i agree with the responses on mpg for the ranger. and i definitely think the ranger should have a diesel option. a 4banger diesel similar to the new cummins 4banger would be plenty powerful and still get good mpg's... 220hp and nearly 400lb/ft and 26-30mpg. i would absolutely buy a ranger with a diesel option

 

I think the MPG should be higher for a factory installed diesel.

175 horsepower and 35+ mpg. 4 cylinder gas motor should be around 35 as well.

A V6 should be around 30.

My 2.9 Ranger gets 23, anything around that or less is unacceptable. Heck my 5000 pound Maxima with a 3.5 V6 will get 32 mpg highway and sometimes better. My wife is a lead foot and still averages 24 60 % city 40% highway


Josh

 

Nobody out in the real world gets anywhere near what the window sticker says however, the F150 Ecoboost only manages low teens in typical city driving.. according to what I read on here, and of course that's in a Supercrew because nobody buys anything smaller anymore. In comparison our old 4-banger ranger gets 25mpg everywhere all the time regardless how you drive or what you're hauling. Apples to oranges comparison for sure but the bottom line is the Ranger can carry everything a single person needs for commuting or a small contracting business, people don't need a 3/4 ton crew cab 4x4 for this but that doesn't seem to stop them from buying so much vehicle for such modest needs. I just got our new-to-us 2004 Ranger ready for the road and haven't been able to do much besides test drive it yet but overall I'm quite impressed with this little truck, it's vastly improved from the old platform in pretty much every way so I'm excited to see how it will perform in it's new life as a work truck in our landscape/gardening business. I know it won't be as good on gas as the 4banger but it should fall somewhere between it and my 5.0 powered F150 which only manages about 12-13mpg hauling tools and building materials. People complain that the Ranger is outdated and the old powertrains are weak and inefficient but compared to what? The new F150 powertrains are super high tech and are capable of better milage than the old engines, but the new trucks are larger and heavier so the net result is these vehicles aren't significantly better on gas than the old ones. Is Ford going to do the same thing with the Ranger? If so that's too bad.

 

Just looked up the new Explorer... kind of surprised actually, these specs are pathetic.

3.5L Ti-VCT V6 17 city- 25 hwy

2.0L I-4 EcoBoost™ 20 city - 28 hwy

Which means real world should be slightly less.

If it came down to it, I would keep my 87 which averages 23 mpg over that boat anchor crap.

Josh

 

With new emissions standards it wouldn't be cost effective to put a diesel in a Ranger. Look at all the things that have been added to modern diesels to pass emissions, the Ranger's target audience couldn't afford it

 

Not too mention a little gun-shy when it comes to small diesels. All of the manufacturers tried small diesels in the early 80s and none of them really took off in the USA.

Diesels in 3/4-1 ton pickup trucks didn't really pick up until the late 90s.

The $5 a gallon disel prices in parts on 2008 pretty much killed any notion of doing that again. VW seems to do well with their TDI though.

Josh

 

The real deal-breaker for most diesel powered small vehicles in the USA, is the dirty fuel we have. In Europe, where they have been enjoying the great MPG of diesel powered cars for years, they also have rather strict requirements on the fuel, so there's a lot less need for the emmission control equipment that is needed in the USA.

As for defending the killing off of the Ranger, there is no defense for it, in my opinion.
If it really was just over fears of hurting sales of F-series, then calling it an F100 would have resolved the issue. (not the I really see it as an issue)
However, the F150 has been a top seller for over 30 years, and the Ranger pretty much carried the same distinction as the market leader of it's class.

 

I have always wondered how guys get 20+mpg in their rangers. my 88 with a 2.9 got 17-19 all highway, my 93 with a 3.0 got 16-17 mostly highway and my current 99 4.0 gets 16 consistently. My wife's explorer with a 4.6 has always beaten my rangers getting at worst 18 city and 22 highway.

BTW my F250 gets 17-19 so my 7200lb monster out does my ranger.

Oh and the other one that had a 302 in it actually did better then most of my V6 rangers, never could figure that out.

So if Ford can make a V8 explorer that outdoes all their V6 rangers then it's no wonder sales were lagging IMHO. Now if as Josh mentiones they would do the ecoboost I-4 and get it even into the mid 20s I would be all over that, or better yet a diesel since I do make my own biodiesel it would be in my driveway as we speak.

And I do have to admit, my OTHER ranger got gallon per 250ft approx or around 19.8 GPM.

 

My 4.0L 4x4 Ranger has gotten up to 23 on the highway. I usually get 20-21 highway though

 

Ford can make all the excuses it wants to but they stepped on their meat. Everybody knows it...how long will it take Ford to figure it out.

 

As soon as a Ford exec sees company owned fleets of Colorado's, tacoma's and Frontier's all around him on the highway, and realizes that Ford shot themselves between the eyes on an entire market segment.

RIP, Ford Ranger 1983-2011........The little truck that could, but was never given credit.

 

That's what I am thinking in comparing the Ranger to the old Taurus and Crown Vic. Taurus was a major staple of car rentals and Crown Vics for Police. It took less than 2 years for Ford to re-investigate that poor decision.

Josh

 

That's another can of worms..........dump the CV for a super high tech, awd v-6 platform for police duty?..........Better have some good low mile CVs in reserve for the massive amount of down time the new Taurus awd Police pursuit is going have.
Better off to have tweaked the CV and updated it's suspension and handling, dropped in the new 5.0..........There would be a REAL police interceptor.

 

That's true, they did seem to go beyond what was truly needed to come out with a new AND dedicated police car.

As for the Taurus, the old car was a decent utilitarian vehicle. A highschool student with a base model to an executive with a tricked out SES could each enjoy the Taurus.

Now the Taurus is a mid-high priced luxury sedan. What the heck happened? Oh... we can't take sales from the Fusion. Which a great car, but the Taurus "name" isn't exactly a $40,000 car.

Just my $.02

 

If you count the Courier, Ford has been in the small truck market since the beginning, 1972 anyway...............Seems to be very shortsighted to remove yourself from a entire market.
No bailout aside, some of the decisions and products from Dearborn of late are starting to seem worrisome.