William Wixon

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.



"Shakieh31" <UseLinkToEmail@www.autoforumz.com> wrote in message
news:725533_70217747fcd5a9cb863a14dcf9066de7@autoforumz.com...
>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
>
>

 

Reece Talley

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.



--
R. J. Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
NAR #69594
NRA #133073736

John Hill

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

In article <pi1vf.1180$qg.477@news02.roc.ny>, William Wixon
<wwixon@frontiernet.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> "Shakieh31" <UseLinkToEmail@www.autoforumz.com> wrote in message
> news:725533_70217747fcd5a9cb863a14dcf9066de7@autoforumz.com...
> >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
> >
> >
>
>

Shakieh31

"" wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> R. J. Talley
> Teacher/James Madison Fellow
> NAR #69594
> NRA #133073736

interesting you bring that up. There is a "rubbing" noise when I
stop that is not constant but is kind of an on/off pattern. Almost
like something is warped. However, I know my rotors are not warped
because the front end doesn’t shake when I apply the brakes. The
engine seems to be just a little under-powered as well. Does that
sound like something is dragging and needs to be adjusted? I only hear
the rubbing sound when I apply the brakes. Thanks for all the help, it
would really be nice to figure this out.... especially with the gas
prices. Thanks again!





Tony

--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/2002-Range...ict151004.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=734023

pkurtz2

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..


"Mark Schofield" <mark.schofield@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:53atf.509$801.121@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>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.
>
> "Shakieh31" <UseLinkToEmail@www.autoforumz.com> wrote in message
> news:725533_70217747fcd5a9cb863a14dcf9066de7@autoforumz.com...
>>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
>>
>> --
>> Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
>> Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
>> Topic URL:
>> http://www.autoforumz.com/2002-Range...ict151004.html
>> Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse:
>> http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=725533
>
>

pkurtz2

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 :)
>
>

pkurtz2

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.


"John Hill" <idont@thinkso.com> wrote in message
news:070120061346477016%idont@thinkso.com...
> 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
>
> In article <pi1vf.1180$qg.477@news02.roc.ny>, William Wixon
> <wwixon@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Shakieh31" <UseLinkToEmail@www.autoforumz.com> wrote in message
>> news:725533_70217747fcd5a9cb863a14dcf9066de7@autoforumz.com...
>> >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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

Donut

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:53:30 -0600, "pkurtz2" <pkurtz2@cox.net> wrote:

>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

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.

"Donut" <Donut@donut.net> wrote in message
news:6m8ps1pbgsglplrhg4nr0looesj5n1oegj@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:53:30 -0600, "pkurtz2" <pkurtz2@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>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>

Donut

<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





On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:03:44 -0600, "pkurtz2" <pkurtz2@cox.net> wrote:

>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.
>
<snip>