bad mileage from 99 Ranger.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
1,647
Location
SF Bay Area
My Mom has a 99 Ranger with the 3.0L Flexfuel with 57k miles.
My Dad never maintained anything until it was broke, and even then he's try and leave it broke.
I've been helping my Mom as much as I can fixing all the broken stuff around the house, and there's a lot.
The pickup runs great, only has 3200 miles on a tuneup (I did 3 years ago). I've been driving it off & on to get it moving again, and after replacing the little things that were giving way, (idler pully, belt, battery, flush, all hoses, etc..) The truck runs pretty nicely. I brought it down for a smog yesterday, and it aced it..
0.00% for HC and CO, NOx was max 142 (750 allowed).
I've run SI-1 in in several times over the past 5 months to get things cleaning, it's never had e-85 in the tank (although I really want to try it out!)

The next big issue is the gas mileage. It's flat out horrible. I took it for a week, and barely was able to get 235 miles out of 14gal. of fuel.
I used cruise control whenever possible and never went over 70. No jackrabbit starts, and I let the engine warm up for about 90 seconds before I took off.
My Dad told me it does pretty good if you don't go over 60. Well the speed limit is 65, and it's hard to do that sometimes.

I would think it should get at least 325 or more out of a tank?

Is it just me or is this normal? The only thing that I didn't change was the plug wires.. they're still factory motorcraft and if they were an issue, the CEL would've lit for something. Could it the 3.0 just doesn't have enough oomph to move that truck with ease? It's an Automatic tranny. it doesn't do to well accelerating, but it's only been at the dealer to have 2 dashboard lights replaced (under warranty). Otherwise, it's been to whereever my dad found a cheap oil change place. My Mom knows better, so now that he's passed, I get to keep things going. Needless to say, I thought I'd enjoy it, but I really don't all that much.
 
15-20mpg is common if thats a 4x4 model.

the 2wd usually get around 18-23

the 3.0 was a thirsty dog.
 
That's exactly why I bought a f150 in 99, more truck nearly the same mileage with a 5.4 v8 4x4, and it was cheaper than the ranger after rebates
 
My best friend had an 06 reg. cab short box 2wd ranger with the 3.0, and the best he ever got was 24mpg, the average was 21. This was on flat ground on highway, never going over 60mph. Its the nature of the beast.

For a comparison; I have the 3.0L in the taurus and on a good day I can get 28mpg, normal interstate driving im at 25mpg average.
 
3.0 was a sad engine in that truck. The 4.0 liter got better mileage and had more power. My son had a 3.0 liter of the same vintage and was always disappointed in the mileage.
Make sure tires are inflated 3-5 psi over the recommended pressure on the door panel and set the cruise at 60 on your next trip. Bet you'll do better. Speed kills gas mileage, especially when you are pushing a brick through the air.
 
The 3.0 is not known for gas mileage. It sometimes gets described as "the power of a 4 cylinder with the mileage of a six cylinder".

The 4 cyl Rangers are known for decent mileage, though, especially with manual transmissions.

Note that the newest Ranger 4 cyls produce 145 horsepower, about the same as the 3.0 (I don't recall the torque outputs).

Although a bit older than your Mom's, my '91 (2wd) will get mid to upper teens in suburban driving. I think the very best I ever saw was 22 on the highway. Usually, 21 was about it.

It sounds like your SI-1 use has helped get great emissions readings.

It will likely run a very long time, just not fuel-efficiently. Toyota and Nissan do better (Mazda is a rebadged Ranger).
 
It's the Ford vulcan engine ... Power of a 4 cylinder, fuel economy of a v8 ... they last forever, though.

The figures you gave is about 15 - which seems to be on he low end of normal. The 2.3 rangers got nearly twice that
 
Last edited:
I owned 3 Ford Rangers. 2 of them had the 3.0 and one with the 4.0. The 3.0 is a good reliable engine but power and fuel economy were never its strong suits. I was much happier with the 4.0 liter engine overall since it at least had a little power to it.
 
235/14 = 16.78 MPG. It's not too far off, especially if you did a lot of city driving. Window sticker for my truck says 15/21.

My neighbor and I both get 17-18 MPG from our 3.0 2WD automatics. Mine gets flogged...5000 RPM daily. 3.73 rear end, P235/75R15 tires.

What rear gear ratio does the truck have? 4WD or 2WD? Super Cab? All of those things will impact fuel economy.

Also if this thing has been driven slow and easy all its life, it probably needs an Italian tune up bad. The Vulcan doesn't make peak HP until 5000 RPM. Don't baby it. I don't and I'm getting better than 16.78 MPG most of the time with way more miles on mine.
 
FWIW I have a fullsize that actually gets better mileage than that with the 4.3 V-6. I average 18 mpg. I say there has to be something wrong. Did it ever get decent mileage? Is it automatic or manual?
 
The truck's a 2wd, automatic, even has a k&n panel filter...has the extended cab, has the 7.5RG and 3.73 ratio. It's just a weird setup to me...
It's pretty setup.. external tranny cooler AND p/s cooler, along with a block heater setup. It's a very stout truck, just the gas mileage is so bad!
A truck that's seems to be setup for towing, has the weaker rear end, but has better cooling ability.

my 93 Ranger is a 4.0L with 4x4 and extended cab, it's a manual.
I get far better mileage out of it, and it has 227k.

I've driven the 4cyl rangers with the manual and they get extremely good mileage..

I never really got a lot of driving time in this 99 till my Dad passed & I enherited the maintenance.

I guess the tradeoff for the extra equipment was gas mileage?
I know the truck weighs quite a bit, and I don't know why he didn't buy an F-150, I think he just wanted something smaller.

Thanks for all the input & advice!
 
When we were still in Detroit we leased 4 extended cab rangers with the 4.0 engine. Those trucks went pretty well. Easily smoke the tire right off anyways.
They were automatics and horrible on fuel. I don't think they ever got 20mpg in the city and maybe 20mpg highway.
They were fun little trucks and actually pulled out work trailers filled with cabinets and tools(5000 poundish or so) pretty well. Stopping however wasn't quite so nice but as long as you didn't drive like a retard they were fine.
I would expect the 3.0 to get better mileage however I guess it takes x amount of hp to get the vehicle moving. No matter what engine it's got.
 
I have a friend with an ext cab 2wd 4 cyl ranger and it gets almost 30 mpg highway. Maybe the O2 sensor is going bad or something. I assume there aren't any CEL lights on in the dash?
 
Originally Posted By: EricF
The truck's a 2wd, automatic, even has a k&n panel filter...has the extended cab, has the 7.5RG and 3.73 ratio. It's just a weird setup to me...
It's pretty setup.. external tranny cooler AND p/s cooler, along with a block heater setup. It's a very stout truck, just the gas mileage is so bad!
A truck that's seems to be setup for towing, has the weaker rear end, but has better cooling ability.

my 93 Ranger is a 4.0L with 4x4 and extended cab, it's a manual.
I get far better mileage out of it, and it has 227k.

I've driven the 4cyl rangers with the manual and they get extremely good mileage..

I never really got a lot of driving time in this 99 till my Dad passed & I enherited the maintenance.

I guess the tradeoff for the extra equipment was gas mileage?
I know the truck weighs quite a bit, and I don't know why he didn't buy an F-150, I think he just wanted something smaller.

Thanks for all the input & advice!



Most, if not all 3.0s got the 7.5 rear. The 8.8 was reserved for the 4.0 and cab-chassis trucks.

It's actually not that weak of an axle considering how small the ring gear is. Mine has held up to lots of towing including 4WD ATVs and commercial mowers on un-braked trailers, tire spinning, spinning then suddenly getting traction (very bad for a diff), and light off roading. I actually haven't heard of many 7.5s breaking.

The 4R/5R transmissions, while decent, are power and fuel economy hogs. I think the M5OD just takes a lot less out of the low engine output. Still, it shouldn't be quite as bad you describe.

As crude as the Ranger is, for the time it actually had some fairly advanced mechanical features due to platform sharing with the Explorer. The 4R44E transmission in your '99 has adaptive shifting. It has probably been in old folks mode for years. Seriously, give the truck a workout and it will probably start performing better. Clean the MAF, clean the IAC valve, clean the throttle body, and maybe go ahead and do plug wires too. I got Prestolites for about $8 on Rock Auto. After that, drive it hard. It probably has tons of carbon buildup and I bet it pings like crazy.

The 3.0 Vulcan was a bit of a mismatch being mostly intended for the Taurus and to a lesser extent the Aerostar, but it's very durable and cheap, and I think that's all Ford wanted from it in the Ranger at the time. The 3.0/auto/2WD/Super Cab configuration was probably the most common one from about 1995 to at least 2005 or so. Whether or not it was the "best" configuration, it's what worked for most buyers.
 
this truck doesn't ping, but it is usually drivin pretty conservatively.
I wasn't aware of the adaptive tranny.
I put Motorcrafts back in a few years ago, there isn't many miles on them, the wires are original, but they're ok. I'll probably replace them the next time I get to the truck.
It was smogged last Saturday, was 100% clean.
I suppose I'll go take it out on the freeway one sunday and let 'er rip!

Thanks for the advice!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top