2011 F150 First Drive

[Reigner92]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/1009_2011_ford_f150_drive/index.html

[Edstock]

Here's a fine review by a Canadian site in Montreal, Auto123 (IMHO, some of the better reviewer/writers around):

 

EB 3.5: "Although official mpg ratings have note yet been issued, I was able to average 25 mpg (9.4 L/100 km) in an eco-challenge with minimal effort. "

 

25 mpg, US gallons. Average.

 

"On one of the many comparison drives we did, GM's 4-speed transmission on the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 simply could not cut it; Ford's 3.7L and 5.0L were simply superior in every way. One exercise consisted in a drag race between the 3.7L and the 4.8L. The 3.7L was clearly the winner..."

 

http://www.auto123.c...01&artid=123156

Edited September 27, 2010 by Edstock

[Chester]

Here's a fine review by a Canadian site in Montreal, Auto123 (IMHO, some of the better reviewer/writers around):

 

EB 3.5: "Although official mpg ratings have note yet been issued, I was able to average 25 mpg (9.4 L/100 km) in an eco-challenge with minimal effort. "

 

25 mpg, US gallons. Average.

 

"On one of the many comparison drives we did, GM's 4-speed transmission on the 4.3L V6 and 4.8L V8 simply could not cut it; Ford's 3.7L and 5.0L were simply superior in every way. One exercise consisted in a drag race between the 3.7L and the 4.8L. The 3.7L was clearly the winner..."

 

http://www.auto123.c...01&artid=123156

 

If ford can come out with an engine that can haul a crew cab 4X4 around while making over 20 average mpg, then their sales will go through the roof.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Wow! Those new powertrains are sounding better by the day. Especially the 3.5 EB!

 

It makes you wonder what Ford could do with an Ecoboost Ranger. 30 mpg highway combined with 6000 lbs towing capacity certainly seems possible. Hopefully we'll see such a truck some day...

[FordBuyer]

Wow! Those new powertrains are sounding better by the day. Especially the 3.5 EB!

 

It makes you wonder what Ford could do with an Ecoboost Ranger. 30 mpg highway combined with 6000 lbs towing capacity certainly seems possible. Hopefully we'll see such a truck some day...

 

After reading these reviews, I have come around and find it hard to make a case for spending money on a new North American Ranger. Ford has all its bases covered now. An EB F-150 now gets over 22mpg in mixed driving even over hilly terrain is most impressive. And there is the standard cab XL 3.7L V6 for the bargain hunters who want a smaller footprint in their driveway. The Ranger I'm sorry has been shoved out of the way so that there is no more space for it to exist. A 3.6L F-150 with 6 speed auto probaby gets 20% fuel mileage than V6 Ranger and almost as good as I4 Ranger. The Ranger losts its relevancy as modern electronics took over and made the 1/2 ton pickup market fuel efficient, especially Ford's F-Series lineup. I'm convinced that Ford has protected its crown jewels...the F-Series pickup segment.

[Sevensecondsuv]

After reading these reviews, I have come around and find it hard to make a case for spending money on a new North American Ranger. Ford has all its bases covered now. An EB F-150 now gets over 22mpg in mixed driving even over hilly terrain is most impressive. And there is the standard cab XL 3.7L V6 for the bargain hunters who want a smaller footprint in their driveway. The Ranger I'm sorry has been shoved out of the way so that there is no more space for it to exist. A 3.6L F-150 with 6 speed auto probaby gets 20% fuel mileage than V6 Ranger and almost as good as I4 Ranger. The Ranger losts its relevancy as modern electronics took over and made the 1/2 ton pickup market fuel efficient, especially Ford's F-Series lineup. I'm convinced that Ford has protected its crown jewels...the F-Series pickup segment.

 

I'll admit it, I'd be plenty happy with the fuel efficiency of the 3.7L V6 and 3.5L EB V6 F-150. However, the thing I can't accept is the F-150's size. It's just too dang huge in crew cab congifuration. I just don't have any interest in driving something that large around all the time. Than the there's the issue of no available manual transmission, which is somewhat of a deal breaker for me (for those about to comment, I already realize this isn't an issue for 99% of the buying public!)

[silvrsvt]

 

25 mpg, US gallons. Average.

 

 

 

Who needs an Fing Ranger with MPG Numbers like that?

[Sevensecondsuv]

Who needs an Fing Ranger with MPG Numbers like that?

 

 

I do. That's who. No, it's not the name I care about - IT'S THE SIZE!!!! The F-150 is just too dang HUGE!

 

Ford has solved the fuel efficiency aspect of the "truck for everyday driving" issue. Now if only they'd turn their attention to the size.

[mettech]

I do. That's who. No, it's not the name I care about - IT'S THE SIZE!!!! The F-150 is just too dang HUGE!

 

Ford has solved the fuel efficiency aspect of the "truck for everyday driving" issue. Now if only they'd turn their attention to the size.

 

 

 

I drive a F-350 PSD, dually...

 

 

I don't think you really want a truck... it appears to me you want a Fiesta.

[V8-X]

After reading these reviews, I have come around and find it hard to make a case for spending money on a new North American Ranger. Ford has all its bases covered now.

Who needs an Fing Ranger with MPG Numbers like that?

Like Sevensecondsuv stated, it's not all the mpg's, you also have to include the footprint. How much wider is an F150 than Ranger? Rcab vs Rcab in length? Scab vs Scab? Screw vs Screw (if Ford made a Screw Ranger)?

 

So while I admittedly like the mpg numbers being shown, that isn't the main reason people buy small trucks. They want the capability of a truck, without the size of a 1/2 ton or larger.

 

I've owned multiple Rangers and multiple F150's, and will tell you it is night and day difference driving these rigs, especially on tight city streets and parking lots. If I had my pick for a DD or even as an off-road rig, and they both got the same mpg, I'd opt for the Ranger in a heartbeat. But because I need a truck and need room for the family, my options are limited to an F150 or higher trucks.

[FordBuyer]

I do. That's who. No, it's not the name I care about - IT'S THE SIZE!!!! The F-150 is just too dang HUGE!

 

Ford has solved the fuel efficiency aspect of the "truck for everyday driving" issue. Now if only they'd turn their attention to the size.

 

That shouldn't be a problem in future as new CAFE rules bite in. Ford could offer an entry level F-Series pickup called the F-100 that weighs maybe at least 1,000 pounds less and call the higher trim model an F-100 Ranger. The engine option would be a EB I4 putting out 250hp and a base engine using the 3.7L V6. That way you keep sales in the F-Series family and everyone is happy. I would agree Ford needs a smaller F-Series pickup, but that day is still a few years off. I wish Ford had an F-100 already, but not at the expense of developing the 2011 F-150. Once these new 2011 F-Series pickups take off sales wise with minimal incentives, maybe Ford can get to work on a new F-100 pickup.

[Sonettech]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/1009_2011_ford_f150_drive/index.html

So many reviews and so little trucks to sell.

[Sevensecondsuv]

I drive a F-350 PSD, dually...

I don't think you really want a truck... it appears to me you want a Fiesta.

 

Good for you. I've driven plenty of 3/4 and 1 tons trucks as well. I'm currently building a 95 F-150 specifically to haul big loads. I love full-size trucks. But not for daily driving. For that, I much prefer something the size of the 1st and 2nd generation Explorers (my current daily driver) or the current Tacoma, or the T6 Ranger. However, I would pick an F-350 over a front wheel drive anything, any day of the week.

 

That shouldn't be a problem in future as new CAFE rules bite in. Ford could offer an entry level F-Series pickup called the F-100 that weighs maybe at least 1,000 pounds less and call the higher trim model an F-100 Ranger. The engine option would be a EB I4 putting out 250hp and a base engine using the 3.7L V6. That way you keep sales in the F-Series family and everyone is happy. I would agree Ford needs a smaller F-Series pickup, but that day is still a few years off. I wish Ford had an F-100 already, but not at the expense of developing the 2011 F-150. Once these new 2011 F-Series pickups take off sales wise with minimal incentives, maybe Ford can get to work on a new F-100 pickup.

 

Agree 100%. It doesn't need to have "Ranger" badges on the fenders and tailgate. F-100 badges would do just as well.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Sevensecondsuv

[Deanh]

I drive a F-350 PSD, dually...

 

 

I don't think you really want a truck... it appears to me you want a Fiesta.

park that dually in the garage a lot?.....latch on the fifth wheel/ camper every day/....tpw 10,000 lbs at least 75% of every week.....have trouble parking in the compact spot at Walmart....association allow commercial vehicles to park curbside....utilize 3000lb payloads on a regualr basis?.......point is, to a LOT of people the f-150 and up are total overkill......

[atvman]

Like Sevensecondsuv stated, it's not all the mpg's, you also have to include the footprint. How much wider is an F150 than Ranger? Rcab vs Rcab in length? Scab vs Scab? Screw vs Screw (if Ford made a Screw Ranger)?

 

So while I admittedly like the mpg numbers being shown, that isn't the main reason people buy small trucks. They want the capability of a truck, without the size of a 1/2 ton or larger.

 

I've owned multiple Rangers and multiple F150's, and will tell you it is night and day difference driving these rigs, especially on tight city streets and parking lots. If I had my pick for a DD or even as an off-road rig, and they both got the same mpg, I'd opt for the Ranger in a heartbeat. But because I need a truck and need room for the family, my options are limited to an F150 or higher trucks.

I owned a Ranger for about 9 years and it is my opinion that they are just too small. First off, I'm 6'4" and there simply wasn't enough room in the driver's seat. Secondly, there was only about 45 or 46 inches of width between the wheel wells and most building materials are 48 inches wide. I'm not against the idea of owning a truck smaller than a half ton, but it needs to have more interior room than the Ranger and have not less than 49 inches between the wheel wells. The Dakota fits the bill, but the price and FE are about the same as a half ton so what's the point?