Is the Ranger the Hilux we've been wanting?

[rkj__]

It amazes me how little consideration is given to fuel range by some manufacturers. Toyota, IMO, is one of the worst. My 04 Tacoma and '99 4runner both had piddly 18.5 gallon tanks. Seriously? On the 4runner that gave me just over 200 miles of usable range. Pathetic! The 07 4runner with its 23 gallon tank was better, but only a little better.

GM still puts (I think) 26 gallon tanks on their full size crew cab and double cab trucks, with no option for anything bigger. Ford and Ram, wisely, IMO, offer bigger tanks on their half tons (36 gallons for the Ford!)

GM actually DECREASED the 1500's fuel tank size in 2019 to 24 gallons, from 26 gallons on the 2018. Still no larger option. They are going the wrong way! The truck did not get more efficient either. Although they reformatted their fuel management system, the truck got bigger, offsetting any possible economy gains.

Ranger gets 18 gallons btw.

 

[Todd780]

Ranger gets 18 gallons btw.

That seems quite small!

 

[rkj__]

That seems quite small!

Indeed.

Apparently "It only costs $XX to fill the tank on my Ranger" leads to the perception of the vehicle being fuel efficient. SMH.

 

[Todd780]

Indeed.

Apparently "It only costs $XX to fill the tank on my Ranger" leads to the perception of the vehicle being fuel efficient. SMH.

I know what you mean...

What those people fail to realize is when you have to fill up twice as often you're still spending the same on gas. Just a pain in the butt to have to stop more often.

 

[nwoods]

Nice campsites at the end of narrow trails. There were many places I couldn't take the Power Wagon that I can scoot to in a Gladiator.

What do you mean, exactly? What makes the trail narrow for you? Trees? Rocks? You seriously can’t get the PowerWagon down a trail the Gladiator can do? It is length or girth? Or is it simply the high hood line and poor visibility in the Power Wagon?

Now that prices for trucks have spiked from insane up to ludicrous, I am seriously giving thought to buying one. My primary reason is interior space. Hard to beat a 1/2 ton for pure comfort for VLA’s (Very Large American’s). I do technically fit in a Canyon or Gladiator, but not comfortably for the long haul....or SoCal traffic. Taco’s are a no go.

Interesting (to me anyways), I don’t fit the F150 with the glass roof. I touch my hair on the headlining in the front seat, and can’t even get into the rear seat. Ditch the sunroof, and it’s space aplenty. Could possibly even wear a hat!

The interior of the 1/2 tons sure seem nice, compared to mini trucks like Canyon and Taco, whose interiors look like Fischer Price toy designers went wild one day and created all those oversized every things. Bob Builder would love the Canyon interior.... and I mean the character, not a real contractor.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Ranger gets 18 gallons btw.

At 25 mpg an 18 gallon tank is more than adequate for the overwhelming majority of consumers.

What people fail to realize is that the motor in the Ranger has a forged crank, forged rods, and forged pistons. It shares lots of parts with the 4 banger Mustang and some with the Focus ST. It can take a massive amount of abuse and not flinch. You can literailly have 100rwhp added with very little work (tune+down pipe) and not nuke your reliability or fuel economy (unless you keep hitting the happy peddle). The Mustang crowd is already pumping out 400+rwhp on pump gas and stock internals with zero problems.

No other midsize truck in the world offers the power potential that the Ranger has.

 

[DaveInDenver]

The interior of the 1/2 tons sure seem nice, compared to mini trucks like Canyon and Taco, whose interiors look like Fischer Price toy designers went wild one day and created all those oversized every things. Bob Builder would love the Canyon interior.... and I mean the character, not a real contractor.

I dunno, they don't seem that different to me. Both just have too much "stuff" going on. Flaps. Check. Contact. Check. Ignition. Check. Start!

 

[doug720]

^^^That's what my F150 looks like. Its a great highway ride.

For me, fuel range is important. My F150 has the 36 gal option, and I get 18-20 mpg going up and down 395 between LA and Gardnerville...a little better heading South. Even around town, one goes a long ways with 36 gallons. It seems there is little MPG difference between a full and midsize trucks, which is surprising.

 

[Buliwyf]

They're the same shape. The fullsize has more frontal area which hurts, but it's longer, which helps just as much. Notice how F1 cars are 25 feet long now. That's to reduce aerodynamic drag.

Rolling resistance of the bigger gears and bearings in the big trucks is negligible. Where things really start to swing in the fullsizes favor, is added load. My truck gets 15 empty, and 15 with 2000# in the bed, and 15 with an RTT and 2000# in the bed. @80mph.

 

[rkj__]

At 25 mpg an 18 gallon tank is more than adequate for the overwhelming majority of consumers.

What people fail to realize is that the motor in the Ranger has a forged crank, forged rods, and forged pistons. It shares lots of parts with the 4 banger Mustang and some with the Focus ST. It can take a massive amount of abuse and not flinch. You can literailly have 100rwhp added with very little work (tune+down pipe) and not nuke your reliability or fuel economy (unless you keep hitting the happy peddle). The Mustang crowd is already pumping out 400+rwhp on pump gas and stock internals with zero problems.

No other midsize truck in the world offers the power potential that the Ranger has.

If you put a small travel trailer behind that little turbo, you won’t be passing too many gas stations without stopping.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 9101]

If you put a small travel trailer behind that little turbo, you won’t be passing too many gas stations without stopping.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That all depends on how much throttle you give it.

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

If you put a small travel trailer behind that little turbo, you won’t be passing too many gas stations without stopping.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty typical, the manufacturer mpg guestimate sounds good till you put a little weight behind it and make it work.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Pretty typical, the manufacturer mpg guestimate sounds good till you put a little weight behind it and make it work.

Funny thing, my EcoBoost F150 gets better fuel economy than either of my Tundras ever did, reguardless of it being loaded or not... All while out performing them.

 

[workerdrone]

Turbo vs normally aspirated is kind of like comparing diesel to gas economy, not comparable.

A motor with a turbo gets to act like a big one and a little one and everything in between.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Indeed.

Apparently "It only costs $XX to fill the tank on my Ranger" leads to the perception of the vehicle being fuel efficient. SMH.

I don't really think that's the reason for the small tanks, since by the time the owner gets to the point of filling the tank he's already bought the vehicle (at least I know I wouldn't pay to put gas in a vehicle that wasn't mine yet )

Pretty sure the real reason is (a) weight and (b) space. Smaller tanks weigh less which means better MPG figures for CAFE compliance. They also take up less space which leaves more room for other stuff under truck. And since 99.9% of buyers will live and use the truck within 20 miles of a gas station anyway, it's not an issue to them. It's only us weird "broverlanders" that worry about silly things like "range."

EDITED TO ADD: It's interesting to see how a manufacturer chooses to equip a vehicle and what that says about the manufacturer's assumptions about their intended customers. Clearly Ford must think that most of the customers for the Ranger are people who live in urban or suburban areas where fuel range is not an issue. By contrast, they offer a 36 gallon tank as an option on the F-150 which means they must think the intended buyer of an F-150 WOULD be concerned about fuel range, i.e. a customer who lives and/or uses the vehicle in areas where gas stations are far apart.

One thing that is nice about large fuel capacities is that it gives you an option to optimize fuel costs. When your gas tank is large, you can bypass the high-cost gas stations and wait until you get into a lower cost area to fill up. For example, if you were going to Death Valley you could fill up in Las Vegas where gas is cheaper than anywhere in California. Drive all you want in CA and still have enough gas in the tank to make it back to a cheaper station in NV. With a smaller tank, you don't have that option - if you're getting to E and you are in Amargosa or Independence CA, you're paying their price whether you want to or not. Now it's true, you don't have to fill your tank - you just have to put enough in to get you to another station. But that's another PITA that takes time out of your trip, too.

For me, at least, I subscribe to the old aviator's philosophy that says "the only time you ever have 'too much fuel' is when you're on fire."