MPG: Ranger vs F150

[SDDiver5]

Another thing, how big/small is your friend? I'm just over 6 feet and a built 220 lbs and I hardly fit in the ranger

 

[Martinjmpr]

To me it seems the primary reason to prefer a mid-size to a full size would be:

* Fits in your garage better
* Easier to drive/park in crowded cities
* Costs less/lower overall cost of ownership

I think MPG numbers are too close to make much of a real difference. EDITED TO ADD: And IMO the bigger gas tank on the full size negates any MPG advantage over the mid size anyway.

For my use, a full size fits my needs better (pulling a 4,000lb camper trailer over the Rocky Mountains, carrying a lot of stuff) but I'd be the first one to admit that the length, wheelbase and width make it a real PITA in the city and even in the 'burbs we normally take my wife's Honda CR-V whenever we can because it's so much easier to fit into a parking space.

If I wasn't married, didn't have a trailer to pull, lived in a condo with a small 1 car garage, etc, then a mid-size would make more sense for me.

 

[nickw]

Towing that with a ranger would be very silly.

I had the 2.7 in my old F150 and with a heavy foot I still had 20 MPG. In tow mode one time from San Diego to Northern AZ I was getting 28MPG towing a Uhaul

This is whey MPG conversations get confusing when you hear hearsay like "this one time I got 28 mpg"....I left out all the one time events in my Ranger because they are exceptions and not the rule.

E.g. one time I got 31 mpg driving through the mountains over 150 miles loaded down with gear (true story). Reality is I was going from 4000' to 500', net elevation drop, part of it was on the freeway, I was driving 60 mph max to maximize MPG, stock tires and while my MTB was in the bed all my gear was inside the cab....context matters and there is a 0% chance outside of a MPG reset on a slight downhill you saw 28 mpg.....possible but very situational.

 

[nickw]

Another thing, how big/small is your friend? I'm just over 6 feet and a built 220 lbs and I hardly fit in the ranger

I'm a skinny 6-4 and fit no problem, I don't even run the seat all the way back. Not to say the F150 doesn't have more room or isn't more comfortable, but I've never found the Ranger to be small IME.

 

[SDDiver5]

This is whey MPG conversations get confusing when you hear hearsay like "this one time I got 28 mpg"....I left out all the one time events in my Ranger because they are exceptions and not the rule.

E.g. one time I got 31 mpg driving through the mountains over 150 miles loaded down with gear (true story). Reality is I was going from 4000' to 500', net elevation drop, part of it was on the freeway, I was driving 60 mph max to maximize MPG, stock tires and while my MTB was in the bed all my gear was inside the cab....context matters and there is a 0% chance outside of a MPG reset on a slight downhill you saw 28 mpg.....possible but very situational.

Right and I totally agree with you but the OP said the truck would be used for towing which is why I threw it in there anyway.

And to your Ranger fitment comment- it's possible I'm just used to my truck. I even think my wifes X3 is small.

 

[nickw]

Right and I totally agree with you but the OP said the truck would be used for towing which is why I threw it in there anyway.

And to your Ranger fitment comment- it's possible I'm just used to my truck. I even think my wifes X3 is small.

Agreed - I think X3's are small too. I really struggle in Tacomas also, not the width per-se, but feet are fairly high relative to seat which I don't care for...

 

[deserteagle56]

I've had one-time events...even have a photo somewhere...of my F150 getting 99 mpg - but that was at the bottom of a long mountain pass, at the top of which I fueled. Of course its an anomaly.

I bought my F150 new - ordered it and picked it up in May of 2016. As with all my vehicles I maintain meticulous records including fuel. Each time I gas up is recorded and then entered into an Excel spreadsheet which calculates the exact fuel mileage - I don't depend on the lie-o-meter in the dash which is rarely correct. Here's the last few entries - haven't updated it in a few months but as of last October, with 46309 miles on the odometer, the truck has averaged overall 20.9 mpg since new (see bottom of column E). Considering the capabilities of this truck, I think that's pretty darn good. (Supercab 4x4, 6.5' bed, 3.55 gears, 36 gallon tank, 3.5 Ecoboost engine) And I'd spent $5,835 putting gas in this truck!


I've never owned a Ranger but it would have to get significantly better mileage than my F150 for me to consider it. That Ecoboost is just an impressive engine.

 

[Todd780]

I've had one-time events...even have a photo somewhere...of my F150 getting 99 mpg - but that was at the bottom of a long mountain pass, at the top of which I fueled. Of course its an anomaly.

I bought my F150 new - ordered it and picked it up in May of 2016. As with all my vehicles I maintain meticulous records including fuel. Each time I gas up is recorded and then entered into an Excel spreadsheet which calculates the exact fuel mileage - I don't depend on the lie-o-meter in the dash which is rarely correct. Here's the last few entries - haven't updated it in a few months but as of last October, with 46309 miles on the odometer, the truck has averaged overall 20.9 mpg since new (see bottom of column E). Considering the capabilities of this truck, I think that's pretty darn good. (Supercab 4x4, 6.5' bed, 3.55 gears, 36 gallon tank, 3.5 Ecoboost engine) And I'd spent $5,835 putting gas in this truck!
View attachment 649981

I've never owned a Ranger but it would have to get significantly better mileage than my F150 for me to consider it. That Ecoboost is just an impressive engine.

How far off do you find the trucks meter is? I've found mine to be pretty close.

 

[deserteagle56]

How far off do you find the trucks meter is? I've found mine to be pretty close.

About 1-2 mpg optimistic. There's a fix for that I saw on one of the F150 forums but it doesn't matter enough for me to bother.

 

[Todd780]

About 1-2 mpg optimistic. There's a fix for that I saw on one of the F150 forums but it doesn't matter enough for me to bother.

Yeah, that's why I haven't bothered to keep up with hand calculations.

 

[AbleGuy]

This is whey MPG conversations get confusing when you hear hearsay like "this one time I got 28 mpg"....I left out all the one time events in my Ranger because they are exceptions and not the rule.

That could be partly because the wind almost ALWAYS blows strongly from the west in that area. Frequent 24 mpg gusts the other day. Seriously. Windy as heck once again today here. And you know that tailwind is gonna help your mpg’s.

To me it seems the primary reason to prefer a mid-size to a full size would be:
* Fits in your garage better
* Easier to drive/park in crowded cities
* Somewhat more fun to drive off road too (fixed it for you ?)

The main reason I’ve been thinking of selling my Chevy K 2500 HD is because of the garage parking issue. For example, as we look at moving into a new place, we recently had to reject yet another possible home because the darn garage was way too small!* But I also have very fond memories of the years we owned a little Nissan Frontier 4x4 Ex-Cab and all of the fun we had driving it in the mountains, winter too. It was a blast to drive.

* Newer home, the garage was only 16.5’ long!!! So, WTH, the best selling vehicle for years in the US has been the F-150 and yet almost every single home we’ve looked at this year so far has a tiny garage that won’t even fit a full size truck. What an incredibly stupid disconnect between developers and reality! Rant over...

 

[rruff]

This is whey MPG conversations get confusing when you hear hearsay like "this one time I got 28 mpg"

Ya, I got 30mpg on a 75 mile trip in my Tundra one time. Only ~10mpg on the way back though

All these trucks have the aerodynamics of a brick, so wind direction and traffic make a big difference. If you are sharing the freeway with a lot of other vehicles (especially large ones), there is decent draft.

 

[Todd780]

* Newer home, the garage was only 16.5’ long!!! So, WTH, the best selling vehicle for years in the US has been the F-150 and yet almost every single home we’ve looked at this year so far has a tiny garage that won’t even fit a full size truck. What an incredibly stupid disconnect between developers and reality! Rant over...

Yes! Totally agree with this. So annoying.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

MPG has never been the Ranger's strong suite unless you got a old 2wd with a 4cyl. Neither was towing. However on a tight trail they will blow a '150 away, same for a tight inner city or if you want to keep it in a small garage. All depends on what you are doing.



I own a '85 Ranger and a '02 F-150. Both are V8 (obviously the Ranger was not originally) and both get about 18mpg on the highway. Ranger is my go-to for offroad fun/road trips, F-150 is my one stop shop for everything that is there and needs to be here (or vise versa) and my dd. Neither does everything perfect.

 

[Grassland]

How do you Americans get such high fuel economy in the F150? Especially considering your tiny gallons and especially extra especially considering your 70-90 mph highways??? Do you all have 3.31 gearing?

If I run a couple hundred kms at 100 kph so let's say 125 miles at 60 mph, I'll be excited to see 20 miles per US gallon.