Question about ranger engines

[Marcus Aurelius]

I am looking at buying a used pickup and found a 2000 Ford Ranger that I'm interested in. I was doing some research on that year, looking at the engines and the fuel economy of them.

There are 4 different types of engines that were offered on a ranger 2WD in 2000. A 2.5L 119hp I4and gets 20/25mpg, a 3.0L 145hp V6 and gets 17/22mpg, a 3.0L 150hp V6 and gets 12/16mpg, and a 4.0L 160hp V6 and gets 16/21mpg. The ranger I'm looking at I believe has the 3rd engine I mentioned, the 3.0L 150hp V6 and is felx fuel capable.

My question is, why does the fuel economy for the 3rd engine drop down so much when compared to engines slightly leass and more powerful than it. Is it possibly the flex fuel capability?

-Marc

 

[jrowe6]

i dont know the answer to that, but i would be curious if the mpg was different for the different fuels, and if so if that 12/16 is for the secondary fuel source or if that is what it gets with both fuels.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

If not that, maybe it's the way the engine is configured to run both types of fuels making it green, but still inefficient

-Marc

 

[jrowe6]

thats a valid point, it may be possible to re-tune the engine specifically for gasoline to get the proper mpg. its hard to say tho, that engine may be physically different from a standard gasoline engine so just a tune may not produce any results.

im surprised there has yet to be anyone to chime in with some solid info on this. if you figure this out elsewhere be sure to let us know what you find out. i for one am very curious as to why the mpg is off by so much.

a call to a ford dealership may prove the best course of action, i would think someone there would have some info on this. or perhaps a custom tuning shop.

 

[jrowe6]

just did some googleing on the topic so here is the sum of what i have learned.

a standard gasoline vehicle will have around 10-15% reduction of mpg when the fuel is switched from 100% gasoline to 90% gas 10% ethanol.

a flex fuel vehicle will see a similar drop in fuel economy when switched from 100% gas to 90% gas 10% ethanol.

a flex fuel vehicles will see a 25-30% !!! decrease in MPG when switched from ( no one made a point to say the 100% gas or the 90/10 blend) to E85 which is 85% ethanol 15% gas.

so i would think that 12/16 MPG statement is its estimated MPG with E85

there was alot of talk on various websites about this issue so you may want to google it yourself.

 

[jrowe6]

also, running E85 in a non flex fuel vehicle will cause damage to the vehicle. i dont know if it will hurt the engine itself or just the fuel system.

 

[jrowe6]

someone posted this on one of the websites i visited

here is the page:

http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2006/06/01/ethanol-blended-gas-lower-mileage/

the post:

Gary Dikkers Says:
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:15 pm
I do religiously check my fuel mileage and here is my experience using E10:

Driving a compact pickup with a 4-cylinder engine I usually get about 32 mpg while driving at steady highway speeds and using gasoline.

When using E10, my mileage drops to about 29 mpg.

That means on a trip of 320 miles I would burn 10 gallons of gasoline. If I used E10 for the same trip, I would need just a bit less than 11 gallons.

But, 90% of that E10 would be gasoline. That means when I burn 11 gallons of E10, I burn 9.9 gallons of gasoline.

Whether I buy gasoline or E10, I burn almost exactly the same amount of gasoline, but if I use E10, I have to buy 11 gallons of fuel.

I now buy E10 only when I really need gas, and have no choice.




BACK to my opinion the topic, it would seem the E10 gas is a huge ripoff!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rwenzing]

i dont know the answer to that, but i would be curious if the mpg was different for the different fuels, and if so if that 12/16 is for the secondary fuel source or if that is what it gets with both fuels.

Yes, the 12/16 rating is using E85 fuel. Here are all of the numbers for the 2000 3.0 FFV 2WD:

Manual
16/21 gasoline
12/16 E85

Automatic
15/20 gasoline
11/15 E85

IMO, there is a very good reason to AVOID any 99~2000 FFV Ranger. Unlike later Ranger FFV's, these 2 years used a Fuel Composition Sensor input to enable the PCM to adjust the AFR for gasoline, E85 or anything in between. Unfortunately, as the miles climb, the Fuel Composition Sensor becomes inaccurate and it is very expensive to replace. To the best of my knowledge, there is no easy workaround if it fails. You either buy a new sensor for several hundred dollars or the truck is basically undriveable.

 

[Tbars4]

...What he said...^^^^

...The flex fuel sensors are now about $750 bucks and there is only one alternative I know around it if it fails and you don't want to cough up the big bucks...It's a dummy sensor for about $150 plus and you need to spend some time under the truck to wire it in...

...I've driven a 2006 3.0L automatic and was surprised at how quick it was without trying.....I couldn't tell you the gas milage of it though...

....Another point to take into consideration is, you can always get better gas mileage with a manual tranny and you are limited to fuel consumption with an auto tranny...

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

That's interesting. My friend and I were talking and were contemplating the amount of torque for that engine consuming more fuel, but I think I'll agree that it's becasue of the engine's ability to run on ethanol that compromises mpg. Thanks.