1986 Ford Ranger Pickup 2WD
Fuel Economy Overview
The 1986 Ford Ranger Pickup 2WD achieves an EPA-estimated 22 MPG in combined city and highway driving, with 20 MPG in the city and 25 MPG on the highway. Powered by a 2L 4-cylinder engine paired with a manual 5-spd, this small pickup trucks features Rear-Wheel Drive drive.
In terms of environmental impact, the 1986 Ranger Pickup 2WD produces approximately 404 grams of CO2 per mile. This figure is measured under standardized EPA test conditions and represents tailpipe emissions only. For context, the average new vehicle sold in the United States produces approximately 400 grams of CO2 per mile, meaning this Ranger Pickup 2WD has higher-than-average emissions in this regard.
The estimated annual fuel cost for this vehicle is $2,700, based on 15,000 miles of driving per year and current national average fuel prices. Compared to the average new vehicle, you would save $2,750 over a 5-year period. This calculation accounts for differences in fuel consumption efficiency and provides a practical measure of long-term ownership costs attributable to fuel economy.
Energy DNA
Green Scorecard
Personalized Commute CalculatorEPA defaults to 55% City / 45% Hwy
Adjust the slider to match your daily driving habits. City driving involves stop-and-go traffic under 45mph, while highway driving represents sustained speeds over 55mph.
The Brick Effect: Highway Speed Penalty
EPA highway tests average roughly 48 mph. Driving at 75 mph increases aerodynamic drag exponentially. Because the Small Pickup Trucks has a large frontal area, expect your real-world highway fuel economy to drop by up to 25% at high speeds.
5-Year Total Cost of Ownership
Recall Intelligence
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION: AFTERMARKET BRAKE ROTORS FOR USE ON CERTAIN FORD AND MAZDA TRUCKS. CRACKED CASTINGS CAUSED CRACKS TO APPEAR ON THE OUTER DIAMETER OF THE ROTOR HAT OR AROUND THE STUD HOLE.
Consequence & Remedy
Consequence: LOSS OF BRAKING CAN RESULT.
Remedy: AIMCO WILL REIMBURSE CONSUMERS/INSTALLERS FOR THE COST OF REPLACEMENT ROTORS AND INSTALLATION. CONSUMERS ARE REQUESTED TO RETURN TO THE LOCATION WHERE THE ROTORS WERE ORIGINALLY PURCHASED/INSTALLED FOR REPLACEMENT.
WIRING FOR THE POWER LUMBAR SEAT SYSTEM WAS ROUTED DIRECTLY BENEATH THE SEAT CUSHION SPRINGS AND MAY BE ABRADED BY THE SPRINGS.
Consequence & Remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN A SHORT CIRCUIT WHICH MAY CREATESUFFICIENT HEAT TO START A FIRE IN THE SEAT CUSHION PAD AND/OR TRIM COVER.
Remedy: INSTALL A FUSE WITHIN THE POWER LUMBAR ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT.
SPRING LOCK FUEL LINE COUPLING MAY NOT BE PROPERLY ENGAGED.
Consequence & Remedy
Consequence: COUPLING COULD DISENGAGE DUE TO FUEL PRESSURE,VIBRATION, AND ENGINE MOVEMENTS; THIS WOULD CAUSE LOSS OF FUEL WHICH, INPRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE, CREATES A FIRE RISK.
Remedy: INSTALL RETAINER CLIPS OVER THE COUPLINGS TO PREVENT COUPLING SEPARATION AND FUEL LEAKAGE.
THE ELECTRONIC ENGINE CONTROL WIRING HARNESS INSULATION MAY BE DAMAGED DUE TO COPPER SPIKES PRODUCED DURING THE WELDING OF ITS WIRES. THIS CREATES A POTENTIAL FOR A SHORT CIRCUIT BETWEEN THE WIRES WHICH ENERGIZE THE FUEL PUMP, CAUSING SOME FUEL INJECTORS TO OPEN, DISCHARGING FUEL INTO THE ENGINE. CONSEQUENCE OF DEFECT: FUEL DISCHARGED INTO THE ENGINE WOULD EVENTUALLY LEAK THROUGH THE EXHAUST SYSTEM TO THE GROUND. THIS COULD RESULT IN A FIRE IF A SOURCE OF IGNITION IS PRESENT.
Consequence & Remedy
Consequence:
Remedy: REPAIR WIRING HARNESS, CHECK ENGINE AND CATALYST FOR DAMAGE.
NYLON FUEL LINES ON THE FUEL RETURN SIDE OF THE FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR ASSEMBLY MAY CRACK. CONSEQUENCE OF DEFECT: FUEL LINE COULD LEAK AND, IF AN IGNITION SOURCE IS PRESENT, CREATE THE POTENTIAL FOR A FIRE.
Consequence & Remedy
Consequence:
Remedy: REPLACE NYLON FUEL HOSES WITH RUBBER HOSES.
Loading live complaint data...
Looking for comprehensive historical data?
NHTSA FARS (Fatal Crash History) and broader generational safety trends are aggregated at the model level rather than by specific engine configurations. View the complete historical data profile for all Ford Ranger Pickup 2WD configurations.
Similar 1986 Small Pickup Trucks Alternatives
1986 Chevrolet S10 Pickup 2WD
2.5L 4-cyl Rear-Wheel Drive
1986 Dodge Ram 50 Pickup 2WD
2L 4-cyl Rear-Wheel Drive
1986 GMC S15 Pickup 2WD
2.5L 4-cyl Rear-Wheel Drive
1986 Mitsubishi Truck 2WD
2L 4-cyl Rear-Wheel Drive
1986 Mitsubishi Truck 2WD
2L 4-cyl Rear-Wheel Drive
1986 Chevrolet S10 Pickup 2WD
2.5L 4-cyl Rear-Wheel Drive
Fuel Cost Analysis
Based on 15,000 miles/year and current fuel prices.
Efficiency Breakdown
Estimated Lifetime Carbon Footprint
(Based on 200,000 miles driven)