4-cyl Ranger gas mileage question

2004 2.3L 5spd std cab, After a few tanks to let the mileage stabilize, I get no less than 26mpg. I've been getting around 29mpg in summer and 27mpg in the winter. I've gotten 33mpg on a highway trip. I attribute the better than average gas mileage to the 3.73 grearing and my "gental" driving. I'd rather have 4.10 gears even though mileage would suffer a bit. John

2001 30mpg highway, 25mpg around town.

1995 (80K on it) - about the same - 30 highway and 20-25 city. But my city driving is all really short trips.

-- herb snipped-for-privacy@herbstein.com

This is using E10 gas (makes it worse), with a tonneau cover (makes it a little better) and we do 70-75 on the highway. I am not the type to jump off the line at every light, or drive like an idiot teenager. I drive like a normal human, not doing anything to save or use more gas than normal. I get 25-26 on most tanks. I've gotten 23, and I've gotten 31 on the highway when drafting big rigs. With a very full load on it (close to its limit) I got 27 with the a/c on, doing 70-75. I had to use 4th twice only on long, steep hills. Very good as far as I'm concerned. Comfortably allows me a 400-mile range.

That's "gentle," but you knew that.

God gave us big rigs so we'd have somebody to pass, He never meant for us to draft them.

Mine sucks!

1983, 2.3 4 cyl. 5 speed/ carb Best I posted was 18 city/ 20 hwy and that's Canadian! Translates to about 16/ 18 US gallon Truck always starts/ Runs smooth/ Few repairs, just routine./No bad rust. It's like an old faithful dog that eats to much!

Terrible attitude lol. Everytime you fill up just think about how you could be filling up to go to the bank to make a truck payment.

Whitelightning

I've been thinking about that more and more Gas $ today is 99.8 per litre or $3.77 per US gallon Damn near $60.00 to fill! Think I might look into a diesel...

paulxinfinity wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

83????? there were no 5sps in 4cyl 83 rangers. the milage is not too far off. my 83 4cyl 2.3 4sp got 20 to 22 mpg mostly highway. my 95 2.3 4 cyl 5sp has got up to 26 mpg. my 96 4 cyl splash gets 22 to 23. KB

innews: snipped-for-privacy@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

Your right! There were no 5 speeds in '83. However in 2000, the Ranger I purchased had one put in place in hopes to increase highway mpg. It may of increased, but insignificantly.

I figure he's probably done making truck payments on a 24-year old truck...

No doubt about that at all. what I was alluding to was that while his carbureted 2.3 might not get the gas mileage the new fuel injected rangers get, it's paid for, it's dependable. So would the fuel savings be enough to off set a loan payment? sorta a take on the penny wise pound foolish saying, you now like the people who by hybrids, but pay so much more for it that the supposed fuel savings never off set the higher up front cost of the vehicle. As to his other statement about putting the five speed in and getting hardly any improvement in mileage, given the axle gear ratio and horsepower rating of that engine, and weight of the truck, thats easy to understand. When are people going to realize that a vehicle is a system, and all the parts have to match one another to get the desired results.

Whitelightning

done making truck payments on a 24-year old truck...

One payment is what I made on the ol' 83. $850.00. That was nearly one year ago today. My plan then was to trade up for a newer/ better Ranger or other quarter ton by spring of this year, but the old truck took our north east winter in stride. I used it for our landscaping this summer hauling topsoil, gravel and a ton of other stuff. I love working on it in the yard (you don't need to spend $60.00 to plug it to a computer to tell you to swap a $200.00 sensor.) and because of its rust free body/ frame it gets a few looks from some people after a wash. I was told by the seller the engine was re-built in 2000 (same time as the tranny swap) so I'm not sure how compatable the tranny was or what the re-build consisted of. (old fella/ hard of hearing) But it doesn't burn oil and I put about $300.00 into it (exhaust pieces, battery, vacuum hose, alternator and starter. And, by the look of those, most were original - except the battery) I drive it to work a couple times a week and work it on the weekends. I go through a tank once every 2-3 weeks -depending-

slightly lower than correct for the year. It slightly pains me to dump $60.00 into the tank and watch the needle dive bomb over time, but I know it could be a hellava lot worse. So maybe I'll keep it. Hey! how hard to swap out to a deisel?

Well I don't usually do it. I like a clear line of view, so I pass or let pass. I did it that time because I wanted to see how much of a difference it made. Not worth 4 mpg. I didn't follow any of them extremely closely.

I forgot to mention, this is a 2005 with 12,500 miles on it.

paulxinfinity wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

I guessed that may have been the case but thought I should be sure. I thought about doing that to my 83 but it wore out before I got around to it. Nice to know I would have just wasted my time. KB