Huckleberry Finn
Senior Member
- 15,973
- 135
I'm on my third Ranger, and yes they are good little trucks... But let's be honest, the gas mileage from Rangers is absolute shit. My first one was a '97 with the 2.3L 5-speed, and I was lucky to even get 25 mpg with it. My '03 that I have now has the 4.0L V6 and I'm averaging around 17 mpg. My dad's 2010 F150 is averaging better than that, and he's got a V8. Other than being cheaper, I see no advantage to drive a Ranger instead of a full-size truck. The full-size trucks are built stronger and have less mechanical issues also, IMO.
A friend of mine recently bought a custom "scuba compressor" from a guy down south... He's got it set up to compress natural gas and will soon be converting his vehicles to run on it. He's got a gas well on his property so eventually he won't be spending a dime on gasoline.
First truck was a 98 Sonoma 2wd with the 4.3L. Not great mileage. Great truck though.
Since, I have had many trucks. I had a 97 Ranger 4wd with the 4.0L. Not great mileage. 15mpg tops.
I currently use a Colorado for one of our work trucks. 2wd with the 4cyl auto. It is great. Mid 20's on the highway.
That said, I have also had many 3/4 and 1Ton trucks. Mileage is based on what gears the truck has. I have had them get anywhere from 17-22mpg. One a regular cab, two extended cabs, and currently a crew cab. Three were duallies. All were 4x4. I don't care what you think, that is darn respectable for trucks which weigh as much as these trucks and have this much power. I do believe these trucks are capable of mid 20's mpg from the factory if the government would actually let them do it. The restrictions the government puts on these trucks are what holds them back. Problem isn't with the manufacturers. It is with what the government allows and does not allow. It is with these mandates which force the manufacturer's hands that the reduced fuel economy comes. With reduced fuel economy comes increased fuel consumption. With increased fuel consumption comes an increase in fuel taxes the government brings in. This is a catch 22. The government doesn't want the vehicles to get better mileage. They want more fuel tax brought in. They don't want the manufacturers to drop vehicles to meet their MPG mandates. They want the increased income which comes with the fines. BS!
Since, I have had many trucks. I had a 97 Ranger 4wd with the 4.0L. Not great mileage. 15mpg tops.
I currently use a Colorado for one of our work trucks. 2wd with the 4cyl auto. It is great. Mid 20's on the highway.
That said, I have also had many 3/4 and 1Ton trucks. Mileage is based on what gears the truck has. I have had them get anywhere from 17-22mpg. One a regular cab, two extended cabs, and currently a crew cab. Three were duallies. All were 4x4. I don't care what you think, that is darn respectable for trucks which weigh as much as these trucks and have this much power. I do believe these trucks are capable of mid 20's mpg from the factory if the government would actually let them do it. The restrictions the government puts on these trucks are what holds them back. Problem isn't with the manufacturers. It is with what the government allows and does not allow. It is with these mandates which force the manufacturer's hands that the reduced fuel economy comes. With reduced fuel economy comes increased fuel consumption. With increased fuel consumption comes an increase in fuel taxes the government brings in. This is a catch 22. The government doesn't want the vehicles to get better mileage. They want more fuel tax brought in. They don't want the manufacturers to drop vehicles to meet their MPG mandates. They want the increased income which comes with the fines. BS!
Hey JB! :smiley_arrogant:
All I'm sayin is some folks want a truck, but can't swing the full size. That's a market need. and now the gov wants to put the poo-poo on it in the name of gas mileage?
I say less BS regulation and let the market sort itself out. If people wanna drive a truck, let 'em drive a truck.
This is America dammit...AMERICA!
All I'm sayin is some folks want a truck, but can't swing the full size. That's a market need. and now the gov wants to put the poo-poo on it in the name of gas mileage?
I say less BS regulation and let the market sort itself out. If people wanna drive a truck, let 'em drive a truck.
This is America dammit...AMERICA!
I agree with you, man. It certainly is a market need. I just think it's absolutely ridiculous that Ford can make a full size pickup that averages 18-20 mpg with a V8, yet can't make a Ranger that gets that kind of mileage. And the cost of a new Ranger isn't that far off from a F150 anyway. Last I checked, a 4x4 Ranger with extended cab is anywhere from 26-30k on the sticker.
rgecko23
*Supporting Member*
Looks that way across all brands:
http://www.cars.com/guides/truck/compact-midsize/
I know engine/cab/4x4 etc, will change the price and the above is just a baseline, but those prices are flat out ridiculous! You should be able to get any one of those trucks full decked out for 23/24k or less IMO.
http://www.cars.com/guides/truck/compact-midsize/
I know engine/cab/4x4 etc, will change the price and the above is just a baseline, but those prices are flat out ridiculous! You should be able to get any one of those trucks full decked out for 23/24k or less IMO.
Schu72
Well-Known Member
Here's a little different spin...
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/end-ford-ranger-says-working-america-183034573.html
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/end-ford-ranger-says-working-america-183034573.html
- 39,188
- 274
Kind of what I was thinking as well.. GM was going to scrap the Colorado for the same reason... I think GM should have scrapped it because it's a piece of shit... But hell. That would be most of GMs product line if that was the determining factor.
rgecko23
*Supporting Member*
If they made a Tundra with a diesel I would jump when its time for a new one.
My F150 when I bought it was 30K out the door, the samee truck with the new body was 40K+....What did they do to justify 10 more grand? NOTHING! This was even before the 5.0L motor came out.
My F150 when I bought it was 30K out the door, the samee truck with the new body was 40K+....What did they do to justify 10 more grand? NOTHING! This was even before the 5.0L motor came out.
Won't ever buy a new truck and spend that kind of cash.... too many good used trucks out there too justify that.... Let someone else eat all that depreciation.....
Just spent $1000 on some front end work on my Dodge, it sucks but I remind myself that wouldn't even be 2 months payments on a new one.
One thing I'll say -
Back in April I bought a new Tundra. My neighbor (who's a contractor) told me "You oughta look into buyin a commercial one without all the bells and whistles. Same truck, less money." And I did and it is and I gotta say, I love the heavy vinyl seats and rubber floor. SO easy to keep clean, and no worries about carpet or seat stains. Glorious.
I'd recommend vinyl seats and rubber floor to anyone.
Back in April I bought a new Tundra. My neighbor (who's a contractor) told me "You oughta look into buyin a commercial one without all the bells and whistles. Same truck, less money." And I did and it is and I gotta say, I love the heavy vinyl seats and rubber floor. SO easy to keep clean, and no worries about carpet or seat stains. Glorious.
I'd recommend vinyl seats and rubber floor to anyone.
I know exactly what you mean, Sam. I just dropped almost 800 on shocks, alignment, and tranny flush a month ago. It sucks, but that's not even two monthly payments on a new truck.
+1 For anyone that's an outdoorsman (or woman), the rubber floors are the way to go. Get 'em muddy... just hose the fugger out! It was a must-have when I got my current ranger.
- 39,188
- 274
The old pickup truck i've been driving since I was 16... with 208k miles still gets me from point A to point B just fine. No car payments and I can justify 1k a year in maintenance (suspension, tires, etc.), and it costs me no where close to what a new one would.
Now if the motor or tranny goes, which it could at any moment, I will upgrade, but not new. It will mostly likely be something from 2006-2009 with 80k miles or less. I'm just not a big fan of buying brand new vehicles...
Now if the motor or tranny goes, which it could at any moment, I will upgrade, but not new. It will mostly likely be something from 2006-2009 with 80k miles or less. I'm just not a big fan of buying brand new vehicles...