I've been toying with the idea of buying a Ranger for fuel economy. I've got my F-350 for hauling, towing, making noise, and burning rubber. I'd only need the Ranger for running around without getting 9-11 MPG all the time. Having my big truck, I don't need the Ranger to be speedy or to do any real work. I doubt it'll ever carry over 500 pounds in the bed (just tools and stuff) or tow more than 1000-1500 pounds (not often).

What is a good Ranger setup purely for MPG? I'm guessing a 4 banger, 5 speed, and like a 3.08 gearing (or something in that range). I'd like one between mid 80s - early 2000s. Not too picky on the age as long as it's in good condition. Rust isn't too bad of an issue where I am. What is a good mileage range or expectation for these Rangers? I've seen many people with them over 300k with minimal maintenance. Don't really want to buy one with this many miles, just wondering what my expectations should be for longevity. I think I'd like to try to buy under 150k miles.

It'd be helpful if anyone would like to pitch in with their setup and MPG numbers to give me an idea of what I should be looking for. Any MPG mods are also welcome.

I'd likely do a free-flowing exhaust to make the engine more efficient. Maybe a timing bump too. Maybe a bed topper shell if that won't hurt MPG.

Haven't seen as many around, but will 80's model carbed Rangers pull the MPG that later fuel injected ones will?

Thanks in advance!

 

Well, forget towing/hauling much if you get a 4-banger, even with a manual tranny. My 93 XLT with 3.0 and auto/OD tranny and 3.73 rear ratio gets 22-24 down the highway at about 55-60 mph. Don't know what you'd get with a four banger. Tires and gearing are the most workable mods for mpg. The fuel-injected V6's are tightly controlled by the computer brain, so there's little you can do there that will make a real mpg difference. I've heard the 1st generation Rangers had more head and leg room in the cab. Mine is a cab and a half and it would be uncomfortable if it weren't, but I'm about 6'2" and 250+ pounds.
How do you feed that 460???...not stock gas station fuel??? Bet that gets real spendy.

 

My '94 standard cab short bed 2wd 2.3L manual gets 25mpg. It's been extremely dependable for the past 11 years, now has 208,000 miles and is still running strong. Honestly most of my repairs the past few years have been rust related caused by our wonderful Michigan salt. Superb little truck but I'd agree it's not for towing anything more than an open single place motorcycle trailer. I've towed a 2-place snowmobile trailer and it really had trouble holding speed.

 

Thanks for the responses and MPG numbers. Sounds like with just about any 90's Ranger, I should be able to pul 23+ MPG highway without an issue.

The V6 is also a possibility that I wouldn't rule out. I've just heard that they're a little harder to work on than I4's which is a slight turn off for me as I like to do as much maintenance as possible myself.

I'd also considered something like an F-150 with a 4.9 (300 six), manual w/OD gearing, and probably 3.08 rear gears. It'd be a bit better for small loads, and be more roomy inside. The downside is that I'd probably be settling for 19-20 MPG highway instead of 23+.

I'd probably like a long cab, long bed Ranger. Would settle for a regular cab if I found a nice one.

Sounds like higher mileage isn't an issue with these little trucks. I'm not going to jump on ones with high mileage, but definitely won't rule them out.

Also, is there anything in particular to look out for when checking out these trucks? Haven't been exposed to much to Rangers.

 

I have a diesel f350 and yes the ranger is the daily driver. I have a 94 4.0 2wd. It has on it now about 313000 miles and still runs strong. milage around town is 15 or so and 20-21 on the highway at 75 mph. I put a free flow exhaust on it to include the cat, a cold air intake, run bigger tires than stock. gearing from factory is 3:08. Bought truck for my son in 2000 got it from him in 02 I use it for everything. The transmission has been the biggest pain as you have to pull it for any clutch work (I think this applies to all). I had it rebuilt after we bought it as it had leaked fluid out under prev owner and that is a known problem in the 90 versions. I pulled heads last summer thought I had a blown gasket, turned out to be a water leak at the front of the engine at the water pump. anyhow put in new injectors, all new ignition pieces and other than normal fwt items that has been it. Oh yeah I had the timing chain done when I had the water pump housing seal replaced.

They are tough little critters. As to a 4cyl, well read the boards real close, seems they start to have problems a little over 100K, the 3.0 has its issues. the newer ohc engines particularly the 4.0's had early problems. Take a look at the ranger station they have a year by year breakdown on good bad issues. Personnally I go for more is better and even with the v6 the 4 cyls mpg is not much better so why go there if you want to maybe haul something of some weight?

 

In it's stock, prime, my old 84 4x4 used to get 24-27mpg out of the 2.8V-6 with a 5spd manual, not too bad.
Now that it has numerous "modifications" and 31in tires, the best I have gotten was 22.

A good friend has a 83 2.3 long bed 4x4 Ranger, also "slightly modified" he routinely gets 25-26 mpg.

I believe these numbers are.... very slightly, better than later EFI models, but hp is less too.

 

I normally get around 20-25 mpg in my '04 - specs are in my signature below. It has over 137,000 miles on it currently, and it just pulled a 3,000 lb trailer 850+ miles from eastern Idaho to the Oregon coast - not easily and the mileage sucked, but it did it... It's still running fine, regardless... YMMV...

 

Mine (4cyl/5spd) I got used for 1800 with an obvious junkyard rear axle replacement, and I had to swap out the tranny one fine day.

The TK tranny is a major weak point, I think. The answer to it is to seal the shift rail plugs by replacing the original rubber ones with metal "freeze plug" or "core plug" type plugs.

You want an extended cab if one can be found - there isn't much space behind the seats in a shorty, NONE if you have long legs *THAT RIGHT THERE IS A BIG DEAL*
My seats have always been crushed against the back of the cab

Become familiar with the fuel pressure regulator. Also buy a very long allen wrench tool for the one bolt on the entire manifold (upper intake) that requires that special tool.

There is also a piece of rubber tube that joins the manifold floor heater with the radiator cooling water. Held on by two hose clamps, it is in the worst place of all to get to, dead center under the top AND bottom intake.
THOSE sometimes leak coolant. It's a 2 inch long rubber piece (common fuel line) that joins a metal line to a metal nipple

ON the up side - that bitty l'il 4 cylinder can much benefit by a VOLVO 740I cylinder head modification - that head was designed by Porche, by the way. It doesn't take much to fit it

Modified 2.5L engines have made over 400 ponies...

The engine of choice is out of a thunderbird around the same year. They built a turbo 2.5 for T-bird that has hardened internals throughout, factory Turbo, the only bad being the exhaust mans had a tendancy to crack between the port runners
Always the same spot too - Mustang and T-bird both. Number three exhaust port every time!
*I've heard there is a tube header for it, but I've never seen one. The OEM is made of cast iron

 

Thanks for the responses! Starting to sound like the V6 might be the way to go. I like the idea of an older Ranger with a 2.8, but there aren't too many around here anymore.

The 2.5 thunderbird turbo swap sounds interesting. If I were to do any swap though, it would probably be a small mechanical diesel to try to make 35+ MPG. Or electric, but not sure I could deal with a 70-100 mile range...

 

Your diesel probably makes decent MPG numbers. I've known of people getting up to 24 MPG in ford diesels. The 24MPG number was highway average @65MPH with a 6.9, ZF5, and 3.55 gears. The 7.3 PSD can get around 18-19 highway with an automatic and 4.10s.

Also, what kind of improvement did the exhaust give you? Were you tracking MPG before and after? I've seen claims between 1 and 6 MPG, which is kind of a broad range... The ones with higher MPG claims probably had old clogged cats or something that were replaced...

My purpose for a Ranger would be for probably 60-70% of my driving and as a project to shoot for high MPGs.

I like the idea of older rangers a lot, the only reason I'd see to buy a newer one is to use scan tools and electronics for MPG. You can buy meters that will show you your life, trip, & instant MPG. I'll have to sit on this for a while and think about exactly what I want out of one of these little trucks.

 

I can tell you this - even with an unknown mileage 2.3 engine, the gearing made even hauling a car trailer possible with it.

When I finally drop the new mill in place (and it hasta be soon, the weather is too cool!) it should be an interesting Secret Weapon.

A 1/4 ton '89 Ranger, 5.8 liter...

 

the best advice i could give is a 3.0 5 speed 3.73 gear set,if you look at the epa fuel rating the 2.3l is less hp and pretty much the same fuel usage,plus if you need a little more ummph go to a 4.10 gear set-better bottom end but higher rpm on the highway
this is the set up i have in my 04 ranger

 

Doesn't sound bad. One of the reasons I was originally looking at 4 cylinder instead of V6 is that I leave my truck idling a lot. I'll let it sit for a few minutes and warm up (especially in the winter when I want the heat to kick in), or if I get out for only a few minutes. It may use a little gas, but I think it's better than quick starts and stops all the time. I was thinking that the 4 cylinder would be easier on gas while sitting even if it's about the same MPG as the V6 while driving.

My top pick for a V6 would be the 2.8. If I can't get my hands on a decent one of those, I'll probably look into a 2.3 I4.

 

'04 Edge, 3.0, 5 speed manual, 4:10 gears, stock size tires, 235/70 or 75/15. Free flow exhaust made zero difference in mileage. Unless I beat on it, I get 21-23 mpg. That's driving on two lanes at 60 mph in a lot of hills on cruise. My '99 4banger with 410's and auto, same size tires got that as well.
I don't think Rangers were known to get high mpg's.
I have just short of 100k on this, and zero problems, other than a drive belt that needs changing. That's a known maintenance item. Oh, there was a slight problem, the heater fan resistor bank fried, and replaced that, another known problem, and no big deal.

 

Thanks for the info. Is your exhaust completely free, what's the setup? Stock cat? I'd probably do a higher flow cat, and straight out the back without muffler/glasspack (or delete the cat if possible depending on O2 setup).

I know of people who regularly get 25+ MPG out of older ones (80's and early 90's). I can also get pretty decent MPG when I set my mind to it. Just drove an '03 Suburban with a 5.3l, 3.73s, and 171k on it on a 135 mile trip of about 20% city & 80% highway (55-80MPH). Averaged 19.6 MPG at an average of 56 MPH. Normally about 16-16.5 MPG on the same trip without working for MPG. If I can do almost 20 MPG in a 6,000 pound truck with a 5.3 V8, I'd hope to get 25+ out of a little Ranger (V6 or I4) with the right gearing.