On Mar 5, 10:31*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

...





Eisboch wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
. ..
"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:ivSdnSLji6Fu_VPanZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@giganews. com...
For a small, low powered truck, the Ranger with 3.0 V6 (148 hp) and
automatic seems darn thirsty.
(I seldome have a load on it.... *driver only)

Mine has the 4.0 liter V6. *I think it's rated at 210 hp, but feels like
about 100. *It gets 16-17 mpg (no load, me only) whereas the F-350
Powerstroke diesel, weighing about 7000 lbs, averaged anywhere from 18-19
mpg in the winter and a bit higher in the summer. *It could also haul a
15,500 lb fifthwheel trailer with no problem and still get about 10-12
mpg.

One other issue with the Ranger is the smallish fuel tank. *Seems like I
am always stopping for gas. *The F-350 PS was good for well over 400
miles per tank.

Shuda kept it.

Eisboch

Hmmmmm. When I had a "splashtruck" some years ago, I got well over 20 mpg
under almost all conditions. That was in Jax, of course, where there was
almost no bumper to bumper traffic in those days. I had the 3.0 liter
engine, 2-wheel drive, automatic.

Mine's a 4x4 and has the larger engine, so that probably accounts for the
poorer mileage. *A Ranger is a great, reliable little truck, but it doesn't
compare to the bigger ones.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have a 1990 mercury wagon. A beast of a car! the 302 is limp
though. driving with some common sense it will get about 22-23 mpg.
Pulling a 23' cuddy, it squats to pee. the engine in the boat is
bigger than whats in the car. keep it out of overdrive and run about
50 and it gets about 12... maybe. But it's was cheap to buy and I'm
not a slave to fashion. I think I like it because the wife and
daughter dont..

Mines just like this crown vic... exactly!

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member...022_3_full.jpg