New Ranger MPG

20.8
Filled up my 89 Ranger yesterday and got 16.9 hand calculated. Thats with no highways miles.

Looks like this is getting a lot of attention nationally.

My personal opinion is that that they scaled the Ranger too large and they should have introduced a smaller platform for this truck. Although I have not seen this truck in person, it appears to be closer in size to Dodge Dakota rather than the Ford Ranger of the past. Perhaps there is no demand for a mini F50 pickup, but it seems like the Ranger will competing against the F150 rather than complementing the pickup line.

This is why we sell more full size trucks than midsize trucks. The fuel economy is basically as wash so there is no real benefit unless you are buying one because it costs less, live in a metro area where vehicles size matters, or just like smaller trucks over full size trucks with more room.

My father in law found this out the hard way. He bought a 2009 Toyota Tacoma for fuel mileage for then he doesn't need his F350 to haul stuff. That truck gets worse if not the same hand calculated mpg than his old 6.0L and current 6.7L F350.

Bedlam wrote:
My personal opinion is that that they scaled the Ranger too large and they should have introduced a smaller platform for this truck. Although I have not seen this truck in person, it appears to be closer in size to Dodge Dakota rather than the Ford Ranger of the past. Perhaps there is no demand for a mini F50 pickup, but it seems like the Ranger will competing against the F150 rather than complementing the pickup line.

A lot of that has to do with CAFE regulations and the footprint(size) of the vehicles is comparison to it's fuel economy.

How CAFE Killed Compact Trucks And Station Wagons

Bedlam wrote:
My personal opinion is that that they scaled the Ranger too large and they should have introduced a smaller platform for this truck. Although I have not seen this truck in person, it appears to be closer in size to Dodge Dakota rather than the Ford Ranger of the past. Perhaps there is no demand for a mini F50 pickup, but it seems like the Ranger will competing against the F150 rather than complementing the pickup line.

There are those who would not buy a F150 because it's bigger than they want, who really don't want a pickup truck and let's face it who where then buying competitors small trucks instead of F150's.

Ford at one time owned the small pickup market with the previous Ranger and then killed it to increase traffic to the F150. What they instead did was drive traffic to their competitors. They have now fixed that mistake.

I had a '95 4.0L SC 5sp manual truck that I really liked but having rode in one recently forgot how small they where. Seriously though, Ford is not building the truck for me, they are building it for millennials.

Bedlam wrote:
My personal opinion is that that they scaled the Ranger too large and they should have introduced a smaller platform for this truck. Although I have not seen this truck in person, it appears to be closer in size to Dodge Dakota rather than the Ford Ranger of the past. Perhaps there is no demand for a mini F50 pickup, but it seems like the Ranger will competing against the F150 rather than complementing the pickup line.

I think all trucks have just gotten way bigger.

I've always suspected the new midsize where close in size to my old mid 90's full-size.

So I just compared the interior and exterior dimensions of my truck to a new 4 door canyon after reading this comment.

They are almost exactly the same externally. My suburban is 2" wider overall(counting mirrors). Wheelbase and overall length are even close.

The leg, head, and hip room is almost exactly the same as well, within a .25 inches. The canyon has almost 2 inches MORE from headroom, but has 7 inches less shoulder room. This is a big one and would be noticeable for sure. Surprisingly even the rear seat room is the same as the suburban, other than shoulder room(just like the front row).

Just thought that was interesting to see how big the new midsize trucks are compared to the past.

parker.rowe wrote:
I've always suspected the new midsize where close in size to my old mid 90's full-size.

I've hear that said before, but it's so untrue. Up through last year I had a 91 Chevy K2500 that I daily drive for a year and a half. It's much bigger than a Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon.

We saw a new Ranger in Tucson last week, it appear to be about or a little smaller than the Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon. Chris

Me Again wrote:
We saw a new Ranger in Tucson last week, it appear to be about or a little smaller than the Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon. Chris

I have yet to see one on the road, but did see a couple on a dealers lot last weekend. It's a real good lookin truck