New Ranger MPG

JAC1982 wrote:
Who buys a truck of any kind to get good gas mileage?

I do. But it is about more than bragging rights. I don't like to stop for fuel very often. And, with the cost of gas going up lately I think that you are going to find more people concerned about fuel economy. It still needs to be capable but if I have a choice between two capable trucks with the main difference being efficiency I will definitely go with the more efficient one.

My point is still that many people incorrectly believe that that generation of F150 was smaller. It wasn't.

The new Ranger, though larger than before, isn't in that league. Soccer mom or not.

mountainkowboy wrote:

colliehauler wrote:

TurnThePage wrote:
It's interesting that people are comparing it to a late '90s F150 as though that were smaller than the other half ton offerings or even the 3/4 ton and above. It wasn't. In fact you could buy a 7 lug version of it called a F250.

Correct, it wasn’t until 1999 that Ford seperated the Superduty's from the F-150. Before that they all used the same cab and bed.

Cause the F150 became a soccer mom truck after that.

It was actually in 1997 with the debut of the new F150 and light duty F250, along with the introduction of the Triton engines. At that time, the HD F250, F350 and FSuperduty (F450) were still the coveted old body style (OBS) trucks.

colliehauler wrote:

TurnThePage wrote:
It's interesting that people are comparing it to a late '90s F150 as though that were smaller than the other half ton offerings or even the 3/4 ton and above. It wasn't. In fact you could buy a 7 lug version of it called a F250.

Correct, it wasn’t until 1999 that Ford seperated the Superduty's from the F-150. Before that they all used the same cab and bed.

Cause the F150 became a soccer mom truck after that.

TurnThePage wrote:
It's interesting that people are comparing it to a late '90s F150 as though that were smaller than the other half ton offerings or even the 3/4 ton and above. It wasn't. In fact you could buy a 7 lug version of it called a F250.

Correct, it wasn’t until 1999 that Ford seperated the Superduty's from the F-150. Before that they all used the same cab and bed.

It's interesting that people are comparing it to a late '90s F150 as though that were smaller than the other half ton offerings or even the 3/4 ton and above. It wasn't. In fact you could buy a 7 lug version of it called a F250.

colliehauler wrote:
19 mpg is all my old style Ford Ranger did highway. 3.0 V-6 with 5sp manual. Cousin had a old style Ranger with the 4 cylinder that did around 28mpg highway.

Our 2011 Ranger 4.0 auto gets 17-18 around town and 22-23 on the highway consistently. Heck it gets 21 mpg at 80-85 mph on the highway

Groover wrote:
I found it interesting that the headline said MPG at 70mph but the only time I heard them mention how fast they actually drove they said 80mph. That was at stop number two just before they announce the 17.6 mpg. That would cause about a 20% drop in fuel economy. Also, I would really like to know what speed the EPA tests at and whether they use pure gasoline or the ethanol blend that we have to use in real life. Those two things could easily account for the rest of the difference.

MPG difference between 55 and 80mph would be -28%ish.

19 mpg is all my old style Ford Ranger did highway. 3.0 V-6 with 5sp manual. Cousin had a old style Ranger with the 4 cylinder that did around 28mpg highway.

Who buys a truck of any kind to get good gas mileage? Gas mileage numbers are just estimates and they come up with them using optimal conditions...

As for me, my Explorer averages right around what they give for combined city/highway, and I do more on the city side of driving.... around 19mpg. Crawls up to 22-23 when I'm on a road trip. I have a lead foot as well.