foxtrapper wrote:RealMiniDriver wrote: And that the full-size trucks are getting damn near the same fuel economy, makes it harder to justify something smaller.Yep. An F150 getting almost 30 mpg? Why bother with a little truck then?
mine gets 13 - 14 
foxtrapper wrote:RealMiniDriver wrote: And that the full-size trucks are getting damn near the same fuel economy, makes it harder to justify something smaller.Yep. An F150 getting almost 30 mpg? Why bother with a little truck then?
mine gets 13 - 14
foxtrapper wrote:RealMiniDriver wrote: And that the full-size trucks are getting damn near the same fuel economy, makes it harder to justify something smaller.Yep. An F150 getting almost 30 mpg? Why bother with a little truck then?
I'm thinking this is sarcasm, or at least I hope. I've got many coworkers with newer V8s and ecoboosts and around Atlanta, highway, city, combined, country driving, etc, unloaded they're getting high teens, maybe 20. I'm not saying it isn't possible, I'd just be curious how they're hitting 30. I know for a fact a 4cyl auto Ranger can hit 27MPG, and a 4cyl manual Ranger can get damn near 29MPG, so I'm just curious.
If you buy a lot of motorcycles a Ranger or S-10 makes the most sense, at least to me. The full size trucks these days are tall enough to make loading a bike with no ramps a real pain in the ass, where the 2wd small trucks sit low enough to be loaded and unloaded easily.
A small trailer would do the job, but when I see something for sale on the side of the road it's a lot easier to just stop and scoop it up, rather than driving 30 miles back home to hook up a trailer or grab my loading ramps.
I daily a 98 model ranger, I feel that that year model is the best combination of parts, a-arm front suspension, frame rails boxed back to the passenger compartment, aluminum hood and drive shaft, but still old enough to have the pushrod 4.0. I wouldn't own the SOHC if you gave it to me.
In reply to chandlerGTi:
I own a Ranger and am a fan of the little truck. I am however a little lost. You seen 2013 Ranger's rolling out of a Lowe's? I know 2012 was the last model year. Were they loaded on a semi truck or was someone driving them? Was this in Ohio? What did they look like? I've seen articles were the new overseas versions were spotted in America.
If you put a club-cab late model Ranger, Frontier or Tacoma (the smallest current offerings) next to a late 60's short bed Chevy or Ford pickup, you might be surprised... Today's 'small' club cabs have 10" more wheelbase than an old full-size short bed pickup. Unfortunately (at least I think so) there is no new 'small' pickup available any longer.
bwh998 wrote: If you buy a lot of motorcycles a Ranger or S-10 makes the most sense, at least to me. The full size trucks these days are tall enough to make loading a bike with no ramps a real pain in the ass, where the 2wd small trucks sit low enough to be loaded and unloaded easily.
There is a full size Toyota pickup in the local mall (Along with other toyotas) and the black on black on black of the Pickup is mean enough to draw blood with a hard stare... and the hood comes up to chest.
I stand 5'11" there is NO reason for a non-mud bogging pickup truck to stand so tall you need a stepladder to check the oil on it.
It also seems to me that the non-commercial (strippers) pickups you see out there are intentionally made tall so you don't want to put stuff in the bed
Chevy Silverado 1500 gets 12/22mpg
Dunno what the old Ranger got, but there's a comparison of the big trucks vs a small one.
2011 Ranger was EPA rated at 22/27
The new Dodge 1500 V6/8 speed is rated at 18/25
Fletch1 wrote: In reply to chandlerGTi: I own a Ranger and am a fan of the little truck. I am however a little lost. You seen 2013 Ranger's rolling out of a Lowe's? I know 2012 was the last model year. Were they loaded on a semi truck or was someone driving them? Was this in Ohio? What did they look like? I've seen articles were the new overseas versions were spotted in America.
Yeah, they were on a lowboy trailer. Plain white international version 2013 Rangers. It was a Loves fuel station off of I80 at perrysburg. Google 2013 ford ranger and you'll see them, I won't sully this post with a picture.
I think the International version looks great.
The South American version is ugly:
Lets not forget that the Ranger rated at 22/27 can do nothing but drag itself. I'm far more impressed by the Ram that gets17/25, with some capability. The E36 M3ter is that, as others have said, the MPG of the smaller trucks is pretty darn close to larger trucks. I'd like to have a 97-04 Dakota with 20+ combined MPG mainly for the sake of size when getting around. My '02 WRX gets about the same mileage as the new V6 Ram, and for the first time, I'm ready to concede utility.
I came out to the parking lot at work and a crew cab Tacoma was parked next to my 91 extended cab C1500 full size short bed, it was longer than my truck by at least a foot, and had a smaller pickup bed. The reason why some "compact" trucks get the same or worse gas mileage as full-size pickups is they arent all that compact anymore, and probably weigh about as much or more than my old chevy with a 350 does.
something somebody hit upon rings true. A full size truck is a beast to park and manuever around a closed in parking lot, I know at work we have enough problems with people being unable to park their small cars between the lines, the big SUVs and Trucks just make the problem worse
Ranger50 wrote: Chrysler is selling PT cruisers without any advertising to the tune of 50k units/yr which justifies production still to this day. Where is the market or profit in those?
All the more impressive since the PT Cruiser isn't even shown on the Chrysler website.
I'm torn on the small-truck thing... I owned one - an '86 Toyota 4x4 - for about 9 years. I agree the gas mileage wasn't too bad - I could eek out 30 mpg on some hwy trips, sticking to the speed limit. However, it was also a big compromise. It wasn't very good at being a car for comfortable commuting and as a truck its small size limited how much stuff I could carry. Once I bought a car I rarely drove it.
Anymore, I use a truck as a secondary vehicle for dirty hauling and for that I want the biggest truck that can reasonably fit in my driveway, 8' bed minimum. I also agree it's a beast to park. I generally get around that by parking it in the boon-docks of the lot and almost always backing in to a spot.
RealMiniDriver wrote: Ford F-150 gets 17/23mpg Chevy Silverado 1500 gets 12/22mpg Chevy Colorado gets 18/25mpg Dunno what the old Ranger got, but there's a comparison of the big trucks vs a small one.
trying to get apples to apples ... the F150 ( 17 - 23 ) is a bit mis-leading ... I need 4x4 and that puts me in the $35,000 range and more like 14 - 19 mpg .. so my $3500 '97 that gets 13 - 15 ....
Ian F wrote:Ranger50 wrote: Chrysler is selling PT cruisers without any advertising to the tune of 50k units/yr which justifies production still to this day. Where is the market or profit in those?All the more impressive since the PT Cruiser isn't even shown on the Chrysler website.
Yes, they went out of production in mid-2010.
stuart in mn wrote: Yes, they went out of production in mid-2010.
Oh thank god....
One of my SCCA region members is selling a reasonably low mileage (42k) '04 Dodge 1500 with a 4.7 V8 and a rather rare 5 spd. Started at $8500 and still can't move it at $7k. The problem is he bought a really low spec truck: 2wd, Std cab and the real deal breaker for me - a 6.5' bed. He used it for light duty towing of his race car and for that use it probably works well. But as a "truck" its usefulness is limited. Compact trucks tend to have a similar issue.
In reply to Ian F:
No, he can't sell it because it is a manual and a junk 4.7. Mileage on a 4.7 doesn't matter and low mileage doesn't help - it hurts, they all fail well before they should. Of all the Mopar V8's, 4.7's were by FAR the most I worked on, outside of basic maintenance. They make the plenum gaskets on the Magnums look like cake repairs. It doesn't help the 4.7's are finicky bastard motors, half a tooth off on one of the timing chains and you are pulling it back apart. Chasing that ticking noise? Put in a full set of lash adjusters.
As to the trans, that is probably the bigger deal breaker over the short bed and regular cab. Out of the general population, how many of them can actually shift for themselves?
JMO.
Ah... Lucky him.
Well... My Cummins is sold, so now I'll be trying the "replace the truck with a trailer towed by the TDi" concept...
wbjones wrote:foxtrapper wrote:mine gets 13 - 14RealMiniDriver wrote: And that the full-size trucks are getting damn near the same fuel economy, makes it harder to justify something smaller.Yep. An F150 getting almost 30 mpg? Why bother with a little truck then?
Right there with ya, brother. Actually, last calculation was 12. I think she looks badass though. The newer trucks are nice looking, great interior, not much to dislike, but they just don't have the mean snarly look as the old 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th generations.
Thats why I just got an old Ranger and will work to improve mileage. 8 spark plugs on 4 cylinders, though? Way too go Ford. Give MSD a call for some pointers.
N Sperlo wrote: 8 spark plugs on 4 cylinders, though?
Emissions. The 2.3 is a very dirty girl....
Ranger50 wrote:N Sperlo wrote: 8 spark plugs on 4 cylinders, though?Emissions. The 2.3 is a very dirty girl....
Added 20 hp, too. Its just... Just... DID THEY HAVE TO PUT THE SECOND COIL PACK UNDER THE ALTERNATOR?!
After reading this, I realized I made a blog post about this subject. 
http://carburetorcounty.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-more-compact-trucks-whos-to-blame.html
N Sperlo wrote:Ranger50 wrote:Added 20 hp, too. Its just... Just... DID THEY HAVE TO PUT THE SECOND COIL PACK UNDER THE ALTERNATOR?!N Sperlo wrote: 8 spark plugs on 4 cylinders, though?Emissions. The 2.3 is a very dirty girl....
Mine is/was a 96 2.3.... Passenger side right out in the open. 
You'll need to log in to post.
