says the new 2011 rangers are getting 22 city and 27 highway with the right setup? Seems to be much better gas mileage to me.

 

i used to get 22-22.5 combined 70%hwy 30%city with my 04 heritage 4.2L 5spd 3.08 rear and K&N intake... got 22.5 on 3 tanks filling at same pump. also try filling up more often. instead of letting it get down to 1/4 tank...fill it up and fill it when it gets to 3/4 a tank.. i tried this along with 2 other people i worked with and we all got .5 to 1pmg more doing that. i had my 04 heritage, other guy had an 04 explorer, other had a 05 ranger 4cyl. explorer got about .5, me and the ranger got close to1mpg more. its worth a try. only takes away some of your time. your not paying any more technically since its still the same amount of gas being used..

 

Ya, but you're also dragging more weight around when you have that extra gas. Is it really increasing mileage?

 

ok so the new rangers are getting on the low end what you are getting on the high end. 27 mpg is pretty damn good.

 

but thats with a 2.3L.....not even 150hp i dont think....

 

I used to drive my moms 4cyl 5spd single cab ranger to work to save on gas. I loved that little truck I'd buy one for a DD

 

true but also the momentum once you get it moving would keep it rolling against the wind easier so it would take less gas to keep it rolling and you can let off/put in neutral earlier for stops. either way its probably saving money. think about if you go from full to 1/4 tank and it takes 2 weeks to do that. the price of gas could go up .50 during that time....so your paying a lot more when you fill up. if you do it when it hits 3/4, it is less of a hit on the wallet.

yes but also i would rather be driving an f150 than a 18yr old truck...same basic style/shape since 1993...plus thats just a rating of 27mpg....not real world figure. also, if you are looking for mpgs, youre most likely not looking at any trucks.

 

my truck was rated at 21 mpg highway when I first bought it. I bet you could get 27 mpg out of that ranger. Yeah you don't have as much hp as an f150 but a ranger doesn't weigh as much either so its probably similar to a 4.2L in an f150. Im just sayin if you don't ever tow and occasionally just have stuff in the bed a ranger could be a perfect truck for the gas mileage it gets. I know a lot of guys like to beef their truck up and make it look badass and there is nothing wrong with that but personally I look for function over aesthetics. Some people look at having a truck as a hobby I look at it as having a vehicle that benefits you the most and fits you the best for your needs/wants. If I can get something and maybe add a few things to make it look nicer thats just a bonus.

Also have to add have you seen the new rangers? They are a pretty good looking truck if you ask me. As far as not getting a total makeover I would say the reason for that is the platform works why change the whole platform?

 

^ I'm 6'5" tall....ranger wont work for me no matter what year lol. mine was a 97...112hp, 135Lb-Ft. thats pathetic. the newer ones i believe are 143hp. true its not bad and probably would be around the same power to weight as a 4.2L f150 but you have less space, less weight to get going on snow, on the older ones you have 8 spark plugs on the 2.3L, and also for anyone above 6 feet tall, its just very comfortable to drive unless its an ext cab. if i got in an accident with that thing my legs would be crushed, doesnt matter what i hit...deer, car, moth...my legs would be pinned. even while driving, my knees were touching the dash. f150 has plenty of room and wont get blown off the road when a speeding prius passes you. if you are shorter, then its a nice truck, but not a truck for taller guys

 

I hate rangers. Everything about the ranger/explorer except the limited explorers felt cheaply made to me. 5.0 in the explorer and the 8.8 rear axle was the only good thing about them. Rangers always felt like a death trap to me too. I'm 6'3". Not only that but the 2.3 is slow as hell and I could never get more than 17 mpg out of the one at my old place of work.

 

yeah Im 5'10" so the two rangers I used to have were just a little bit tight but not too bad. I remember when I first got my f150 I was like"man the interior space on this thing is huge!" Ofcourse I drove a ranger for a couple years so anything would seem big after that

 

I think the whole "mini truck" category is basically dead. You don't see many begin sold anymore, the ones that are still around are mid size trucks such as the Tacoma and Frontier. You don't really see many S-10's (or whatever the new version is, Colorado?) or Rangers anymore. The mini trucks of the early 90's used to be sold for about $10k but once the price started going up people just bought full size trucks instead.

 

yeah I think you're right 54regcab. The price is what has killed the ranger . Maybe some day in the year 3000 f150s will get 30mpg

 

Back in 1992, I was driving a 1983 Chevette (sad I know, almost embarrassing) and looking at new economy cars because that's all I could afford. I saw a brand new 1992 Nissan Pickup for $6,995 (stripped model, didn't even have power steering) which was the same same price as an economy car at the time. Quickly I thought, forget the stupid economy cars, I'm getting a TRUCK for the SAME PRICE.

Today those deals no longer hold true, a Ford Focus is considerably cheaper than a Ranger or other small truck. I found this out in 1999 when I went to go buy another small truck to replace my Nissan. As we all know once you have a truck, you can't not have one I went looking at Nissans/Rangers/S-10's and found the price wasn't much less than a full size truck. That was the end of my small truck considerations, a 1999 F150 regular cab was purchased (that's why the 1999 join date). Once I had 2 kids the regular cab wasn't cutting it, so now I have a 2006 Supercrew. Just glad the Screw came out BEFORE I had kids