Ranger V6 - mileage expectations ???

Looking at an '05 Ranger pickup, extended cab, 2WD, loaded up with the regular options, 3.0 V6, automatic. Anyone give me an idea as to what sort of mileage a guy might expect? I'm a careful driver and stick to the speed limit (too slow for my wife). This one is in premium condition, well cared for and low mileage.

20-22 average...
They're poor on gas.
Mine is a '98, 4WD, 5 speed.
Biggest problem is the gearing. This one has 4.10's. I changed the tires up to 235/75R15 from 215/75R15 to gain some stability and that changed the effective ratio to about 3.70. If you want mileage then I'd look for 3.55 but don't expect performance from that 3.0L with that ratio.
If I drive mine hard I'll get 15 mpg and if I drive very easy on the highway I'll probably get up to 24 mpg. That's the very best it's ever done. Right now I'm doing about 21 mpg by obeying the speed limit, mostly...

Rod

The 1991 that my son had got 24mpg on the highway, 21mpg in the mountains and 17mpg around town. 3.0L, v6, extended cab 5 speed manual trans.. This was with a tool box on the box. When he put the fiberglass cap on it for the winter he lost @ 4mpg to the above figures.

I favor the 4 over the V6 but have never driven the V6. My 4s have been 5 speed sticks. Highway gas mileage is very decent but varies a lot with load, speed and wind conditions. With the 5 speed stick and 4 cylinder if you need more power speed up the engine and downshift. This gives you flexibility you do not have with a V6.

EPA 4 cyl 2wd 18 city/22 hwy

link..
Untitled URL Link

I have a "96 2wd, ext cab, 3.0 auto with 265k miles. I could get about 24 on the 150 mile trip to college when it was new. Typically got around 21-22 in normal driving. Nowadays with the truck being fairly worn and the the reduced mileage of this 10% ethanol gas it runs right on 20. It doesn"t seem to matter whether I am easy on the throttle or run the crap out of it, I get 20. I do feel that had I bought the 4 cyl, it wouldn"t have made it this long without major repairs.

Old 86 4wd 4 cylinder extended cab...first tank full was 23.99 mpg.....gets as low as 17+ in the winter. Wouldn't get rid of it for nothing. ohfred

You'd be better off with a full size. I had a Ranger once and it was too small to do anything with and the mileage wasn't any better than my full size truck.

That site just got bookmarked

1998 Mazda 4cyl std. cab 170k miles. I just completed a 4k+ trip to Seattle and back, Ave. MPG 27.6. (65-70 MPH + AC as needed)
1991 Isuzu v6 std cab 4wd 290k will Ave 23+MPG @ 65MPH.
The slush box is going to hurt but I'd expect 23-25mpg at hi-way speed. The AC is also a big user. Keep the wife in the passenger seat.

Just out of curosity, what axle ratio does your truck have? What speed does the engine turn at 60 mph?
I've got a 98 right now and it's never even come close to 27 mpg and wouldn't even if I drove 50 mph.
We also had a 92 ranger with the 2.3. It was slightly better but still not that good. This one does ~21 mpg and the 2.3 might have done ~24 on a good day...
This truck has 4.10 axles and I believe the 92 did as well.

Rod

I have an 01 with 4.0, automatic, 4wd, 4dr. It has a 4.10 differential, and I get 21.5 on the highway, however, I drive with a light foot. My 25 year old son when driving the same trip only gets 18mpg with it. LOL

The only reference I could find for the rear end was to go to Kelley. It said standard is 3.45 and I can believe it. It is not a powerhouse. The RPM at 60MPH is about 2400. Another booster may be(??) it has optional oversize tires.(P225/70/15)
This pickup will in non-AC weather will get over 29MPG. In fact on the WA trip from Post Falls, ID to Bozeman, MT I made 29.6MPG.

(quoted from post at 07:39:50 07/22/08) The only reference I could find for the rear end was to go to Kelley. It said standard is 3.45 and I can believe it. It is not a powerhouse. The RPM at 60MPH is about 2400. Another booster may be(??) it has optional oversize tires.(P225/70/15)
This pickup will in non-AC weather will get over 29MPG. In fact on the WA trip from Post Falls, ID to Bozeman, MT I made 29.6MPG.

Click to expand...

Did it come with those tires from the factory? If not your speedo/odometer may not be right.

But I have heard of 4cyl/5-speed Rangers well into the upper 20's before. For a pickup they are as good as it gets... any way you cut it IMO.

Automatics do suck a lot of power, they knock a 3.0 down to get the milage of a 5-speed 4.0 with the power of a 5-speed 4 cylinder. If you get a 2.3/2.5 or 3.0, to get the best of the smaller engine you need the manual.

The tire size is listed in the owners manual as a standard option and it came from the dealer that way. I have also run camparisons with the hi-way mile markers on some long trips and they run close over 25-50 miles.

I'd say you have 4.10's the same as I do. The 225/70's are about the same circumference as the 215/75's that mine came with and it runs about 2200-2300 or so at 60 mph. The transmissions are the same so I'd guess that you have the same axle ratios.
For what it's worth, I've been told, second hand of a guy that put a Mazda B3000 engine in a Ranger that had a 3L Vulcan engine. The Ranger with it's original gave poor mileage, the same as mine. When he put the Mazda version in, he was getting mileage as you describe. The guy that told me that was a reasonably reliable source, and I have no way to explain why that would happen... but that's what they claim. I know that there is no way that my truck, on it's best day on summer gas with me driving 50 mph would it ever even dream of coming close to that. 24 mpg is the absolute very best it ever got and that was averaging somewhere a little over 50 mph. Right now I have 235/75R15's on my truck and it will turn about 2000 at 60 mph. That resulted in about 30 more miles per tank of gas... and that's driving about the speed limit of 62.5 mph (100 km/h).

Rod

(quoted from post at 20:17:15 07/22/08) I'd say you have 4.10's the same as I do. The 225/70's are about the same circumference as the 215/75's that mine came with and it runs about 2200-2300 or so at 60 mph. The transmissions are the same so I'd guess that you have the same axle ratios.
For what it's worth, I've been told, second hand of a guy that put a Mazda B3000 engine in a Ranger that had a 3L Vulcan engine. The Ranger with it's original gave poor mileage, the same as mine. When he put the Mazda version in, he was getting mileage as you describe. The guy that told me that was a reasonably reliable source, and I have no way to explain why that would happen... but that's what they claim. I know that there is no way that my truck, on it's best day on summer gas with me driving 50 mph would it ever even dream of coming close to that. 24 mpg is the absolute very best it ever got and that was averaging somewhere a little over 50 mph. Right now I have 235/75R15's on my truck and it will turn about 2000 at 60 mph. That resulted in about 30 more miles per tank of gas... and that's driving about the speed limit of 62.5 mph (100 km/h).

Rod

Click to expand...

Minus the front clip and some other minor appearance items the Ranger and Mazda B-Series are identical. They came off of the same assembly line, both with Ford stamped all over them, both used the same 3.0 vulcan. If changing the engine helped milage, there was something wrong with the original one.

Kind of like comparing a GMC to a Chevy.

One thing that most people don't realize is small engines get better milage at a higher RPM. These things don't peak until almost 4k RPM, they need to rev to be happy.

Have you ever driven a 3.0L Ranger? Gas mileage goes to hell in a handbag once the tach passes 2500 and gets worse past 3000 when it gets noticeably richer. This one has a kick to it like the old 4 barrel carbs when it passes 3 grand while pulling. The only wy to get any kind of mileage from it is to keep your right foot very light. If I drove the way I prefer to drive most of the time then I'd get an honest 15 mpg from this truck and there's nothing wrong with it either. It's tight and in good tune.

I'm well aware that the Ranger and B-series are supposed to be exactly the same truck. I was only relating a story that was told to me by someone I consider to be a fairly reliable source. It makes me wonder why I always hear stories of people getting better mileage with the Mazda's. This is not the first time I've heard that said. One would think it reasonable to deduce that either there's something different between the trucks or Mazda owners are either lieing or bad at arithmetic....
Everyone I know that has a Ranger is getting mileage similar to what I'm getting, and I know several people that drive Rangers. They're poor as poor can be for fuel mileage when it comes to little trucks.

Rod

A friend had a ranger, no room in the cab.It would stall with 6 bales of hay in it.I put some new gas tank straps in it,very hard to work on.As for milage it got about 3 mpg more than my F150 4wd with a 351 v8.Awful price to pay for 3 mpg.The Ranger had fiberglass springs on the rear that bottomed out with the slightest load.I drove it a few times, the tiny brake and clutch pedals were so close together I got the brake and gas together often.My F150 will haul 40 bales of hay,1000 lb of grain or fertlizer.A 1/2 cord of firewood,or 1000lb of lumber with no problems.I see no place for feather haulers, some folks may like them ,I cant use one.

Nope, like you with the Ford vs Mazda I have only talked to people that have them. From what I gather you just let it wind up easy rather than mash it, one of the reasons the manual tranny really helps. I did some poking around and discovered they did change a couple times and upped the power rating each time, which if swapped into an earler truck would probably effect the milage for the better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Vulcan_V6_engine

I have never heard of Ranger having fiberglass springs, the ones in mine and all the ones I have been around are steel. After 23 years mine are getting a little weak (what wouldn't?). I am putting some in out of an Explorer (close to a direct bolt in) that are a fair amount heavier and have an overload.

Most newer Rangers only have a shortbox, the 7' longbox that I have was very recently revived but is still not all that common. I have had more than its share of weight in mine, a complete 289 and a C-4 transmission, that is probably 5-600 lbs right there plus all the other stuff that follows me around and a passenger, it handled it fine. Dunno the exact weight of six square bales but I am sure I have easily eclipsed that many times with various lawn mowers, dirt bikes, ATV's... that is with the 23 year old 110hp 2.8L. Somebody that couldn't drive a clutch maybe??

They are no replacement for a fullsize but do have their place, they are perfect for someone that just needs to haul small things around, hwy milage isn't much different but city milage is where the difference is at... starting and stopping 3 tons of iron kills a fullsize's milage. I have found numerous things around the farm for mine to do that a fullsize couldn't, works great for fencing (hauling posts and supplies) as it can get in and out of places my F-150 couldn't dream of.

Ford just announced that they would be building the Rangers in St Paul through 2011.

Dad used to have a 2.3L 4cyl 5-speed 93 2wd long box, it used to give 35 MPG (CDN MPG) on 215 75 14's (factory alloys) on the highway. I can't remember what RPM it was in 5th doing 100km/h. I think it had 3.54 rear end????? You had to downshift from 5th to 4th on every upgrade, and wind it out good to pass. He replaced it with a 2000 3.0L automatic 2wd longbox with 3.73's and bye bye mileage.....