For some reason Dakotas seem to do very badly in the fuel economy environment. I got that same mileage with a carburated 350 in a half ton truck. Try a bed topper, they work better than nothing, I think, aerodynamically. Skinny wheels, fender skirts, that sort of thing.
To those advocating for leaner burning, keep in mind that lean burning doesn't necessarily mean higher fuel economy. Getting on a dyno that can measure bsfc might tell you something interesting, though.
Vacuum gauge?
How old is the oxygen sensor?
fwiw My 5.0L V8 4.10 geared Edelbrock carbed Ranger got 26mpg all day long. When I put the Fuelie intake and 3.55s in it was closer to 30.
On my 2002 Liberty, I did a complete change of all lubricating fluids to Amsoil. I gained app.2 mpg. I also blockedoff some redundant openings in the front. I did get 21-22 a couple of times, most was around 19. City driving, forget it.
Festiva's on CL seemingly never sell for over a grand and could be a fun little thing to put together and pull down 40mpg minimum.
Ranger50 wrote: In reply to doc_speeder: Smaller. 225/75R15's to 215/70R15's or 28" tall to 27" tall. I have an 8% error, smaller tire and smaller then original gear, in the speedo/odo that I calculate into the MPG's per tank.
Besides creating an 8% error on your odometer, those tires are also hurting your corrected gas mileage, especially if you do a lot of highway driving.
914Driver wrote:AngryCorvair wrote: to the OP: - max inflation pressure in tiresObama says the same thing. Hm.
i'm going outside to deflate my tires now... 
Ranger50 wrote: In reply to njansenv: I won't buy Hondas...
Well there's your problem.
John Brown wrote: fwiw My 5.0L V8 4.10 geared Edelbrock carbed Ranger got 26mpg all day long. When I put the Fuelie intake and 3.55s in it was closer to 30.
Does not compute... What year Ranger? Where/how were you driving it (terrain/speeds)? What emissions equipment had you removed? What transmission was in front of the 4.10s with what ratios? How lean were your running that carb?
I'm not hating, I just find it hard to believe. I can only baby my 07 FI 3.0L w/a 5speed w/4.10s at 60mph on flat terrain to get around 23MPG unloaded, windows up, no A/C, heat, lights, or radio on...
He sold the Dakota and bought a 3 liter Ranger.
Ahh, half the power for 3 more mpg. I bet he feels so much better.
I see a lot of people effectively pointing and laughing as the sum of their contribution and touting the advantages of vehicles the OP doesnt want, while conveniently overlooking the fact that he was able to get 26mpg from the dakota when it was in different condition.
Maybe the productive thing to do would be to figure out what has changed so he can get 22-26 again.
Vigo wrote:He sold the Dakota and bought a 3 liter Ranger.Ahh, half the power for 3 more mpg. I bet he feels so much better. I see a lot of people effectively pointing and laughing as the sum of their contribution and touting the advantages of vehicles the OP doesnt want, while conveniently overlooking the fact that he was able to get 26mpg from the dakota when it was in different condition. Maybe the productive thing to do would be to figure out what has changed so he can get 22-26 again.
Unless we get the conditions about that magical 26mpg tank, it will be hard to figure if 1) the enigne was just running great, 2) the conditions were perfect- right temp, down hill, wind, etc, or 3) fill issues- or any combination of all of that.
But thinner oil, drive slower, inflated tires, drag helps, etc- all seem to be pretty good suggestions. Heck, didn't mythbusters (I know- a favorite around here...) show that a tail gate net worked well?
If we are going to ignore the suggestions and focus on the people who suggest car changes, well, that's just as constructive....
What this thread really needs more of is snarky political "content". I know that's why I frequent a forum about cars, I'm sure I am not alone on this one.
pres589 wrote: What this thread really needs more of is snarky political "content". I know that's why I frequent a forum about cars, I'm sure I am not alone on this one.
BIRTHER!
Went looking at/for a manual Cruze ECO
The answer is never "Chevy Cruze." Though that does answer the question "Who the berkeley goes out and buys a brand new 'Chevy Cruze' ferchrissake?" 
I'll second the: Sell the truck, buy a metro (since Hondas are obviously 'junk',) though the smart play is to just be patient and wait for gas prices to come down before doing so.
OR, if you're just looking for hypermiling/aero tips, say so.
Raze wrote:John Brown wrote: fwiw My 5.0L V8 4.10 geared Edelbrock carbed Ranger got 26mpg all day long. When I put the Fuelie intake and 3.55s in it was closer to 30.Does not compute... What year Ranger? Where/how were you driving it (terrain/speeds)? What emissions equipment had you removed? What transmission was in front of the 4.10s with what ratios? How lean were your running that carb? I'm not hating, I just find it hard to believe. I can only baby my 07 FI 3.0L w/a 5speed w/4.10s at 60mph on flat terrain to get around 23MPG unloaded, windows up, no A/C, heat, lights, or radio on...
1989 XLT Ranger, 1987 Thunderbird 5.0L long block, OE 1989 Mustang roller cam, Weiand 8011 intake Edelbrock 1406 carb jetted small (I can't remember specifics and the build book went with truck), Total Performance Tri-Y swap headers, 2 1/2" pipes y-ing into a single 3" exhaust over rear axle with a Flowtech Afterburner muffler. Vehicle had power steering and alternator, no AC. Fidanza flywheel, 1987 Mustang T5, 7.5" 4.10 locking ring and pinion, 195/65r15 BFGoodrich Touring TAs on 15x7 Centerline Telstars for driver duty, 295/50r15 rears when playing.
In city second gear was more than enough to get going, I was always worried about the 7.5" to start with and was quite the granny while shifting it. After swapping the intake and heads (Explorer GT40P top end) Pauls High Performance burned a computer for mass air and 19lb injectors, I added two aftermarket cats and a single post cat 02 sensor then added the 3:55:1 locking rear. I also installes a pair of 2055/55r16 front and 225/50r16 rear on Eagle alloys.
In reply to John Brown:
That's the detail I was looking for, hell, I know quite a few people on Mustang forums who'd be keen on knowing this setup to get higher MPGs out of their old 5.0s.
Thanks!
alfadriver wrote: . Heck, didn't mythbusters (I know- a favorite around here...) show that a tail gate net worked well?
How about a cover for the bed? You would not lose any hauling ability like you would a net, but it would help keep the bed from filling with air and keep all your stuff covered
Since it was asked. The only things done ends the "mythical" 26mpg are lowered 2", tires, water pump, athermostat, radiator, hoses, belt, and a switch to 0w30.
Ranger50 wrote: Since it was asked. The only things done ends the "mythical" 26mpg are lowered 2", tires, water pump, athermostat, radiator, hoses, belt, and a switch to 0w30.
Well, there's your problem.... 
(no, I don't know either...)
A tonneau cover equaled zero improvement with my Ranger. So I don't have one.
I don't think there is anything wrong with your truck.
I think the station you buy from started selling ethanol blended fuel.
The mpg drop you describe is almost exactly what I would expect from a 15% blend, now being sold through most pumps.
Look for a station selling 100% gasoline.
Ranger50 wrote: A tonneau cover equaled zero improvement with my Ranger. So I don't have one.
truth for me, but i like it cause it keeps the groceries from getting rained on...
Ranger50 wrote: In reply to doc_speeder: Smaller. 225/75R15's to 215/70R15's or 28" tall to 27" tall. I have an 8% error, smaller tire and smaller then original gear, in the speedo/odo that I calculate into the MPG's per tank.
How are you doing the math?
The difference from a 27" tire to a 28" tire is not 8%, it's 3.703%.
Are you saying you also changed the speedo gear effectively doubling the tire error? That would make the 8% make sense.
Thinner tires, trans flush filter, synthetic trans and diff fluid,
Thinner tires might help but probably arent addressing why it dropped in the first place. Our dakota has ALWAYS had 225s on it and the mileage has still changed.
The synthetic trans and diff fluid are good ideas, especially the diff fluid.
Speaking of fluids, i got my magnum (car, not 3.9 motor) from 25 to 26mpg just by swapping to 0-20 motor oil, but certain motors wont like it. If i put it in my 245kmile dakota motor id have even less oil pressure than i already do.
To those advocating for leaner burning, keep in mind that lean burning doesn't necessarily mean higher fuel economy.
It will unless you make so much less power that you need more throttle to maintain speed.
For some reason Dakotas seem to do very badly in the fuel economy environment.
Weight, aero, and the fact that they are mostly compared in the context of smaller and lighter trucks certainly contributes to this.
1989 XLT Ranger, 1987 Thunderbird 5.0L long block, OE 1989 Mustang roller cam, Weiand 8011 intake Edelbrock 1406 carb jetted small (I can't remember specifics and the build book went with truck), Total Performance Tri-Y swap headers, 2 1/2" pipes y-ing into a single 3" exhaust over rear axle with a Flowtech Afterburner muffler. Vehicle had power steering and alternator, no AC. Fidanza flywheel, 1987 Mustang T5, 7.5" 4.10 locking ring and pinion, 195/65r15 BFGoodrich Touring TAs on 15x7 Centerline Telstars for driver duty, 295/50r15 rears when playing.
This seems to jibe with the common reports from Dakota owners that 5.2s get better mpg than 3.9s. Less throttle opening is more than a match for having to spin 2 more cylinders worth of parts.
If we are going to ignore the suggestions and focus on the people who suggest car changes, well, that's just as constructive....
There, i fixed it.
You'll need to log in to post.
