deliver pizza, carbed 6 cylinder Mustang or Ranger what MPG?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
My 84 F150 just can't get the mileage I need delivering pizza. I was considering a 6 cylinder Ranger or Mustang with a carburator. What kind of in town mileage can I get with one of them. I won't touch a stang or Ranger with the 2.3 4 cylinder.
 
Don't discount the 2.3L SVO mustang. It gets some good power because of the turbo...plus great mileage.

If you car is tuned properly and running well, I've got as high as 26 MPG on the highway, around 18-19 MPG around town.

Slade
 
I'd stay away from the Ranger. I had my fathers '02 2WD V6 (3.0L) Ranger this week and did mostly highway driving with no load. It is extremely underpowered for a V6, and when you got on it, it felt like the motor was coming through the cab. It only managed a measley 16 MPG. His previous Ranger with the 2.3L was no better.

I can't believe Ford can actually sell these grossly underpowered, gas guzzling pigs.

For comparison, I took my Highlander SUV on a long family trip last month and got 23 MPG, it was fully loaded and had the AC running 100% of the time, and never felt underpowered.

Al
 
I used t have a 95 Ranger 4.0 automatic 3.55 LS. It was fairly quick (16.3 in the 1/4) and gave 18 city/24-26 highway. If mileage is the issue, don't get a truck. The combination of tall tires and brick-like aerodynamics guarantee a drinking problem.
 
What about CARBURATED Rangers? The last ones must have been in the 80s. My brother had a 79 Fairmont Futura with the 2.3, 4 speed and TRX suspension. It was a nice car that never should have had a 4 cylinder put into it, let alone a 2.3. It had a bigger back seat than my 79 Mustang Pace Car and the body structure was more solid. I put probably 8000 miles on it. Its just not a good engine in my opinion.
I could probably get 15 mpg in town with one of my F150s with tune ups, allignments, proper tire pressure and stock size tires. My 84 has 31s on the back end and the allignment is way off. It needs a tuneup bad and I think the egr sticks. Last I checked I got 10.5 mpg. That stinks
 
It'll cost you a few bucks, but surely an early 3.3 L6 Mustang and a four-speed overdrive SROD conversion, or even a T5. Very hard getting four-speed bits for the big bell engine, and all emmision nazis know 200's in the Fox 'Stang never had four-speed manuals. (Option II , God forbid, the 2.8 V6 which came stock with the 2.3 style Holley Weber on early pre 78 cars. The Motorcraft 2100 2-bbl carb can be a good swap if it came with the nasty variable venturi carb). The Cologne V6 can be thirstier than the 3.3. There was little low end torque.

If it were me, I'd find an unloved but mint 2.3 liter 1980 'Stang in mint condition with the stock 2.3 T5 manual, and then wack in the six cylinder cross member and 3.3 engine. Use the carb that came with the 2.3, and then place an '80 3.3 engine in it.

The diff is the issue. 3.45:1 gears, and it would be cool. As soon as you've got the normally standard C4, you've got problems with moon shoot diff ratios in the 3.08 or 2.73:1 area. If the carb is well sorted, it should give excellent economy.

But to get anything like good figures, you're going to have to do some tuning, my friend. Despite what your Mom says, keep off the cologne, and saddle up into a bigger pony.

As for the Ranger, a great little truck, but blunt faced trucks cost fuel through lousy aero-dynamics, weight, and gearing that is made for good free way figures, but lousy in stop and go situations. Unless you're going to use the tray, forget it, and have a lighter Stang instead.
 
Back
Top