SMCinAZ
Premium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ
clubs:
1 edit | Anyone Help WIthy MPG Info on 2002 Ranger?
I just bought a used 2002 Ford Ranger XLT with the Supercab, AT, and the 3.0L V6 engine.
I have looked online but can't seem to find info on it's approx expected miles per gallon.
Anyone have any real-world experience or a link to the info I am looking for?
Also, I get my choice of a new drop-in type or spray-on type of bedliner. Which do you think is better?
Thanks |
|
removed
Crisis Management Squad
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
clubs: | »www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fuel+economy |
|
chmod
Premium
join:2000-12-12
Joliet, IL
clubs: | reply to SMCinAZ
Highway Mileage 22 mpg
City Mileage 17 mpg
--
Knowledge is your best defense. |
|
SMCinAZ
Premium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ
clubs: | Source of info? |
|
chmod
Premium
join:2000-12-12
Joliet, IL
clubs:
1 edit | reply to SMCinAZ
autotrader.com model information.
»www.autotrader.com/fyc/modelinfo···R#vdptop
--
Knowledge is your best defense. |
|
SMCinAZ
Premium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ
clubs: | Link? Thanks. |
|
chmod
Premium
join:2000-12-12
Joliet, IL
clubs: | reply to SMCinAZ
My uncle owns a 2002/03 somewhere in there "edge" ranger w/ a 4.10 gear in the rear I believe from the factory and it sucks as much gas as an v8 F150 or more.
--
Knowledge is your best defense. |
|
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
4 edits | reply to SMCinAZ
Those are based up EPA tests and artificially too high.
Take my 2005 Ford Ranger XL for example 22 city 26 highway.
My mpg I calculated comes out to 20mpg. If the truck
comes with 5 speed over drive and drive in a lot of flat
areas your fuel economy will be higher.
This site is much better :
»www.fueleconomy.gov/ |
|
SMCinAZ
Premium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ
clubs: | Thanks-good info.
I got a great deal on it. WOuld have liked a 4 cyl but they are very rare around here.
Any info on the 2 types of bedliners? Spray in vs drop in? |
|
Konaguy
Live From Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Kailua Kona, HI | My Ranger is 2.3L 4 cylinder with 5 Speed O/D. I've gotten 24mpg once when I drove over a flat stretch back and forth to
my parents new house. The O/D improves your fuel economy. |
|
ZOG321
Premium
join:2003-10-22
Slingerlands, NY | reply to SMCinAZ
Get the spray-on bedliner. Looks great, is durable, and doesn't trap moisture against the metal, which expedites corrosion. |
|
SMCinAZ
Premium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ
clubs: | I read that sprayons don't protect much against dents. |
|
SMCinAZ
Premium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ
clubs:
1 edit | reply to Konaguy
There is something I do not understand: According to the fueleconomy.com site, the 3.0L V6 from Ford on the Ranger gets exactly the same mileage per gallon as the 4.3L V6 on the Chevy S10. How can this be? The Chevy is 43% bigger, and the truck sizes are approx the same, so how can this be?
Another example: According to the site, the same Chevy 4.3L engine in a much bigger truck, a Chevy Silvarado 1500, gets the SAME MILEAGE as the S10 which is also the same as the 3.0 in the Ford Ranger.
I truly do not get it. A much bigger and heavier truck with the same larger engine gets the same mileage? |
|
Dime
The Original X
Premium
join:2002-05-14
Findlay, OH | reply to SMCinAZ
It can depend on the gearing. I had 3.42's in my 4x4 s10 and I could get 19mpg pretty easy, the best I ever got was 22 on all highway driving.
--
My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda makes. |
|
SMCinAZ
Premium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ
clubs: | Yeah, but a big full-sized Silvarado gets the same as a much smaller and lighter S-10 with the same engine in it and the same as a Ranger with a 3.0 vs a 4.3?
THAT MAKES NO SENSE. |
|
Dime
The Original X
Premium
join:2002-05-14
Findlay, OH | reply to SMCinAZ
BTW, go with a spray-on if you have the money, they are much nicer than the drop-in ones, and they protect the bed from rust.
--
My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda makes. |
|
Lexloser
@comcast.net | reply to SMCinAZ
Could have something to do with the rear end gear ratios. Some are geared for hauling heavy weights not for best gas mileage. |
|
SMCinAZ
Premium
join:2000-11-29
Glendale, AZ
clubs: | Now I look arounsd that site more and I see that their numbers vary largely by year, despite having the same engines, etc.
I think that site is not the most reliable. |
|
mattmag
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-04-09
NW Illinois
clubs:
 ·Mediacom
| reply to SMCinAZ
A smaller engine does not always equal better mileage. The key is that the 3.0 has much less torque and HP than the 4.3L, so it must work harder to move the weight of the vehicle. Harder working = lower efficiency as far as fuel mileage goes. The 4.3 with greater power available can be geared higher (numerically lower) thus reducing cruising RPM which results in better fuel mileage.
To complicate it a bit more, as in your example of the 4.3L in the S10 and Silverado, the engineers can take things further and modify fuel delivery curves, camshaft profiles and other computer-controlled elements to "tweak up" the engine so the mileage is consistent with it's smaller cousin. This usually comes with a decrease in pulling power for the larger truck, since things are aimed more at fuel economy on the highway.
My real-world experience with these vehicles holds this as a true factor, as customers will comment on the lower performance of the 4.3 in the big truck. The driving experience of the 4.3 in the smaller truck is generally much better.
Hope that wasn't too much information....
-Matt |
|
LexLoser
@comcast.net | reply to SMCinAZ
BTW, I owned a 94 XLT, 4 cyl, 5 speed, for 8 years and never had a single problem. Best vehicle I have ever owned hands down. |
|
