Truck that gets good MPG and is auto?

[zixxer]

I have a 98 ranger with the 2.5l lima motor and a 5 speed. It'll last forever, but I get HORRIBLE gas milage - think 17-18mpg..
Text

In the past I've had nicer/newer cars - and I've found I really enjoy this little beater-truck.. I don't care about where I park, who hits me, or whether it's waxed/in the garage. I have plenty of other toys:

Text

to satisfy any speed needs.

I have about an hour and a half commute (both ways) every day. Driving the manual sucks since a lot of it is stop and go.



Is there a truck that is auto but has decent power and mpg? I will never need to pull anything larger than a small trailer or haul anything heavier than ~900lbs (two sportbikes).

Any opinions on the ranger 3.0/4.0 with an auto? How about the newer 2.5l DOHC with an auto? Is there any news of a small truck w/ diesel?


...or maybe I should sell those stupid wheels and find stock wheels - still... epa mpg on this truck is only like 18mpg iirc.

 

[HannibalX]

I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

Maybe downhill with a tailwind it'll pull 30. They stickered at 25MPG on the highway. I've always been able to eak out a few extra MPG, but not 5 more.

For what the OP wants, the best thing is just to keep the truck (if you really need one) and find and old civic or corolla that will pull mid to high 30's on the highway. That way you really are doubling your milage. Going from 18 to 25 really isn't much.

Doubling your milage is actually starting to get you somewhere.

 

[thedarkwolf]

You already have it about as good as it gets and getting an automatic will only make things worse. They all suck in city/stop and go. Unless you can find one of those old VW rabbit truck things with a diesel you might as well keep what you have. I really doubt Pale Rider's buddy's truck got 30mpg even highway. None of them are rated much over the mid 20s and my little stripper nissan 4 banger 5 speed never got more then 25mpg and usually got around 21/22 mixed driving.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

Maybe downhill with a tailwind it'll pull 30. They stickered at 25MPG on the highway. I've always been able to eak out a few extra MPG, but not 5 more.

For what the OP wants, the best thing is just to keep the truck (if you really need one) and find and old civic or corolla that will pull mid to high 30's on the highway. That way you really are doubling your milage. Going from 18 to 25 really isn't much.

Doubling your milage is actually starting to get you somewhere.

His is a 5spd, I have no reason to not believe him.

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

Maybe downhill with a tailwind it'll pull 30. They stickered at 25MPG on the highway. I've always been able to eak out a few extra MPG, but not 5 more.

For what the OP wants, the best thing is just to keep the truck (if you really need one) and find and old civic or corolla that will pull mid to high 30's on the highway. That way you really are doubling your milage. Going from 18 to 25 really isn't much.

Doubling your milage is actually starting to get you somewhere.

His is a 5spd, I have no reason to not believe him.

I can tell you for sure that no one with a mid 90's model ranger is getting 30mpg.. his calculations are off. He has the 2.3l lima - which are known for lasting forever and getting horrible mpg..

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

Maybe downhill with a tailwind it'll pull 30. They stickered at 25MPG on the highway. I've always been able to eak out a few extra MPG, but not 5 more.

For what the OP wants, the best thing is just to keep the truck (if you really need one) and find and old civic or corolla that will pull mid to high 30's on the highway. That way you really are doubling your milage. Going from 18 to 25 really isn't much.

Doubling your milage is actually starting to get you somewhere.

His is a 5spd, I have no reason to not believe him.

There are a number of laws you can break and get away with. Physics are not one of them. I've owned two different Rangers (an '85 4 cylinder 5 speed and a '92 4cyl Auto) and neither of them came anywhere remotely close to 30MPG. No where close to 25MPG. There is only so much efficiency you can get out of an anemic 4 cylinder pushing a 3000 pound brick.

For the OP:

An Indian company called Mahindra is scheduled to bring a diesel compact truck to the States sometime next year.

It's been in Australia for a while. Here's a link:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/30...-arrived-in-australia/

 

[zixxer]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

1995 5sp 4cyl - 20 city, 26 hwy, 22 combined.
1998 5sp 4cyl - 19 city, 24 hwy, 21 combined.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: zixxer
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

1995 5sp 4cyl - 20 city, 26 hwy, 22 combined.
1998 5sp 4cyl - 19 city, 24 hwy, 21 combined.

Those are the "revised" numbers.

The original numbers for the 4-cylinder/5-speed 1995 Ranger 2WD are 23/28. I have never in my life owned a car that did worse than the old-style EPA ratings. I had an old Accord that was rated at 23/29 using the old system and the worst I ever got was 26 mpg. Running free on the highway at a steady 65 the car measured 34 mpg on numerous occasions.

30mpg is definitely achievable with a '95 2WD Ranger. Add a cap or a hard tonneau cover to the bed and live in the midwest where it's all flat and most of the driving is on secondary roads at 55 mph and you're there. Unless you're running through mountains or hauling something in the bed all the time, there's something wrong with either the truck or your driving style if you're only averaging 18 mpg. Hell, I averaged 21 mpg with an Explorer with the 302 V8 loaded down with 3 people and camping gear and driving through the White Mountains.

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

Your buddy clearly doesn't know how to calculate fuel mileage.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

Your buddy clearly doesn't know how to calculate fuel mileage.

I doubt it.

It's commuter truck, he hauls nothing, regular cab, 5 speed truck. He says he gets 30 mpg I believe him. He has a highway commute. I believe the truck has 2:73 gears which are GREAT for MPG - most of the people calling BS probably didn't even know gears had anything to do with MPG.

Again, I have no reason to not believe him, and a bunch of guys on an internet forum aren't go to convince me. I understand everyone becomes a know it all when they are behind a keyboard. If you find it on Google - it MUST be true. /sarcasm

BTW, EPA ratings are a joke. I was never supposed to get 34 mpg in my 1996 Caravan 2.4 I4 but somehow I did for many, many years.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: zixxer
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

1995 5sp 4cyl - 20 city, 26 hwy, 22 combined.
1998 5sp 4cyl - 19 city, 24 hwy, 21 combined.

Those are the "revised" numbers.

The original numbers for the 4-cylinder/5-speed 1995 Ranger 2WD are 23/28. I have never in my life owned a car that did worse than the old-style EPA ratings. I had an old Accord that was rated at 23/29 using the old system and the worst I ever got was 26 mpg. Running free on the highway at a steady 65 the car measured 34 mpg on numerous occasions.

30mpg is definitely achievable with a '95 2WD Ranger. Add a cap or a hard tonneau cover to the bed and live in the midwest where it's all flat and most of the driving is on secondary roads at 55 mph and you're there. Unless you're running through mountains or hauling something in the bed all the time, there's something wrong with either the truck or your driving style if you're only averaging 18 mpg. Hell, I averaged 21 mpg with an Explorer with the 302 V8 loaded down with 3 people and camping gear and driving through the White Mountains.

ZV

My 2002, 4.0, 4x4 Explorer has seen 21 mpg highway also.

Good luck convincing these guys - they have Google! So they must be right, and we must be wrong.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

Your buddy clearly doesn't know how to calculate fuel mileage.

I doubt it.

It's commuter truck, he hauls nothing, regular cab, 5 speed truck. He says he gets 30 mpg I believe him. He has a highway commute. I believe the truck has 2:73 gears which are GREAT for MPG - most of the people calling BS probably didn't even know gears had anything to do with MPG.

Again, I have no reason to not believe him, and a bunch of guys on an internet forum aren't go to convince me. I understand everyone becomes a know it all when they are behind a keyboard. If you find it on Google - it MUST be true. /sarcasm

BTW, EPA ratings are a joke. I was never supposed to get 34 mpg in my 1996 Caravan 2.4 I4 but somehow I did for many, many years.

Um, the OP has one and says he gets 17-18mpg. I've driven the Ford Exploder (old one based on the Ranger chassis) and it never got more than 16mpg city...of course it had a V6 engine though.

I used to work with a guy who owns a Mazda B2000 with a 4-cylinder engine and 5 spd manual (this truck is really a Ford Ranger). He gets about 17-18mpg mostly around town driving. Never hauls anything with it either...he works for a printing company and sits behind a computer all day.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

Your buddy clearly doesn't know how to calculate fuel mileage.

I doubt it.

It's commuter truck, he hauls nothing, regular cab, 5 speed truck. He says he gets 30 mpg I believe him. He has a highway commute. I believe the truck has 2:73 gears which are GREAT for MPG - most of the people calling BS probably didn't even know gears had anything to do with MPG.

Again, I have no reason to not believe him, and a bunch of guys on an internet forum aren't go to convince me. I understand everyone becomes a know it all when they are behind a keyboard. If you find it on Google - it MUST be true. /sarcasm

BTW, EPA ratings are a joke. I was never supposed to get 34 mpg in my 1996 Caravan 2.4 I4 but somehow I did for many, many years.

Um, the OP has one and says he gets 17-18mpg. I've driven the Ford Exploder (old one based on the Ranger chassis) and it never got more than 16mpg city...of course it had a V6 engine though.

I used to work with a guy who owns a Mazda B2000 with a 4-cylinder engine and 5 spd manual (this truck is really a Ford Ranger). He gets about 17-18mpg mostly around town driving. Never hauls anything with it either...he works for a printing company and sits behind a computer all day.

Well, my Explorer has a V6 engine also (4.0). So the OPs personal experience counts but mine doesn't. Hmmm..

There are so many factors when it comes to MPG. For all I know the OP needs to take his foot out of the floor and maybe his numbers will improve. My buddy's truck is obviously able to hit 30 mpg with his driving.

 

[HannibalX]

Oh but I see you are President of the Anti-SUV brigade, so all your opinions will be biased anyway. :beer:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Oh but I see you are President of the Anti-SUV brigade, so all your opinions will be biased anyway. :beer:

Thanks for the ASSumption. I guess yours is the only opinion that matters right? :|

 

[DougK62]

Anything older will get crap gas mileage. I haven't looked for a truck recently, but I would bet that you'll get the best gas mileage with an auto by going with a stripped-down Chevy Silverado.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: DougK62
Anything older will get crap gas mileage. I haven't looked for a truck recently, but I would bet that you'll get the best gas mileage with an auto by going with a stripped-down Chevy Silverado.

At best you are looking at ~22MPG on the highway. You are actually better off with the 4.8L V8 over the 4.3L V6. Same economy, much better power when you need it.

Again, no real significant increase over what he has.

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I was reading the thread title thinking 4-banger Ranger, my buddy has a mid-90s example that easily gets 30 mpg - but then I read you have a 4-banger Ranger already. Hmmm. Something must be borked.

Your buddy clearly doesn't know how to calculate fuel mileage.

I doubt it.

It's commuter truck, he hauls nothing, regular cab, 5 speed truck. He says he gets 30 mpg I believe him. He has a highway commute. I believe the truck has 2:73 gears which are GREAT for MPG - most of the people calling BS probably didn't even know gears had anything to do with MPG.

Again, I have no reason to not believe him, and a bunch of guys on an internet forum aren't go to convince me. I understand everyone becomes a know it all when they are behind a keyboard. If you find it on Google - it MUST be true. /sarcasm

BTW, EPA ratings are a joke. I was never supposed to get 34 mpg in my 1996 Caravan 2.4 I4 but somehow I did for many, many years.

I don't think you understand - I have the same truck.. and fyi - he doesn't have 2.73. You may mean 3.73 - in which case I'd still have you beat as my truck has 3.45's... which is as 'fuel efficient' as you're gonna get with a ranger (other than the electric ones...)


I've calculated with a GPS on a highway trip going a solid 70 mph and got 20 mpg. I find it impossible to believe that your 'friend' got 30mpg unless he was drafting a semi or something.

My truck has a clean EGR, fuel filter, air filter, plugs (all 8.. stupid emissions crap) changed bi-yearly (12k miles or so..).. no problems whatsoever and maintained to a T.

 

[zixxer]

I s'pose the consensus is to just deal with driving a 5 speed in traffic.. bleh.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: zixxer
I s'pose the consensus is to just deal with driving a 5 speed in traffic.. bleh.

Why not keep the truck and buy a small sedan for commuting?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: zixxer
I've calculated with a GPS on a highway trip going a solid 70 mph and got 20 mpg. I find it impossible to believe that your 'friend' got 30mpg unless he was drafting a semi or something.

And we find it impossible to believe that an un-loaded 2WD Ranger with a manual transmission and a 4-cylinder engine gets 20 mpg on the freeway when an AWD Explorer loaded down with three people and a week's worth of camping supplies a 5.0 litre V8 and an automatic transmission managed 22 mpg at the same speed (and averaged 21 over that entire trip).

As I said, I have never, not once in my life, driven a car and had it fail to meet or exceed the older EPA estimates. The idea that your Ranger is somehow getting 7-8 mpg worse mileage than the original EPA estimates and is still in tip-top shape is something that goes against every single experience that I've had with a car.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I've driven the Ford Exploder (old one based on the Ranger chassis) and it never got more than 16mpg city...of course it had a V6 engine though.

The original Explorer (started in 1991 and used the pushrod "Cologne" V6) did get worse mileage. My family's had 3 Explorers. 1 first-gen and 2 2nd-gen. The 1st generation with the pushrod V6 was nowhere near as good as the later models with the SOHC V6 or the 302 V8.

Also, the Mazda B2000 is not the same as a Ranger. The B2000 ended production in 1987, replaced by the B2200. The first year that the US B-Series Mazda trucks were cloned from the Ranger was 1994. The engine in the B2000 has a carburetor for pete's sake.

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I've driven the Ford Exploder (old one based on the Ranger chassis) and it never got more than 16mpg city...of course it had a V6 engine though.

The original Explorer (started in 1991 and used the pushrod "Cologne" V6) did get worse mileage. My family's had 3 Explorers. 1 first-gen and 2 2nd-gen. The 1st generation with the pushrod V6 was nowhere near as good as the later models with the SOHC V6 or the 302 V8.

Also, the Mazda B2000 is not the same as a Ranger. The B2000 ended production in 1987, replaced by the B2200. The first year that the US B-Series Mazda trucks were cloned from the Ranger was 1994. The engine in the B2000 has a carburetor for pete's sake.

ZV

My mistake, it was a B2300 extended cab short bed model. And it most definitely IS the same as a Ford Ranger. He bought it slightly used in the late 90s. I think his was a 1997 model year or thereabouts. He still has it in fact. A couple guys here at work have Rangers and I know one of them is a 4 cylinder model. I'll ask them tomorrow what kind of mpg they get.

The Exploder my other friend had was a 1997 or a 1998 she bought new. It was 4x4 Eddie Bauer Edition and got horrible mileage. I'd be amazed if it ever broke 20mpg. Edit-I just checked Edmunds.com and they rate the fuel economy of that model at 15mpg/19mpg city/highway.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
My mistake, it was a B2300 extended cab short bed model. And it most definitely IS the same as a Ford Ranger. He bought it slightly used in the late 90s. I think his was a 1997 model year or thereabouts. He still has it in fact. A couple guys here at work have Rangers and I know one of them is a 4 cylinder model. I'll ask them tomorrow what kind of mpg they get.

The Exploder my other friend had was a 1997 or a 1998 she bought new. It was 4x4 Eddie Bauer Edition and got horrible mileage. I'd be amazed if it ever broke 20mpg. Edit-I just checked Edmunds.com and they rate the fuel economy of that model at 15mpg/19mpg city/highway.

Yes, the B2300 is indeed identical mechanically to the Ranger.

Yes, the EPA rated the V6 Explorers as 15/19; the EPA also rated my old Accord at 23/29, yet I routinely achieved 34 mpg while driving back and forth between Pittsburgh and Toledo at a constant 65 mph. The EPA also rates my 951 at 19/27 (or 17/24 with the revised numbers), yet I still get 28-29 mpg cruising at 70.

Granted, those are assuming no rush-hour traffic and were achieved back when I was living in the middle of nowhere, Ohio, but still, if the car is running free it should be able to achieve numbers that are better than EPA estimates.

Even here in Seattle now, I'm averaging 22 mpg doing 90% city driving with the current beater (Volvo). According to the EPA, I should be getting 18-19 mpg.

ZV