Author Topic: 05 ford ranger gas milage (Read 4581 times)

paulv · « **on:** December 24, 2005, 04:17:13 pm »

just wondering what real fuel economy i should expect wih a 05 ranger with a 3 ltr. moter.am presently getting about 330 km to a tank. acording to my calculations this rates up there with a v-8 dodge durango....thanks..........paulv :

davidy · « **Reply #1 on:** December 24, 2005, 04:29:54 pm »

Input your vehicle here:

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuelratings/ratings-search.cfm?attr=8

Dave

sterling · « **Reply #2 on:** December 24, 2005, 05:30:59 pm »

Don't worry. A Dodge Durango gets much worse fuel economy than your Ranger. Everyone gets worse mileage than what the gov't prints. Those figures are only useful in seeing relative differences between vehicles. They cannot be held as absolute standards.

Oh, and calculating your mileage "per tank" is notoriously inaccurate.

davidy · « **Reply #3 on:** December 24, 2005, 06:05:06 pm »

I am pretty sure that the fuel tank volume generally varies by cab type and bed length. I know that for the 1996 Mazda truck model years, the fuel tank volume varied from 61.7 to 75.7 litres (regular cab/short bed to extended cab).

Dave

maritime_storm · « **Reply #4 on:** December 24, 2005, 10:25:53 pm »

How many kilometers are on the vehicle so far? Break in on newer cars is typically in the 10 - 15K range now before the rings seat completely and you start getting decent mileage. Also this time of year fuel mileage goes to pot for a number of reason, few of which you can control.

paulv · « **Reply #5 on:** December 25, 2005, 02:40:42 am »

the truck has 5600 klm on it but it seems the trend of economy is heading downward. ive tried driving with the o/d off for a tank and then with it on for one, doesnt seem to matter. going in to shop on wed for a check anyways.thx for your sugestions........paulv

tortoise · « **Reply #6 on:** December 25, 2005, 12:57:08 pm »

The 3.0 vulcan in the ranger is known to be inefficient. In fact, I think the real world difference between the 3.0 and 4.0 is almost negligible.

I suspect the downturn in mileage is related to the weather however.

Bekay · « **Reply #7 on:** December 26, 2005, 11:43:30 am »

Having had a Ranger for 20 years you are going to find weather and load to be a real big factor in the milage .Look in my other posts for the changes the weather causes. The Dodge 4.7 will do every thing the Ranger will and not go over 2000 RPM ,and get even better milage when you have a load or are pushing a wind.

paulv · « **Reply #8 on:** December 26, 2005, 11:17:47 pm »

I had a 89 2.3 8 plug engine for 16 years i guess i was spoiled with the fuel economy(avr 27-30 mpg over lifetime) sold it for 2400.00 with 265,000 km on it. maybe i should have kept it?? thanks for everyones

???suggestions , happy new year!

maritime_storm · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2005, 05:51:42 am »

My advice, give it some time, 5600Kms isn't broke in yet, combine that with winter gas & winter temps and your going to get lousy mileage. It doesn't sound like anything is wrong with the truck. As someone already pointed out the 3.0L isn't a thrity engine to start with.

exserviceguy · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2005, 08:52:47 am »

Hi Paull,
My own new Ranger 3.0 posted a dramatic increase in mileage at around the 10,000 kms mark. Also, when you quote a mileage of x kms per tank, it leads me to believe you're not completing a tank to tank mileage test. The absolutely only way to calculate fuel mileage is to fill the tank, (without overfilling), reset the trip odo, put at least 300 kms on the vehicle, and refill the tank again and then compare the litres used against the kms travelled. Using the fuel indicator on the dash is completely useless.

paulv · « **Reply #11 on:** December 28, 2005, 02:50:17 pm »

I have done a tank to tank test on every tank since i puchased the vehicle last july using the method you sugested.the last 5 tanks have shown 17,16 17 , 15,15 mpg .in metric we are looking at 15-16 ltrs to 100 klm.what do you get standard and metric in your new ranger. Thanks for the input!

Quote from: exserviceguy on December 28, 2005, 08:52:47 am

Hi Paull,
My own new Ranger 3.0 posted a dramatic increase in mileage at around the 10,000 kms mark. Also, when you quote a mileage of x kms per tank, it leads me to believe you're not completing a tank to tank mileage test. The absolutely only way to calculate fuel mileage is to fill the tank, (without overfilling), reset the trip odo, put at least 300 kms on the vehicle, and refill the tank again and then compare the litres used against the kms travelled. Using the fuel indicator on the dash is completely useless.

exserviceguy · « **Reply #12 on:** December 28, 2005, 03:19:13 pm »

Hi Paul,
Keeping in mind that my first new Ranger was a 99 model year, with a 5 speed manual and short box with no goodies I could pull down over 500 kms per tank even in winter, (although really nippy days made it thirstier), as I remember this equated to around 27-29 mpg.
The next Ranger I got was an 2001 variety, same 3.0 L but with an automatic and AC, 2wd just like the first and few toys. The mileage I got was comparable. While the 3.0 was no technical wonder, it did beat the 4.0 hands down on mileage. I knew of no one who got better than 20 mpg with the 4.0

paulv · « **Reply #13 on:** December 29, 2005, 09:21:08 pm »

Just got back from the dealer who stated that there computer read my truck was delivering 25 mpg well within the norm. Im very disapointed with Ford of canada take it or leave it attitude. :'(Ive graphed the millage from day 1 and never got over 16-17 mpg.I have not the time or resources to take this any further.To bad a loyal Ford owner since 88 WILL BE LOOKING AT A IMPORTFOR LEASE as soon as this one is expired! Thanks for all suggestions, paul

AVToller · « **Reply #14 on:** December 29, 2005, 09:53:19 pm »

I'm sorry to here about your dealer's and Ford Canada's attitude, but hardly surprised. The way I was treated the only time I bought a new F*** ensured that I will will never buy another unless I have extremely clear evidence that things have changed. Instead, I continually here stories like yours. A pity, really.

swishguy · « **Reply #15 on:** December 30, 2005, 09:57:32 am »

I owned a 95 Mazda B-3000 xtra cab with 5 speed 3.0 V-6; A/C & cruise; 2WD. Never ever broke 23 mpg hiway with that truck!

Craig · « **Reply #16 on:** December 30, 2005, 11:10:26 pm »

Welcome to the legions of ex-Ford families.

84im · « **Reply #17 on:** January 01, 2006, 02:21:59 pm »

I have a 2000 Ford Ranger 4x4 supercab (4 litre, with the 5 speed auto), and I know two other guys who drive Toyota Tacoma 4x4s (V6s). We all get crappy mileage. My fuel economy ranges from 17 to 22 mpg.

barrie1 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 01, 2006, 04:40:18 pm »

I'd be curious to know what the rear gear ratio is on these trucks as it will change the milage quite a bit if its not the one you need. Usually either a highway gear of a work gear.

paulv · « **Reply #19 on:** January 01, 2006, 08:55:33 pm »

The gear ratio in the trucks back end are 4:10s.Ford hooks this up with a 5 speed automatic which keeps the revs down on the highway.

Author Topic: 05 ford ranger gas milage (Read 4581 times)

sterling