My 94 Ford Ranger

I wouldn't call the 4.0 "little", but you should do better unless that's mostly city driving or you have an optional rear end ratio. Been tuned-up lately? Timing checked? Good air filter? Tire pressure? Lead foot? :-) Camper shell won't make much of a difference, but probably a little less (more weight and wind resistance). I had a 93 with the 4.0 and a 5 spd. I got close to 20, mostly highway though.

tune up last month new plugs, wires, and K&N filter. this weekend i drove 200 mi and all interstate and got 10 mpg with cruse set @ 70. the reason i asked about the camper shell i did some research and found a few web sites that said their should be a bout a 12% increase in mileage (i take a lot of stuff on the web with a grain of salt especially dotcom sites) so i wanted some outside info.

i forgot to adjust mileage for 2" increase in tire size s millage was about 11MPG

thanks

I'm guessing that your true mileage is more than that, 2" difference in tire diameter can have your odometer off by quite a bit.

I have a '93 Ranger Xcab, 4.0L 5spd, 2wd. Everything about the truck is stock (wheel size, etc.). It has 126,000 miles on the odo, and doesn't burn any oil

I have never got below 20 mpg the entire time I have owned the truck. When gas hit $3.50/gallon, I drove the truck like it was made of glass (to save fuel), and got 26.5 mpg. If I drive on the interstate at ~73 mph, I get about 22-23 mpg. I usually get about 21-22 in the city. I don't have a camper shell or tonneau cover, and I haven't removed the tailgate.

I cannot imagine getting anything like 15 mpg with this truck.

Marc

I am quite shocked that you are at all satisfied with that mileage. I have an 86 F350 that originally had the 5.8L gas but it wore out so I fitted a chev 6.5L diesel and its regularly getting 23MPG. Its fairly common here if you have a F series, toyota landcruiser or nissan patrol to go chev diesel. (expecting flak from diehard ford fans)

Darren

The OTHER Kev> On 26 Mar 2006 18:38:53 -0800, "squeek" snipped-for-privacy@siue.edu wrote: >

abit les than 7% i adjused the odomiter by sipmle ratio of old / new with this ther is only 6.28" gain in tire circumfrance (2"*pi) then converted that to rotatoins over a mile then mutipled that by distance then divided by fuel concumption took number off the pump

these 2" taller tires are stock wheels and tires off a 2002 ranger these are not mud tires.

sorry for the late comments but i am trying to find a way to bost the milage of my truck to save me a bit of money because i am a poor college student