Mackintire Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Half the price and twice the mpg no... But $5-7k cheaper for a 4WD CrewCab model and 2-3 mpg more efficient is not unrealistic... I'd accept $2-3k cheaper for a 4WD CrewCab model and 4-5 mpg more efficient. Which should also be possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I'd accept $2-3k cheaper for a 4WD CrewCab model and 4-5 mpg more efficient. Which should also be possible. If you're getting 16 mpg and you go to 20mpg, that's a big change in fuel consumptionbut if you're getting 30 mpg and you go to 35 mpg, not so much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 The problem with most compact (Ranger) truck consumers is that they think a smaller than F150 truck should cost half as much as an F150. That's not going to happen. I don't think anyone makes that assumption in cars, so I don't know why that would apply to Ranger customers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) I don't think anyone makes that assumption in cars, so I don't know why that would apply to Ranger customers. Because Ranger has been sold cheap for nearly its entire life... The problem is this...I saw a Ranger on the lot last year that was virtually identical to my dad's 98 XLT Extended Cab Ranger 2WD. The one on the lot might have had 4WD on it, but dont remember...but the problem was this...I think it only listed for $28K...which was right around the same price it was in 1998 when my old man got his...and that was 14 years ago! Granted the truck hasn't changed much, but unless smaller truck buyers actually spend money on a smaller truck, why should Ford cater to them? Given the truck has to pay its own way...selling $20K trucks isn't going to pay for a new Ranger. Once you start optioning them up, your going to be getting into the 30-40K range, which right in the middle of what an F-150 goes for (because the 40-50K+ Raptors and Limited off set the price of the work fleet special F-150 XLs). I get this feeling that someone who is buying a Ranger is buying it mostly as a second or third vehicle...and doesn't want all the do-dads on it because its only being used on the weekends etc... Edited September 10, 2012 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Because Ranger has been sold cheap for nearly its entire life... Granted the truck hasn't changed much, but unless smaller truck buyers actually spend money on a smaller truck, why should Ford cater to them? I was suggesting that Ranger customers are every bit as intelligent as Focus/Fiesta buyers. People who can read a $20K sticker on a Focus, can read a $24K sticker on a Fusion or a $27k sticker on a Taurus. I'm not arguing the business case for a Ranger. At this time, Ford apparently doesn't believe there is one. When I bought my Ranger in 1993, I never cross-shopped the F-150. To this day, I couldn't tell you the price differential between an F-150 and my Ranger at that time. I wanted a small truck. I cross-shopped the Nissan and the Toyota. Ford was the best choice at the time, and I've never regretted it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 If you're getting 16 mpg and you go to 20mpg, that's a big change in fuel consumptionbut if you're getting 30 mpg and you go to 35 mpg, not so much What F-series vairant is getting anywhere near 30MPG? :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 What F-series vairant is getting anywhere near 30MPG? :huh: What Ranger variant even comes close to that, either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 What Ranger variant even comes close to that, either? Just about every 2.3L, 5-spd Ranger since the '90s got 29 hwy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Just about every 2.3L, 5-spd Ranger since the '90s got 29 hwy. Under the old Ratings....under current ratings it only gets 20/26 The 2.5L got 20/25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Under the old Ratings....under current ratings it only gets 20/26 The 2.5L got 20/25 And my 4.0L Ranger is rated (under the old ratings system) at 17/24. I can easily exceed the 17, and can squeeze 25 (hwy) on a good day. You asked the question, I answered it. Here is the source. Edited September 10, 2012 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 And my 4.0L Ranger is rated (under the old ratings system) at 17/24. I can easily exceed the 17, and can squeeze 25 (hwy) on a good day. No duh, but no one else drives exactly like you, the EPA MPG ratings are the only standarized testing that we can go by because its done under controlled circumstances. Hell I can get 40+ MPG out of my Mustang for a short period of time if I hit the MPG reset button and coast down the road too.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) No duh, but no one else drives exactly like you, the EPA MPG ratings are the only standarized testing that we can go by because its done under controlled circumstances. Hell I can get 40+ MPG out of my Mustang for a short period of time if I hit the MPG reset button and coast down the road too.. You said, "What Ranger variant even comes close to that, either" in response to what variant of F-150 gets 30-mpg. I gave you examples. I wasn't lying. I wasn't cherry-picking. I gave the answer establishing there is (or, was) a Ranger that "comes close to that". What's wrong with just saying "oh" and move on? Edited September 10, 2012 by RangerM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 You said, "What Ranger variant even comes close to that, either" in response to what variant of F-150 gets 30-mpg. I gave you examples. I wasn't lying. I wasn't cherry-picking. I gave the answer establishing there is (or, was) a Ranger that "comes close to that". What's wrong with just saying "oh" and move on? The MPG examples were current EPA ratings. You said it got 29 and it doesn't get anywhere close to 29 under the new ratings. It gets 25 or 26. You can't mix and match old and new EPA ratings and anecdotal evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 The MPG examples were current EPA ratings. You said it got 29 and it doesn't get anywhere close to 29 under the new ratings. It gets 25 or 26. You can't mix and match old and new EPA ratings and anecdotal evidence. Not to mention when using todays fuel prices, the difference in yearly fuel costs of a Ranger 2.3L or 2.5L vs a 3.7L F-150 is only ~$500 bucks a year...or maybe roughly a car payment...or $42 bucks a month using the EPA's estimates on their website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) The MPG examples were current EPA ratings. If we're limiting ourselves to only the most recent (notice I didn't say "current", since there is no current) model year, then I am wrong. I admit it. However, there is/was a Ranger rated at/near 30. Either the old ratings were inaccurate or not. Not to mention when using todays fuel prices, the difference in yearly fuel costs of a Ranger 2.3L or 2.5L vs a 3.7L F-150 is only ~$500 bucks a year...or maybe roughly a car payment...or $42 bucks a month using the EPA's estimates on their website. Most people only consider the number in front of them--much the same way the concern themselves with the monthly payment, and not the overall price/cost of financing. Edited September 10, 2012 by RangerM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 If we're limiting ourselves to only the most recent (notice I didn't say "current", since there is no current) model year, then I am wrong. I admit it. However, there is/was a Ranger rated at/near 30. Either the old ratings were inaccurate or not. I wasn't talking about the current model year. If you go to fueleconomy.gov you can get the EPA ratings for older vehicles using the new procedure. The OLD rangers get 25 or 26 hwy under the current EPA rating procedure as compared to current F150s. You can't discuss current fuel economy ratings of 30 mpg and then say that an older vehicle came close using the OLD EPA ratings. You need to use the new EPA ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 You would think that with a truck, the city fuel economy would be the most important figure to get right and then let the highway figure fall where it does. Unfortunately CAFE distorts the natural order of things.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 No duh, but no one else drives exactly like you, the EPA MPG ratings are the only standarized testing that we can go by because its done under controlled circumstances. Hell I can get 40+ MPG out of my Mustang for a short period of time if I hit the MPG reset button and coast down the road too.. Okay, so these tests are done under controlled circumstances. Hmm, who exactly drives in those conditions though, cause I never have? I wasn't talking about the current model year. If you go to fueleconomy.gov you can get the EPA ratings for older vehicles using the new procedure. The OLD rangers get 25 or 26 hwy under the current EPA rating procedure as compared to current F150s. You can't discuss current fuel economy ratings of 30 mpg and then say that an older vehicle came close using the OLD EPA ratings. You need to use the new EPA ratings. And the EPA provides an "estimate", it's not written in stone that this is what people will bring home. Some will get better, some worse. This rating is solely for CAFE ratings and a nice little number on the window sticker providing the potential owner an "estimate" It does not mean to expect that every time. Just because the EPA changed the way they rate vehicles doesn't mean an owner may not get the old EPA averages. Just means they have modified their testing. Like a lot of disclaimers out there state "Individual results may vary". Also, can you truly say the EPA went back and retested these older vehicles under these new practices and controlled conditions? Or did they use some fancy math to recalculate the figures without any true real world testing? Heck, I've averaged over 20mpgs in my '06 F150 on various highway trips, which 4 mpgs better than the new EPA rating. I've also brought home 10mpgs city when I get on it, roughly 2mpgs worse than the new EPA rating. But on average, my F150 brings home 14-15 city and 18-19 highway, compared to the new EPA ratings of 12city and 16 highway. Sorry, but I agree with the old ratings of 14city/18hwy much more. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=22685 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Okay, so these tests are done under controlled circumstances. Hmm, who exactly drives in those conditions though, cause I never have? And the EPA provides an "estimate", it's not written in stone that this is what people will bring home. Some will get better, some worse. This rating is solely for CAFE ratings and a nice little number on the window sticker providing the potential owner an "estimate" It does not mean to expect that every time. Just because the EPA changed the way they rate vehicles doesn't mean an owner may not get the old EPA averages. Just means they have modified their testing. Like a lot of disclaimers out there state "Individual results may vary". Also, can you truly say the EPA went back and retested these older vehicles under these new practices and controlled conditions? Or did they use some fancy math to recalculate the figures without any true real world testing? Heck, I've averaged over 20mpgs in my '06 F150 on various highway trips, which 4 mpgs better than the new EPA rating. I've also brought home 10mpgs city when I get on it, roughly 2mpgs worse than the new EPA rating. But on average, my F150 brings home 14-15 city and 18-19 highway, compared to the new EPA ratings of 12city and 16 highway. Sorry, but I agree with the old ratings of 14city/18hwy much more. http://www.fuelecono...on=sbs&id=22685 Way to TOTALLY miss the point. The point of the EPA ratings (other than CAFE) is to allow you to COMPARE 2 vehicles. The only way to COMPARE 2 vehicles is to have a controlled test where the test conditions are identical and the EPA test provides that. Consider that I can get anywhere from 15 mpg to 24 mpg from my Fusion on the same route depending on traffic levels and how I drive. So if you're comparing to another vehicle do I use the 15 or the 24? The answer is neither - you use EPA ratings. The question was which F150 model gets 30 mpg (answer none). Then RangerM said the old rangers got 29 highway but that was under the old ratings. The equivalent under the new ratings is 26 which is not 29 or 30. If you're comparing older vehicles with newer vehicles then you have to use the same EPA rating procedure for both or else the comparison isn't valid. You might as well be comparing epa city for one vehicle to epa highway for the other vehicle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Way to TOTALLY miss the point. The point of the EPA ratings (other than CAFE) is to allow you to COMPARE 2 vehicles. The only way to COMPARE 2 vehicles is to have a controlled test where the test conditions are identical and the EPA test provides that. Consider that I can get anywhere from 15 mpg to 24 mpg from my Fusion on the same route depending on traffic levels and how I drive. So if you're comparing to another vehicle do I use the 15 or the 24? The answer is neither - you use EPA ratings. Um, yeah, I got the point. And like I stated, the EPA rating is for CAFE and the potential owner to know an "estimate" of what the car will bring home. And yeah they use that figure to compare not just cause it's a nice round number, duh. You use whatever figure you like to in your comparison, your personal experience or EPA. Me, I'm gonna use my personal day to day, real time experience of what I bring home in my F150 and compare to the EPA rating of a new truck. If they are new cars and I have no personal experience, well yeah I can only use the EPA rating. Doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. You prefer one method, I prefer the other if I have the experience with the vehicle. The question was which F150 model gets 30 mpg (answer none). Then RangerM said the old rangers got 29 highway but that was under the old ratings. The equivalent under the new ratings is 26 which is not 29 or 30. If you're comparing older vehicles with newer vehicles then you have to use the same EPA rating procedure for both or else the comparison isn't valid. You might as well be comparing epa city for one vehicle to epa highway for the other vehicle. No, no F150 gets close to 30mpgs EPA that I know. And I'll trust RangerM that his Ranger gets close to or better than 29mpgs. I had an old '85 Ranger 4x4 2.8L Rcab LB and a '99 Ranger 4x4 4.0L Scab Flareside. City both were dogs and horrible with mid teens mpgs. Cruising at 55mphs (which no one does today), I'd get over 23mpgs in them on the highway. So I have no doubt you remove the 4x4, make an Rcab, reduce the engine to 2.3L (hear plenty of Ranger owners who've gotten great mpgs from this motor), I could see potentially getting around 29mpgs. I have no real world experience in his truck, and I bet the EPA didn't retest his truck under the new procedures either. They simply used some mathematical equation to determine the 25-26mpg figure. Which heck, maybe the EPA was wrong in their calculation, how do you know if they didn't really retest that truck under the new conditions? Edited September 10, 2012 by V8-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 You use whatever figure you like to in your comparison, your personal experience or EPA. Me, I'm gonna use my personal day to day, real time experience of what I bring home in my F150 and compare to the EPA rating of a new truck. If they are new cars and I have no personal experience, well yeah I can only use the EPA rating. Doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. You prefer one method, I prefer the other if I have the experience with the vehicle. This simply proves you know nothing about scientific comparisons. It isn't about right or wrong it's about consistency. You can't use the EPA ratings for one vehicle and your anecdotal results for the other and call it a valid comparison. What you SHOULD do is take your current mileage in comparison to the current EPA ratings and apply that difference to the EPA ratings for other vehicles. E.g. if the EPA rating for your vehicle is 16 city and you get 19 and your looking at another vehicle that has an EPA rating of 18 city then you should expect to get close to 21. I bet the EPA didn't retest his truck under the new procedures either. They simply used some mathematical equation to determine the 25-26mpg figure. Which heck, maybe the EPA was wrong in their calculation, how do you know if they didn't really retest that truck under the new conditions? They didn't just guess - they looked at the difference between the old and new ratings on then current vehicles and scientifically determined how to adjust the old ratings. I'm not doubting someone could get 29 mpg in a Ranger but that is totally not the point. The EPA rating for that truck was 26 compared to the current F150's 23 mpg. Neither one is close to 30. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackintire Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 2000 Ranger's with standard cab 5 speed 2x4 3:73 geared driving at 50 Mph with bed cover often made 28MPG......30 MPG isn't that far of a reach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 2000 Ranger's with standard cab 5 speed 2x4 3:73 geared driving at 50 Mph with bed cover often made 28MPG......30 MPG isn't that far of a reach. By way of discussion, the Euro Extra urban cycle kind of approximates the best highway fuel economysomeone could expect. the new T6 2.5 I-4 gas Ranger Single cab gets 8.5 l/100km or just under 28 mpg.. The T6 3.2 I-5 turbo diesel Double cab XLT with 6-speed auto gets 7.8 l/100 km or just over 30 mpg. These are NOT EPA City cycle comparable, they are the best light cruise fuel economy buyers can reasonably expect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.