Ranger Comparison

Since Ford hasn’t done anything to help the little Ranger achieve a better mpg rating, what can be said.

If Ford had taken the time and worked on the Ranger to get more mpg I think it could have don’t it, how can an F150 get 22+ mpg and not a Ranger, who knows !

My problem has always been that I like the size of the truck, I don’t need a work truck but I like the ability to carry a little more than an SUV or these newer cross overs.

I believe Ford made the usual financial decision something had to go to trim down the cost and the F150 and bigger just wasn’t it, too much money there.

When you can have a diesel get 50+ mpg in a VW or Audi or even 40 mpg in the X5 BMW why can’t the Ranger get 30+ ?

And to add a little more of what we have ALREADY talked about the newer World Ranger is not where it is at, so even if IT comes to the US I do not believe I will be driving a newer Ford much longer.

Now to buy that ’52 F1 I have been looking at… !
 
My ranger can get 22 mpg lol.

I do think a diesel ranger would go vet very well in North America. Just as long as it ain't as ugly as that god damn horrendous looking global ranger.
 
I dont understand how most of the midsizes get bad MPG when you compare to the full sizes. Yes my Ram gulps down gas in stop and go traffic but normal driving in town and highways it is quite fuel efficient. Why dish out $35-40,000 for a crew cab Frontier or Tacoma that gets 18 MPG and has little room in the back for adults anyways and no room in the bed. My Crew cab ram gets 20 MPG, has more leg room in the back then a Dodge Caravan so an adult is well seated back there.

Since I came from a ranger I can understand buying and owning a compact truck, the compact size has lots of perks with only lack of interior and some lack of MPG as down falls, but the midsize class offers barely any strong suits that isnt outclassed by either the compact or full size segment.
 
06FordFX4 said:
My ranger can get 22 mpg lol.

I do think a diesel ranger would go vet very well in North America. Just as long as it ain't as ugly as that god damn horrendous looking global ranger.
Click to expand...
my ranger got 27 MPG from Ottawa to Timmins, going a steady 105 Kmh with the A/C on, passing cars, and some idling in construction. I was amazed :)
 
Scrambler82 said:
Since Ford hasn’t done anything to help the little Ranger achieve a better mpg rating, what can be said.

If Ford had taken the time and worked on the Ranger to get more mpg I think it could have don’t it, how can an F150 get 22+ mpg and not a Ranger, who knows !

My problem has always been that I like the size of the truck, I don’t need a work truck but I like the ability to carry a little more than an SUV or these newer cross overs.

I believe Ford made the usual financial decision something had to go to trim down the cost and the F150 and bigger just wasn’t it, too much money there.

When you can have a diesel get 50+ mpg in a VW or Audi or even 40 mpg in the X5 BMW why can’t the Ranger get 30+ ?

And to add a little more of what we have ALREADY talked about the newer World Ranger is not where it is at, so even if IT comes to the US I do not believe I will be driving a newer Ford much longer.

Now to buy that ’52 F1 I have been looking at… !
Click to expand...


I agree the World Ranger isnt the solution. all the 01+ Rangers needed was a chassis and suspension update, an interior update (change the stereo and dash config), better seats, Updated powertrain (3.2L diesel, 3.7L V6 and the 5L V8 all with 6 spd autos/manuals) and better trim Levels (Bring back the Fx4 lvlII, the thunderbolt and also a High end model like a Limited)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top