2000 Ford Ranger fuel mileage?

M

mike321

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

My friend has a 2000 ford ranger. 2.5 L engine with a 5 speed manual, 2 wheel drive.Has a 180,000 miles on it. He gets around 14 mpg with it at best. He told me that he went one tire size bigger than what is stock so the truck would look better. He used to get aroung 22 mpg. I told him that the bigger tires are taking the engine out of the range of its effiecency. He said that the aluminum topper he puts on in the winter lowers his fuel mileage. but I dont know about that
Does anyone have one of these trucks and knows what they get for fuel mileage at 65 mph on the four lane? or at 55 mph on a two lane road. Thanks for the help.

 

A

Anonymous-0

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

Bigger tires are showing less mileage on odometer.

 

K

keh

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

Ditto on what yeow said. BTDT.

I had a 92 4 cyl 5 spd 2wd, got 26 reliably.

KEH

 

K

keh

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

Ditto on what yeow said. BTDT.

I had a 92 4 cyl 5 spd 2wd, got 26 reliably.

KEH

 

G

GordoSD

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

My F150 V6 5 spd gets 22 on the highway at 70 mph.

Gordo

 

C

CLTX

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

The topper helps reduce drag, supposedly. Removing the tailgate, or using a flo-thru tailgate is supposed to help. Also, gap seals, which seal the gap between the cab and topper/camper shell, supposedly will help. I have heard of gap seals, but I've never seen any. I suspect you would have to really keep close records to really know if you got any measurable benefit. I've heard claims that the topper/shell gives up to two mpg increase. My two cents. C.L.

 

H

hansen

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

In my opinion, there is something else wrong. One size bigger tires would not cut his mileage almost in half, nor would it make the odometer read that much off. As for the topper, I put 200 lbs. of sand in the back during winter for traction, and it does not effect my mileage much. My mileage is cut from 22 to 20 in the winter because I warm it up a lot in the driveway. Mine is a 2008 club cab and I get 26 highway. I would look at the injectors (dirty and/or leaking) and the convertor (clogged).

 

S

Sam#3

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

I have the same truck, a '98 Mazda/Ranger. Its mileage varies over a wide range depending on the conditions, wind, speed, AC on/off, and wet/dry roads. I've gotten as high as 29.5 and as low as 25 and believe me I check it often. I'm running the standard tires and an aluminum topper. I couldn't tell a difference when I put on the topper.

 

D

Dave 2N

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

I have the same truck only a 99. I have a heavy topper that was on the truck when I got it--one of those fancier fiberglass kinds.

In the summer in good weather without the slightly bigger snows on the rear, I get around 28 mpg in 5th gear (OD) on a highway trip and 25 mpg around town. This is in warm weather. In the winter, I lose about 3 mpg off those numbers.

Also, with this truck/engine/tranny combination, the way a person drives has some effect too.

All in all, I like the truck and it's a snorty little beast, a lot moreso than I originally thought it would be.

I've got to think he as some other issues.

 

C

Coloken

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

I Have 2000 with small V6, auto. 19 on short trips to mail box, Over 20 on highway.
No question in my mind but there is some thing wrong with it. Not wheels or box. Have it checked and tuned up.

 

R

RodinNS

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

I've got a hard time swallowing this notion that any Ranger will top 22 MPG (US Gallon). I've got a '98, 3L 5 speed 4x4 and the best it EVER got, being babied, all highway miles was a touch over 24 miles to the imperial gallon... which is ~20% more than a USG.
I typically see anywhere from 14-22 mpg depending on how hard I drive. Usually closer to 15...
I've also got 235's on mine instead of the 215's it came with... which is about a 10% jump according to radar.... and I didn't notice any appreciable change in mileage. It mabey improved a touch but for a given RPM range it hasn't changed.

Beyond that I'd suggest that he get the codes spit out and see if it's not showing something there. Plugged air filter or plugged Cat are two things that come to mind OR a bad O2 sensor, of which there are FOUR...
But I don't think it's much outside of normal to be honest.

Rod

 

J

Jim SC

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

Son (35 year old) had a v-6 ranger, 4WD. He never got 17 MPG. His 5.4 F 150, 4WD gets about 16-17 on the road. My 2006 5.4, 2WD, gets 21 if/when I keep it 60- 65, 17 when doing 77 on intersate. He'll never go back to that small, underpoered Ranger.

 

W

Wilson

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

had one in the 90's new drove like I was breaking it in after 4 or 5 k it was very good but sluggish on rolling hills always had to shift into 4th Dealer and I got to discussing it After finding I had babied it so much he said takr battery cable off for a few minuets, then drive it like a detroit diesel for 100 miles preferbly on 25 or so mile trips. did it wife drove 60 miles one way then asked what did I do to truck no more need to shift down lots more power. and she was'n a mechecic.

 

W

Wilson

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

had one in the 90's new drove like I was breaking it in after 4 or 5 k it was very good but sluggish on rolling hills always had to shift into 4th Dealer and I got to discussing it After finding I had babied it so much he said takr battery cable off for a few minuets, then drive it like a detroit diesel for 100 miles preferbly on 25 or so mile trips. did it wife drove 60 miles one way then asked what did I do to truck no more need to shift down lots more power. and she was'n a mechecic.

 

W

Walterdavies

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

My 97 Ranger has oversize tires speedo corrected for them and the 4.0 V-6 I also the low ration rearends Can pull any thing never shift out of 5th for hills. But I get 15 MPG and always have no matter where I go or what I do.
Walt

 

T

todd hagan

New User

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

I have a 2002 ford ranger 2 wheel drive with a 4.0 it gets 18 in the winter and 20 or 21 in the summer.Truck has 229000 on it and thats what it got since new.

 

L

LincolnIA

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

I have a 97 Ranger with 4 cylinder, 5 speed, 2 wheel drive. I always get 22 to 25 mpg, sometimes as good as 27. If you didn't adjust the speedometer for the oversized tires wouldn't you actually be traveling farther than the speedometer said, thus throwing off you mpg? As far as the topper goes I would think the improved aerodynamics would about cancel out any extra weight.

 

L

Leland2

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

According to myth busters a topper inproves truck milage by breaking the vacum at the rear

 

OP

OP

M

mike321

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

Which engine did he have? the 3.0 or 2.9. They were both under powered and had poor fuel mileage. my 4.0 with 180,000 on it gets 20 on a good long trip. As far as your F150, that is not saying much as my 2003 dodge cummins with 325 hp gets arount 18-20 mpg

 

B

barn E

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

Hard driver or burned valve. You did throw off odometer by putting on larger tire. I do the same. Looks is important. Dave

 

B

barn E

Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

Hard driver or burned valve. You did throw off odometer by putting on larger tire. I do the same. Looks is important. Check timing. If possible sneak it up a degree or two. May not be adjustable.

 

B

BCnT

Well-known Member

• Jan 25, 2010

• #1

i got a '92 F150 with a 302 in it that'll get 26 on the highway but around town it was eatin my lunch...never saw a Ranger do what window sticker said it would...thats one of the reasons i retired early from Ford dealership...got tired of explaining how come that big foot made the gas tank go dry.

 

H

hansen

Member

• Jan 26, 2010

• #1

Rod, His has the little 4 popper. They can get over 22 highway easy. I don't know why the 3L and 4L get such bad milage for as little as the truck is. Mine is the 4 cyl. with a 5 spd. auto and I can get 22 city and 26 highway without trying.

 

D

Dave 2N

Well-known Member

• Jan 26, 2010

• #1

He's talking about 2 wheel drive, not 4 wheel drive. Extra moving parts drain mpg's.

 

H

hansen

Member

• Jan 26, 2010

• #1

Yeah, what Dave said. 4 cyl, 2 wheel drive. I don't think they make the 4 popper in 4wd.

 

OP

OP

M

mike321

Member

• Jan 26, 2010

• #1

my 4.0 get around 19- 22 mpg

 

R

RodinNS

Well-known Member

• Jan 26, 2010

• #1

I don't think it makes buggerall difference whether it's 2WD or 4WD. Might make 1-2 MPG difference at most to turn the extra tail shaft, sprockets, chain and idler shaft in the case but that's about it.
I see lots of people ~claim~ to get those mileage figures out of 4WD's around here too. I'd love to know how unless they spend their lives driving around in overdrive at 50 mph on the highway.
I find if I average 20 with mine I'm quite happy...
It just seems to me that mileage claims are a lot like horsepower claims. Overinflated.


Rod

 

R

RodinNS

Well-known Member

• Jan 26, 2010

• #1

Had a '92 with the 2.3 before this one. 4WD.... Mabey 1-2 mpg better. Nothing to speak of.
I'm of the opinion that if you drive them 'normally', you're not going to get good mileage.
The only real differene was that the 2.3 lacked some of the low end torque that the 3.0L has and mabey a ~small~ amount of top end power.... and I do mean a very small amount.


Rod

 

H

hansen

Member

• Jan 26, 2010

• #1

No mileage difference between 4WD and 2WD??? I think you had a buggerall problem with your 2WD truck, Rod!

 

H

hansen

Member

• Jan 26, 2010

• #1

Did you read the "without trying" part?

 

R

RodinNS

Well-known Member

• Jan 27, 2010

• #1

Ummmm hhmmmm........
A 4.10 geared ranger (as most were), 2wd or 4wd is not clearing 22 mpg at 65 mph.
If you have some other gear combo. Perhaps, and that's a big mabey...
I don't know anyone who got good mileage out of Rangers who actually did honest, regular, verefiable calculations.
Most people I talk to find about 2 mpg difference between the 2WD and 4WD.
My average milege for this '98 3L 5 speed 4WD runs about 17.


Rod

 

H

hansen

Member

• Jan 28, 2010

• #1

Just filled up my 4.10 geared Ranger this morning. 22.5. I commute half freeway, half city, and you HAVE to go 65 here, or you could get killed. And just in case you are calling me a liar, it was honest, regular, and verifiable. But then you said you get 20 with a 4WD. Ummmm hhmmmm........Hard to believe, really with the 4WD.
Now just for clarification, I think my 2008 2WD is a lot lighter than your '98. Aluminum drivetrain for one. These new ones are light weight trucks. Makes a big difference. Now you believe what you want, Rod, but you never really mentioned ever owning a 2WD. I know a lot of folks that are experts on things they know nothing about.....

 

R

RodinNS

Well-known Member

• Jan 28, 2010

• #1

2008 eh?
You might note that the fuel efficiency ratings are a lot higher on newer ones like yours than the older models...
It seems to me that the transport canada test rating on them is somewhere in the high 30's, which is also a fairly optimistic figure... but it's a lot higher than the old Rangers.

I'm not sure what more aluminum your might have compared to mine as this one already has everything but an aluminum block...

... and where did I say I get 20 with my 4WD? 17 is normal. I've gotten as high as 24.5 per imperial gallon which is something like 22 in your terms without doing the exact conversion. That was in summer driving, heavy traffic where the average speed was probably no better than 55 and all highway miles. I couldn't drive hard if I'd wanted to.
The only way I see it doing any better would be downhill with a tailwind.

...and I've been around long enough to see that most people's mileage claims are based on the trip display or momentary readout rolling downhill. I don't know if newer Ranger's have that feature, but I know a lot of the Dodge owners like to talk about how they got 30 mpg from their Cummins... but it's in NO WAY an average or honest calculation.
I'd wager that about 75% of ~claims~ are based on things like that.

Rod

 

H

hansen

Member

• Jan 28, 2010

• #1

NOW we agree. I could NEVER get 30 from mine. When I say I've got 26, that means I fill up, get on the freeway and drive for 400 freeway miles on a tankful, and I can get 26. My commute averages 22. I don't try. I use the AC, have to climb a hill, too. I just don't see the advantage of saving a bit at the cost of comfort. I'm a middle aged guy who values comfort over 2 mpg extra.

Mine has the aluminum engine, tranny, and driveline. It's also a 5 spd. overdrive auto.

I think your quote earlier was "I find if I average 20 with mine I'm quite happy..." Which I believe.

Now on the low end..I've got 19.5 once, because I warm it up in the driveway for 20 minutes before I leave for work.

And I think some claims are based on "what I got once". But mine ain't.