ford ranger engine choice

Discussion in 'Shop Talk' started by travis91, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. travis91

    travis91 Formerly 4animals.

    Messages:
    1,035
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Location:
    south alabama(Hartford)
    so im wondering which of the engines in the new ranger gets the best mpg here are the engine specs:
    Engine Specifications
    Engine type 2.3L I4 3.0L V6 4.0L V6
    Engine electronics EEC-V EEC-V EEC-V
    Displacement 2.3L (140 CID) 3.0L (182 CID) 4.0L (245 CID)
    Horsepower (SAE net@rpm) 143@5,250 148@4,900 207@5,250
    Torque (lb.-ft. @rpm) 154@3,750 180 @3,950 238@3,000
    Compression ratio 9.7:1 9.56:1 9.7:1
    Bore x stroke (in.) 3.44x3.70 3.50x3.14 3.95x3.32
    Main bearings 5 4 4
    Valve lifters Mechanical non hydraulic bucket Hydraulic – roller Hydraulic lash adjuster
    Fuel delivery Sequential electronic fuel injection Sequential electronic fuel injection Sequential electronic fuel injection
    Recommended fuel Unleaded Unleaded Unleaded

    Fuel economy 24 city/29 highway 17 city/22 highway 17 city/22 highway

    Transmission type 5-speed manual overdrive standard 5-speed manual overdrive standard 5-speed automatic overdrive standard
    Engine block material Aluminum Cast iron Cast iron
    Cylinder head material Aluminum Cast iron Aluminum


    so, the epa says the 4 banger gets the best but im wondering about does the 4 banger really get the best because you would think that the 4 would have to work so much harder than one of the six cilinders so what do you guys think thanks
     
  2. Ken Scharabok

    Ken Scharabok In Remembrance

    Messages:
    6,844
    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Somewhat off subject, but on mileage I recently saw an analysis by one of the car magazines. They looked at as many factors as possible, including such aspects as tire pressure and keeping the vehicle nicely waxed. Ran test using regular streets and highways.

    They found only two things which really made a difference in mileage - a light foot on acceleration and not using cruise controls in a hilly area.

    Admittedly there are times when you need rapid acceleration, such as merging into freeway traffic. However, if you take it slow and easy on accelerating up to cruising speed it shows up in a good bump in mileage.

    On cruise control, while they do save gas on level roads, they somewhat cause over-consumption on hills in that they try to keep the vehicle at the same speed. If you have it set for 60-miles per hour at the bottom, it will try to keep it at the same all the way up. Here a significant bump up in mileage was found when manually control was used on hills and you didn't try to maintain the same speed.

    Just my opinion, I have always felt my 84 Ranger with the 2.3 4-cyl, 4-speed was underpowered. Have often wished it had a 6-cyl with 5-speed.
     

  3. buck_1one

    buck_1one Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    400
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Location:
    West Virginia
    I had a Ranger with the 4.0L in it. 4x4 5 speed manual trans and hubs. It got 18mpg period, driving around town, pulling the boad, or flying down the highway 18mpg. It was a great little truck, sometimes I wish I still had it. Only problem I ever had was with the front wheel bearings. Don't know how many times I had to replace them, but I think that was my fault as I worked that truck hard. Had to step up to a big block full size Ford. Anyway your mpg will depend on how you plan on using the truck. If you haul a lot (of weight) the 4cyl may be worse then the 6cyl, if you just plan on light loads the 4cyl would be better. My father has an older 2.3 getting upper 20mpg and I got rid of one a couple of years ago getting 26mpg or so.

    Hope that helps
    Buck
     
  4. Beeman

    Beeman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,977
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Location:
    East TN
    An object in motion tends to stay in motion. The hardest thing on fuel consumption is starting from a dead stop the next would be pulling a load. Once you get a vehicle moving you can keep it moving at a steady speed with less horsepower. Torque gets it moving horsepower keeps it moving. This is why manufacturers have used the shutting off of cylinders at highway speeds to gain mileage. If you increased the weight of the vehicle by adding enough load then your theory of the engine working harder would come into play.
     
  5. travis91

    travis91 Formerly 4animals.

    Messages:
    1,035
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Location:
    south alabama(Hartford)
    i know that you had a yota from another thread of mine what kind of mpg did it get thanks