MPG for 3.73 axle ratio on 4WD XLT

S

sbronemann

New Member
I previously owned an 01 Ranger XLT 4x4 with the 4.0 and 4.10 axle ratio with automatic transmission. I am currently looking to trade my car on a 2010-2011 Ranger XLT 4x4 with the 3.73 rear end. What kind of highway MPG is everybody getting with these? I know my old 4.10 rearend would see 17-19 mpg highway, any better for the 3.73 rearend? Any input would be great! I miss my Ranger!
 
It depends. Is it the 4.0 engine also?
What are the tire sizes? I upped my tire size on my 03 Edge with a 3.0 and 4:10 ratio.
I went from 235-75-15's to 215-85-16's which is a 5% increase.
I am getting 21mpg around town and at least 22mpg highway.
 
Shawn said:
It depends. Is it the 4.0 engine also?
What are the tire sizes? I upped my tire size on my 03 Edge with a 3.0 and 4:10 ratio.
I went from 235-75-15's to 215-85-16's which is a 5% increase.
I am getting 21mpg around town and at least 22mpg highway.
Click to expand...
Since he mentioned a 2010-2011 4x4 it will have a 4L since they stopped making the 3L after 08. The difference between the 3.73 and 4.10 are minor, even the difference between then 3.55 and the 4.10 are minor. What kills the MPG is the driven wheels and transmission combo. Any auto will suck MPG more then a Manual and even more so when the auto is mated to 4x4. a 4x4 Manual vs a 4x2 manual is about 1 MPG but when you take the 4x4 Manual vs Auto 4x4 the difference is about 3 MPG for both city and Highway so opt for the Manual if MPG is on your mind. Also the Manual is about a second quicker to 60 MPH then the auto so the manual is better for off the line acceleration as well as overtaking.
 
I'm not sure of the ratio on mine but I have an 04 4.0L 4x4 automatic, I just put a magnaflow cat back dual system on and moded the airbox. I'm running Goodyear stock 16 in wranglers on it. Last Fri I made a 2 1/23 hr trip up to Hooligan's and back and kept the cruise on 65. I got 26.2 Hwy for the trip which I think is pretty good. Others results may differ!
 
rango88 said:
Since he mentioned a 2010-2011 4x4 it will have a 4L since they stopped making the 3L after 08. The difference between the 3.73 and 4.10 are minor, even the difference between then 3.55 and the 4.10 are minor. What kills the MPG is the driven wheels and transmission combo. Any auto will suck MPG more then a Manual and even more so when the auto is mated to 4x4. a 4x4 Manual vs a 4x2 manual is about 1 MPG but when you take the 4x4 Manual vs Auto 4x4 the difference is about 3 MPG for both city and Highway so opt for the Manual if MPG is on your mind. Also the Manual is about a second quicker to 60 MPH then the auto so the manual is better for off the line acceleration as well as overtaking.
Click to expand...


I agree that an auto trans does use more fuel than a manual, and 4x4 will compound that. A lot of mileage differences depend on the individual driving habits.
I do disagree that 4.10 to 3.73 isn't much as far as mileage goes. I know from personal experience on my 2wd truck with 4.10 gears.
I increased the tire size by 5% which changed the effective gear ratio by 5%.
5% of 4.10 is .205. The increase in tire size acts the same as running 3.89 gears with the original 235-75-15 tire. That change gave me about 1.5mpg increase. Mileage is computed in real time with my on board OBDII based trip computer.
The original posters results may vary, and I imagine someone here has a truck with the combination that the OP is looking at. They can give exact experience with that combination instead of MY experience with MY truck.

On sort of a side note. 4.10 gears connected to an auto trans behind a 4.0. Holy torque Batman. That's quite a combination for a mid size street truck. It sure wouldn't be mileage friendly. In MY experience 3.55's would be plenty of gear for a basic pavement pounder with a 4.0 and automatic.
Would be interesting for an off road truck.
 
I have a 2011 4.0 auto 4X4 and am getting a consistent 17-18 mpg. I got this mileage while working and driving 28 country miles each way, no interstate, and continue to get that now that I am retired. I put only 2,000 miles on my truck in the first 5 months since I retired and maintained the same 17-18 mpg.
 
All of the above… watch the tire size and the foot pressure.
If you change your gear ratio and leave the existing tire you could actually lose milage.
80% of the gas is burnt in 20% of the driving… take offs, uphills and passing burn gas, reduce the amount of pedal use in those situations and you can save gas.

Is 4 MPG worth the cost of changing both sets of gears or change a trans; not to me!

Rangers are boxes and trying to push a box at 60+ MPH is harder than a newer aero design car.
It all adds up to the cost of ownership when you choose a Ranger.
 
Scrambler82 said:
All of the above… watch the tire size and the foot pressure.
If you change your gear ratio and leave the existing tire you could actually lose milage.
80% of the gas is burnt in 20% of the driving… take offs, uphills and passing burn gas, reduce the amount of pedal use in those situations and you can save gas.

Is 4 MPG worth the cost of changing both sets of gears or change a trans; not to me!

Rangers are boxes and trying to push a box at 60+ MPH is harder than a newer aero design car.
It all adds up to the cost of ownership when you choose a Ranger.
Click to expand...


Correct...It is a package deal. I have a 2wd, so I am only concerned with 1 gear set. I still chose to change to the largest tire I could fit with my current wheels. Tires are easy compared to gears. I set my trip computer (Autel Maxitrip)to show live mpg. It is interesting how much different shift timing and going a tad slower uphill can save mpg. Lower rpm's always increases mpg.
My old truck had a 2.3 with 140,000 miles. 3.73 gears and 235-75-15's.
To me, my current 3.0 with 4.10 gears and 215-85-16's is a powerhouse.
I have set a personal challenge to do whatever I can to increase mpg on my truck. Electric fan, newer coil with wider gap, taller tires, trip computer to adjust driving habits. remove air intake muffler, total tuneup, etc..
I probably have gained 3-4 mpg total. The tires made the largest difference. It is a fun challenge for me, but I don't know how cost effective. I do keep my vehicles for 10ys or so. I figure in that length of time it will have a pay out for me.
 
Last edited:
Op ask yourself, do you really need the 4L mated to 4x4? I currently own a 2wd 4L and the 2wd has never let me down in winter in deep snow or ice even with the OEM tires (I put 300 lbs in the bed for more traction). If you can manage to move up from a car to a 2.3L Ranger of the same Year then I'd go that route. For what I do the 2.3L would have been enough but being young at heart and wanting muscle I opted for the 4L. Do I regret, heck no!, but doing it again I'd at least test drive the 2.3L for sure before buying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top