I'm looking at an 04 Ranger 4 Cyl. One of a very few left on the lots (great
discounts). I will occasionally haul furniture items and other objects, not
exceeding 500-600 lbs. I'm concerned with gas mileage considering prices of
late. I was wondering if I'd see $1.29 per gal., now I'm wondering if I'll
see $1.69 again. Anyhow, the one I test drove had 3.73 ratio w/ 5spd.
Acceleration seems okay for what I need and it should be best for MPG,
right? It is standard cab. It has only AC as a major option.
What MPG are drivers seeing from similar setup?
Thanks, John
Windsurfer - 18 Mar 2005 03:14 GMT
> What MPG are drivers seeing from similar setup?
>
> Thanks, John
Buy it.
I have a 2003, 2.3 litre short-box Ranger. 5-speed, no options - pretty
boring truck actually.
However.......
I thought there would be a great difference in power between this and the
1999, 3.0 litre Ranger I had, but there's very little, except on steep
hills. The 3.0 litre engines are gas hogs.
In CDN gallons and U.S. miles, if you have a light foot, you'll get 36
miles per CDN gallon (summer) and 25-30 winter.
Plus, think of all the money you'll save, which you can put towards a vacation.
I gallon CDN - 4.55 litres. You can do the conversion.
p.s. U.S. miles are the same as Australian, Japanese and Azerbaijan miles

Signature
Windsurfer
RPM1 - 18 Mar 2005 03:50 GMT
"JohnR66"
> What MPG are drivers seeing from similar setup?
We bought the =exact= truck 2 weeks ago as a leftover for 12K
with the rebate. Even traded [nearly] our Dodge 2500 which
was killing us at the pump. It's perfectly zippy around town.
Beats the crap out of my 5-speed Hyundai for pick-up. Since
we're not hauling horses or tractors anymore, this little truck will
be fine for getting hay in the winter. Easily hauls 15 bales plus
a couple hundred pounds of feed. The first tank was at 22
mpg but that was with the bed loaded with wheel weights for
traction (snow storm driving). Dry weather and unloaded we're
at 29mpg. Beats the 12 mpg we were getting with the Dodge.
We're going to fit it with a cap or at least get an air gate.
Like the truck you drove, AC was the only option in this "base
truck." I got the dealer to throw in a fancy stereo as part of the
deal. They seem to do a hard sell on undercoating and rustproofing.
I passed on both. Will probably do a spray in bed liner tho. Can
only get Rhino around here. :-\
The only complaints about the truck are very minor - cup holder
location and would like slightly bigger mirrors. That's it.
We looked into similar efforts from Nissan, Toyota, Chevy &
Dodge. This deal blew all the others away by far. Nissan was
next best in terms of offering base fluff. Aside from the AC and
stereo, our little truck is distinctly fluff-less. :-)
Ruth CM
upstate NY
Robert Mozeleski - 20 Mar 2005 23:24 GMT
My 01' 2wd 4cyl. 2.5L 5 speed gets about 25 mpg highway. It has hardly any passing power, though it does have some torque. I have
hauled 800-900 lbs on a few occasions.
> I'm looking at an 04 Ranger 4 Cyl. One of a very few left on the lots (great
> discounts). I will occasionally haul furniture items and other objects, not
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Thanks, John
Eagle Creek - 21 Mar 2005 03:50 GMT
> My 01' 2wd 4cyl. 2.5L 5 speed gets about 25 mpg highway. It has hardly any passing power, though it does have some torque. I have
> hauled 800-900 lbs on a few occasions.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> >
> > Thanks, John
My 96 Ranger 2.3 5speed gets about 25 highway with a cap, 3.73
ratio and I've hauled 7 to 800 lbs, no problem .... just don't get in
any hurry off the line ...... loaded cement trucks usually beat me !!!
Gasoline today in Northwest Indiana is 2.08 for unleaded regular
Tony
JohnR66 - 24 Mar 2005 03:54 GMT
>> My 01' 2wd 4cyl. 2.5L 5 speed gets about 25 mpg highway. It has hardly
> any passing power, though it does have some torque. I have
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Gasoline today in Northwest Indiana is 2.08 for unleaded regular
> Tony
Hey,
I ended up getting a 2004 2.3 5sp 3.73. Accel seems reasonable, but it has
143hp vs 112 as in the '96. Sounds like you are getting the expected mpg.
Interestingly, the new ones with the 143 hp 2.3L get 24city/29hwy while the
older 112 hp 2.3L gets only 19/25. (comparing 5spds)
John
Robert Mozeleski - 25 Mar 2005 01:28 GMT
The original 2.3 liter (the old pinto motor) was changed to 2.5L, thats what's in my 2001. 8 spark plugs, no distributor. I know
they offered a 2.3 L in 2001, but i think that was a 16 valve motor, maybe a newer design? They dropped the older motor?
"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message news:eZp0e.444806
> Hey,
> I ended up getting a 2004 2.3 5sp 3.73. Accel seems reasonable, but it has
> 143hp vs 112 as in the '96. Sounds like you are getting the expected mpg.
> Interestingly, the new ones with the 143 hp 2.3L get 24city/29hwy while the
> older 112 hp 2.3L gets only 19/25. (comparing 5spds)
> John