why small trucks don't get as good gas mileage ...

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
The 4.0L SOHC is a terrible engine, and including it in a comparison is the only way you can say smaller trucks get worse mileage than bigger ones. Just buy a smaller truck without that engine, and you're golden.

Highly disagree about the 4.0 SOHC. Aside from the gas mileage, which is on par with other v6 small pickups by the way, it is a great, reliable engine with more than enough power for a Ranger.

 

[exranger06]

2010 Ford Ranger
6 cyl, 4L, 5-speed automatic 15 city 19 highway

2010 Toyota Tacoma
6 cyl, 4L, 5-speed automatic: 17 city | 21 highway
6 cyl, 4L, 6-speed manual: 15 city | 19 highway

2010 Nissan Frontier
6 cyl, 4 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular 14 city 19 highway
6 cyl, 4 L, Manual 6-spd, Regular 15 city 19 highway

2010 Dodge Dakota
6 cyl, 3.7 L, 4-speed automatic
14 city | 18 highway

Like I said, the 4.0 SOHC is right on par with all the other 6 cyl small trucks.

 

[40Deluxe]

True, the 4.0 is around 19 mpg hwy,the 3.0 was around 22 mpg when offered and the 4cyl around 28 mpg.I have had all three engines and liked the the 3.0 the best in the ranger.Ford puts a 3.73 ratio rear in the 4 cyl to get the truck to keep up with other traffic in stop and go driving.My current ranger is a 2005 w/3.0 v6 and 5 speed and gets around 23+ mpg,i really like this combo.Ford is not interested in the ranger any more as it is discontinued in 2011.

 

[mechtech2]

In a similar vein, why do motorcycles NOT get astounding gas mileage? They are usually relatively disappointing.

Since most cars use O2 sensors, we can assume the mixture is close [not too rich].
That leave weight and gearing.
New Corvettes can get superb highway mileage at moderate cruising speeds. They are geared so they are barely above idle then.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Motor cycles are normally geared for performance which does kill MPG. But the real big thing is they are not aero at all. Even tucked in behind a fairing you still are punching a very dirty hole in the air.

Going 150mph and letting off the gas, pull in the clutch and you slow down just like you put on the brakes.

Bill

 

[cryption]

You will get better mileage from the larger truck because you have more power to push that much weight and wind resistance.

My Frontier always got worse mileage than my dad's Titan. The reason being, at 70mph I had to push my truck a lot harder than the Titan would have to - thus using more gas.

 

[Jim_Beverlin]

I agree with your comments about the SOHC 4.0L V6. This is a very durable motor. I have a 2001 Sport Trac and at 160K it neither burns nor leaks any oil. Rated 15 city/19 hwy and that is the exact range that I get. The 4.0L V6 and the 5 speed automatic have been faultless. Wish I could say the same about the rest of the vehicle. Still, I well expect to hit 250K. I have 4.5 years to go before I plan on retiring and that should equate to around 250K.

 

[bullwinkle]

A tonneau cover or cap does help, along with babying/drafting, but every small work truck I've ever had was so overloaded that it was impossible to get decent MPGs, combine that with too-low gearing & poor aerodynamics, that's why people buy the big trucks!

 

[ZR2grizz]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
2010 Ford Ranger
6 cyl, 4L, 5-speed automatic 15 city 19 highway

2010 Toyota Tacoma
6 cyl, 4L, 5-speed automatic: 17 city | 21 highway
6 cyl, 4L, 6-speed manual: 15 city | 19 highway

2010 Nissan Frontier
6 cyl, 4 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular 14 city 19 highway
6 cyl, 4 L, Manual 6-spd, Regular 15 city 19 highway

2010 Dodge Dakota
6 cyl, 3.7 L, 4-speed automatic
14 city | 18 highway

Like I said, the 4.0 SOHC is right on par with all the other 6 cyl small trucks.





Out of all these trucks, the Ranger is the only true compact anymore...the others are more midsize, offering quite a bit more room with considerably more power/torque for the same mileage.

 

[4WD]

I don't like driving large trucks either - so got a Canyon 4Door/4x4 Z71 with the 5.3L V8.

I knew it got about the same MPG as the full size 1500 - but on and off the road it really performs. Trailer capacity is 6000# and my boat is only 2500#. Some reasons for MPG, 4.10 gears, a choice I made that costs MPG (so know your gears)- and yes trucks are boxy in all sizes.

 

[wander2039]

With my old Ranger 4cyl/5spd on the highway I always got 29 and on straight long trips 31+. I'm you on the V6's and gas mileage. You'd think they'd believe to squeeze more out a gallon.

 

[pidster]

I love my 4.0L Ranger but it does guzzle. I find though more than any other vehicle I've spent any amount of time driving it is VERY sensitive to how you drive it as far as gas mileage goes. Lead foot, heavily loaded the thirst just increases. When I drive gently, and upshift early(its manual tranny) it goes much farther on a tank.

Sure I could have bought an F150 but I'd pay many thousands more to buy it, and the size they were in the past I'd have considered it but the new models are just HUGE! I don't need that much truck and prefer the driving feel of the Ranger. I haven't done enough mileage measuring of my own truck nevermind a 150 to say this with certainty but from talking to folks that have them Rangers do a little better. Not a big spread but some savings.

And the 4.0 L Ford engine is one that I am very happy with. Great power for a V6, very pleasing sound when in the lower part of it's powerband, burns zero oil and at its old age design-wise has had all the bugs worked out. With my obsessive maintenance it should run forever and a day.

 

[VNTS]

Work for a utility. have fleet of the Rangers with the V6 4.0 4wd
Crews have gas cards so get monthly reports on actual mileage for the fleet
Rangers used primarily to commute indivisuals from base to work site. mainly project managers, so not much equipment in the truck.

Astounded that they only avg about 14 mpg with probably 90% highway travel to rural substations. Full size Ford 1 tons loaded with equipment, utility boxes etc got about 8 mpg, 5.4 triton gas pig engines, real dogs IMHO. We had Chevy 454's and they did better at 9.0 which was suprising. The 350's we had got about 10-11 mpg as I recall.

Also have Hyrbid Escapes, thye only avg about 17 mpg, again disappointing.

Note these are figure from Managers and info is from Wright Express who handles the gas card transactions.

Had one Power Joke diesel 2004 vintage in a F350? welding truck that broke down more than it ran, absolute disgrace. Had one welding job where to get it done they hired a flatbead to haul the truck to the job site so bus work could be welded. Too many issues with the Turbos on it, transmission failed, intecooler hoses blowing off, running pig rich etc Too bad it soured people on Diesels which would be the way to go if they had enough smarts to get either Rams with Cummins or GM with Duramx.

 

[rslifkin]

That 04 sounds like a 6.0 Powerstroke (Navistar VT365). They weren't bad engines, but they definitely had their issues, particularly early on. Mostly stuck variable turbos and sticky injectors.

 

[VNTS]

Yes

Exactly, guess they should of talked to Shelby, he did the VNT back in 89, and they had problems with the vanes sticking, Navistar never learned.

I feel sorry for the FOrd Techs working on them, go over to FRT FLat Rate Tech board and all the Ford techs cringe at those POS engines. You will hear all the horror stories on how much they suck to work on and the rate payed never remotely equaled the actual time to perform the warranty repair. As most put it, we were subsidizing Ford and their [censored] engineering(Yes I know it is a Navistar). No wonder the warranty repairs could never fix this truck we had, I wouldnt spend 8 hrs on a repair if the job only paid 5 hrs either LOL




Originally Posted By: rslifkin
That 04 sounds like a 6.0 Powerstroke (Navistar VT365). They weren't bad engines, but they definitely had their issues, particularly early on. Mostly stuck variable turbos and sticky injectors.

 

[glen242]

Just my experience:

2004 Subaru 4 cyl legacy s/w - 20 mpg

1998 Ford 4 cyl ranger 5-speed - 24 mpg

Driving is mostly around town for both vehicles.

 

[rslifkin]

On the newer engines, they've gotten the bugs worked out in the turbos. Cat didn't have issues with their variable turbos either. The old 7.3 Powerstroke (T444E) was bulletproof, and the 6.4 (Maxxforce 7) was pretty good as well. The new Ford designed 6.7 is likely going to be good too.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
They take the weight, aero and such to come up with MPG.


EPA ratings are based on test loop results.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
They take the weight, aero and such to come up with MPG.


EPA ratings are based on test loop results.


Better go tell the EPA that.

Note the following words;

The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for wind resistance and the vehicle's weight.

 

[rslifkin]

Hmm. No wonder I have trouble not beating the EPA ratings in my Jeep (rated 11/16, I get 12 - 13 city, 17 - 20 highway).