Thinking about a Ford Ranger

Grum.Man said:
The new Canyon/Colorado is a beast power wise. I actually prefer the older 6 speed as the 8 speed felt a little clunky to me and had to constantly shift in and out of overdrive on the hwy on hills. I had a loaner for about 2 weeks. Averaged around 20 mpg, think my best was 24 on a hwy trip. I wouldn't buy one today just because they feel so old and outdated. I think I would go with the new Jeep Truck.
Click to expand...

Lol, I don't think the Jeep truck is going to be anything worth crowing about for mileage or "clunkiness". Nothing Jeep makes is particularly great in either of those areas. I suppose the GC isn't "clunky" but it sure isn't going to light up the boards for fuel mileage or interior space.
 
chartbundle said:
I have the Diesel Colorado, the only times I even notice it's a Diesel is the turbo lag(probably similar to an ecoboost) and when I'm idling.

Oh, and the 28MPG I get.
Click to expand...

And the stink when filling up for $0.75 higher prjce than gas [or more]. And don't drip any on your hands or clothes, that **** don't evaporate clean like gas, it stays greasy and smelly until washed out.
 
JOhnH said:
I don't recall anyone saying the NEW Ranger would be the perfect vehicle for everyone and everything. If I was due to buy a new vehicle, it would certainly fit my needs well. As for your '04 Ranger, well, it's 15 years old now. It probably doesn't even have USB ports or Car Play.;)

Do you really put a half ton in the back of an '04 Ranger often?
Click to expand...

Yep, she's getting old and my repla ement options are getting worse . . .

Here's my 600-mile move at about 110,000 miles. A few hundred pounds in the bed for traction, much more in the boxy 6' x 12' trailer.

20141012_172850.jpg
 
Hank S said:
And the stink when filling up for $0.75 higher prjce than gas [or more]. And don't drip any on your hands or clothes, that **** don't evaporate clean like gas, it stays greasy and smelly until washed out.
Click to expand...
Price runs about dead even out here with regular for the 2 years I've had it, usually not more than $0.25 either way I think this week Diesel is a few cents cheaper. I keep wet naps in the car, it's a reasonable trade-off.
 
chartbundle said:
Price runs about dead even out here with regular for the 2 years I've had it, usually not more than $0.25 either way I think this week Diesel is a few cents cheaper. I keep wet naps in the car, it's a reasonable trade-off.
Click to expand...

Diesel's cheap where you are. Midwest through 2014 and Deep South since then, it's higher.
 
If you tow heavy **** all the time, and I mean pretty much all the time, a diesel is great and will save you money.

If you do not tow heavy **** all the time, a diesel is going to cost you more (fine if you want one anyways).

If you tow sometimes, these new generation of turbo charge gas engines are great. I love my 3.5 EcoBoost. It tows the **** I own (8K lbs) as well as any diesel. The downside? It gobs fuel when towing, more than a diesel. Though, with gas being cheaper, that’s less of an advantage then a guy would think.

When I’m not towing, I get 20 mpg, and have a 700 mile range. Since I don’t tow all the time, that efficiency makes up for its lack of towing efficiency.

At no point, even up the steepest mountain grades, have I ever thought my EcoBoost is underpowered. The damn thing always has way more more on tap then I want.

10,000 ft, 8 percent grade, 8,000 lb 34 travel trailer...3.5 EcoBoost is in the fast lane and passing everything else, and I’m barely into the gas pedal. Amazes me what 3.5L can do these days.
 
Last edited:
SoonerAviator said:
Lol, I don't think the Jeep truck is going to be anything worth crowing about for mileage or "clunkiness". Nothing Jeep makes is particularly great in either of those areas. I suppose the GC isn't "clunky" but it sure isn't going to light up the boards for fuel mileage or interior space.
Click to expand...

If it’s anything like the new Wrangler JL it’s far from clunky. If I’m buying a truck I’m not too worried about fuel economy especially if it’s a convertible with straight axles.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
My wife got a rental car while on a trip last week. They upgraded her to a 2019 Ranger. She did a couple hundred miles of mostly highway and saw 20mpg. Not terrible but also nothing to write home about IMO.
Click to expand...
Heck, my 2016 crew cab 1500 Silverado with the 5.3L gets 20mpg. It can vary about 2mpg in either direction whether I'm bucking a headwind or have a tailwind.

Conversely, my 2002 Tahoe with the 5.3L only gets 15 to 16mph.
 
timwinters said:
Heck, my 2016 crew cab 1500 Silverado with the 5.3L gets 20mpg. It can vary about 2mpg in either direction whether I'm bucking a headwind or have a tailwind.

Conversely, my 2002 Tahoe with the 5.3L only gets 15 to 16mph.
Click to expand...

I'm in a 2019 GMC Sierra 5.3 as a loaner right now and it gets better gas mileage than the Canyon I was driving. Got 22 mpg on my way to work this morning. There really is no reason to get a mid size unless you just want something smaller.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Nissan Frontier: Well, it hasn't been updated since 2004, but for some reason people still buy it. Not a bad truck, just ancient and with terrible fuel economy. They are cheap though, but again lacking too many modern amenities that are just standard now.
Click to expand...

It's ancient. That's why I bought it. Manual transmission, no moonroof to leak, no motorized steps to break, a key made from metal, a 'radio' with knobs on it and cloth seats. The only thing missing are crank-up windows. Enough payload to carry some mulch or tow a trailer with my little tractor around.
 
weilke said:
It's ancient. That's why I bought it. Manual transmission, no moonroof to leak, no motorized steps to break, a key made from metal, a 'radio' with knobs on it and cloth seats. The only thing missing are crank-up windows. Enough payload to carry some mulch or tow a trailer with my little tractor around.
Click to expand...

There's something very attractive about an elemental pickup. Like the pickups of the old days. I loved driving my grandpa's basic '62 Chevy C/K 10 stepside back in the day. Small straight six, three on the tree, power nothin'. Just truck.
 
Bill Jennings said:
There's something very attractive about an elemental pickup. Like the pickups of the old days. I loved driving my grandpa's basic '62 Chevy C/K 10 stepside back in the day. Small straight six, three on the tree, power nothin'. Just truck.
Click to expand...

The popularity of trucks has ruined them for those of us who actually use them AS trucks.
 
Bill Jennings said:
There's something very attractive about an elemental pickup. Like the pickups of the old days. I loved driving my grandpa's basic '62 Chevy C/K 10 stepside back in the day. Small straight six, three on the tree, power nothin'. Just truck.
Click to expand...

You can buy a F150 in the 'federal government' trim. Thats what the mennonites buy. No chrome, black plastic grille, just a slot for the radio. I think you get power windows just because nobody makes cranks anymore.
 
weilke said:
You can buy a F150 in the 'federal government' trim. Thats what the mennonites buy. No chrome, black plastic grille, just a slot for the radio. I think you get power windows just because nobody makes cranks anymore.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can't get a stick shift in any domestic anymore. I think the base Nissan (and maybe the Taco) is the only game in town if you want a manual transmission pickup.

EDIT: Oh, and the Fed Gov trim thing reminds me of the cars we had back when I was TDY at a recruiting command. We had five Chevy Celebrity wagons, all light blue metallic with light blue vinyl seats. One had a V-6, and we all fought over getting to the keys to that one first. The rest had the anemic four cylinder Iron Duke (aka iron duck) engines.
 
Last edited:
Bill Jennings said:
Yes, but you can't get a stick shift in any domestic anymore. I think the base Nissan (and maybe the Taco) is the only game in town if you want a manual transmission pickup.
.
Click to expand...

I believe that you can still get a manual with the Cummins in the 3500 and 2500 level Dodge. But that's hardly a 'basic pickup'.
 
weilke said:
I believe that you can still get a manual with the Cummins in the 3500 and 2500 level Dodge. But that's hardly a 'basic pickup'.
Click to expand...

Dodge eliminated the manual option on the '19s, so at least new, no mas. So @Ted DuPuis was well justified getting his Cummins stick shift when he did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Bill Jennings said:
Dodge eliminated the manual option on the '19s, so at least new, no mas. So @Ted DuPuis was well justified getting his Cummins stick shift when he did.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm very glad that I bought the truck when I did. Plus, the new block is probably good, but it's still "new" and I'd rather let someone else deal with version 1.

So now I have a truck that I have to keep going forever. It's still too quiet for me, but at some point I'll do something about the exhaust.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Dodge eliminated the manual option on the '19s, so at least new, no mas. So @Ted DuPuis was well justified getting his Cummins stick shift when he did.
Click to expand...

I'll book that in the ever growing category of ' things I dont understand'.
 
weilke said:
I'll book that in the ever growing category of ' things I dont understand'.
Click to expand...
I mean I like manuals as much as the next guy (okay probably more), but I understand it. It's very, VERY simple economics of they don't sell enough to justify the production costs of manual transmission vehicles. It's that simple and that cut and dry. Dodge being the last manufacturer probably got some extra sales as a result (i.e Ted), but now it's likely that those have waned to a point where it doesn't make financial sense.
 
weilke said:
I'll book that in the ever growing category of ' things I dont understand'.
Click to expand...

Which, them removing the manual transmission as an option, or me buying it?

Mtns2Skies said:
I mean I like manuals as much as the next guy (okay probably more), but I understand it. It's very, VERY simple economics of they don't sell enough to justify the production costs of manual transmission vehicles. It's that simple and that cut and dry. Dodge being the last manufacturer probably got some extra sales as a result (i.e Ted), but now it's likely that those have waned to a point where it doesn't make financial sense.
Click to expand...

I think in the final year they sold something like 300 trucks with manual transmissions. I'd agree it makes no economic sense, and the reality is the torque numbers the modern engines are putting out rival what semi trucks of the 1970s put out. When you get into that 1,000 ft-lb of torque range, you're at the level of needing an Eaton Road Ranger transmission. Maybe I'll do that someday, but that's not the kind of thing you can realistically sell in a light duty truck in production.

It's disappointing, but I get it.
 
Grum.Man said:
If it’s anything like the new Wrangler JL it’s far from clunky. If I’m buying a truck I’m not too worried about fuel economy especially if it’s a convertible with straight axles.
Click to expand...

Right, it just depends on whether it's JL-build (which are fine, but still ride rough, drinks fuel, and noisy) or Jeep Liberty which have enough cheap plastic/flimsy quality to rattle down the road, lol. I'm always amazed at people who choose to drive a Wrangler as a daily driver and never take them off-road. It's one of those "Jeep things" that I'll never understand.

timwinters said:
Heck, my 2016 crew cab 1500 Silverado with the 5.3L gets 20mpg. It can vary about 2mpg in either direction whether I'm bucking a headwind or have a tailwind.

Conversely, my 2002 Tahoe with the 5.3L only gets 15 to 16mph.
Click to expand...

Yup, my '07 5.3L GMC only gets about 15mpg with mixed driving. The old 4-spd tranny isn't doing it any favors.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Right, it just depends on whether it's JL-build (which are fine, but still ride rough, drinks fuel, and noisy) or Jeep Liberty which have enough cheap plastic/flimsy quality to rattle down the road, lol. I'm always amazed at people who choose to drive a Wrangler as a daily driver and never take them off-road. It's one of those "Jeep things" that I'll never understand.



Yup, my '07 5.3L GMC only gets about 15mpg with mixed driving. The old 4-spd tranny isn't doing it any favors.
Click to expand...

Im guessing you haven't ridden in a new JL if you think they ride rough still? I test drove one a few weeks back and it rides better than my new GMC Terrain. Not to mention then get 23 mpg combined which is in the ball park of other 300 hp 4x4 suvs.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Sorry about improving trucks over the past two decades, grandpa. We'll get off your lawn! ;)
Click to expand...
I'm talking about fluff. People he used trucks for what they're meant to be used for don't need fluff. Especially $20,000 worth.

Can't hardly buy a truck without all the crap anymore has has been attested to by numerous participant in this thread.

If you need all that feminine stuff, that's fine. But a lot of us don't. (Touche!)
 
Grum.Man said:
Im guessing you haven't ridden in a new JL if you think they ride rough still? I test drove one a few weeks back and it rides better than my new GMC Terrain. Not to mention then get 23 mpg combined which is in the ball park of other 300 hp 4x4 suvs.
Click to expand...

I've driven several of them as rentals for a week at a time. There's no way it rides better than your terrain unless you are letting Jeep fandom make your decision for you. I've also driven a couple of the Terrains as rentals and ridden in a few owned by friends/family. Don't get me wrong, the JL is a nice ride, and far better than the JK/etc. models from before. They are certainly worthy of the Jeep namesake. I just don't think they excel at ride quality (it's not what they're built for anyway) and in my estimation not better than a GMC Terrain (not setting the bar particularly high).
 
SoonerAviator said:
Sorry about improving trucks over the past two decades, grandpa. We'll get off your lawn! ;)
Click to expand...

I dont consider the SUV flimflam that has infested pickup trucks an ' improvement'.
 
weilke said:
The demise of the manual transmission in ' work' pickups.
Click to expand...

I actually understand that. Fewer and fewer people know how to drive manual transmissions, and it's easier to be harder on the driveline that way. Automatic - anyone gets in and drives.
 
timwinters said:
I'm talking about fluff. People he used trucks for what they're meant to be used for don't need fluff. Especially $20,000 worth.

Can't hardly buy a truck without all the crap anymore has has been attested to by numerous participant in this thread.

If you need all that feminine stuff, that's fine. But a lot of us don't. (Touche!)
Click to expand...

I get it, I'm just ribbing ya a bit. The fleet/work truck models are still available if you want them, and are generally sold for around $30K new (ex: 2019 F-150 XL Supercab, list price is $32K from Ford but I'm sure they'll sell it for $30K at dealership). Sure, they're not as bare-bones as the 90/early-00 models used to be, but they're sure a lot nicer to drive even if all they have is cloth seats, rubber floor, and power windows. The extra "fluff" of the higher trim levels are for those who need (or want) a truck for occasional stuff but need to daily drive it during the week as well.

However, there are an awful lot of guys driving dually diesels with the Lariat/King Ranch/Laramie/Big Horn/etc. editions who are using their truck "for what they're meant to be used for". They just want a better interior when they're running hot shots on 3+ hour legs and want auto climate controls to keep the temp as opposed to manually adjusting it constantly or auto-leveling suspension to make towing easier.
 
weilke said:
I dont consider the SUV flimflam that has infested pickup trucks an ' improvement'.
Click to expand...

You're telling me that you'd rather drive a 1988 Chevy C/K than a 2018 Silverado work truck? The modern trucks handle better, ride quieter/smoother, handle rough roads better, and are better in just about every way including towing/hauling capacity. Don't get me wrong, I love running around in an old '70 SWB chevy or '79 Ford F-250 just like any other muscle car. However, if I actually have to "use a truck like a truck", I'll take the modern trucks every day of the week and twice on Sunday. They just do the job better. I'm not sure what SUV flimflam is, since it's not like trucks have gone unibody or something.
 
SoonerAviator said:
However, if I actually have to "use a truck like a truck", I'll take the modern trucks every day of the week and twice on Sunday. They just do the job better. I'm not sure what SUV flimflam is, since it's not like trucks have gone unibody or something.
Click to expand...

Moonroof, electric back windows, electric running boards, puddle lights, entertainment center, leather seats, air conditioned seats, electric seats, electric tailgate....
 
jesse said:
When I’m not towing, I get 20 mpg, and have a 700 mile range. Since I don’t tow all the time, that efficiency makes up for its lack of towing efficiency.
Click to expand...
To me, 20mpg from a mid size truck is an acceptable minimum but I would definitely stop short of calling it efficient. You need to be in the 25+ range to earn that title in my book.
 
SoonerAviator said:
However, there are an awful lot of guys driving dually diesels with the Lariat/King Ranch/Laramie/Big Horn/etc. editions who are using their truck "for what they're meant to be used for". They just want a better interior when they're running hot shots on 3+ hour legs and want auto climate controls to keep the temp as opposed to manually adjusting it constantly or auto-leveling suspension to make towing easier.
Click to expand...
Which only makes sense. I’m in the minority, I’m sure, but there would be no way I’d be interested in driving a heavy-duty pickup as my daily driver. If I had a need for it, absolutely, but to just drive it around town everyday and trying to maneuver it into these tiny parking lots, no way.

This new Ranger is about perfect in size for an everyday, all purpose pickup. Happy for ya, Austin!
 
weilke said:
Moonroof, electric back windows, electric running boards, puddle lights, entertainment center, leather seats, air conditioned seats, electric seats, electric tailgate....
Click to expand...

Lol, but most of that doesn't exist on the base/mid-trim models. Power driver seat is about the only thing I can think of that might be standard on most. The other "flim flam" items are on luxury optioned trim levels. It's not as if you are forced to buy a Lariat/Laramie/Platinum with all of the luxury features, so why does it bother you that OEMs offer them as options?
 
SoonerAviator said:
Lol, but most of that doesn't exist on the base/mid-trim models. Power driver seat is about the only thing I can think of that might be standard on most. The other "flim flam" items are on luxury optioned trim levels. It's not as if you are forced to buy a Lariat/Laramie/Platinum with all of the luxury features, so why does it bother you that OEMs offer them as options?
Click to expand...

Because it's usually tied in with the better engine and towing packages running the cost up even more.
 
<Old Man Voice>In my day, trucks didn't even have seats. We found a milk crate in a dumpster and we sat on that and we liked it!</Old Man Voice>
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I actually understand that. Fewer and fewer people know how to drive manual transmissions, and it's easier to be harder on the driveline that way. Automatic - anyone gets in and drives.
Click to expand...
I used to be a die hard manual transmission fan, then I realized that I wasn't doing any driving for fun any more and any time I go within 30 miles of a city I end up stuck in traffic where there's no 'fun' to be had. So I joined the rest of the zombie automatic drivers. Next I want adaptive cruise control to manage things even more automatically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top