Truck that gets good MPG and is auto?

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 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

My 2003 Maxima is rated at 20/26 and I rarely break 19mpg city. Best I've gotten on the freeway is maybe 24-25mpg if I baby it and don't go over 65mph. The computer is not accurate either. It says I get 20+ mpg city but I never get that. Hell, I drove out to Palm Springs for Thanksgiving and filled up today. Took 14 gallons and I drove 298.5 miles and most of that was freeway driving (of course I had a roof rack with a bicycle on it so actually, this isn't too bad). I also don't leave the roof rack on there when I'm not transporting the bike around.

My car is impeccably maintained and I'm the original owner (car had 7 miles on it when I test drove it). Mileage has been very consistent since day one over the almost 5 years I've owned the car.

My wife's Lexus is almost dead on the EPA estimates. Never higher.

 

[redgtxdi]

Sorry, just couldn't resist.............



For anybody thinking they beat EPA estimates by ANYTHING more than about 10%, you are smoking the crack pipe of crack pipes!!


I have owned several cars, driving over 20 years and have NEVER.................EVARRRRRRRRRRRRR.......... had one do better than 5% over EPA estimates & that's typically only highway. (My '98 2.2L I-4 Camry recently got 34mpg on a trip from SoCal to NorCal & I have no idea how it did it).

Typically my Camry's 21-22 in the city & 28-30 on the highway. (I think original EPA was 24/32).

My '98 Ford F150 Scab = 12/17 while EPA estimated 15/20.

My '95 Geo Prizm = 23/29 while EPA estimated 26/30

My '89 Mazda B2200 (yup, old-school, bought new) RELIGIOUSLY (and this is CARBURETED) got 18/24..........NOT the 21/26 old EPA estimate.

I don't have to wonder why the EPA finally changed its estimates after decades of lies............I have a couple decades' experience worth of vehicle ownership to prove it!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Sorry, just couldn't resist.............



For anybody thinking they beat EPA estimates by ANYTHING more than about 10%, you are smoking the crack pipe of crack pipes!!


I have owned several cars, driving over 20 years and have NEVER.................EVARRRRRRRRRRRRR.......... had one do better than 5% over EPA estimates & that's typically only highway. (My '98 2.2L I-4 Camry recently got 34mpg on a trip from SoCal to NorCal & I have no idea how it did it).

Typically my Camry's 21-22 in the city & 28-30 on the highway. (I think original EPA was 24/32).

My '98 Ford F150 Scab = 12/17 while EPA estimated 15/20.

My '95 Geo Prizm = 23/29 while EPA estimated 26/30

My '89 Mazda B2200 (yup, old-school, bought new) RELIGIOUSLY (and this is CARBURETED) got 18/24..........NOT the 21/26 old EPA estimate.

I don't have to wonder why the EPA finally changed its estimates after decades of lies............I have a couple decades' experience worth of vehicle ownership to prove it!

Agreed. A 2007 Ford Ranger with manual transmission and 4 banger gets 24 mpg / 29 mpg according to Edmunds.com. The automatic is rated at 21 mpg / 26 mpg. This is about the best you could ever hope to see out of any pickup truck with a gasoline powered engine.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I had a late 80's Ranger with I4 MT, it got high 20's on the highway.

I rarely drove it on road trips & the first time I was shocked at how good the MPG was.

A friend of mine was bragging about how he got 24 mpg in his new Toyota Tundra, I told him he needed to sell it back to Toyota cuz I'm sure they wanted their magic pickup back.

I felt sort of bad when I saw his face fall after that comment

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
There are a number of laws you can break and get away with. Physics are not one of them.

Physics states that every single car on the road is capable of much higher mileage, since engines are so inefficient. Getting high mileage on a pickup is NOT a violation of the rules of physics, and it's amazing to me that I even have to say that.

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Sorry, just couldn't resist.............

For anybody thinking they beat EPA estimates by ANYTHING more than about 10%, you are smoking the crack pipe of crack pipes!!

I don't have to wonder why the EPA finally changed its estimates after decades of lies............I have a couple decades' experience worth of vehicle ownership to prove it!

OK, so when I would post 35mpg (37mpg on one occasion) on my Celica (New EPA 23/29, old EPA 26/32) on lower-speed freeways, clearly I was using a LOT of gas stations with miscalibrated pumps.

Come to think of it, my MR2 (new EPA 23/29, old EPA 26/31) routinely gets 32 MPG on highway/freeway driving, even if I'm driving aggressively. I've even towed a jet ski and still averaged in the 30s. I remember being on a club run where I was redlining every gear, going between 30MPH-70MPH on backcountry roads, and still posted 32MPG average on that tank. City driving I get 25MPG. Several people with the auto version (which is much slower) report getting 40MPG occasionally.

I know why the EPA changed its estimates...Americans have no clue how to properly maintain and drive their vehicles!

FWIW, my procedure is as follows:
Fill tank. When tank gets near the top (but isn't completely full-the pump hasn't clicked off), set pump handle to very low flow rate to prevent any sloshing. Once pump clicks off, replace pump handle, reset trip odometer (which has been calibrated against mile markers and speedo check sections).
Next time fuel is low, fill up using same procedure. Note miles on trip odometer, reset. Note gallons on pump. Divide miles by gallons to get average MPG for that tank.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: jagec

FWIW, my procedure is as follows:
Fill tank. When tank gets near the top (but isn't completely full-the pump hasn't clicked off), set pump handle to very low flow rate to prevent any sloshing. Once pump clicks off, replace pump handle, reset trip odometer (which has been calibrated against mile markers and speedo check sections).
Next time fuel is low, fill up using same procedure. Note miles on trip odometer, reset. Note gallons on pump. Divide miles by gallons to get average MPG for that tank.

Here's a more simple, and just as accurate, procedure: Fill tank until pump shuts off. Reset trip meter and drive until you are low on gas and fill up again using same method. Divide miles driven by gallons of fuel added. Reset trip meter and repeat.

 

[Sluggo]

Damn, I get 18MPG from a 2WD (5.3 liter, auto) full sized extended cab pick-up. I would be pissed if I downgraded to a Ranger with a 4 banger 5 speed and couldnt do any better.

 

[redgtxdi]

Originally posted by: jagec


OK, so when I would post 35mpg (37mpg on one occasion) on my Celica (New EPA 23/29, old EPA 26/32) on lower-speed freeways, clearly I was using a LOT of gas stations with miscalibrated pumps.

Nope.....you were still within the 10% margin. (After 10% is death, so be careful)

Originally posted by: jagec
Come to think of it, my MR2 (new EPA 23/29, old EPA 26/31) routinely gets 32 MPG on highway/freeway driving, even if I'm driving aggressively. I've even towed a jet ski and still averaged in the 30s.

Again, still within magical limits, but pushing the Grim Reaper.....CAREFUL!!!

Originally posted by: jagec
I remember being on a club run where I was redlining every gear, going between 30MPH-70MPH on backcountry roads, and still posted 32MPG average on that tank. City driving I get 25MPG.

Yet again, within magical limits, but pressing your luck! (Note your 25mpg "underage" vs. old EPA)

Originally posted by: jagec
Several people with the auto version (which is much slower) report getting 40MPG occasionally.

These types of people inhabit every forum (automotive or otherwise) taking only temporary breaks to post such blue-whale sh!t, in between puffs on the business end of the magic dragon!!

Originally posted by: jagec
I know why the EPA changed its estimates...Americans have no clue how to properly maintain and drive their vehicles!

Agreed, but I put this to the test on my '95 Prizm 'cuz I was always curious. Sucker was border-line junkyard...........took every "pro-MPG" measure a human being could take in reviving this sucker from its lowly 22mpg street driving......(we're talkin' TB clean, O2 sensor, air filter, cap, rotor, plugs, wires, tires, etc.).........only to increase my net to a whopping 23mpg.

Originally posted by: jagec
FWIW, my procedure is as follows:
Fill tank. When tank gets near the top (but isn't completely full-the pump hasn't clicked off), set pump handle to very low flow rate to prevent any sloshing. Once pump clicks off, replace pump handle, reset trip odometer (which has been calibrated against mile markers and speedo check sections).
Next time fuel is low, fill up using same procedure. Note miles on trip odometer, reset. Note gallons on pump. Divide miles by gallons to get average MPG for that tank.

Very good! You're doing better than most!! (I omit the low-flow for more consistency)

Sometimes I'll see this practice posted on a forum where somebody swears they're getting 30mpg on their '04 Toyota 4-Runner and I just have to remind myself, that there is always SOMEONE,......... SOMEWHERE,........ SMOKING CRAAAACK........every minute of every day in this world.

:music:

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: jagec
I remember being on a club run where I was redlining every gear, going between 30MPH-70MPH on backcountry roads, and still posted 32MPG average on that tank. City driving I get 25MPG.

Yet again, within magical limits, but pressing your luck! (Note your 25mpg "underage" vs. old EPA)

What can I say, I drive too aggressively. My car doesn't mind the gas pedal once it's above 30mph or so, but low-speed high-throttle is a recipe for bad mileage.

I could use a tune up I suppose. Valves are starting to tick a little.

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Very good! You're doing better than most!! (I omit the low-flow for more consistency)

I add the low-flow for more consistency. With full-throttle pumping, any surge or splash will cause it to click off. With just a trickle coming in, the level of gas in the tank comes up exactly to the nozzle before it clicks off.

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

Originally posted by: jagec
Several people with the auto version (which is much slower) report getting 40MPG occasionally.

These types of people inhabit every forum (automotive or otherwise) taking only temporary breaks to post such blue-whale sh!t, in between puffs on the business end of the magic dragon!!

I dunno...what about the Honda Insight folks? EPA is like 48/59, lots of people are getting >70. I just don't think you can claim that NO ONE is able to beat the EPA ratings by more than 10%. Cars are all tuned differently, and some of them are "aimed" much less at the EPA tests, and as such can post surprising mileage under different conditions from the test.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Sluggo
Damn, I get 18MPG from a 2WD (5.3 liter, auto) full sized extended cab pick-up. I would be pissed if I downgraded to a Ranger with a 4 banger 5 speed and couldnt do any better.

I owned a Toyota Tundra extended cab pickup with a 4.7l V8 engine and never saw over 16mpg...ever. Typical city driving yielded 14-15mpg...which is one of the reasons why I don't own a pickup truck anymore. Maybe you do all your driving at 50mph on a flat rural country road with no traffic though.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Sluggo
Damn, I get 18MPG from a 2WD (5.3 liter, auto) full sized extended cab pick-up. I would be pissed if I downgraded to a Ranger with a 4 banger 5 speed and couldnt do any better.

I owned a Toyota Tundra extended cab pickup with a 4.7l V8 engine and never saw over 16mpg...ever. Typical city driving yielded 14-15mpg...which is one of the reasons why I don't own a pickup truck anymore. Maybe you do all your driving at 50mph on a flat rural country road with no traffic though.

You had a HEAVY pickup with a 4.7L V8,
Sluggo had a HEAVY pickup with a 5.3L and an auto,

And you guys are saying that the light, 4-cyl, 5-sp Ranger in the OP is "perfectly normal" at the sort of low mileage numbers he's getting? You don't think that a truck weighing half as much and with half the engine displacement can get better numbers?

 

[Sluggo]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Sluggo
Damn, I get 18MPG from a 2WD (5.3 liter, auto) full sized extended cab pick-up. I would be pissed if I downgraded to a Ranger with a 4 banger 5 speed and couldnt do any better.

I owned a Toyota Tundra extended cab pickup with a 4.7l V8 engine and never saw over 16mpg...ever. Typical city driving yielded 14-15mpg...which is one of the reasons why I don't own a pickup truck anymore. Maybe you do all your driving at 50mph on a flat rural country road with no traffic though.

The numbers I get aren't too far off from the EPA numbers listed here for my truck.

But I guess you're correct, out here in flyover country all us bumpkins just bounce along in our old pick-ups down rutty dirt trails at 25 MPH. We do have to brake for the errant cow in the trail, so we do have stop and go driving.

 

[Sluggo]

Originally posted by: jagec

You had a HEAVY pickup with a 4.7L V8,
Sluggo had a HEAVY pickup with a 5.3L and an auto,

And you guys are saying that the light, 4-cyl, 5-sp Ranger in the OP is "perfectly normal" at the sort of low mileage numbers he's getting? You don't think that a truck weighing half as much and with half the engine displacement can get better numbers?

Since when is 5800 lbs heavy??

We used to have a 84 Toyota 4cyl, 5spd beater shop truck, I wish I could remember what kind of mileage it got. I cant really say that the OP is getting killed on mileage, I had always thought that most small trucks would average about 20MPG.

Most guys I talk to never got really good mileage from smaller truck, or even with a V6 full sized trucks, thats why I always thought that downsizing to a Ranger or S-10 was hardly worth what you give up.

My sister bought a Tacoma 4x4 with a V6-auto, and she is really disappointed in the mileage, she averages about 16 or so.

 

[Epic22]

Try the older model Nissan trucks. Hardbodies are what they're called. Friend has one and doesn't complain about mileage

 

[LTC8K6]

The problem with the old EPA ratings was that they were very optimistic. People were not getting anywhere near the numbers and they were complaining.

CR tested over 300 vehicles and 90% didn't make the EPA numbers, some missed by 50%, in fact.

Now we have claims of handily beating those old numbers? When most people were lucky to just reach them?

Sorry, I just can't buy that. The EPA changed to better reflect reality.

One of my employees has a 98 ranger 5 speed 4 cylinder.

It gets horrible mileage, without a doubt. You can tune it up all you want, it doesn't make any noticeable difference.

His wife has a 98 explorer with the V6 auto, and it does considerably better than the ranger.

 

[desy]

A truck has awfull aerodynamics and gearing towards torque so they can tow.
Drive it slow and you can get some good numbers out of it.
EPA estimates are good in showing the relationship you can expect between a large truck or other types of vehicles.
If you want a truck or even worse a 4X4 like I used to say to my buddy, you have to pay to play

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: 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

My 2003 Maxima is rated at 20/26 and I rarely break 19mpg city. Best I've gotten on the freeway is maybe 24-25mpg if I baby it and don't go over 65mph. The computer is not accurate either. It says I get 20+ mpg city but I never get that. Hell, I drove out to Palm Springs for Thanksgiving and filled up today. Took 14 gallons and I drove 298.5 miles and most of that was freeway driving (of course I had a roof rack with a bicycle on it so actually, this isn't too bad). I also don't leave the roof rack on there when I'm not transporting the bike around.

My car is impeccably maintained and I'm the original owner (car had 7 miles on it when I test drove it). Mileage has been very consistent since day one over the almost 5 years I've owned the car.

My wife's Lexus is almost dead on the EPA estimates. Never higher.

Try washing the Maxima to improve aerodynamics, improve MPG.

 

[AMCRambler]

Toyota Tacoma pickups do alright I think. 4 cylinder 2.7 liters with the auto gets 19 city 22 highway. Stay away from four wheel drive as that will sap the gas mileage.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Okay, checking with two guys I work with who both own 4 cylinder Rangers, one gets around 20mpg mostly stop and go city driving and the other gets about 26mpg mostly freeway driving (he leaves early to beat traffic-his is a 2002 Ranger). Nowhere near 30mpg.

This is about the best you could ever hope to get out of any gasoline powered pickup truck.

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Okay, checking with two guys I work with who both own 4 cylinder Rangers, one gets around 20mpg mostly stop and go city driving and the other gets about 26mpg mostly freeway driving (he leaves early to beat traffic-his is a 2002 Ranger). Nowhere near 30mpg.

This is about the best you could ever hope to get out of any gasoline powered pickup truck.

Also keep in mind (I believe...) that the 02 ranger's have a newer DOHC motor..




...and I live in Atlanta... I can't go poop without sitting in 30-45min of traffic.

 

[natto fire]

You mentioned you did most of the tune up stuff, but are you still running your original oxygen sensor? If so. you might try changing that and you might get an extra couple MPG.

Also, not sure how the lights are situated in your stop and go driving, but if you use through streets that have the lights timed to maintain traffic flow you can usually coast a bit to hit the green without having to come to a complete stop. I used to do this, and it would piss people off, because they seemed obsessed to get to the red light as fast as possible only to slam on the brakes and sit, meanwhile, I would coast and then use my momentum to blow by them when it turned green, and saved some fuel to boot.
Obviously this method won't work in heavy traffic, but when it does, the fuel savings can be surprising. While I am pointing out the obvious, do you use the bikes to commute sometimes?

 

[MovingTarget]

Trucks normally won't be able to get the kind of mpg that cars get simply due to their shape/size/gearing. Trucks are meant for hauling, which requires lower ratio gears and a nice big open place to place cargo. Not good for better MPG. If you are looking for good mpg in a truck, I have one word: diesel. In a small truck they are hard to find still, but they have been producing them since the 80's at least. A lot of old S-10s and Isuzus had a 2.2 diesel, which was rated at 36mpg hwy (old system though). Maybe they will be proding more diesels in the light truck category soon. It is a good open niche that needs to be filled in the truck market imho.