why small trucks don't get as good gas mileage ...

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: rslifkin
That 04 sounds like a 6.0 Powerstroke (Navistar VT365). They weren't bad engines, but they definitely had their issues, particularly early on. Mostly stuck variable turbos and sticky injectors.


I don't know... I think they were just all-around BAD. Even people who fixed turbo and injector problems quickly before they did collateral damage have had more deep structural problems with those engines. The 6.4 is much better, and time will tell about the Ford-built 6.7.

Its amazing how high the resale value on 2001-2003 7.3L Powerstrokes is... people still prefer them even over the 6.4.

 

[Jeff3126]

That 6.0 is the best engine Ford ever made, just ask people who earn their living repairing them.

A poster mentioned he has a Colorado w/ the 5.3, awesome combination IMO.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: ZR2grizz


Out of all these trucks, the Ranger is the only true compact anymore...the others are more midsize, offering quite a bit more room with considerably more power/torque for the same mileage.


I don't know if I'd even call the Ranger a "compact" anymore Several of us were headed to a car show once and happened by a public scale- my '69 Coronet weighed in at 4200 lb, and a Ford Ranger 4x4 that was travelling with us weighed in at 4500. That's pretty darn heavy for a "compact" truck, when I'm guessing that a mid-80s Ranger would have had trouble topping 3000 lb.

Compact and midsize trucks are about as big as fullsizes used to be, and fullsize trucks have gone ridiculously big. Park an 08 truck next to an 85 truck of the same payload rating and see how much taller it is.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Jeff3126

A poster mentioned he has a Colorado w/ the 5.3, awesome combination IMO.


Yes it is, and so was a 5.9 Dakota back when they were making them. I haven't driven a Dakota with the 4.7 since they bumped the power up to 310 HP in 08, but when it first replaced the 5.2 it felt a little sluggish just because of where the power band was, even though it had more power on paper than the 5.2 did. I will say the 310 hp 4.7 is fairly impressive in a Ram, although it still takes a bit to get rolling from a dead stop. If you'd told me in 1980 that a 287 cubic inch v8 would be perfectly acceptable in a fullsize truck and would out-perform what a 360 did back then, I'd have laughed.

 

[rslifkin]

The local school district has at least 70+ buses with the VT365 in them. Most of the issues they have are injector related (turbos haven't been too bad, they get driven HARD, so they don't soot up badly). Injector "stiction" is noticed by the large cloud of white-ish gray unburned fuel spewing out the exhaust, and the fuel gauge dropping like a rock compared to normal (can be almost a 50% mpg drop). Most of them have had the issue and been fixed, only a couple had the issue return.

 

[morris]

i would like to say "I am mr know it all" but we all know iam not. just ask my x. this is just an idea, no proof. the smaller trks have a samller engines, because of that, when you drive you will push the throttle deeper, cause you want to move out at a rate you like. i drive VERY hard, i have a 2001 dakota v6, 230 ci, and i get 11-13 in town and hiway. one more idea, when it comes to cars/trucks every thing is a balance ie, a trade off. in 1969 i built a very hi performance engine. it got 10 mpg in town and toeing a car on the hiway. it had a lot of low rpm power. what it was doing was making enough power at just off idle to pull a car at 60 mph.

 

[subiedriver]

We have an '03 F150 5.4 4x4 that gets 19 mpg highway, empty. Our neighbor with an '05 Cummins Dodge 3/4 ton 4x4 gets 23 mpg highway, empty, with a 6 speed tranny. That's pretty impressive for a 6000 lb truck.

 

[CBR.worm]

Yeah - the Dodge Cummins trucks always got great mileage. Less so now that the power has come up.

We had one with a manual tranny in the late 90's that even towing a large trailer we would get close to 20 mpg.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: rslifkin
That 04 sounds like a 6.0 Powerstroke (Navistar VT365). They weren't bad engines, but they definitely had their issues, particularly early on. Mostly stuck variable turbos and sticky injectors.


I don't know... I think they were just all-around BAD. Even people who fixed turbo and injector problems quickly before they did collateral damage have had more deep structural problems with those engines. The 6.4 is much better, and time will tell about the Ford-built 6.7.

Its amazing how high the resale value on 2001-2003 7.3L Powerstrokes is... people still prefer them even over the 6.4.

Agree, the RV board has scared me away from them. The EGR cooler is a big issue too. The sand cast clogs it up and then you are in for trouble.

 

[M1Accord]

Originally Posted By: morris
i would like to say "I am mr know it all" but we all know iam not. just ask my x. this is just an idea, no proof. the smaller trks have a samller engines, because of that, when you drive you will push the throttle deeper, cause you want to move out at a rate you like. i drive VERY hard, i have a 2001 dakota v6, 230 ci, and i get 11-13 in town and hiway. one more idea, when it comes to cars/trucks every thing is a balance ie, a trade off. in 1969 i built a very hi performance engine. it got 10 mpg in town and toeing a car on the hiway. it had a lot of low rpm power. what it was doing was making enough power at just off idle to pull a car at 60 mph.


The I4 version of the Ranger gets much better gas mileage than the V6; therefore, your theory isn't correct. In addition, your theory suggest that a Civic should get worse or equal gas mileage as the Accord and the same relationship holds true for the Focus/Crown Vic relationship.

I believe Ford just didn't give a [censored] about the Ranger, which is a perfect size for most American home or small business owner. Isn't the Ranger will be discontinue according to some thread on here? For puts a lot of R&D fund into the F150 and probably next to nothing into the Ranger. That is the same because they could have a 30 mpg highway compact truck that people will buy like hot cake. I know I would.

 

[M1Accord]

I am a the one person that always ask about new or different cars because I am always looking for a car but has zero ambition to buy one or at least one costing over $5k. I have 2 cars and don't care about new car smell and avoid it whenever possible because new car and expensive cars are heavily taxed as personal property in Virginia and that tax is yearly. My 9 years old Accord still has a 200 dollars personal property tax each year.

 

[ClarkB]

Getting back to the OP's questions I would say it largely depends on what truck you're driving. I know the 2wd Tacomas can get really good mileage on the highway, over 30 if done right. My 4wd Taco is averaging better than 22:

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/bcaleem/tacoma

If I would have stuck with my gut feeling and went down to a 225/75/15 instead of the stock 265/75/15 I think it would be averaging about 24. Granted, this truck is made to not get stuck (4wd) but get good gas mileage (stick, manual hubs, regular cab, 4 cyl) and it seems to fulfill that mission quite well.

If I were in your position I would look at getting a 2wd Tacoma.

Clark

 

[JTK]

Comparing a Ranger with an F150 for fuel economy depends on your usage. The last vehicle my dad owned was a 1998 Ranger 2.5L, 5spd. A totally basic SWB, 2wd, no a/c, vinyl seat, etc. It ran good, was as simple as an old tractor to work on and was reliable as all get out, but 27mpg it never got even CLOSE to with the around town driving it saw. High teens at best. If you've got a specific need for a small truck, by all means go that route. Otherwise, get a full-size if you really need to use a pickup as a truck.

Joel

 

[BeanCounter]

When my S10 was stock, I'd get up to 22-23 mpg's on the highway (it pays to have a manual and not a slush box).
My gf's VW Rabbit pick-up (that I drive quite often) gets over 30...
The base model, no options, 4cyl 5 speed 2wd Colorado can get over 30 on the highway as well. I thought seriously about buying one before I picked up the Pontiac.

 

[mjoekingz28]

Originally Posted By: cryption
You will get better mileage from the larger truck because you have more power to push that much weight and wind resistance.

My Frontier always got worse mileage than my dad's Titan. The reason being, at 70mph I had to push my truck a lot harder than the Titan would have to - thus using more gas.


I don't like that saying. I just read something like that in Motor Trend. It said, well the 2.4 acutally gets better gas mileage than the 2.2 because they can run taller gearing causing the engine to run lower rpms. I think they were referring to the S2000. If thats the case, just slap in a V8 and a 3.42 and we'll call it 40mpg. I was disapointed to read that. btw, they arent worth reading now like they were when Cvan Tune was there running the show.

Its a shame to hear they're quitting on the Ranger. Its the only vehicle in America that I really like since they don't go changing things just when they finally get it right. 17 years unchanged I think it was.

 

[ffracer]

A current 2wd 4cyl 5-speed manual Ranger will get real world 30 mpg on the highway and 25 mpg in town, if you know when to shift.

I have a 95 longbed with the old 2.3L (less efficient) and it gets 25-28 gas with ethanol.

Add in an automatic (which slower and less responsive) or 4wd or someone who doesn't know when to shift (have to shift in the power band) and mileage dissapears.