Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / March 2006
2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L gas mileage problem?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Shakieh31 - 30 Dec 2005 05:37 GMT I have a 2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L. I am a little concerned about my mpg due to the fact that I’m only getting about 100 miles to a half a tank or roughly 200 to a full tank. On a 16 gallon tank, that averaged out to be somewhere around 12 miles to the gallon. I know that can’t be right and was looking for an opinion or advice as to what to replace or check. I checked online and found that the mpg should be 17/22. I have recently replaced the fuel filter and have lately been running 89 in it. It only seems like it has improved a tiny bit. I don’t accelerate hard, usually not over 2500 RPM. Any ideas as to what could be wrong or what needs to be replaced? Thanks for all the help! I really appreciate it!
Tony
Scott - 30 Dec 2005 06:02 GMT >I have a 2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L. I am a little concerned about my > mpg due to the fact that I'm only getting about 100 miles to a half a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tony Hi,
I have an 03 with the 3.0 L and found around town mileage to be poor also, maybe 13 or 14. Highway is only about 20 mpg in good weather. They all seem to get piss poor mileage. I believed the damn sticker and thought it would get around 17 in town, my old 4 cylinder Rangers did. This engine will probably last forever but the mileage really is shitty.
Reece Talley - 30 Dec 2005 08:43 GMT Mine gets maybe 13-14 mpg in town and a steady 22 on the freeway. I drive stop and go freeway about 60 miles each day. Add a tad of around town driving and I get 21.4-21.9 mpg. I keep track of every drop of gas I use for tax reasons so I know I'm dead on. It hasn't changed since I bought the truck new in 02 about 50K miles ago. Have you considered having the Oxy Sensor checked and having the codes checked? A partially collapsed exhaust might cause this too.
 Signature R. J. Talley Teacher/James Madison Fellow NAR #69594 NRA #133073736
Mark Schofield - 30 Dec 2005 12:51 GMT I have an 02 Ranger 4x4 4L V6. Around town about 13-15. However this is in the colder weather -New Haven, CT -. Warmer weather I'll get another 2 mpg. I've always been disappointed with the mileage I get. I keep my tires overinflated, keep up with the maintenance, light on the pedal, ect.
>I have a 2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L. I am a little concerned about my > mpg due to the fact that I'm only getting about 100 miles to a half a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tony pkurtz2 - 17 Jan 2006 04:48 GMT Mark, Keep in mind that OVERINFLATION of your tires will actually HURT your gas milage. The reason for this is because it changes the "footprint" of the tire on the road, or the amount of tire you have in contact with the road. Overinflating tires lessens how much tire is on the road and contributes to slip. The more slip you have, the worse milage you will get. The same goes for UNDERinflated tires. Only with this, you have more tire on the road, and causes the engine to do more work to keep it moving. Both conditions also increase friction between the tire and road which will require more fuel. Go with what it says on the door sticker for your tire pressure. As far as my truck goes. I have a 2000 Ford Ranger 3.0L Flex Fuel with a 5spd trans, and 3.71 gears in the rear. I have had the truck since it had 100mi and it has 97000 now. I dont usually pay attention to my in town gas milage, but when I was driving long trips on the highway I would get 20-22 on the highway. Keep in mind when driving around town, that the slower the engine is turning when you shift, it requires taht much more fuel to provide the horsepower to maintain speed. I drive down the streets in 4th gear at 30-35mph with rpms in the range of 1500-2000 rpms, and if I have to speed up drastically then I downshift.
Hope this gives you some more insight..
>I have an 02 Ranger 4x4 4L V6. Around town about 13-15. However this is in >the colder weather -New Haven, CT -. Warmer weather I'll get another 2 mpg. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> Tony Donut - 17 Jan 2006 08:32 GMT >Mark, >Keep in mind that OVERINFLATION of your tires will actually HURT your gas >milage. That seems counterintuitive.
>The reason for this is because it changes the "footprint" of the >tire on the road, or the amount of tire you have in contact with the road. I'm with you here. Less "footprint" equals less friction. Less friction equals better milage.
>Overinflating tires lessens how much tire is on the road and contributes to >slip. The more slip you have, the worse milage you will get. This is where you lose me. Yes, if you have a lot of "slip" your milage will suffer. But are you really saying that you *are* going to have a lot of slip with (slightly to moderately) overinflated tires? Under "normal driving conditions"?
Every time I've looked at milage competitions or solar car competitions, invariably the winners had hard skinny tires, they aren't going for comfort here. And a lot of times, just three wheels, an easy way to get rid of 25% of the milage robbing friction in the design :) I would be interested if you can prove them wrong.
>Go with what it says on the door sticker for your tire pressure. Hard to argue with that, but there are "tweaks" we can try :)
Don
<snip>
pkurtz2 - 17 Jan 2006 17:54 GMT Don, I hear what you are saying, but lets look at a couple of other things. You say "Under "normal driving conditions"?" and in return I say "What do you consider normal driving conditions?" When you look at the fuel ratings on car stickers, you get the milage that the car would get under "Normal Conditions", but there is NO SUCH THING. If you look in the owners manual on every car manufactured and read what normal driving conditions are, you will find they dont exist. There is no place on earth that one can find "normal" driving conditions. Now when you talk about the amount of slip on the tire from an overpressurized tire then you have to take into account several factors. Some of these would be speed, wind direction, wind speed, drag, weight of the vehicle, etc, etc.... If you look at the electric cars that race, the reason they only have 3 wheels is becuase they are extremely light, and are balanced according to their design, this also helps cut down on drag. If you can point out ONE electric (completely Electric) car on the road today that is IDENTICAL to one of the cars that has raced in one of those races then I will bow down, but I dont think you will. You will also notice that those cars are designed to have no drag on them. Cars require a certain amount of tire on the road to prevent slip, to the amount allowed by the car designer because of the factors I have listed above, Especially when it comes to trucks. The other thing you have to look at when it comes to trucks, is that the drive wheels are on the rear of the vehicle, not the front. This reduces the amount of down force on the drive tires, and increases the amount of slip exponentially. So if you overinflate your tires, especially on the rear of a truck, then you have increased the amount of slip exponentially. The major problem with this is that roads are not perfectly flat, thats why we have shock absorbers and moveable suspension, and when you hit a bump, the rear of the vehicle comes down at a slower rate than the front. This increases the amount of time that the front (non-driven) wheels are on the ground, and the rear of the vehicle is in the air.. Now if you reduce the amount of air in the rear tires, to specified pressure, then the tires do part of the shock absorbers job, and thus the rear tires stay in contact with the ground more, and have less slip.
I hope this answers any questions you have.
p.s. there is also slip created from the mechanical drag caused by the front wheel bearings, brakes, 4X4(if applicable), the rear wheels have to push all this, and overinflating them will also shorten tire life as well as reduce gas milage.
>>Mark, >>Keep in mind that OVERINFLATION of your tires will actually HURT your gas [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > <snip> Donut - 18 Jan 2006 11:11 GMT <top posting only because the auto student is>
pkurtz,
You are taking my examples *way* to literally. The reason I put "normal driving conditions" in quotes is because I know there is no such thing. How about average driving conditions? You know, that state it which the vehicle is most often driven, that work for you?
And when I referred to the three wheeler's, that was just another example. So no, I wont be able to provide an identical car on the road that you ask for. That was never my intention.
Your argument still falls flat (no pun intended) to me.
Harder tires (more inflation) equals better milage. Softer tires (less inflation) equals worse milage. On average.
To take it to some extremes. If you are driving on ice, then an under inflated tire may increase your milage, as it provides a bigger footprint, thus more traction, and without traction, you'd be slipping. Of course your milage would be way worse than normal, but you might be able get somewhere.
On the other hand, if you are driving around in a place with little precipitation, let alone the frozen kind, then a smaller footprint would be good for your milage, and you *can* achieve this by overinflating your tires.
Not saying you should, mind you, you do have to factor in the altered wear. Higher risk of puncture, and most likely shortened life of the tires. And of course, less foot print equals less effective braking.
I really just don't buy your argument that there would be significant "slip". If your driving so fast that your vehicles tires are leaving the road surface, then you aren't too worried about milage I'd guess
:) And even at moderate speeds, wouldn't inertia negate most of the alleged "slip"?
You used the word "exponentially" twice. As that is a mathematical term, and you are an auto student, I suppose you could produce the study or research that provides those numbers. You probably have easier access than I would, so I'd appreciate seeing them, or links to them.
And if you're curious about the comment I put at the top of this post in <>'s... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
Don
>Don, >I hear what you are saying, but lets look at a couple of other things. You [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >this, and overinflating them will also shorten tire life as well as reduce >gas milage. <snip>
pkurtz2 - 19 Jan 2006 13:24 GMT > <top posting only because the auto student is> > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Don Don, I appologize for top posting. I was unaware that it was a problem. The reason I do it that way is because I believe that it makes for an easier read, and if people are keeping current with the issue at hand, then it should not be a problem. I understand that some older generations of Usenet users won't like this, but I am not from that generation; however I try to have consideration for others, so I hope this is better. As to your comment about research being easier for me to come up with, well if I talk with my instructors then I am sure they can give me all the material I need. However, thanks to the WorldWideWeb, the information that you seek is at the hands of anyone with a computer. I just did a search five minutes ago on "gas mileage research" and it came up with about a thousand hits, and on the second one I looked at it actually said to follow manufacturers specifications for tire inflation, both quoting over-inflation and under-inflation as a source of fuel mileage loss. Keep in mind when doing web searches though, some common sense applies, and websites that end in .net or .org will tend to be the more trusted sites to have "good" information. The sites that end in .com are usually commercially based, and usually say things so that they can sell a product. As for producing the research I have read, I would have to go back 10yrs to compile everything. I have picked up various bits of information by reading material produced at shops that I have worked at, and through information produced in the classes I have taken. Also, as you said "taking my examples *way* to literally". I can only base my arguments on the "facts" which are given to me, and back up my arguments based on that. If you had come up with different, more real world, examples. Then I would have analyzed your argument and put it up against what I have been taught, and read over the years. Then I would have either agreed, or dismissed your argument and provided the information as to why.
Here are some links that I picked up off the net for you. I realize that the first one ends in .com, but I think we can all trust CNN.. LOL http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/01/Autos/tipsandadvice/gas_saving_test/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon I had a feeling you would like this site, since you already used to inform me of my top posting.
Hope these fine useful. I did notice that only first one said anything about over-inflating your tires. Anyway, have a good one, I have to get started on a head gasket job now..
>>Don, >>I hear what you are saying, but lets look at a couple of other things. You [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> > <snip> Donut - 20 Jan 2006 02:41 GMT >> <top posting only because the auto student is> >> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >over-inflating your tires. Anyway, have a good one, I have to get started on >a head gasket job now.. Hi.
"Keep in mind that OVERINFLATION of your tires will actually HURT your gas milage. The reason for this is because it changes the "footprint" of the tire on the road, or the amount of tire you have in contact with the road. Overinflating tires lessens how much tire is on the road and contributes to slip. The more slip you have, the worse milage you will get."
And
"So if you overinflate your tires, especially on the rear of a truck, then you have increased the amount of slip exponentially."
These are your statements that I'm having trouble with. The first statement I believe is false. If you want to say that overinflation (and we still haven't said by how many psi) will cause poor handling or poor tire wear or less effective braking, then fine. But you are saying that it will hurt your gas milage, and I've not seen you produce any evidence that corroborate that statement as fact. As a matter of fact, the first link you sent sorta hurts your argument.
The second statement: While I'm very well versed in how to search the web, I was fairly certain it would be hard to find the same research you were using to cite those exponentially numbers. That's why I asked you for it/them.
Remember, I'm only speaking to the issue of overinflated tires and their effect on milage. You say it has a negative effect, ON MILAGE, I say it doesn't.
Here's just a bit of stuff I found, one of them from you:
"Method: We drove the 55-mile test loop four times at 60 mph twice with tires at or above proper inflation. Once, we did the test with the tires 5 psi below the pressure recommended by the manufacturer. Since this produced very little difference we enlarged the gap and under inflated the tires by 8 psi. We felt that it was important to make sure the tires were inflated to the recommended level or above." This from the link you sent.
http://money.cnn.edmunds.com/ownership/driving/articles/106842/article.html#test5
------------
"Good inflation: Drivers waste millions of gallons of fuel each year due to under-inflated tires. Maintaining optimum tire inflation is one of the best things you can do to increase fuel economy. Inflate your tires to the upper limit of the manufacturer's recommendations." http://www.autosite.com/content/research/index.cfm/action/showarticle/AID/135657 ------------------ "Harder tires present less rolling resistance and improve gas mileage; therefore, the Buick Estate Wagon outperformed our expectations based on our regression model, which did not account for tire inflation pressure. In our model Tire Pressure is a lurking variable, variable that seems to help in predicting gas mileage but is not included in the model." http://score.kings.k12.ca.us/lessons/wwwstats/lurking.variables.html -------------
"and keeping tires inflated to the maximum recommended pressure can improve your gas mileage."
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/17-tips.pdf ---------------------
Me again.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone in an "official" position suggesting that one "overinflate" one's tires past the recommended maximum (due to liability), but they sure do seem to suggest that you keep it as close as possible. But one wonders, considering "Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by 0.4 percent for every 1 psi drop in pressure of all four tires. Properly inflated tires are safer and last longer." what every increase in psi (over the recommended max) would bring?
Any way, I'm done with this discussion. Unless you can produce evidence that shows moderately over inflated tires decrease gas milage, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Have fun with the Head Gasket :)
Don
<snip>
Rodan - 22 Jan 2006 04:42 GMT ....if underinflated tires lower gas mileage .. how does it follow that overinflated tires also decrease gas mileage? _____________________________________________
pkurtz wrote:
...overinflation reduces gas mileage because it reduces the footprint of the tire on the road and contributes to slip. The more slip, the worse mileage. If you overinflate your drive tires, especially on the light weight of a truck rear, slip increases exponentially. ______________________________________________
Friction physics illustrates that slippage is independent of the footprint area of the materials (pavement and rubber). That is: F = U x N where F is the frictional force, N is the downward force on the tire and U is the friction coefficient, probably about 0.4 for pavement and rubber. Contact area is not a factor, because as contact area is reduced, the unit pressure (tire force divided by footprint) increases inversely to keep friction constant.
Almost all the energy loss in tires comes not from slippage, but from flexing in the tire as it rolls. The wasted energy appears as heat you can feel by touching the tire instead of as power for the car. The higher the pressure, the higher the mileage. This is true for overinflation pressures as well, so even dangerous overinflation will improve gas mileage, at the risk of early wearout (from distorted treads) or blowout.
Rodan. _________________________________________________
gw - 30 Dec 2005 14:27 GMT Something's up. I get 350-360 miles out of a tank with my 3.0.
>I have a 2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L. I am a little concerned about my > mpg due to the fact that I'm only getting about 100 miles to a half a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tony Reece Talley - 30 Dec 2005 19:54 GMT Yup, and that you should. 350-360 miles on a tank would be 21-22 mpg.
 Signature R. J. Talley Teacher/James Madison Fellow NAR #69594 NRA #133073736
Lee - 30 Dec 2005 17:39 GMT > I have a 2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L. I am a little concerned about my > mpg due to the fact that I'm only getting about 100 miles to a half a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > could be wrong or what needs to be replaced? Thanks for all the help! > I really appreciate it!
> Tony I'm driving a '99 Ranger 2WD five speed manual with the 3.0L flex fuel engine. I've had the truck for two years and get between 18 and 24 mpg.
johanb - 31 Dec 2005 03:59 GMT Did you check the obvious ??
Like air filter , spark plugs etc.
Running 98 might only make it worst because higher octane burns slower and your ignition will adjust itself to make up for it never use higher octane to try and fix a problem
You also have to get a more reliable way to check fuel consumption, half a tank is not 8 gallons. Also class A fuel (Shell / Chevron) can drop your consumption with 1 to 2 miles a gallon city/highway
> I have a 2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L. I am a little concerned about my > mpg due to the fact that I'm only getting about 100 miles to a half a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tony Charles B. Summers - 04 Jan 2006 18:55 GMT These milages make me feel better about the 14mpg I'm getting from my 04 150, 5.4ltr....
>I have a 2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L. I am a little concerned about my > mpg due to the fact that I'm only getting about 100 miles to a half a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tony The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 05 Jan 2006 03:27 GMT >These milages make me feel better about the 14mpg I'm getting from my 04 >150, 5.4ltr.... Not doing a thing for the 9mpg I'm getting from my '02 F350, 6.8l :)
pkurtz2 - 17 Jan 2006 04:48 GMT The problem is that it is a 6.9Ltr V-10. They suck on gas, you should have went diesel and you could have gotten 12-14mpg city and 20-22 highway unloaded. Sucks to get the wrong engine... That V-10 is only a v-6 with 4 cyl added on the back end.
> Not doing a thing for the 9mpg I'm getting from my '02 F350, 6.8l :) William Wixon - 05 Jan 2006 04:31 GMT yeah, me too. i was UTTERLY DISGUSTED when i calculated my mpg after 6 months and 1048 miles of driving the vehicle ('05 Ranger Edge). 11.91 mpg. sorry to say i too (stupidly) based my purchase on the estimated EPA/DOE fuel use estimates on the window sticker (18/23). i also figured i MUST'VE made some miscalculation somehow/somewhere but your post(s) confirmed my fears. really made for a CRAPPY new year's weekend. of course i knew the dealer wouldn't/couldn't help, so i hadn't called them, called them today hoping somehow they could so something, of course, nothing. i am a VERY conservative driver. MOST conservative driver i know. (everyone says they're a SAFE driver, this is different.) no jackrabbit starts, keep to under 55, coast to a stop, RARELY use A/C, etc. i was thinking "i'm gonna get *24* mpg outta this baby!" i guess that's why i was SO pissed off when i calculated i was getting 11.91 mpg. i called my congressman today to ask him to support the AAA sponsored bill in congress requesting updating EPA's fuel estimate testing procedures. too late for me though. i think it's OUTRAGEOUS they can put a sticker on a vehicle and give people the impression that somehow that's an objective estimate that is SO far from reality. sticker says worst estimate was 15 mpg, i'm getting SUBSTANTIALLY worse than that.
b.w.
>I have a 2002 Ford Ranger Edge 3.0L. I am a little concerned about my > mpg due to the fact that I’m only getting about 100 miles to a half a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tony Reece Talley - 05 Jan 2006 06:31 GMT Something still isn't right. While the mileage isn't stellar in these trucks, it's not as bad as what you are getting. Since it's out of warranty the dealer will want payment to check it out but geez, there has got to be something mechanically wrong...a dragging caliper an misaligned rear end, a mild slip in the clutch a dragging drum in the rear, something.
 Signature R. J. Talley Teacher/James Madison Fellow NAR #69594 NRA #133073736
John Hill - 07 Jan 2006 18:46 GMT After 48,000 miles my 2002 Ranger 4x4 4.0L automatic w/ 4.10 rear end is getting 16.5 mpg on average in 70/30 city/highway driving. Variance is somewhere between 15-18 mpg depending on how I drive and what I'm hauling. Generally I do everything other than baby it when I drive. First few fillups returned around 13-14 mpg, but at around 1,300 miles it settled down to where it is now.
A friend's '03 Ranger Edge 3.0L 5-speed 2wd does get ~23 mpg after 30,000+ miles.
Your engine may just not be broken in yet -- give it some time. Otherwise you might as well take it to the dealer. It's under warranty, have them look at it.
jh
> yeah, me too. i was UTTERLY DISGUSTED when i calculated my mpg after 6 > months and 1048 miles of driving the vehicle ('05 Ranger Edge). 11.91 mpg. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > > Tony pkurtz2 - 17 Jan 2006 04:54 GMT I am with John on this one. It took about 30,000 to break my engine in. I had a noticeable change in the amount of power and gas milage right away. It will just happen one day, and you will notice it. ALSO, use Chevron Fuel System Cleaner.. It sells at Wal-Mart for 5.97 a bottle. This will keep your Fuel Injectors, Cylinders, and O2 sensor clean. If you have a flex fuel you need to change that fuel filter once every 25000 for atleast the first 75000 miles, and it takes a special filter.. It has 3 tube connections on it.
> After 48,000 miles my 2002 Ranger 4x4 4.0L automatic w/ 4.10 rear end > is getting 16.5 mpg on average in 70/30 city/highway driving. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >> > >> > Tony William Wixon - 05 Mar 2006 03:21 GMT i'm embarrassed to admit (after my previous post and much anguish and hassle) that after driving two (17 gal.) tanks of fuel i'm getting 20.4 mpg, oh, but, and very happy to admit too!!!
b.w.
|
|
|