My fairly heavily modified 85 Mustang GT with a 750cfm 4 barrel carb and 3.73 gears making over 300hp at the wheels gets 24-25 mpg. More power, less weight, and less strain on an engine and I was running it pretty rich on the A/F mixture. Not bad for a pushrod dinosaur.

 

Yeah, my 07 mustang GT gets 22/25 mpg and it isn't even broke in yet. Even when I romp the Pee out of it, I've never gotten worse than 18 mpg. V-8 doesn't have to = gas guzzler. The modern V-8's are pretty efficent and I believe wouldn't do bad in a small p/u. I just recieved my latest edition of truck trend today and gm is still hush hush about the V-8 in the colorodo, they won't confirm or deny, but they did shoe horn the 5.3 into the H-3 which shares the same plateform as the colorodo. The taco has a V-8 option, you can bet the rest will follow. As for the tree huggers, don't get excited as you will have mini me engine choices as well, I'm sure there will be diesels in future small trucks. As a matter of fact, the Mahindra small p/u from India will have a 4 cylinder diesel as it's base engine, I think it's only enginee. There supost to hit our shores next year.

 

Since when can you get a v-8 in Tacoma?

All I need is an extended cab 4x4 with a 4cyl 5spd. Preferrably under 20k with vinyl and manual everything.

 

first off i want a v8 so badly in my ranger im putting one in there. second i think everyone needs to rethink diesel power. diesel engines are way more powerful and efficient than a gasser. i have a friend whom i ride to school with every day who has a '07 VW jetta tdi we get 25-30 city driving(stop and go) and 45-55mpg highway!!!!!!!! with 4 big guys in the car, the smallest one of us is 195lbs ish. the kicker is this thing just pulls and pulls it will out run most cars with a four guys in it and still hit these numbers.

GM really really scared people when they designed the 350 diesel engine. its one of there biggest mistakes. if they would have built it right we would all ready have a diesel in the corvettes!!!!

the other really cool thing about diesel engines they will burn just about any thing u can put in them...im in school studying to become a Marine engineer .... i run diesel engines that burn the recycled oil you guys turn in at auto zone. normally its nasty "bunker C" or No.6 fuel but we have burned straight no.2 off road diesel and b100 biodiesel with NO PROBLEMS!!!!
bio diesel should have more support because one acer of algae, yes the stuff in the sea, yields more biodiesel than getting it from corn or soybeans!

now that gas prices are so friggen high i really thing that the e-85 and Biodeisel should be the only thing sold at the pump. but i don't think i'll see that in my lifetime. i am 21 and i remember the day i got my license and i paid $.98 a gallon that was only 5 years ago! i think that we as Americans need to evaluate our need for oil and try to reduce it as much as possible if not eliminate it.

 

Ok guys..I agree the diesels are doing great.However I still believe there is WAY more we can do on our own to increase the MPGs we are getting without resorting to the snakeoil rip off people out there.I was filling up my 06 F250 5.4 the other day at a station and happen to start up a conversation about gas prices with guy on the other side the island filling up his 05 4.6 Crown Vic.He said the prices suck but it didnt bother him as much as it used to.A friend of his had told him about an outfit out of the Twin Cities,Mn. http://brightgreen.us/ He applied their products and his milelage went from 25 to 35MPG hwy..Not bad for a big car with a V8! He had one of those scan guages on the dash and showed me the 34.7 MPG it displayed..I was kind of shocked at those results but have since been doing some more reading at that site.Some very interesting points are brought up.Even if half of it is correct its still eye opening..Take a read and see what you think??
I still think a properly set up 2v 4.6 in a light to medium weight vehicle is a great economy choice..Driven right not many V8s touch it for MPG...My 2 cents worth

 

The 2.3 in the Ranger is still getting the job done with great mpg.

 

This is apperently going to be the 2009 Ranger and they're only going ot have it for a year. I saw a bigger picture somehwere but now I can only find this one.

 

look at that beautiful 4 door ranger, ohh whats that i see, ahhh only light pickup truck that hasnt caught on

 

Google 2009 Ford Ranger. Looks like they're going to call it the F-1. Now if they'd only put a flathead in it!!
My '08 Ranger XLT is on order, I opted for the 3.0 and 3.55 axle-I think it weighs in at ~3500.
My view point is the engine torque band (2000 F-150, 4.6, auto OD, 3.55 axle) is way too high in the rpm range and I normally cruise between 1500-2000 rpm at highway speeds. Seems if they'd design the cam profile (torque) to match the normal driving range the gas would get you a bit further down the road. Horse power #'s don't mean much to me when they peak at 45-5000 RPM. I'd rather torque came at a lower RPM. Could then drop back to a 3.08 and get better mileage, still pull at rated capacity.
RB

 

Who knows what the next ranger will be, the only thing we know for (almost) certain is that the current ranger will be dead in 08.