Is the Ranger the Hilux we've been wanting?

[Dalko43]

Demand has to translate to actual sales. Even with its undying spirit, Jezza's Bristol Beater would sell poorly in NA today.

Sales are strong in the midsized market...I'm not sure why you think there is a lack of demand in the midsized market.

Also the Top Gear Hilux you're referring to is world apart from the modern Hilux being offered in most regions....to include Europe. The simple and spartan Rangers and Hilux's sell just fine in the EU (where there is arguably a similar demand for ride quality and interior comfort)....yet all the "experts" on this forum seem to think that a Hilux would absolutely flounder if it were to be offered in North America...go figure.

You are 100% incorrect. How many 4 door Tacomas get 24-25 MPG at 70 MPH or 27-28 MPG doing 65? How many Tacomas have a life time average of 20.9 MPG? Hell, how many Tacomas can get 20-21 MPH doing 80? So, please explain how I "don't really get better fuel economy."

Before you question the accuracy of the display, I entered a correction factor and its accurate to with in a 1/10th.


View attachment 532203View attachment 532202

Look at the bottom numbers, that's why I get such good fuel economy. With 3.15 gears I require very little boost to maintain a steady speed. This pic is a screen shot of cruising at 70MPH. At 65 it never produces boost unless there is a pretty long/large hill.

View attachment 532204


So, once again I'll ask...how do I not get better fuel economy than a Tacoma?

First of all, despite whatever mpg games you might play, the average F-150 owner is not getting anything close to 23-25mpg on the highway.

Secondly, the average mpg for the Tacoma (AT) is about 19mpg. The average mpg for the 3.5l F-150 is 16-17mpg, the 2.7l a bit closer to the Tacoma's mpg.

Thirdly, I've told you this before: those instantaneous mpg readout's aren't always as accurate as pump-to-pump calculations. Anyone can drive in a way that yields good results on the dashboard's mpg readout. The real question is what is your hand calculation for each tank...because the overwhelming majority of F-150 owners who report their mpg's on fuelly aren't getting anything close to what you report.

 

[Buliwyf]

Fuelly is useless. It's for newbs that don't know how vehicles work. It takes no consideration for stops, idle time, or terrain. If you think that's science, then you should also consider replacing your Advil with a drill.

My F250 just averaged 17 mpg hand calculated for a tank. So there, what's that mean?

 

[Deleted member 9101]

First of all, despite whatever mpg games you might play, the average F-150 owner is not getting anything close to 23-25mpg on the highway.

Secondly, the average mpg for the Tacoma (AT) is about 19mpg. The average mpg for the 3.5l F-150 is 16-17mpg, the 2.7l a bit closer to the Tacoma's mpg.

Thirdly, I've told you this before: those instantaneous mpg readout's aren't always as accurate as pump-to-pump calculations. Anyone can drive in a way that yields good results on the dashboard's mpg readout. The real question is what is your hand calculation for each tank...because the overwhelming majority of F-150 owners who report their mpg's on fuelly aren't getting anything close to what you report.

1. Plllllllllllease go to any F150 forum or Facebook group that caters to the newer F150s. There is zero shortage of 2.7 trucks getting 23-25 MPG. The only guys that get lower are typically lifted + heavier tires, heavy footed drivers, or have the 3.73 rear end. As you saw in my previous post, cruising at 70 and below, my truck makes little to no boost... Thus I use less fuel. It's a very simple concept, why you fail to grasp it is beyond me.

2. I could not care less what the "average" is that you find on line, that is not representative of my truck. How about this: what is the average for a 2017, Supercrew, 2wd, on OEM tires, with 3.15 gears, hard tonneau cover, 87 octane fuel, that is driven at sea level? I'll wait while you try to compare apples to apples.

3. I don't know if you are just an argumentative prick that ignores facts or woefully ignorant and enjoy being that way, but yet again I'll tell you that mine is accurate to with in a 1/10th. Here is my display today for my current tank as of right now and life time average.





Here are the instructions to correct the display. I have checked the display vs. hand calculations and it has never been more than a 1/10th off:
F150 MPG display correction

Now.. Do tell...how am I not getting better MPG than a Tacoma? ? ?

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Fuelly is useless. It's for newbs that don't know how vehicles work. It takes no consideration for stops, idle time, or terrain. If you think that's science, then you should also consider replacing your Advil with a drill.

As a scientist that deals with data all day, I agree 100%.

My F250 just averaged 17 mpg hand calculated for a tank. So there, what's that mean?

Clearly it means that you are bad at math...Fuelly never lies!!!!

 

[doug720]

I drive a 2016 F150 Extra cab 4X4 with a 5.0/6spd auto, and we travel every 2 weeks to our house in Gardnerville NV, a distance of 441 miles door to door. The truck averages 17.5- 18.5 mpg Northbound, and 18.5 - 20 mpg Southbound. Difference is due to more climbs on 395 Northbound. It also has a 36 gallon fuel tank, so we have at least a 150 to 200+ mile range remaining.

My business partner has a new Tacoma 4X4. His trips are 08 miles longer - 449 miles to his place. He is averaging 15.8 Northbound and 17 Southbound, and can not make the trip without stopping to fill up. In addition, we alternate pulling the same trailer on the trips. The Tacoma gets about 14 mpg towing, the F150 16 mpg.

IMHO, there is no comparison between the trucks - F150 rides better, has way more room - in and out, more features and much more comfortable, and better mpg's. I have Toyota's - LandCruiser and Camry, but the Tacoma is at least a step behind right now.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

The simple and spartan Rangers and Hilux's sell just fine in the EU (where there is arguably a similar demand for ride quality and interior comfort)....yet all the "experts" on this forum seem to think that a Hilux would absolutely flounder if it were to be offered in North America...go figure.

Hahahahahahaha... Because Europe and the US are identical markets...hahahaha. I have driven a Hilux (2013)... rode like ******** and was slow as hell. The interior was pitiful and the seats were not at all comfortable.

How many bottom of the line Tacoma, Frontier, Canyon/Colorado, Rangers do you see running around the US? Aside from fleet trucks...the answer is very few.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Fuelly is useless. It's for newbs that don't know how vehicles work. It takes no consideration for stops, idle time, or terrain. If you think that's science, then you should also consider replacing your Advil with a drill.

My F250 just averaged 17 mpg hand calculated for a tank. So there, what's that mean?

I guess some kids had to walk uphill both ways so you could drive downhill both ways lol.

 

[shade]

Sales are strong in the midsized market...I'm not sure why you think there is a lack of demand in the midsized market.

Also the Top Gear Hilux you're referring to is world apart from the modern Hilux being offered in most regions....to include Europe. The simple and spartan Rangers and Hilux's sell just fine in the EU (where there is arguably a similar demand for ride quality and interior comfort)....yet all the "experts" on this forum seem to think that a Hilux would absolutely flounder if it were to be offered in North America...go figure.

I was referring to sales of a bare bones, hard riding truck similar to what was battered on Top Gear. The demand for such a truck (compact, mid, or full size) in NA today is questionable at best, or do you disagree?

Toyota ran the numbers decades ago and decided to split the HiLux & Tacoma. I'll be surprised to see them change course without a significant reason. I can't see that happening until it's time for the 4th gen Tacoma to appear, as that would be the time they'd already need to retool for a different truck anyway.

I'm not an "expert", and I don't have to be. Toyota and the rest have plenty of data to back up the decisions they've made WRT models offered and their capabilities. I don't think a modern HiLux would flounder in NA, but it's worth remembering that the Tacoma has a long history of negative reviews for on-road ride quality. If a NA HiLux were to succeed, it would need to ride at least as well as the Tacoma, with at least as good of fuel economy & performance, and be similarly priced. For Toyota, what would be the point of bringing that truck to NA as long as the 3rd gen Tacoma is still selling well?

 

[DorB]

Fuelly is useless. It's for newbs that don't know how vehicles work. It takes no consideration for stops, idle time, or terrain.

Fuelly shows you what you feed into it..
And if your user profile include x% idle+slow tragic+off-road+towing+highway+blablabla..
Then the results does take into consideration all the variables that represent your profile.





Slowly..

 

[plainjaneFJC]

what is slowly.. ?

 

[shade]

what is slowly.. ?

A homage to Dan Rather and his "Courage" sign-off?

 

[DaveInDenver]

Toyota ran the numbers decades ago and decided to split the HiLux & Tacoma. I'll be surprised to see them change course without a significant reason. I can't see that happening until it's time for the 4th gen Tacoma to appear, as that would be the time they'd already need to retool for a different truck anyway.

I think the Tacoma (and Tunrda) exist because of a couple of uniquenesses in the NA market. Obviously the desire for a lifestyle truck that's more than just utility but I also think the way our truck classes are designated for FHWA/DOT and EPA mean the typical global truck carrying a around 3,000 kg GVWR has anywhere from 500 to 1,000 lbs of capacity built in that can't be recovered strictly speaking in a class 1 light truck that tops at 6,000 lbs GVWR. For Toyota to convert every dime spent building a Hilux in terms of frame strength, suspension, etc. they'd really have to assign a class 2, e.g. full size 1/2 ton up to 8,500 GVWR, and there's no way it could ever compete in that segment, so they sell a Tundra. In each case the respective truck is built down or up to meet the class segment. That's why the Tacoma frame is "tuned" for us, it's probably lightened a bit because saving several lbs of materials reducing the absolute payload whatever, 300 kgs, spread over 200,000 trucks annually adds up to a lot of saved steel material cost.

 

[DorB]

what is slowly.. ?

My signature..
This is how I like to handle off-road.


Slowly..

 

[nickw]

I think that's an important point. There's no reason a smaller chassis can't be designed to carry a heavier load.

There are several reasons why an OEM either wouldn't, couldn't or won't design a smaller chassis to do that.

 

[nickw]

Based on the fact that the Ranger has been deducted points in head to head comparisons vs the Tacoma for having a stiff ride (it does) is an indication the US market wouldn't settle for something even stiffer, like the Hilux.

As @Dalko points out when he gives props to the Tacoma for flex and dings the Ranger, things like "flex" are important and a lot of folks care about RTI more than payload.....can't have them both, at least when unloaded....unless you have a Unimog, then nothing is off limits, unless you wanna go the speed limit.