(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

2000 model ranger gas mileage

R

rick1

Member
i am sorry this isnt tractor related.recently bought a 2000 ford ranger 3.0 engine automatic trans 4-wheel drive.hopeing to get some good fuel mileage but this thing only gets 15 mpg i have checked it several times and its right there everytime.i just assumed it would be around low to mid twenties anyone else have one of these i can compare it with.
RICK
 
both the 3.0L and 4.0L V6 Rangers get poor fuel mileage, usually comparable to an F-150. The only Rangers that get over 20mpg are the 4 cyl ones. 15-18 mpg is usually all most people get with the V6 models.
 
I drive an 1988 Ranger, 4x4, club cab, topper, 2.9 v6, five speed. I get 19-21 MPG. I put about thirty miles a day back and forth to work. I suspect that the automatic trans drags your millage down.
 
I had a 1999 Ranger with the 3.0 v-6 which got about 18 mpg. Traded for a new 2010 with the 4.0 v-6 after 11 years with the '99. To my chagrin, the 2010 gets about 17 mpg. Both were automatic transmissions and 2 wheel drive. Like the size of the vehicle but wish they got better mileage!
 
Ive been learning lately that the mileage these little trucks get isnt worth the trade off for the smaller size.
 
My 93 ranger stx, 3.0 5spd 4x4 with lock out hubs gets 22-23 anytime, neighbors 2000 with 3.0 auto 4x4 gets 19-20. What gears does yours have in the drive axels, mine runs 3.73's
 
That is poor gas mileage for that size truck. Have 97 GMC K1500 4x4 with 5.7 vortec that gets 21 miles per gallon on open highway.
 
I gave up on milage years ago, too much farm work kills my milage. Some days I run my truck 9 or ten hours and travel 30-40 miles. I have settled on a fullsized auto V8 4X4
 
You don't purchase a SUV for fuel efficiency.
Tall, wide deep lug low pressure tires.?
Mrs B&D's Terrain AWD averages 24mpg while putting around doing local short trips.
 
I had a '92 Ranger and a '99. Both 4wd's. '92 was stick, '99 was auto. Both V6's. '92 had 4.10 rear gear, '99 had (IIRC) 3.23 (???)

'92 would get 20 to 22 mpg on hwy, around 15 city.

'99 would get 15 no matter where or how it was driven.

NEITHER were worth a hoot when it came to hauling.

Got an '04 Dodge 2500 hemi/auto/4wd and an '04 Dodge diesel equipped virtually the same way. Both get very near the same milage as the Rangers (when empty) and will haul more weight than a half dozen Rangers when I need that.

Rangers were 100,000 miles and throw in the trash trucks. Both Dodges are well past 200,000 and still in fine shape.

IMHO, there's more to the big picture than just gas milage.

Check rear end gearing in your Ranger and see what you have. Word of caution though...high gearing (low numerical) will help somewhat with highway milage in no load conditions, but will kill milage in loaded and/or stop and go driving, especially with marginal engine power.
 
Nephew had one. Was not impressed with the mileage. At the same time we had a 2000 Explorer, it got between 21 and 26. 21 at 70-75 and and 26 @ 55. Nephew claimed his best was about 18 but most often around 15. The autos will get about the same mileage that a manual will get once the torque converter locks up. SIL's old 92 F150, 5.0, E4OD auto, extended cap long bed got about 15. I don't see any avantage in the Ranger except it's easier to park.

Rick
 
I had a 1998 Ranger 4.0 STX 5 speed.16 mpg was about what I got. I tend to have a heavy foot. I received one ticket for 92 mph on a country road in Fl. It was VERY fast if you could keep it on the road.
 
while my car was in the shop after hitting a deer i drove my sons 2000 ranger 4x4 with 3.0 to work for about a week. got 16mpg all highway 200 mile daily roundtrip. 91 silverado 4x4 with 350 engine i owned got 17 or 18. the rangers with the 3.0 and aitomatic got terrible mileage for what you get in a truck.
 
Yeah... that's about normal for a 3.0L Ranger auto when you drive it. If you want to baby it you'll probably get 20... Mine is a 5 speed and it's ranged anywhere from 14-24 but has never ever done better than 24 even when it's driven very conservatively. 19-20 was farly typical if I didn't pound it too hard.
They've got 4.10 gears and turn 2500 @ 60 mph in overdrive... so no need to expect mileage. The 4.0L with 3.73 gearing will do considerably better as it's only turning 2000 rpm at highway speed.

Rod
 
My wife drives a 2000 Ranger 4 liter 4wd auto and I drive a 2002 F150 5.3 liter 4wd auto
. Mine gets about the same as hers on local trips and sometimes better, 15-17 mpg. On a long trip if you baby it the ranger will get 1 or 2 mpg better than the F150, but the small cab doesn't have enough room for our stuff when we go on a trip, and the short wheelbase is nasty on ice, 4wd or not. (I'm a Canadian, Ice doesn't bother me much.)We use the F150 for trips. My wife likes her ranger, but on stormy days, she takes mine for safety.
 
I never had a Ranger to compare with, however had a 93 Dodge Dakota with the 318(5.2). that got 17 MPG the one time I checked it, it was 2 hours driving on highway with plenty of small towns to slow down for. I now have a 05 Ram with the 5.7 Hemi that averages 14 or 15 MPG, but on a flat stretch of highway gets 22 MPG until you hit a hill! I still miss that Dakota though.
 
I had an '85 Ranger.The BIGGEST POS I have ever owned.Would not pull itself in 5th unless going downhill.Got worse mileage than my '70 F100/302.It went BOOM,I said GOOD! and junked it.
 
My son has the same truck, only its an 04. Mileage is about the same. If you baby it, you can get around 17 tops. Unfortunely, theres not much you can do to inprove it! Guys on the rangerstaion are putting in V8s out of Explorers and are getting more mileage than the 3.0. Id start with a GOOD tuneup, and go from there.
 
I had a 2004 with the 4.0, 4 x 4 auto.
Same story. 15 MPG.
I traded it in on an extended cab F150, V8,
4 x 4, auto, averages about 17 MPG.
 
I have a 97 4cyl, 5spd 2wd, it gets 21. But, I have $4500 for it in 02 it had 64k on it. Now has 206K and has had 2 starters, a fan clutch and a heater control valve. All said, about $300 bucks in 10 years I think it's paid for itself pretty well.
 
I work for INDOT, Indiana's State Highway Department and we have mostly Ranger work trucks for Supervisors, such as Maintenance Superintendents, some crew leaders, some Engineers and etc. They don't get any better mileage than 1/2 ton stripped down pickups, and they don't last as long. Probably cheaper to buy initially however. The rumor always was that they only buy them for "public image", because the taxpayer thinks they are being thrifty and saving on fuel.
 
Over the years with MANY different vehicles, I have never had a vehicle that got the gas mileage other people did. I assumed it was because of the way I check mileage. Write down mileage with a full tank of gas, and drive for 1,000 miles, writing down every gallon of gas added when fueling.
At the end of 1,000 miles, divide that by the number of gallons of gas used.
This gives TRUE MILEAGE.
With that being said, I have owned a 2001 Ford Ranger XLT Off Road 4x4 with extended cab. It is an automatic with the 4L engine.
I have owned this tuck since 2004 and have checked mileage many times.
It nearly always figures 19.8.
As I stated, this is the only vehicle I have ever owned that gets better mileage then advertised.
 
I have a 98 XLT with the 2.5L 2wd extended cab, in town mileage is about 18-20, but I get anywhere between 25-30 on the highway depending on the load I am carrying. Not much power going up hills but a good dependable truck. BTW I replace the engine at 189000 miles with one that had 99k on it and now have about 20k on replacement engine.

Leonard
 
thanks for the replys'at least now i know its most likely the truck will most likely send it down the road.
RICK
 
You really need to compare the same year of vehicles, the emission controls changed year by year so did the mileage. My 2004 Powerstroke was good, 2007 Duramax sucked and 2011 Powerstroke is great on mileage.
 
Bought several brands of pickups and the first ford was a 95 ranger 4.0 extended cab 4 wheel drive 5 speed and 3.73 gears. 19 to a little over 24 MPG when new and about the same up to around 170,000. once every so often at a fill up in the winter it would be 18 point something. After 170,000 it started falling off until 17 or 18 was tops when I sold it at 250,000 +. Still run good and didn't use anymore oil than the day I bought it but power was down some. Milage checked at every fillup. Think the gasoline changes over time hurt the milage some.
 
That sounds about right, my previous truck was an 01 Ranger 4x4 with a 4.0 it got anywhere from 13 to 20. My current 06 F-150 4x4 with a 5.4 V-8 does about the same or slightly better.While I still had the Ranger, someone told me a V-8 powered F-150 would do as well or better and I didnt believe it at the time.
The Ranger ran 200k with only a fuel pump and a wheel bearing however.
 
14 with my 4.0 4wd "99...if I"da known I"da got an F150 or even a 250. Our 2500HD with 6.0 gets the same
 
Dad had a 94 with the 4.0 but not the HO like mine got about 17...don't know about the 3.0s but the 4.0s just keep goin and goin and goin!
 
I had a '98 Explorer with a 4.0 efi, auto trans and 4wd.

Got about 17 or so around town and on a trip from upstate NY to Detroit pulling a ton trailer (on the way back) got just over 20.

Brad
 
(quoted from post at 10:22:56 12/29/12) That is poor gas mileage for that size truck. Have 97 GMC K1500 4x4 with 5.7 vortec that gets 21 miles per gallon on open highway.
Click to expand...

So that means on flat level road with no head wind at 55mph your truck indicates 21mpg?
Now how about putting an actual measured 20 gallons through the engine over a known distance with typical highway, town and puttering around duty. Your real world mileage will be about 10mpg.
 
I have a 1995 Ranger, 3.0, auto, bought new, that has never averaged better than about 17. For a few years I also had a 2000 Ranger, 3.0 5-speed, that averaged about 21. My 2010 F150 gets better mileage than the old Ranger.
 


You should be geting better fuel mileage than that.
My wife had a '97 explorer ( ranger/explorer- same chasies)
with a 302 V8,AWD and 3.73 gears that routinely got 18 to 19 and sometimes 20+.
 
Well even Ford themselves is touting their new V-6 in an F150 as a better replacement for a Ranger. Ford is actually discontinuing the Ranger altogether.

I am not a Ford fan but their new entry level V-6 is impressive (as well as the much more upscale and powerful ecoboost v6 power but that is different price point).

a year or two old but still a nice read nonetheless

http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2010-v-6-work-truck-shootout.html
 

My Dad had a 2000 Ranger reg cab long box 3.0L automatic with 3.73

Wouldn't pass anything OR the gas station. He claimed it was very hard on fuel compared to the 2.3 5-speed it replaced.

The only ranger worth buying for fuel economy is the 4cyl 5-speed.

Anything else is same fuel mileage as a 1/2 ton with 1/2 of the capability.
 
Frind get new ford ecoboost this summer good power took on a 500 mile round trip got 20 mpg we took it on 300 mile trip pulling a 18 ft fishing boat got 11 mpg
 
I disagree about Ranger's not lasting as long... Lots of them around here with close to 400 KM on them which is generally more than most other half tons see. The worst part of Ranger's is that the mileage sucks relative to the size of the truck and they are constantly in need of something in the front end... ball joints, tie rod ends and upper control arms... and back again. Then again if anyone maintained the roads around here mabey the front end problem wouldn't be so bad.


Rod
 
Ranger engines haven't seen any material change in close to 20 years. Anything from '93 onward should be about the same...

Rod
 
I had a 1990 Ford Ranger 2.9 5 speed Trans got 25-26 miles per gal. Drove 75 miles round trip to work. Put 300,000 miles on it. Wish I had it back. Very comfortable riding and driving.
 
I had an 85 2wd 5sp 2.8 v-6 got around 20 or so also had a 95 4x4 4l auto got 16 to 18 sad thing is my 99 F350 4x4 6sp 7.3L diesel gets that have a 02 Chevy 1500 4x4 5.3L auto gets 14-16 has 4.10 gears wish it had 3.73 or 3.42 instead so it may get 20+ but price wasright so I'll wear it out driving back and forth to work and keep the miles off the F350
 
(quoted from post at 15:09:01 12/29/12)
(quoted from post at 10:22:56 12/29/12) That is poor gas mileage for that size truck. Have 97 GMC K1500 4x4 with 5.7 vortec that gets 21 miles per gallon on open highway.
Click to expand...

So that means on flat level road with no head wind at 55mph your truck indicates 21mpg?
Now how about putting an actual measured 20 gallons through the engine over a known distance with typical highway, town and puttering around duty. [b:7fc4ba5f18][i:7fc4ba5f18]Your real world mileage will be about 10mpg[/i:7fc4ba5f18][/b:7fc4ba5f18].
Click to expand...

10mpg? Surely you jest.
 
Sir you are way off on milage. This truck has no problem in getting 21 miles to the gallon. We check every so often. I have fueled up and taken down milage and have driven from Milton,PA. to LaPorte,In. 610 miles straight through no fueling till I got to LaPorte,In. and it took 30 gallon. I was running 60 to 70 mph. I keep it in top shape and a while back gas milage started to drop I replaced all 4 cat. converters and mileage went back to what it was before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
1974 Ford 2000 Diesel sputters when warm?
Replies
2
Views
270
caterpillar guy
C
S
FORD 4600 hydraulic PTO
Replies
4
Views
1K
RodinNS
R
R
Need help with Ford 2000 2cyl gas with Holley Carb rebui
Replies
7
Views
1K
ROBOB1
R
G
sprayer control question
Replies
3
Views
1K
gbs
G
J
State of the farm address!! LOL Long!!
Replies
18
Views
3K
chuck from neb
C
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top