Build Thread: 1996 Ranger 2.3L 5spd 2WD

[zjrog]

I was going to say you should be able to pull much better mileage from that Ranger. Before I took my 90 Ranger off the road (due to safety issues originally), I was getting 28 MPG on my 100 mile roundtrip commute. And that included a mountain pass. My Ranger? 1990 4x4 regular cab regular bed, 2.3 liter dual plug head, 5 speed manual, 6" lift and 31" tires and factroy 4.10 gearing. AND, big baja type fiberglass front fenders.

With the work I've done to it in the last year, I doubt I'll get 28 MPG again. But it will be more offroad ready than a daily driver. I carpool to work these days. I can't delete the mudflaps, lifted rigs need them here in Utah for safety... Check your state laws about that rear valance, as most states require a bumper (even if they don't enforce it...).

I'm looking forward to see what you manage to get with your Ranger.

[beatr911]

My '96 Mazda B2300 is a Ranger with slightly different clothing. I've been pretty consistent at just shy of 30 mpg, averaging about 29.7 or so. Mods made are: Inflate tires to 40 psi, removed AC compressor and piping, removed fan and shroud, synthetic fluids except engine oil, 80% grille block, K and N filter swapped out for paper, heater hose zip tied to fuel rail for heating.

The mods probably account for 1 or 2 mpg.

Honestly the only thing that really seemed to make a big difference was using good driving technique. It was learned by using a scangauge and an air/fuel ratio monitor. Keeping out of open loop and practicing pulse and glide and coasting were the biggest factors.

There is alot left on the table and I still think cleaning up the underbelly will make an additional 1 or 2 mpg. I'd like to break 32mpg for an average.

[PaleMelanesian]

The nut between the wheel and chair is a MAJOR factor on that truck.

On a friend's matching ranger, I got 52 mpg on a 16 mile test circuit. This was with mainly low-speed pulse-and-glide. For higher speeds, you'll have to get all Phil Knox on the aerodynamics.

[XVTer]

Well, I haven't updated this in a while as the Ranger has been out of commission due to a blown brake line and me having no time to fix it. While it's been sitting, I picked up a set of new wheels/tires for only $150 (and some pizza pans) and found a matching LEER cap online for only $100. I haven't run an entire tank through it yet, but the weight of the cap may hurt more than the aerodynamics help, we'll see. I just mounted up the wheels/tires last night. The contact patch is about 1cm wider than my previous tires, but they're a harder compound than those winter tires were. I'm running them at 42psi.

I have put in a few pieces of ABS sheeting to try and seal up the underbelly as well. I'll try and get some pics of that sometime within the next week or so.

This week, I am going to make some sort of quick-disconnect for the cross-bars on the Cap. I don't need them every day, but it'd be nice to be able to put them on fairly quickly when I want them. I'll also be finding a way to mount the pizza pans so that they don't rotate while mounted.

Unfortunately, I have realized that I have a small gas leak from where the filler hose meets the gas tank as well as some rust issues in the rear of the truck. I will be tearing in to it again within the next month or so.

Here's where it sits now:

[Big Dave]

That Leer cap is probably worse than an open bed as far as MPG purposes.

[bhazard]

Wheels look worse for aero too, and too purdy to cover with pans.

Need to drop that thing.

[radioranger]

My 88 Ranger always sees a big improvement with a fresh O s sensor, pretty cheap now on ebay, synthetic differential and trans lube huge help I removed my right mirror and just look when i drive, i'd keep it in fourth till around 40 , no sense lugging it to death , they aint making them anymore, !! also 2.3 motors really eat spark plugs, course yours are pretty hard to swap but my 4 plug ranger eats plugs, aero c2p will help a lot ,good luck .

[orangustang]

That roof rack setup on the cap is really going to hurt your mileage. Otherwise, you would probably see a slight gain with the cap. A tonneau cover would be better for aero, though, with a custom aero cap being better still. My dad has always driven 3/4-ton trucks, and he's found that his current truck (2010 F-150, 4x4, loaded) gets no significant FE change from a full camper shell. He did, however, see an improvement on both his '03 F-150 (FX4 and well-appointed) and '94 Chevy 1500 (350 V8, auto, 2WD). I don't remember talking to him about how the mileage was on his '85 ranger before that.

My family has always calculated our mileage when we fill up, and we have noticed a marginal improvement in FE across the board with the above trucks (never had it on the Ranger) as well as a few Subarus, a Corvette, a Mustang, and a Maxima, with the K&N drop-in elements. Perhaps it doesn't show results in some easily-testable situations, but we've always seen 1-2 MPG improvement on a tank-to-tank basis.

[sid]

I agree with Orangustang with regards to the cap. My three pickups all got better fuel economy with the cap than with an open bed. But the carrying racks hurt the fuel economy on all three pickups.

This assumes the cap blends in with the truck cab reasonably well. If the cap is taller than the cab and rises vertically in front as opposed to sloped, like my second cap did before I added a tapered cowling to the front of it, it will hurt the fuel economy. Even if it blends in with the truck cab, if it is too much taller than the cab, it will hurt the fuel economy. It will also hurt the FE is it is excessively heavy. How tall and heavy before it hurts depends upon the truck and the cap.

This is my experience. I wouldn't doubt that others have different experiences, since there are a lot of variables here, including the nut behind the wheel.