40 + mpg out of a mid size truck?

[Frank Lee]

Who ever said you can't get that kind of mpg in a SMALLER truck?

[brucey]

I am sure its a killer on city fuel economy, but has anyone ever done a test to see the effect of weight at highway speed?

[Frank Lee]

Anecdotally, my F150 doesn't seem to care if there are heavy things in the box or not. Pulling the flatbed noticeably drops fe but aerodynamics and 4 more tires on the ground come into play there.

[dwtaylorpdx]

I had a 4x4 1992 F150 extended cab short bed with the MPI 300 straight six in it...

Truck got right at 17 city and 22 highway. (Empty, interstate driving on cruise)
But dropped off quick with a load of anything significant. (Say over 500 lbs.) right down to 17 Highway, but it never seemed to go below that. Engine ran at about 1400 in fifth at 55 mph cruise, it also dropped mileage quickly above 60. Had like 3.07 axle gears. Liked the truck but got rid of it because of quality issues.

Dave

[darcane]

Originally Posted by Christ

It had a 3.0 in it. I don't think Rangers ever got 3.8's.

Nope, Rangers didn't have a 3.8 stock... but his was a 2.8L not a 3.0L. The 3.0L didn't come until the early 90's.

I think the OP's hwy mileage goals are attainable without the extremes listed by Big Dave. I've previously had good luck with a second gen S10. In a completely stock, 1998 S10 (2.2L, 5spd, 2wd, long bed) I regularly got over 30mpg hwy by simply keeping speeds at about 60mph and going easy on the throttle.

If it were me, I'd start with basically the same truck (I'd have to go with an extended cab though, I'm too tall to fit comfortably in the regular cab which was part of why I sold it). 40mpg hwy is 43% above EPA rating, and I know there are people on here doing that well or better without extreme mods. I would:

• Lower it 3/4 inches
• add a tonneau cover
• add a flush fitting grill block
• add a partial (maybe full) belly pan
• add wheel covers
• change to higher gearing in the rear end
• maybe add LRR tires

Between that and improved driving techniques I'm sure you could do 40mpg hwy. 30mpg city I think would be harder to hit, but it's not outrageous.

The S10 is a great little truck to start with because it has a relatively aerodynamic shape and both stock and aftermarket parts are plentiful.

Mike

[CoastRider]

fwiw
85 Ranger would be carbed 2.8 v6
86-92 2.9 v6,
93+ 3.0 v6

[Christ]

I dunno much about Rangers, but I know that the ones equipped with a 3.0 are swappable with the engine from a FWD Taurus/Sable, which also makes them swappable with a FWD Escort, Topaz, Tempo, Lynx, Zephyr, and whatever else came with a 1.6/1.9/2.3/3.0/3.2 block.

Of course, anything except the 3.0 and 3.2 require harness/ECU mods.

I'd love to see a Ranger w/ a Turbo 1.6MHO.

RE: The 1998 S10 - My father reports 27-28MPG average on country roads back and forth to work, 65 highest speed. He drives "normal", as well, not short shifting, using his brakes and such like a "good driver". He's coming around to the idea of planning ahead enough to limit brake use, though.

[99metro]

Find yourself a 1984 or earlier 2.0L 4 speed S-10 and you can get at least 33 mpg without trying (set the distributor to just before ping). You should be able to get at least 30% over that by hypermiling (over 40 mpg).

[Christ]

Can we have a definition of the OP's idea of a "mid-size" truck?

Cuz frankly, I consider Dakota's, post-'04 Tacomas, T100's midsize... Early Rangers, all S10's, Early Tacomas, nah... they're all mini's.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by Christ

Can we have a definition of the OP's idea of a "mid-size" truck?

Cuz frankly, I consider Dakota's, post-'04 Tacomas, T100's midsize... Early Rangers, all S10's, Early Tacomas, nah... they're all mini's.

I agree, but, technically he stated:

Originally Posted by phonebootheater

I'm looking to get a small or preferably mid sized truck...

Starting with a mid-size truck is a more daunting task so I stuck with an S10.

Mike