Mileage

dagger · Post by **dagger** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:10 am

Simple and easy, what kind of mileage you guys get. I have a 96 ranger. I'm looking to get a small car to drive everyday as I can't pay $80 to fill her up when I don't need it. So while its sitting why not get that little 3.0L out of the way and put in something a bit stronger. Just getting a feel for what it would be. I searched (not super hard but I searched) but didn't find anything which was weird as I'd figure it would be a hot topic.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:22 am

Several have actually increased their mileage when doing the swap. All depends on the mix and match of parts in your build. What do you have right now, 2 wheel or 4x4, and what expectations are you looking for? Just about every swap thought about has been done.
By the way, Welcome! Glad to see you just jump right in. Where abouts you at? Lots of the guys ready and willing to help.
Dave

plowboy34 · Post by **plowboy34** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:43 am

We have an 85 long bed, 2wd, carbed, AOD trans, 3:08 rear gear, we pull 19-20mpg in everyday driving. On the interstate we pull about 24mpg. We have installed a 3:45 rear gear but haven't checked it since then. Truck is not an everyday driver now so not as big of a concern. Actually considering a 3:73 gear as the 3:45 did not raise the cruising rpm that much.

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:54 pm

As my sig says, I have an 89 Ranger Supercab. I replaced my 2.9L manual that was getting less than 18MPG when I replaced it for an Explorer 5.0L retrofitted with 89-93 sensors and distributor and controlled by a Mustang A9L with a TwEECer tuner. I installed a NEW FMS T5 tranny with an altered gear ratio. And when I replaced my 7.5" rear with a Ranger 8.8", I also replaced the 3.73 gears with 3.27s for better fuel economy. Between the 3.27s and the altered T5 gear ratio, it's equivalent to running a stock T5 with 3.08s.

I drive my truck daily with 87 octane & acetone (2.5oz acetone/10gal gas) and I can get between 20-22MPG on the daily commute if I keep my foot out of it. If I get on it a few times, I still get over 18MPG. On the road travelling 55-60MPH, I can get 23-24MPG, and I swear I've gotten 26 before, but by the time I got to the pump to verify that, I'd driven a good bit of city driving and some particularly bad traffic ruined the results at the pump so the 26 was not confirmed. On the Interstate (70-80MPH), I get 21-22 consistently. I found I could get over 22MPG@80MPH if I could draft behind a big vehicle. But in open air 70-80MPH, it just can't get much better than 21.

I used to run 93 octane until I heard about the acetone thing. After starting to use the acetone, I found I could get just as good of fuel economy and in some cases, even better from 87 octane as I was from 93. Although, my WOT power was reduced a little because I had to back off from the timing. I also had to pull a few degrees of timing from my timing tables (non WOT conditions) to keep the 87 octane from pinging the heads off. The stock Mustang's spark tables and my Explorer's GT40p heads don't work well together with 87 octane, although the combo seemed to do well with 93 octane. I've been running acetone for about 9 months now and am convinced that it is getting me enough extra fuel economy (2-3MPG) that I continue with the hassle of doing it. Note the TwEECer gives me the unique ability to make tune changes and I've made EXTENSIVE changes to anything and everything just to see what it all does and how it all works. But generally speaking most V8 Ranger enthusiasts don't get into the tuning aspect unless its with carbs. There's an unfortunate steep learning curve and high financial investment required to get started with tuning with a TwEECer RT...which turns into a whole 'nuther conversation WAY beyond MPGs.

broncobowsher · Post by **broncobowsher** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 6:57 pm

I was getting about 13, but that was with a big nasty cam that sucked.
Just put in a much milder cam, it was feeling more efficient, exhaust was much cleaner, still had enough power to kill the transmission after about 50 miles on the new cam. Now to get around and figuring if it was the stub shaft or the direct clutch hub, that is if the direct clutch didn't just explode in one shot.

4R70W working perfect, tromped it down to 2nd and lost 3rd and 4th in an instant. With overdrive and 3.08 gear I am hoping for about 20 with the stroker 5.0

MalcolmV8 · Post by **MalcolmV8** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:49 pm

94 4x4 stock explorer motor, 4r70w. 16 in the summer and around 13 in winter (below 30 degrees). If you're looking for mpg a v8 is not the answer.

dagger · Post by **dagger** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:24 am

I have a 96 Ranger, its a 5 speed 3.0L 4x4. It has 4.10's and 31's right now. I've got an exhaust and an intake. It has 170,000 on the engine. Right now I'm still looking for a car to take the place of the ranger. If you guys can get anything close to 20MPG I'm sure I can get closer to that. Granted with 4.10's I'm going to step it up to 33's. I don't do much highway but when I do its going up to NH so going up all those hills the steeper gears would help, as I'm usually hauling something (thats why I have a truck lol). I'd end up probably grabbing an F-150 with a 5 speed thats rolled or be rear ended. I don't know if the M5ROD2 (its something like that) and the T-5 are any different. but which ever one has a lower 5th gear I'd get. I have the 8.8 explorer rear end already installed. I'd end up having to try and keep the drive train to the same length so I don't need to get custom drive shafts made. I think I'd keep it mostly stock except for an exhaust and intake. I'd love to go EFI but I think that carb might be an easier swap for me.

I'm not looking for mileage but I don't want to get 13MPG all the time. Thats really what I guess I was looking for. If I was goign to get 13 MPG all the time I'd just swap in a new 3.0L and call it a day. My transmission and transfercase both have 40,000 on them as I broke them both.

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:10 am

If I remember right, Malcolm has a bit of a lead foot and for good reason. He's running an Explorer all time AWD T-case in his 4x4 Ranger which means he can punch the gas at any moment and never loose traction. Off the line, in a turn. Doesn't matter, the AWD will hold the power to the road and thus makes having a V8 in a Ranger a lot more fun. But with $4/gal for gas, it does make fun more expensive.

Although, I would be interested to know what his economy numbers would be with a more conservative driving pattern.

cee21 · Post by **cee21** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:20 am

You can get good gas mileage with stick over an auto. Problem is you are very limited. Borg Warner quit making the output shaft for the t5 converstion to the stock transfercase. So unless you get lucky like me and find the whole thing for sell that is not an option anymore. The M5OD-R2 is a little bit bigger than the t5. I think they make an adapter to the stock t-case. If not, grab the t-case off the f150 also. The M5OD-R2 has a 0.80 5th gear and a t5 can have a 0.68 5th like mine.

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:44 am

There's also little in the way of upgrade options with the M5OD. So putting a strong 5.0L in front of one might be a life-limiting decision for the tranny.

And the .8 ratio of the M5 would mean higher RPMs in 5th which is not good for fuel economy.

As for the custom driveshaft issue, it's generally not that big of a deal to alter your existing rear driveshaft. With std cab Rangers, it's just a matter of cutting down the existing shaft. It gets a little more costly when talking about extended cabs were you abandon the crossmember which means you abandon the stock driveshaft and replace it with whatever you can find that's long enough to fit as-is or that can be cut down to fit. If you have a stick shift now, there's a chance you can reuse the stock tranny yoke if you go T5. Otherwise, make sure you get the tranny yoke for whatever tranny you do go with if it happens to not work. The front driveshaft is a different story. Best I can suggest is get the driveshaft for the Tcase you use and even then it may still need work.

Unfortunately MOST people find it far easier to use AODs for their 4wd Ranger conversions just because there is a lot more offerings in the way of 4WD/AWD with AODs than there is for sticks. The 4r70w is probably the best way to go for getting both good hauling and good fuel economy. They have a wider gear ratio than the AOD and thus have a torquier 1st and a lower reving OD. The catch is you need a tranny controller to control it and a speedometer driver to run your speedometer based on the VSS from the tranny...thus they are a more costly option hence again why most people go AOD.

dagger · Post by **dagger** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:01 am

Ok well I have a one piece shaft right now instead of the two piece. So that already fine. I guess I could get my drive shafts cut or lengthened accordingly. Ok well how hard would it be to convert to an auto. Is it computer controled or just machanical? For either the AOD or 4r70w

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:12 am

The AOD doesn't require computer controlling. Just a kickdown cable, and preferably some internal mods to boost the strength and reliability. There is a lot of AOD aftermarket options and choices, some good options, some not-so-good options.

That's my extent of 4wd and Automatic knowledge as it relates to Ranger swaps. I'll have to yield to those that have actually researched or done an automatic 4wd conversion to get you more specific info.

broncobowsher · Post by **broncobowsher** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:09 pm

cgrey8 wrote:There's also little in the way of upgrade options with the M5OD. So putting a strong 5.0L in front of one might be a life-limiting decision for the tranny.

And the .8 ratio of the M5 would mean higher RPMs in 5th which is not good for fuel economy.

As for the custom driveshaft issue, it's generally not that big of a deal to alter your existing rear driveshaft. With std cab Rangers, it's just a matter of cutting down the existing shaft. It gets a little more costly when talking about extended cabs were you abandon the crossmember which means you abandon the stock driveshaft and replace it with whatever you can find that's long enough to fit as-is or that can be cut down to fit. If you have a stick shift now, there's a chance you can reuse the stock tranny yoke if you go T5. Otherwise, make sure you get the tranny yoke for whatever tranny you do go with if it happens to not work. The front driveshaft is a different story. Best I can suggest is get the driveshaft for the Tcase you use and even then it may still need work.

Unfortunately MOST people find it far easier to use AODs for their 4wd Ranger conversions just because there is a lot more offerings in the way of 4WD/AWD with AODs than there is for sticks. The 4r70w is probably the best way to go for getting both good hauling and good fuel economy. They have a wider gear ratio than the AOD and thus have a torquier 1st and a lower reving OD. The catch is you need a tranny controller to control it and a speedometer driver to run your speedometer based on the VSS from the tranny...thus they are a more costly option hence again why most people go AOD.

Strange, I just plugged the stock speedo cable into the 4R70W in my ranger and it works. Changed the gear to get the speed right and it works just fine. Why are you going from a mechanical signal, to eletrical and back to mechanical?

cgrey8 · Post by **cgrey8** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:13 pm

The 4r70w can accept a mechanical VSS? Then to hell with the conversion. Keep it simple.

Why did Malcolm have to use the speedometer cable driver? Did the ability to install a mechanical VSS in 4r70w change at some point in their life?

GregR · Post by **GregR** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:22 pm

The VSS used in the 4R70W is the exact same unit used in the '90 Mustangs with cruise control. If you pry the little cap out of the end of the 4R70W speed sensor, a speedometer cable will slip right in.