My Goal...#1 car in USA, fine print to follow

[chuckm]

Dude, update your fuel log! I thought I had a chance to pass you after I put on the rear wheel skirts and took care of my rear bumper parachute.

[swoody]

Well that fuel log is up to date. I haven't driven the car in about a year now.
I should have been keeping track of my walking/biking mileage, too

Hmm... and maybe a little friendly competition now, eh? Maybe time to bring out some more duct tape

[chuckm]

I'm all for some friendly competition.

I'll see your duct tape and raise you some coroplast and sheet metal.

[landscaper52]

I like the idea...I tried to do the same thing...I have a 1996 Ford Ranger...terrible mpgs (around 20 they say, on the highway...debateable!)

Anyway, added all sorts of eco mods...big air dam, wheel covers, dropped the weight a bit, hypermiled the best I could, added a bed cover...you know what I got maybe 1 or 2 mpg's better...it might just have been that I changed my driving style...Plus now, there was no possible way I could trade in my heavily modded vehicle for a new car, or sell it to a normal person.

So I removed all that crap, and now try to never take the vehicle over 50 mph. Result: almost the same mileage.

End result: if you want better mpg's get a vehicle that gets better mpg's to start with. Trucks are a bad place to start. It's almost pointless with a truck. If you want to get good mpg's you need to be light weight, conversely if you want to haul stuff (truck) you aren't going to be light weight.

I just settled for using other transport as much as possible: motorcycle, bicycle, walking, bus even from time to time. When I get another car, it will be an economical a to b commuter, and I'll just use the truck for hauling when I need to haul...

Good luck with your mpg's !

[Clev]

Originally Posted by landscaper52

I like the idea...I tried to do the same thing...I have a 1996 Ford Ranger...terrible mpgs (around 20 they say, on the highway...debateable!)

I'll debate it. Mine's a 4WD 4 liter Super with 32" Mud-terrains, bad bearings and my commute includes a nightly climb to 4,675 feet. Even when my auto wouldn't shift into 4th for a couple of tanks and had to be rebuilt, my (admittedly only 4 tank) average was 18 mpg. In winter. I think 20 is quite doable with mine (I don't commute with it, so it doesn't get logs unless another car is broken down), and 22 if I actually modded it.

[landscaper52]

That sounds great... If you had something to back it up with like real data from a scan gauge it would be even better. I'm amazed...Esp since the new EPA mpg figures list our 4.0 liter rangers as having even worse mpg's than before (average of city and hwy driving now comes in at a pathetic 16 mpg). If you're getting 18mpg up big hills with big tires that's great!

I think this is one of the key problems with the eco debates...People (myself included) want to believe that our mpg's are better than they actually are.

When I took long term readings over the course of 30, 40, 50 tanks of fuel, and a well tuned engine, and low speed driving, I still found that the 4. liter Ford ranger got no better than the EPA said it did. I wish it was different. I wish some mods made by a homeowner could counteract the team of designers, and engineers that designed this truck, but I can't.

So, 18, 20 or 22 still sucks. So we'd both be better off with smaller cars!

[Clev]

Unfortunately I don't have any instrumentation in that vehicle since it only sees duty when I need to haul stuff or get out in the snow. Four tanks isn't a very long record, but all four were in the winter, and two were with fourth gear out.

BTW, something else you might consider if you have the auto: my truck couldn't beat 16 mpg until the transmission was rebuilt. Until the rebuild, it would shift late (revving up and then slamming into gear), go in and out of overdrive and, I assume, never lock up the TC. After the rebuild and until I lost fourth, I was getting 18-19 mpg. Also, my truck is geared 4.5% taller due to the larger tires; perhaps that makes up for their horrible rolling resistance. (That 4.5% was verified with two GPS units and is now factored into each tank I report.)

I think I could do a lot better with instrumentation and a 5-speed, but I'm concentrating my efforts on the Clunker, which is my primary commuter (36,000+ miles per year), and which gets numbers I can be proud of.

[swoody]

Originally Posted by landscaper52

End result: if you want better mpg's get a vehicle that gets better mpg's to start with. Trucks are a bad place to start. It's almost pointless with a truck.

Oh no, no my friend

If you're looking to go greener, and not just trying to get the best mileage from gas, trucks are a GREAT place to start! They have the perfect setup for something a little greener:

Ranger conversion kits

There are many kits like that one out there. You can find a lot of info with Google Regardless, if you're looking to be kinder to the environment, and don't mind giving up oil changes, filter changes, fuel cleaners, exhaust fumes, stopping at gas stations, tune-ups, and a loud engine, and don't mind a cheaper, more reliable, silent, truck that will hold it's value for a *long* time, then an EV conversion just might be something to look into!

These kits basically come with everything you should need, and if you're good with a wrench, you can do the conversion yourself. However, if you'd be a little weary, or just know outright that you wouldn't be able to tackle a project like this, there are also *many* shops out there who specialize in EV conversions. So don't think that it can't happen to you