10th Jan 2010, 10:33
Put in new plugs and lighten up with the right foot. I get 23/18, which is great for any 4wd truck with the load capacity of the Ranger. You need also to consider durability and cost of ownership. The Ranger beats them all in these areas.
17th Jun 2010, 17:45
I don't know what's going on with the guy that posted two above this, but I get 21 in town, and 26 interstate with my 3.0. No mods, nothing special. I mean hey, if I drive 65 on the interstate, it pushes just under 30 MPG. No BS here folks. You gotta realize it's just a little 182 moving 1200+ lbs of steel. It's not going to go fast, and yes it takes a while to get to 60 MPH. So what? It's not a drag strip out there folks; lighten up on pedal and see what happens.
I don't know why you have to go faster than 85 either; where I live (SE Idaho), 85 gets you around everything no problem. I've even driven it across Nevada, and I didn't need to go 90 MPH to get around anybody's vehicle. It's not NASCAR, you're not in a vehicle that pushes 750+ HP and 800+ lbs of torque. So it's not going to go much faster than 90 MPH anyways. You're in a small truck, so treat it that way. I know we all want to go fast, but a Ranger just isn't the vehicle to do it in.
25th Jul 2010, 09:20
I have an 04 Ranger 4x4 with 4.0 liter and 5 speed stick. I have the 410 posi rear axle and run factory size Cooper tires with 35 psi.
Recently I switched to Amsoil 0w30 intended to replace 10w30. It's 10 bucks a quart, but has a 35000 mile drain interval, so it seemed worth the price. I also had a Magnaflow muffler put on recently.
The first city driving check gave 20.4 mpg. The weather was warm to hot and used AC very little. I also have a very light right foot and shift around 1700 rpm. No need to rev this motor. It has a lot of low end torque. Recently made a 250 mile trip. Kept it at 65. Got 22.8 mpg. I am a retired professional and don't BS. These are true mileage figures.
My next move is to try a K&N air filter. Any comments on the filter. Will it increase mileage even a little?
26th Jul 2010, 10:32
Trying to get stellar gas mileage out of the truck you've described doesn't sound possible. Adding a K&N filter probably won't do much.
If your truck has both a 4.10 final drive ratio coupled with a 5-speed manual, your highway RPM's must be extremely high. Traveling 55 MPH will increase your gas mileage more than adding a K&N filter.
18th Sep 2010, 03:16
Urgent advice needed. I live in Africa. I left paid employment to start my own construction business. I need a pick up as you can see. Recently I saw a 2001 4WD 4.0L auto Ford ranger with 175000 miles imported used from the USA. That is within my budget. Should I or shouldn't I? Given the high mileage. Can they run well after such miles?. Secondly, I fear for fuel economy (4.0L), 16 - 20mpg is OK. I'm drawn by price and its build quality. Please advise. Also considering older Japanese with less specs.
6th Nov 2010, 21:52
Those complaining of poor gas mileage: Be sure the A/C compressor is not running unless needed. My wife had a 2001 Explorer Sport with 4.0L, and the compressor ran - therefore used more gas! - at all times except vent and off settings. She got 17 mpg best case, with defroster on in winter. I got 23 mpg in it with the controls in vent setting. Maybe add a compressor on/off pushbutton like the mid-90's Rangers had.
Also try better quality gas. Cheapo gas (WalMart, independent dealers) got sometimes 4-5 mpg less than Exxon or Citgo here.
19th Feb 2011, 21:53
I have a 2003 Ford Ranger. I hate it. I immediately put it up for sale when it was signed over to me.
It has a 2.3L with a manual and gets terrible gas mileage. Any other car with this size engine would be a blessing for those looking for good mpg. Don't expect good mileage from a truck you say? This hardly constitutes as a truck, it's more like a Fisher Price Tonka toy, because I have the ability to lift the rear of the truck with my bare hands. It cannot tow, and cannot begin to accelerate at a safe speed. Its light weight alone should contribute to a good mpg.
These things were poorly designed bottom line. Plastic intakes that crack in half, faulty gas tank sensors, OEM radios that like to self destruct, hole sections of bulbs within the dash that go out simultaneously, and plastic OEM hubcaps that explode into dust when you get a flat.
I pulled my 72 F100 out of retirement after this wonderful experience. If you have a fat wallet with zen-like patience and a fetish for tiny engines in tiny trucks, go get a Ranger.
13th May 2011, 20:29
I've owned (3) Ranger, the 2nd of which is a '98 with a 2.5 liter, and has been driven by my son for the past 5 years. My third is a '04 2WD with 3.0. I'm a mechanical engineer, and typically am somewhat anal about squeaking the best possible MPG out of a vehicle. I get a consistent 23 mpg in mixed driving with the '04 with no major mods. I've gotten 27 mpg a couple of times with 100% highway driving cross-country. Interesting thing, the 2.5 got 25 mpg for the 6 years I drove it.
Now that my son has it, he's getting 20mpg. What gives? He put a cap over the bed with a canoe rack on top of the cap. I've driven it a couple of time over the past few years, and am absolutely convinced there are some terrible aerodynamics in play there. I can actually feel it dragging at highway speed; Especially at 70+ mph. My son's OK with that, but for those reading this you might want to consider this as one cause of poor gas mileage.