3.0L Ranger fuel mileage questions

I'm working on coming to terms that my little Geo Tracker isn't going to live forever, even though I love it's ~27mpg and tiny size for doing some things it's starting to show it's age... I need a reliable daily driver, so I got to thinking...

What do you guys with a '96-97 3.0L 4x4 extended cab manual transmission Ranger get for gas mileage? I googled it and it said 17-20, 1 mpg more than the 4.0L version. I used to get ~19mpg in the '91 explorer I had...

If it's around 20 for mixed driving up to ~60mph I imagine I could live with it. I would go with a 2.3L but they don't come in extended cab 4x4...

Next question, any better mileage with the '98+ front suspension? Or is it worse?

Honestly I could probably buy the Ranger then sell the Tracker and come out money ahead...

17-21 mpg on the 3.0 is spot-on for my truck. Lots of cold weather driving but nothing over 65 mph, usually around 55.

I have a 98 got 22 hwy and 16 in the city before I put 33 with a 5 inch lift.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

2000 ex cab 4x4, 3.0 AUTO, 3.73, 235-75-15 tires. been in the family since new.
dependable, yes.
powerful, hell no. it does not like speeds over 65. takes too much throttle, downshifts on hills to maintain speed, strong headwinds are a pain.
fuel mileage was always 10-11 around town, it struggles to hit 16 mpg on the freeways.

I think it would be better with a manual transmission.

Extended cab Ranger 4x4 will weight in at 3,200lbs minimum, closer to 3,500 with driver, fluids and "stuff"

Tracker weights about 2,400lbs soaking wet.

That's your MPG, weight

V6 Ranger is lucky to get 20MPG on the highway, people do, but it certainly is the exception not the rule

4cyl Rangers can get over 20MPG normally, but no 4x4 and often regular cab for less weight and better MPG.

I would get the 4.0l V6 if you decide on a V6, MPG is very close to 3.0l but much more torque/power.

If you want MPG then you need to lose the weight, nothing magical about it, all gasoline is created equal, lol.

^second that. I've been averaging 22.5 with my 5speed 4.0ohv. it is 2wd, but I also roll with 250lbs of unneeded weight at 75mph+. Plenty of get up and go and she does great in the snow.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

My '98 r/c splash 3.0 4x2 M5OD 3.73s 245/45r17s will threaten 30 mpg* on highway; and that's driving 110-120 km/h.

*Now as Chewy012 learned in AlwaysFlOoReD's thread, that's Imperial gallons which have 160 oz each, and are 120.095% of US gallon; so about 24¾ mpg for those in US.

Overall average for that truck is 21.5 mpg US, for over 100k miles. While this truck hauls my mtn bike back and forth to hills and occasional bag of fertilizer, it is really personal transportation.

My '98 s/c long box 4.0 4x4 5R55e 4.10s 31x10.5R15s averages 15¼ mpg US over 20k miles. Note: Adding the Superlift/changing out the 235/75R15s cost over 2 mpg. Slowing down to 90-100 km/h gained back ¾ mpg US, even while towing an unloaded U-haul dolly (750 lbs).

Note: The 4x4 is more likely to be used as truck and more often in winter, so comparison isn't exactly apples to apples. Over 2k of those miles are at GVWR and/or GCWR. Driving in city with current -22 °C temperatures, it doesn't help average, either.

Additional data point, I got 17 mpg US in my '01 Explorer Sport, but I had it for less than a year, so data is skewed (There is a tank at only 12½ mpg US, where we went home for Xmas, pushed differential deep snow for 5+ miles, towed niece's Ranger out of ditch in getting to in-laws.) Average would be closer to 19 mpg with a summer included (Niece has Explorer now, sister-in-law wasn't too happy about kid being stuck in middle of no where.) 225/70R16s under Explorer did nothing to help its fuel economy.

Comment: Chewy012's '92 is 3" narrower than my '98; and his tires are narrower (205s) which helps him get better mileage than I do.

Hope that helps you.

I agree, 2400lb versus 3500ish is the reason for the big mileage difference, well aware of that, that Tracker is tiny and there's not a lot out there for cheap that will do what it will, I thought about a Wrangler but they're worth 5k for a good one and only get 17mpg tops even with a 4 cylinder apparently. Then I got to thinking about what I'm familiar with and a super cab ranger came up, and the 3.0L is supposed to be dead reliable and got curious about the real world fuel mileage. Plus I did some craigslist searching and there's '96-97 (I want OBD II) 4x4 extended cab Rangers in the $1500 price range where my Tracker will go for around $2000-2500 for some stupid reason doing the same searching...

I have the F350 for towing, my current Ranger for offroading, and just need something to get me to work and back and the occasional logging road and such for hunting like I do with the Tracker so whatever I get will be fairly mild for build.

I'm going to keep my options open when I do start to search, won't rule out the 4.0L as I know that engine fairly well from my Explorer days, wasn't bad to work on. If anyone has any other ideas on something that would fit what I'm looking for, I'm open to options, I would prefer to be closer to 25mpg but that's hard to do with 4x4. I know the Subaru Impreza's can get around 25ish mpg, but I need more ground clearance than that and I doubt it would do that lifted (I've seen them, I know it's possible...)

Check out Ford Escapes(Mazda Tributes), they have about an inch more ground clearance(8.5") than the trackers(7.5")
They came in FWD and 4WD, and put up mid to high 20's MPG with 4cyl
I think they started selling them in north america in 2000 or 2001
They are heavier, 3,000+LBS, but still put up some good stable MPG numbers

scotts90ranger said:

I have the F350 for towing, my current Ranger for offroading, and just need something to get me to work and back and the occasional logging road and such for hunting like I do with the Tracker so whatever I get will be fairly mild for build.

Click to expand...

For just going to work and back there are hundreds of better options than extended cab, 4X4 Rangers with the 3.0. You have other vehicles for when you need to go offroad or do truck stuff. Get something that will be cheap and get the best fuel economy possible. If you're dead set on an RBV for the job, then get a Duratec/5 spd truck. They'll get high 20s- low 30s mpg, and should handle hunting/logging road duties as well as the Tracker has.

Just to add another data point, my 2000 3.0 regular cab 2wd truck averaged about 18mpg when it was mostly stock. Less with E85 in the tank. And that's in a truck that would be lighter, with less driveline loss, and more aerodynamic (lowered) than what you're considering.

Yeah, I'm rethinking the whole thing... my current problems are too expensive to do anything in the immediate future... and I'm with Ron on the Escape as I had thought about that...

I have thinking to do, and a lot of expensive things to fix . I'll do some thinking on other options on just a car but not sure what I want to do, I think the Tracker should be pretty reliable for a couple years after I get a couple things ironed out.

I appreciate the input

Before I put a camper shell on my 1995 (same thing as 1996-1997), I was getting 21-22 on the highway in the summer. That was RWD with a standard cab and an extended bed though. After the shell, I'm getting around 19-21 in the summer on the highway. In the winter, I'm lucky to get 18. Also, cross/head winds hurt a lot too (as I found out last Thanksgiving driving to KS and back).

I get better mileage now with 4:56 gears and 35's than I did stock. Stock was around 16-17mpg, now I average very close to 20 mpg

2006 3.0 2WD auto, standard cab with long box. <65 MPH highway with an empty bed the best I ever did was 21 MPG. Mileage difference between 3.0 and 4.0L is quite thin.

I'm regularly getting 20-23mpg on my 99 ranger 3.0. I use regular fuel, since I don't have a convenient place for the e85 crap