Todd780
OverCamper
That's what I thought too. The tank in my truck is 36 gallons. I know the Ranger will be more fuel efficient than my truck. But, not by twice as much...
I kind of like having the range I do now.
2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders
- Thread starter erstwild
- Start date
I kind of like having the range I do now.
Yeah sounds about right...if we're talking best-case scenario driving on the highway.
18-19 gallons is a bit low IMHO. 4runner gets 22-23 gallons. Tacoma gets ~21. It would be nice if the OEM's would be a little bit more generous with the fuel tank sizes in these midsized trucks. The 1/2 ton pickups, for all their inefficiency, can actually get somewhat better range with their 36-38 gallon tanks.
But at the end of the day, it won't be too difficult throw a few jerry cans in the bed of a Tacoma or Ranger.
Todd780
OverCamper
Yes, I was thinking highway.
I suppose but, kind of a pain in the butt to have to carry jerry cans when the tank could have just been made bigger.
It's a bigger pain in the butt to drag jerry cans out of the garage, fill the truck... then the cans.. vs just putting gas in the truck.
Then they'll eat up space in the bed that could be used for other gear etc.... (When we head out the bed of the truck is already filled up with other crap...) Nice if all the gas we'd need would..I don't know....fit in the gas tank....
Not sure how the Ranger's range compares to the Tacoma / Colorado / Gladiator etc... maybe they're all the same.
I totally agree..I would prefer a larger factory fuel tank over having to store jerry cans in the bed for the same reasons you bring up.
But if the end-user wants to increase the fuel capacity, adding a few jerry cans to the bed is a lot easier and cheaper than going with an aftermarket auxiliary or replacement fuel tank (which some people do).
My 4runner's highway range can stretch out to ~430-440 miles, under ideal conditions. Realistically, I'm limited to ~380-390 miles. The Tacoma with the newer 3.5l v6 is probably about the same given that it gets slightly better mpg's but has a somewhat smaller tank. I don't anticipate that the Ranger will be much different. A 400 mile range doesn't sound bad on paper, but I've been through parts of Canada where a longer range would have offered some peace of mind.
Last edited:
Todd780
OverCamper
I wonder if the Ranger could end up looking like a mini super duty in a couple years?
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/autos/res...k-like-this/ar-BBTXu0E?li=AAggFp0&ocid=HPCDHP
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/autos/res...k-like-this/ar-BBTXu0E?li=AAggFp0&ocid=HPCDHP
Clutch
<---Pass
Do you mean to tell me that a turbo small bore 4 banger with a 10 speed trans gimmick doesn't get any better gas mileage than my out-of-date naturally aspirated V6 5 speed manny....shocked I tell you! shocked!
ha ha...at least it will be cheap...oh wait a minute...Is anyone really surprised by these results?
Everyone talked about and hyped up the F-150 ecoboost claiming that it change the 1/2 ton market by offering substantially better fuel economy...real world results proved otherwise.
Everyone talked up the Ranger ecoboost, some even claiming that it would offer "diesel-like" fuel economy but with cheaper operating costs...turns out that it gets about the same as the other midsized gasoline trucks, and much worse than the diesel Colorado.
I'm starting to see a trend here...
The overseas diesel trucks (Hilux, Colorado, Ranger) have absolutely no problem achieving +30mpg on the highway. The North American Colorado offers similar results. The only way North American companies are going to substantially improve truck and SUV efficiency is by continuing to optimize diesel or by developing some reliable hybrid options. Because so far, the "highly advanced" gasoline designs have been underwhelming from what I've seen of them.
Everyone talked about and hyped up the F-150 ecoboost claiming that it change the 1/2 ton market by offering substantially better fuel economy...real world results proved otherwise.
Everyone talked up the Ranger ecoboost, some even claiming that it would offer "diesel-like" fuel economy but with cheaper operating costs...turns out that it gets about the same as the other midsized gasoline trucks, and much worse than the diesel Colorado.
I'm starting to see a trend here...
The overseas diesel trucks (Hilux, Colorado, Ranger) have absolutely no problem achieving +30mpg on the highway. The North American Colorado offers similar results. The only way North American companies are going to substantially improve truck and SUV efficiency is by continuing to optimize diesel or by developing some reliable hybrid options. Because so far, the "highly advanced" gasoline designs have been underwhelming from what I've seen of them.
Last edited:
Highlander
The Strong, Silent Type
You right Dalko.
There is only so much you can do with gas engine.
All those highly advanced technology makes things complicated... and meanwhile Toyota continues producing low pressure, conventional engines and remains a winner.
If you want to have an efficient truck there are tow options.
1) conventional diesel, which ford already has got
2) some sorts of hybrid, which I don’t want on my truck yet.
Simplicity is a virtue.
There is only so much you can do with gas engine.
All those highly advanced technology makes things complicated... and meanwhile Toyota continues producing low pressure, conventional engines and remains a winner.
If you want to have an efficient truck there are tow options.
1) conventional diesel, which ford already has got
2) some sorts of hybrid, which I don’t want on my truck yet.
Simplicity is a virtue.
Clutch
<---Pass
Nope!
Conservative Toyota has been right all this time, when they say "we really don't see any mileage improvements with turbos..."
Everyone keeps on crying how outdated they are, but doesn't seem like a bad thing.
In terms of torque, these turbo gasoline engines certainly have their virtues. The thing of it is, if you actually want to use that torque mpg's will plummet.
I think for someone who wants a truck, but doesn't actually need to be carrying/towing around gear 24/7, these ecoboost engines could be good options. But the EPA does seem to be overrating the efficiency of these engines. If you're going to use your truck for work, the V8's and v6's still seem like the way to go especially if they're geared appropriately (like the Tundra). Personally I don't see the point in paying more for a turbo engine that is going to return similar results to the conventional v6's and v8's when under load.
I suspect Toyota has seen that the benefits are marginal at best and thus chose to stick with naturally aspirated engines....and until someone can actually produce a turbo gasser that actually lives up to the hype and provides substantially improved fuel economy, I can't fault Toyota for that decision.
The reason why Ford put a smaller fuel tank in the trucks is simple. Market research has dictated that a large percentage of the population base the fuel efficiency of their vehicle on "How much it costs to FILL'ER UP!".
So the geniuses at Ford marketing put an 18 gallon tank in, and that way people can brag to their friends about how little it costs to fill it up. Here's a typical conversation you can expect from the unwashed masses at a gas station:
F150 Owner: "Hey, nice Ford ranger you got there!! I was looking at them, how do you like it?"
Ranger Owner: "I love it! It's a sweet ride! Best of all, it only costs $60 bucks to fill it up with a full tank of gas!"
F150 Owner: "No way! $60? Mine costs $120. Geez. I should think about gettin' me one of those rangers!"
Majority of people assume that 1 full tank of gas gets the same distance for every single vehicle. They don't bother to do any math or use critical thinking. I've seen this conversation happen 100's of times, and so have all of you...
So the geniuses at Ford marketing put an 18 gallon tank in, and that way people can brag to their friends about how little it costs to fill it up. Here's a typical conversation you can expect from the unwashed masses at a gas station:
F150 Owner: "Hey, nice Ford ranger you got there!! I was looking at them, how do you like it?"
Ranger Owner: "I love it! It's a sweet ride! Best of all, it only costs $60 bucks to fill it up with a full tank of gas!"
F150 Owner: "No way! $60? Mine costs $120. Geez. I should think about gettin' me one of those rangers!"
Majority of people assume that 1 full tank of gas gets the same distance for every single vehicle. They don't bother to do any math or use critical thinking. I've seen this conversation happen 100's of times, and so have all of you...
The 2008 Explorer Sport Trac at the gas station (5:28) in the video probably gets the same mpg...
Todd780
OverCamper
You're probably right. Still wish Ford would have included an option for a naturally aspirated V6 and a diesel. That might have helped make it more competitive to the Tacoma and Colorado. Maybe they will offer a diesel on the next version which is supped to be due in 2022?The 2008 Explorer Sport Trac at the gas station (5:28) in the video probably gets the same mpg...