16 .5 gallons on the fill up then i went 627 miles what dose that add up to? oh seems like 38 mpg to me. so dont believe me what do i care but go to fordrangerfourm.com
and you will see lots more trucks like mine!

 

I drove a little ranger 2wd bare bones as a rental a few times, not sure I'd want to own one, but I can vouch on the mileage. Truck weighed nothing so it had some pany to it, just sucked in the winter - Couldn't stop OR go.

 

I'd believe 627 km.

 

I had a 93 regular cab stepside Ranger with the 2.3/5 speed/3.73s and never even broke into the very high 20's. This is the lightest a Ranger can be with the smallest engine and a 5 speed, in theory the best setup for mileage. There is no possible way you could have gotten 10-15 more MPG that I did. Even slowing down to 50, downhill the entire way and with a stiff tailwind it could not be done. I think your goesintos are broken.

 

The 5.0 & 6.2 will be awesome mills for the F-150!

 

I've owned a couple of Rangers over the years, including a shortbox-regular cab 4x2 with the 2.3 Lima engine and an automatic. On a really good day, I might get into the mid-20's with that truck as far as gas mileage is concerned.

Upper 30's -- I ain't believing it.......

 

I wish they would update the Ranger...maybe even put a little Ecoboost 4 cylinder in it. I had a 99 Ranger reg cab 5 speed w the 3.0 V6. It was a decent truck for the money. I don't know if I could ever downsize after owning an F150 though...

 

what ever like i lie to impress all of you who i never even met and probable will never meat ok dont believe me like that will make it any less true.
when i got my k&n cold air intake, new exhausts, and custom tune on there thats when she started getting 38 mpg believe it or not who cares

 

I thought the Ranger was already killed off.
Pathetic that its still the same body for the past 17 years and the last redesign was in '98.

I had an '87 with a 2.3 and automatic and that truck was a gutless turd that wouldnt even do 65 on the highway. If I remember right it got about 22 mpg.

 

my extended cab 4.0 ranger got an average 22mpgs

 

More info on the F150 engines. 5.0 is 360hp, 380 ftlbs, so my guess wasn't far off.
6.2.is 411 and 434ftlbs.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AllNew....html?x=0&.v=1

New transmission sounds good too.

 

So stock 3.7 eco boost is 365hp, so what then will they make it like 315?

3.7 v6 is 300 hp
3.7 tt is 365
5.0 is 400
6.2 is 411

So then they will make them what

3.7 300hp
3.7tt 325hp (? they cant do 365 or why would they have a 5.0 at 360?)
5.0 360
6.2 411

WTF is up with that. Really just make it either a v6 tt at 365 or a 6.2 at 411, one for MPG but still isnt gutless to the point it cant tow a little. And a 6.2 for grunt work.

 

3.5 ecoboost is going to be 400/410 or so. Will be able to tow 11,300 lbs.

 

I could see the 3.5 engine as the one people choose who don't really tow that often, but when they do they tow heavy. Those people want the high mpg on a day-to-day basis. The people who opt for the 6.2 would probably be those who tow a lot and don't really care about the mpg and want an engine that is a bit more proven and they trust. I'm not saying there won't be people who don't fit this mold, just generally speaking.

 

I see what you're saying, but technically the 6.2 is just as new of a motor as the 3.5 EB. Both have only briefly been around. It's more the idea of the 3.5 TT V6 that people will be weary of.