I know manual rangers get better mpg than auto's, I've had both. Automatics also rob hp, the last I heard, it was about 12% more than there manual counter parts. Even if you have a 6-speed automatic against a 5-speed manual, the manual will still do better with all things being = as the torque converter still robs some of the hp. The VCT automatics came the closest, but you don't hear them mentioned much anymore. When the ford 500 and freestyle first came out, the vct tranny was an option, I don't think it is in the taraus or taraus X as I've not heard it advertised.

 

Also part of the reason I got such good mpg with my 4x4 ranger, is I ran all synthetic fluids in the drivetrain. Also I live and work in the country, I do no city driving, small town at best once in a while. Plus I had a manual tranny. I've owned 7 rangers and they have all been manual but 1, it was my 2000 4x4 with the 4.0 and 4:10 gears. It also got the worst mpg of all my rangers, 14-15 local, 18 highway.

 

I'm gonna say it again. Keep the revs high for one tank, and just see if you get any better mileage.

RPS has many threads specifying that keeping the revs high will gain mileage with the SOHC 4.0 liter.

 

Hold off awhile. I read today that Ford is about to start production on a new generation of the F150.

 

I agree with wnedell. How do yous get such low gas mileage. Even when i was running an overbored 4.5l ohv awd 5spd ranger, i still saw a minimum of 19 under normal conditions. now racing was... alot different, but still. People need to remeber the glory of a 5spd when looking at cars. And teach your kids to drive 'em. automatics inherently slip. the only good ones are ones the have expanding gears, and keep the engine at one set rpm. but the fail quickly. dodge is making good transmissions now adays that do that. thier A/T's are much better thn their M/T's look at the new 2500 and see for yourself.

 

I have a lot of regrets about my Ranger. First off....it really only seats 2 and that doesn't work for a family of 3 with a car seat. Second....I traded from my 97 F350 RC 5spd 4x4 Powerstroke to a Ranger.....big difference obviously in towing and hauling capabilities. Third.....My Ranger actually gets worse mileage than my diesel. I have gotten a best of 22.3mpg all hwy and average about 15mpg with my normal drive to and from work and I was getting a consistent 17-18mpg with my diesel on the same trip and regularly got 23-24mpg on the highway as long as I kept it to 65mph or less. Sooooo....I guess you could say I have a lot of regrets since not a day goes by that I wish I had never traded but when diesel gets up there to 4.50 a gallon it doesn't seem to hurt as much LOL!

 

Level2, with all the vehicles you have to drive, I don't know how you can even remember you have a ranger ha ha. Is your ranger automatic? If so that explains some of your mpg, running the **** out of it explains the rest ha ha.

 

Besides level2, you have one of the sportiest rangers and best off road equiped, how could you be crying over a tank. I bet you get into the mall parking lot easier and in betweeen the tree's and rocks whwn you put that torson to work.

 

Ok, lets clarify something here, since there seems to be some antiquated thinking here.

One, many Automatics got lower gas mileage in part because you had only 3 or 4 speeds, while most manuals typically have 5. This puts the automatics at a disadvantage because they cannot be in the best rpm range for most of the time. By having 5 or 6 speeds, that issue can be addressed. With such a tranny, it is not unlike driving a manual and a vacuum gauge to monitor the best shift points.

Second point, all modern torque converters are equipped with a lockup. When the torque converter is unlocked, you do loose economy, because a slightly higher rpm is being converted into raw torque to put more power to the wheels. But once the vehicle reaches freeway speeds and light throttle, the lockup is engaged, making the torque converter into a direct drive clutch that is every bit as efficient as a manual clutch. It is only at low speeds or under heavy throttle that a modern torque converter pays a fuel penalty.

With said modern modifications, there are several cars that now get better gas mileage than their 5 speed manual counterparts. These vehicles include:
Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, Camry, Accord, Maxima, Sentra, Fusion, Focus, Mini Cooper, Jetta, Golf, etc. I can go on with this list for a while. In theory, you might be able to get better milage with the manual, but in actual practice, this is no longer the case. Even the Ranger, the newer 2.5L can best not only my Dad's 2.3L 5 speed manual in economy, but it also gets better than its 5 speed manual counterpart. The automatic version get an average highway economy of 29, and was able to achieve as high as 34 in independent tests.

 

No I have a stick shift in my Ranger so I guess the running the crap out of it would explain some of the mileage but I ran the crap out of my diesel too LOL!

 

I had some misgivings at first. I replaced my 95 dodge diesel 4WD with a 2008 Ranger xlt 2WD 4.0 auto. The mileage turns out to be about the same averaging 18mpg. My concern was would it be able to tow my 3000lb boat/trailer. The initial test run shows no problem; however I think I will add a set of Hellwig helper springs just to be safe. I also haul firewood for personal use.

I was getting tired of the repairs on the dodge (the engine was still running fine). and I wanted a lower riding vehicle after a recent surgery experience. Over all, I am happy with this little truck. It is fun to drive, easy to maneuver and can haul when I need it to. This will be my second Ranger and my third ford. That makes the score 3 fords, one chevy, one dodge, and one *****'s jeep over my lifetime.

 

The modern automatic still robs hp through the torque converter and doesn't hit quit the mpg mark of a manual. This was proved at the strip with 08 mustang GT. The manuals turned a 1/4 mile of mid to low 13's, while the auto's blazed the 1/4 in around 14. The average GT owner claimed 2 more mpg than the auto guys. My manual GT got 22 local and 26 highway. Autos got 18-20 local and 24 highway. I find simular results with my 4x4 4.0 rangers with manuals , compared to the auto's. Level2 is an exception to the rule as he runs the **** out of his ha ha. It's not good science, it's just what most people see.

 

I know this doesn't make sense, but I wonder if it matters what part of the country you live in. We've allways gotten better than advertized mpg or right on the money bwtween me and my wifes vehicles. Be it manual or automatic, except for my 2000 ranger 4x4, it was a little light at times. Other than that we get or exceed advertised mpg. We live in northern ohio, 18 miles south of the lake. I wonder if climate or location has anything to do with it?

 

Hey, I still get at or above my advertised EPA mileage..... it said 15 city and 19 hwy on my window sticker. I can easily get 20-21 on the highway and I get right at the 15-16mpg mark in town other than when I do really run it hard or in the winter when I pack an extra 360lbs in the back and run 4x4 more often it drops to around 12-13 mpg. I live in a very hilly area of Missouri though. Not really steep hills but long fairly steep ones not far off the Missouri River.