me.
I guess I'll keep my '91 4 banger Ranger for another 200 to 300 thousand miles and get better fuel mileage that either of those vehicles. Too bad, Ford won't make any profit from the likes of me.
Last edited by michigan66; Jan 13, 2011 at 07:34 PM. Reason: Added comment
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 215
Likes: 3
From: oo-tah
i'm really bummed that they're canceling the ranger, the f150 has gotten too big and they need something smaller, like a little smaller than half tons used to be. oh well i'll just stick to the old ones.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 2
From: central ohio
the ohc version of the 4.0 seems to do better than the older ohv version in fuel consumption for some reason, but the older 4.0 makes its power at a lower rpm, the ohc needs to be wound up more. my '93 supercab 4x4 has gotton at best 19.5 highway. ive heard of some of the newer ones breaking into the low 20's. i had a 2wd supercab with the 2.3 4cyl that got a best of 28, but no tourque for long upgrades or towing. the 4.0 is a pretty good mix of being able to afford to feed it as a daily driver and still be able to use it for light to moderate work. i had a 3/4 ton i loved, but the fuel milage didnt justify keeping it for all the times i really needed the bigger motor, and it was only a 2wd.
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
From: KC Kansas metro
3.0s
I know it is a completely differnt layout but the Duratec 3.0 v6 in my wife's 09 Mariner, like the 2000 Tribute before it, would run curcles around any stock Rranger and still get 27 mpg. While not for off road, the east west engine layout and full time FWD part time AWL was a nice compromise. Don't know why they couldn't engineer that same engine into a Ranger maybe with a north south layout.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 2
From: central ohio
in my opinion the problem with the 3.0 is that it makes its power higher in the rpm band than some other engines, youve got to wind it up, and a ranger chassis is heavier than say a taurus. it works fine with a taurus, but in the heavier ranger chassis, it has to work harder and takes a bit more to get it up to its effective rpm range. i dont know what a mariner weighs, and the newer 3.0's might be different from what im used to. all in all the 4.0 will do the job without straining itself too much but can still be driven on a daily basis affordably. if its just a commuter truck and your on realitivly flat ground, the 4cyl does pretty good with fuel, it just doesnt have alot of torque to deal with long upgrades or towing over 1,500 pounds. its kind of a comprimize, you just have to figure out what will do the best job overall. if they offered us a 200 c.i.d. inline 4 diesel, that would be a awesome thing, 30 mpg and 5,000 towing. but its merly a dream....