Ranger MPG - 3.0 vs 4.0

am going to get back in a Ranger (yea! have so missed my truck!). shopping out and seeing the 3.0 and 4.0. don't think I really need the 4.0 power (not towing or pulling redwoods out by the stump). 4WD is a definite must. EPA says I'm going to get around 16 in the city, and about 19 on hwy.

would be interested in REAL experiences with recent Rangers. what kind of MPG are you getting and is there a big diff in 3.0 and 4.0 gas mileage?

thanks so much.

mark

Reply to
Mark
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
lmnop

You forgot one determining factor: Manual or Automatic transmission. I average approx. 19 MPG Highway in my 2001 Ranger 4.0L 4x4 MANUAL 5-speed transmission.

Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 2001 Ford Ranger 4x4 and a 1970 Mach 1 351C @

formatting link

Reply to
Grover C. McCoury III

Reply to
lmnop

We get about 17 MPG Hwy in our 2000 4.0 XLT 5-speed, fully-loaded and driven 75 mph. The 4.0 engine's extra power was a good choice for us that we do not regret. The 3.0 would not have hacked it at high elevations where we typically drive. Nice to have the extra power.

Caveat

Reply to
Caveat

Personally I prefer the stick shift, too - but for about the past 15 years, there has been little or no difference in mileage between fluid drive and stick shift. (The engineers have done a good job with the fluid drives...)

Also, the fluid drives can tow more weight... I know the OP didn't seem to be worried about this, but unless he drives it into the ground, he'll care at re-sale time.

(I own a '99 Ranger XLT with 4.0 l and the 5 speed transmission - and I'm regretting very much that this will likely be my last stick shift. They say that the easiest way to tell people who like to drive is to look for the stick shift - we like the feel of control that the clutch and gearshift give us over the roads! I'm not happy about saying farewell to the stick , but at a certain point you have to accept the inevitable....)

HR

Reply to
Rowbotth

FWIW - for what it's worth - I drive a 2003 Ranger - 2.3 litre, short-box with own cap, stick shift and frankly, except on the worst hills, I've never noticed any power loss between the current unit and the 1999, 3.0 litre I previously had.

I don't think you can get 2.3 in 4WD, so that let's that choice out, however, at 35 miles per gallon - that's CDN gallons (4.55 litres) and real miles - checked several times over the summer, to be sure I wasn't calculating wrong - I'm not complaining about the great economy. Could you live with that, or do you really need the power?

You have to custom order these 2.3's because the dealers won't stock such low-end Rangers. Mine, bought 2/03 for net, after tax, about $18K CDN.

Again, FWIW, but good luck on your larger engine.

Reply to
Windsurfer

I bought my 3.0 Ranger Edge (02) in May of 02 and paid $12,900 US not including tax and registration. 2X4, 5 spd manual, AC, MP3 player, bed liner, step bumper and 4:10 limited slip rear end.

Reply to
Reece Talley

The 3.0 is pretty gutless especially if your going with 4-wheel drive. I had a 1993, 2 wheel, and would never buy another one with the small engine. The

4.0 will probably get near the same mileage, since you won't be trying to push the gas pedal through the floor when you need extra power. Ron
Reply to
R&B

Interesting. I have an old BroncoII with the 2.9L V6 and 4x4. I never had any lack of power in it. I just had to remember to hold the pedal farther than on my F-150 (300CID). That 2.9 gave me 20MPG and has 172K miles on it.

I can't speak for Fords's 4.0L V6, but Jeep's 4.0L I6 is thirsty enough (15MPG), but converts it to plenty of torque :-).

-D

Reply to
Derrick Hudson

I can believe that.

Aye. I am 4-for-4 having manual transmissions. I hated the time I drove a '97 Saturn station wagon (borrowed0 and '03 Cavalier sedan (rented) with their automatic transmissions.

-D

Reply to
Derrick Hudson

I asked, a while back, for opinions on how axle ratios are intertwined with fuel economy. The Ford dealer told me about my peppy '99 Rangerxl ( 4x4, 4.0) "Yeah, you probably thought you'd get better MPG than if you bought an F-150, but they gear the axles to have peppy response and the Ranger's have worse MPG as a result."

I will not buy a small truck to save money again.

Reply to
yisroel

I asked, a while back, for opinions on how axle ratios are intertwined with fuel economy. The Ford dealer told me about my peppy '99 Rangerxl ( 4x4, 4.0) "Yeah, you probably thought you'd get better MPG than if you bought an F-150, but they gear the axles to have peppy response and the Ranger's have worse MPG as a result."

I will not buy a small truck to save money again.

Reply to
yisroel

I guess I feel the same way. I traded the Ranger in for a 2002, F-150, FX4. It has the 5.4 V-8, which has a bunch of power. However, my best mileage has been about 16 on the road. Most of the time I get about 14. It is the best riding truck I have ever owned. The FX4 package gives you all the extras, so I haven't added a thing to it. Ron

Reply to
R&B

Reply to
yisroel

'00 3.0 4x4 5-speed manual w/4.10's

I get about 22MPG combined city/hwy. I also plow with it. I would not get the 3.0 with an automatic. The one I drove was a complete dog. The manual is a slightly faster dog.

Reply to
gw

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.