How to get the best mpg out of a 99 4 speed auto v6 Ford Ranger

[Whitetail Ranger]

My Rangers a 99 But i suppose there not too much difference there..same body styles and such. I got to see what will happen after things settle down. Vacation will be here soon and ill be busy. Need to accumulate extra money for that.

[ecomodded]

eBay has some cheap obd2 cable interfaces that plug into the cars ecu , threw the obd2 port and into the computer threw usb. There are many free programs and you should be able to find a fully featured free program, most of the free ones are crippled but not all.

I have the interface cable and the free edition of Vagcom on my laptop and another cd full of tuner files that work with most obd2 vehicles.

[Whitetail Ranger]

okies.

[ecomodded]

You can also do a complete re-tune of your truck with a full featured obd2 program.

Economy tune , sport tune transmission tune, you can turn off the seat belt warning buzzer with it, turn off daytime running lights the list literally goes on and on - and on.
VW/ Audi's use Vag-Com which cost $250 and is Completely full featured.

[Whitetail Ranger]

Yus i see..So thinking solely on transmission shift points ive seen many many forums on a topic of acceleration that makes the proposition of either shift at lower rpms with more throttle or shift at higher rpms with less throttle. Sometimes the pumping losses and BSFC and thermal dynamic efficiency debate doesn't make sense to me since we really cant be comparing gas engines with diesels since they operate in different ways. And i know my engine makes its peak torque at 3500 rpms and its an over square engine with the cam that's matched to it..Ya know this is a stock engine. Since the power is really made higher in the rpm then isn't it inefficient to try to accelerate at lower rpm with this motor? Its not made to loaf around town at low rpm levels when getting up to speed. Then ive heard others talk about accelerating at engines "peak torque" with lots of throttle and low rpm which doesn't make sense unless you have an engine that's more under square or mechanically tuned that way by camshaft configurations and stuff..I know this is mostly talked about for manuals transmissions but i think it can be brought up for autos too. I brought it up cause with my engine being the way it is then isn't the transmission shift points from the factory already correct for both fuel economy and power? seems like shifting lower than 3000 rpm or even lower than 2500 rpm wont do the job i want for lowering fuel consumption.

[Whitetail Ranger]

Its a bit clouded on my results on my truck for fuel economy too..Ive accelerated and had it shift at 2500 rpms before and ive had it shift at 3000 rpms before and both at certain times have got me good fuel economy and they have also gotten me bad fuel economy. But i do know at 3000 rpm i use less throttle as opposed to 2500 with more throttle. The torque converter really makes it hard to tell how well i'm managing the power from the engine to the drive line efficiently. So from day to day i constantly find myself always re correcting my rpm shift point habits as well as throttle habits and sometime each of these tactics work for better mpg and then sometimes they wont.

Here are the tactics i used:

shift point: 2500 rpm using small amount of throttle

shift point: 2500 rpm using a lot of throttle

shift point 3000 rpm using small amount of throttle

shift point 3000 rpm using a lot of throttle

And in the mist of this i also try to determine with its just more efficient to accelerate briskly up to speed or as slow as possible. I'm sorry if you heard these debates before but id thought that my situation might have some differences to it than most.

[ecomodded]

From what I have read and gleamed it should best to accelerate somewhat quickly , using more engine load / throttle.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````
My thought on it is you don't have to press the throttle near the floor , instead press it far enough that the truck will use the gas to accelerates with, don't over press it , for little to no result.
keeping the gas flow in sync with the 'pick 'up' of the motor.

Also you are going to want to hit a rpm that induces your gear change, so if you change gears at 2300rpm you'll want make that your goal, and not race on past it.

*Get road tires on rims*, and swap to off road tires when your going off road

Changing to road tires should save at least 5 MPG and would extend their life for years and years. I have to suggest the tire change as it will save you a fair amount of gas..

[ecomodded]

Originally Posted by Whitetail Ranger

Yus i see..So thinking solely on transmission shift points ive seen many many forums on a topic of acceleration that makes the proposition of either shift at lower rpms with more throttle or shift at higher rpms with less throttle. Sometimes the pumping losses and BSFC and thermal dynamic efficiency debate doesn't make sense to me since we really cant be comparing gas engines with diesels since they operate in different ways. And i know my engine makes its peak torque at 3500 rpms and its an over square engine with the cam that's matched to it..Ya know this is a stock engine. Since the power is really made higher in the rpm then isn't it inefficient to try to accelerate at lower rpm with this motor? Its not made to loaf around town at low rpm levels when getting up to speed. Then ive heard others talk about accelerating at engines "peak torque" with lots of throttle and low rpm which doesn't make sense unless you have an engine that's more under square or mechanically tuned that way by camshaft configurations and stuff..I know this is mostly talked about for manuals transmissions but i think it can be brought up for autos too. I brought it up cause with my engine being the way it is then isn't the transmission shift points from the factory already correct for both fuel economy and power? seems like shifting lower than 3000 rpm or even lower than 2500 rpm wont do the job i want for lowering fuel consumption.

You may make peak torque at 3500 but that is going to consume more gas then 2500 rpm .

I found that Ford did not tune the motor or transmission for economy or much performance. I'm embarrassed to say what mileage i got as it was only 21 mpg driving with abandonment,as I did in that truck with max sidewall psi ..
I had a Geo metro convertible just before that truck ,I was throttle happy with the Ranger doing rapid starts and 120kmh on the hwy , looking back.. That did not give me a great mpg figure , food for thought.
The Vulcan motor is a thirsty low hp motor, durable for sure but not a most eco friendly motor.

[Whitetail Ranger]

I agree on the tire change and i will keep on trying to shift the truck at 2500 rpms then for fuel economy. But my tires being taller must really be helping me. lol Since ive gotten more than 21 mpg on multiple occasions but id like to make it easier..I will look into getting a tuner for my truck but that will be near the end of summer. I would like to use some of my money for vacation stuff. : 3

[ecomodded]

Vacation's are the best , car parts are much less relaxing..

I never had a tuner , laptop or inline with the ranger , I have just read all about it..and kept driving getting poor gas mileage. Then I sold it & got rid of my lift kit 4x4 Cherokee and picked up my dream economy car with half the profits , a vw TDI , although be it in the form of a New Beetle.. a Odd looking car even by my standards..



The below link is from 'nathon01xl' ranger build thread

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...log-26317.html