Recently, Paul ran a series of articles comparing the acceleration of a new 2015 Toyota Camry to various exotics of yore, such as a Lamborghini Countach. I’m taking his idea and running in the direction of fuel economy in two-wheel drive crew cab pickups.
Before we dive into the weeds, I will freely admit to owning a crew-cab pickup. It’s the most versatile vehicle I have ever owned and I intend to keep my 2007 Ford F-150 until there isn’t a breathe of life left in it. It will carry five in comfort (six if one straddles the transmission hump), easily pull 6,500 pounds (the upper limit of Ford’s recommendations), and it will go anywhere with its four-wheel drive.
Despite this versatility, it shares the same fuel economy concern possessed by every vehicle. Like our candidates below, it has a lot of frontal area due to it being a pickup. So let’s see what one can expect. All fuel economy estimates were taken from www.fueleconomy.gov
First up is the 2015 Dodge Ram 1500. This candidate is powered by the base 3.6 liter naturally aspirated V6 gasoline engine hooked to an eight-speed automatic. This is the same 3.6 that can be found in the Dodge Charger.
Next is a 1991 Toyota pickup, as I sought a good candidate from the era of truly compact pickups in the United States. I’ve seen a few 2016 model cars, so 1991 was chosen since it was a quarter century ago. These durable and long lasting Toyota pickups can be found all over the world; here, it was powered by a 2.4 liter four-cylinder with two-wheel drive and a five-speed manual transmission.
Another worthy contender is the late Ford Ranger. I arbitrarily picked the 2010 model year as the bench mark since it is relatively contemporary in contrast to the Toyota. This imaginary Ranger is powered by Ford’s 2.3 liter four-cylinder and also has the five-speed manual transmission.
Just for giggles, I’m including the 5.7 liter V8 powered 2015 Ram 1500. Like the V6 Ram, this one has an eight-speed automatic and a goodly number of the current Ram’s I see are powered by the 5.7 liter engine.
Now that you know the contenders, which do you think has the best fuel economy according to the EPA? Place your bets; I’m about to show you what the Environmental Protection Agency has determined for each.
2015 Dodge Ram 1500 V6: 18 mpg city; 25 mpg highway; 21 mpg combined.
1991 Toyota: 19 mpg city; 24 mpg highway; 21 mpg combined.
2010 Ford Ranger: 22 mpg city; 27 mpg highway; 24 mpg combined.
2015 Ram 1500 V8: 15 mpg city; 22 mpg highway; 17 mpg combined.
According to the EPA, the new V6 Ram can be expected to consume fuel at the same rate as the Toyota, with both being thirstier than the Ranger. If one factors in passenger and cargo capabilities, it truly illustrates how technology has evolved in the pickup world.
…and a 2015 Tacoma 4 cyl manual gets 21/25. The V6 auto just 16/21.
That’s just not acceptable anymore in a small truck. The new GM twins don’t improve on that enough either.
The full size Crew Cab is the new family wagon. And they do an excellent job in that role.
There is a completely new Tacoma being readied for 2016. I would wager most of your concerns will be addressed with it.
Well GM missed the mark and the new Tacoma will have the same 4 cylinder engine it has today, so I’m not holding my breath.
Past experience for a ‘Completely New’ Tacoma has been nothing more than a few, minor cosmetic changes. It’s logical, too, considering how ultra-conservative Toyota owns the small pickup market with little incentive to change much of anything since sales are pretty much already at their peak.
Oh gawd, I hate it when I see people in full size crew cab trucks used for a family car. They take up two parking spots or the kids open their door into you. I guess I shouldn’t talk because I like big cars, but at least those are stylish. I understand needing a truck sometimes, which is why I have an old Chevy, but for everyday transportation I can’t see why someone would want such a huge garish vehicle.
Rant over.
The fact is that in modern 2-income families both parents typically need the ability to haul the kids around. So if you need a truck for work or for weekend activities, crew cabs are great because they can literally do it all. Same if you’re a single guy who spends a lot of time hauling his buddies to the lake or trailhead or the work crew to the job site. The large cars you like can’t claim near as much flexibility and modern large cars can’t even claim spacious interiors.
I had a Kia Sorento as a loaner for a week after an accident, what a miserable family vehicle that was. Couldn’t properly fit all three of our car seats across the 2nd row and the 3rd row was all but inaccessible. Not to mention the harsh ride. Full size trucks are the last bastion of comfortable, spacious, and sensible interior design.
It’s an unforgivable shame that demand for the compact pickup truck has waned in recent years. When I was a boy, compact trucks were the way to go. We still had full-sized trucks for those who needed them. But compact trucks were an alternative for those who wanted a small truck. I don’t believe that one should be discontinued in favour of the other, but instead should be kept on the market and let the customers decide what they need/want. For everyone who wants a full-sized pickup truck, there are those who want a compact truck, and vice versa. I also believe that there are people who want something more fuel efficient. If you want a Dodge Ram 1500 that can also get better than 15 mpgs, offer one with the Eco-diesel engine. Advertise it, so that people are aware of the engine. Keep the engine on the market long enough that people have time to make a decision whether it’s for them. The same goes for the compact truck like the Toyota Tacoma. Is diesel for everyone? No, not really. But that should be the customer’s decision, and not the car maker, and certainly not the USA Govt. I want to breathe clean air as much as everyone. But these emissions standards the EPA sets are unrealistic at best, and they keep upping the standards to even more unrealistic standards for car makers to meet. What’s wrong with this picture?
Ram has advertised the heck out of the Eco-diesel. They use its EPA numbers in just about every Ram advertisement. Prior to that they advertised the heck out of the V6 Ram. GM and Ford also prominently advertise their fuel efficiency.
GM will be bringing a diesel to their new “compact” twins. And Nissan will be bringing one to their new Titan. More compacts, diesels in half tons and compacts, isn’t this what you want? I know a lot of people have claimed that, and initial sales have proven that out, but is it a sustainable market or just a pent-up one that will quickly level out? We’ll find out. There’s no conspiracy or dictating by anyone. Manufacturers will produce whatever they can make a profit on.
That’s awesome!
The Ram 1500 IS sold with a diesel, it gets 21/29/24 and is selling well.
That’s good to hear.
I think it’s sad. As a non-american I just can’t by any word understand why some of you like to listen to a tractor diesel engine when you can chose V8 gas? And with your gas prices it’s about free to drive too.
An american car should have at least a six cylinder gas engine.
Well, humans always want what they can’t have. Diesels are coming more commonly now, and we will see how well they actually sell.
I agree. I’d love to buy a Diesel powered RV, but I couldn’t afford to buy one, let alone maintain it.
I for one enjoy the sound of (most) diesels. the 6.0 Powerstroke might have been a piece of junk, but man, it could clatter like nobody’s business.
Jason, I reported on one sometime ago…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/future-curbside-classic-2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-not-everyones-cup-of-tea/
Thank you. I’ll check it out.
A couple MPG more is useless when you are burning diesel which costs 25% to 50% more per gallon than does gasoline. Then there is the exhaust fluid that must be purchased and kept topped off or the computer shuts the engine down and it can’t be restarted unless towed into a service station and reset by an auto tech. There is only a very narrow range of applications where buying a diesel makes sense. Those are applications where the truck is towing/hauling very large payloads nearly 100% of the time and gets a lot of high mileage use.
Go ahead, buy your diesel trucks and use them as un-loaded commuters to work. They don’t impress anyone with any sense.
I don’t know where you live, but diesel hasn’t been much more expensive then mid grade gas for some time in the Toledo area. Right now, you can get mid grade gas for about $2.65-75 a gallon, and diesel for about $2.65 a gallon all over town, so it’s actually a little cheaper most places. The only real negative is the out the door price of the vehicle.
“The only real negative is the out the door price of the vehicle”
…and the lack of horsepower, payload, and towing in the Ecodiesel. It’s really not very well done IMO. My Grand Caravan has more payload. Plus ongoing maintenance and repair costs. Modern diesels aren’t the reliable workhorses they used to be.
I’ve never seen diesel be 50% more than regular gas. The national average had been floating in the 15% range until recently where it is often on par with regular.
When the DEF gets low you get a warning long before you get to the mandated reduced power. Once you get low enough so that the power is reduced the engine still runs but more or less with just enough power to get you off the road or drive on city streets/side roads.
There is no need to tow or have someone reset things just put enough DEF in the tank to get above the level where the warning starts and you are good to go.
Personally I’m not a diesel fan but you don’t have the facts straight.
I have seen it 50% over the lowest grade of gasoline. Your 15% number must be when compared to premium gasoline. I admit I have not checked diesel prices for maybe 6 months.
It must vary by manufacturer how the engine computer deals with a lack of exhaust fluid. A few minutes of internet searching I find a whole spectrum of conflicting info. Apparently some will continue to run until you shut down the engine, then they will not restart. Some will just shut down after a period of reduced power. Some will run indefinitely in a reduced power mode.
Maybe you should not challenge people before you get *your* facts straight.
john; your 50% number is not credible. maybe you saw it, but there’s never been a time when diesel was 50% more than regular on a national basis.
Over the past some years, it’s averaged 15-20% above regular. Curiously enough, currently here in Eugene, diesel is cheaper than regular!
Today’s national average price for regular is $2.77, and $2.84 for diesel. That’s closer than then typical, but the commodity prices of gas and diesel fluctuate due to global commodity markets.
Sounds like you need to check the price of fuel (“get your facts straight”) before you challenge somebody.
No the published national averages of diesel vs gas is for regular gas and as I said until recently that has been around 15%. It does vary by location and season since the demand for diesel is highest in the winter time because home heating oil is essentially the same thing as diesel.
The federal gov’t dictates the way the vehicles respond to the DEF tank being low. It is not legal for the engine to shut down just because the DEF runs out, that would pose a safety hazard.
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires vehicle manufacturers to put measures in place to ensure that vehicles cannot run without Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF). Before a truck’s DEF tank runs empty the driver is given a series of alerts on their dashboard displays (much the same way as if they were running low on diesel). Generally speaking, when the DEF tank level drops below 10% an amber warning lamp will come on, at 5% this lamp starts flashing and below 2.5% a solid amber warning light is displayed.
If the truck is allowed to run out of DEF the engine’s power is reduced, a solid red warning will be displayed and the vehicle speed will be limited to 5 mph until the DEF tank is refilled.”
It is at the mfg’s descretion if they want the engine to not restart once the DEF level has dropped to the point where power limiting is required.
There is one exception and that is some Cummins equipped Rams that barely squeak by the NOx limit in most situations w/o DEF. It is possible to continue to drive them despite all the warnings going off.
I’m not a fan of DEF but to find yourself in trouble due to running out of DEF you really have to try. It is available at every truck stop, almost all auto parts stores, minimarts and places like Walmart. Most vehicles have a large enough tank that they will go several thousand miles between fill ups. For passenger cars and light trucks most mfgs size the tank such that the norm is that it will last 1.2x ~1.5x the recommended oil change interval.
Price differences by state/region seem to be greater for diesel than gasoline for reasons I dont understand. I was in Hawaii (Big Island) last week and 87 AKI E10 gasoline ranged from $3.199 at Costco to $3.729 for 76/Chevron/Shell up in Waimea. Diesel was a shocking $5. On my return to Los Angeles, Gasoline was identical, but diesel under $3.
Seasonally, here in California, diesel runs lower than 87 in summer and about the same as 91, or slightly higher in winter.
I’ve never understood the pricing of gas and diesel. Why diesel costs more than that of gasoline.
Diesel does have slightly higher taxes. When sulfur content was reduced significantly is when I noticed the approximate price parity with gasoline. It was something like 500ppm Sulfur when the stuff looked like mud. Now, 15ppm ultra low sulfur diesel looks like water and is priced somewhat close to gasoline. Even Jet-A has a bit of yellow color to it, not diesel.
Also remember that nothing deviates from its EPA recommendations more than a big truck, with a little engine, not driven 100% correctly.
My buddy has a Ram set up just like the example, 4×4, crew, 3.6 V6. He drives very responsibly, no towing, and has never broken 18 mpg on a combined cycle. Very disappointing.
Also, whereas the Grand Cherokee and others excel performance-wise with the Pentastar, the Ram really feels taxed at times if loaded, and is never that quick.
Ecoboost buyers say the same thing about their fuel economy, but at least they seem happy with their power.
Yeah, I put about 2500 miles on an Escape with the 2.0 Ecoboost, almost all interstate, and I never cracked 22 mpg. Pretty disappointed with that too. At least it is almost unreasonably fast for a CUV 😉
That’s damned unacceptable. The EPA says that we should be driving fuel efficient vehicles, and yet none of the cars and trucks we drive get better than average fuel economy.
I think where the “real world” good mileage is, is with big NA 4 cylinders, with DI, hooked up to CVT’s or efficient automatics.
My 2013 Altima with the DI 2.5 four and CVT averages about 35 mpg mixed driving, is rated at 39 hwy. I’ve gotten nearly 50 mpg out of it mildly hypermiling on a 50 mi round trip. On that same 2500 mile round trip as the Escape, I averaged 37.5 mpg from the Altima. And this is a car that is every bit as big and comfortable as my old Lincoln Continental.
We also have a 2011 Hyundai Sonata with the DI 2.4 and 6 speed auto, it averages only about 1 mpg less than the Altima, and is also a very comfortable car.
The key is going to be more wagons. Too much frontal area & weight with the CUVs. I’ve considered replacing the Altima with a Rogue, essentially a tall Altima wagon, but it’s rated at almost 10 mpg less!!
To reply to Ltd: I regularly exceed the old, higher EPA estimate of 40 mpg in a 1.5/5 speed Toyota Yaris, and owners of current-generation 2.0 DI Ford Focuses (both DCT and 5 speed manual) also report a lot of mileage in excess of EPA estimates. All biggish (for the car size) NA engines.
And I’m with you on the wagons, I just wonder what kind of marketing push they’d need!
That’s awesome! I believe that it takes more than simply a fuel efficient engine. How aerodynamic the vehicle the vehicle is has a part to play. If it’s shaped like a brick, all block, no round curves, it’ll take more power to get the vehicle moving, and thus use more fuel than would otherwise.
the problem there is you can have “Eco,” or you can have “boost,” but not at the same time. and any time I see an EcoBoost Ford on the road, the turbo(s) are singing.
But on the same token I never got close to 18 combined with my 2000 4Runner. In fact it often couldn’t muster that on the highway. And it certainly couldn’t outperform that Ram.
That’s fine for a Chevy/GMC Suburban, a Ford Bronco/Expedition, or a Toyota Sequoia, but for a compact 4wd like a 4Runner, that’s un-acceptable.
Exactly, which is why I have no regrets with my full size crew cab. Yeah, mileage isn’t great, but my other smaller trucks weren’t much better and a lot more compromised. And the resale has been fantastic, best of any vehicle I’ve ever owned.
Sweet. 🙂
Toyota has always been known for unimpressive fuel economy considering the size of the vehicle and engine power.
Otoh, my 95 4Runner has never pulled less than 17 hauling a trailer all over my little hobby farm. Over 20 on the highway. 3.0/5 speed MT. I guess that’s the source of the saying YMMV.
Not nearly as good as my old Saturn Vue doing the same job but the Saturn kept breaking.
My 2000 was the next generation and had the 3.4 and automatic. My mileage was typical. And it was still a weak towing rig.
Ultimately, gentlemen, it is about physics. One really cannot expect a 1500 kg truck with a 3.6 litre engine to produce good fuel economy. As for said 3.6 not being “quick,” I have driven one, and had no problem keeping up with traffic at any time.
Yeah, that Ram will do 0-60 in less than 8 seconds. Nothing at all to complain about there IMO. 273 ft/lbs of torque is a bit light for towing, but should be fine payload-wise.
YMMV.
Interestingly enough, along with the EPA numbers for that ’91 Toyota is an average mileage number that users report. The sample isn’t very big, but the number is quite a bit bigger than the EPA’s : 27 mpg.
I’d buy a Toyota compact truck if it was available with a turbo diesel engine. Unfortunately, the last time Toyota offered a diesel engine in the USA was 1985-86. That’s way too long to go without offering a diesel engine. The full-sized trucks by Ford, Chevy, and Dodge were available with their own diesel engines, why not Toyota, or Nissan?
Actuality will always vary from predictions. Oddly, my ’07 F-150 gets exactly what the EPA has predicted, whereas the ’14 VW has exceeded the same predictions.
My 1987 Toyota (4wd SR5 22R) got 21 MPG pretty much no matter how I tried to drive it hyper miled or beat on it did the same thing.
I had a rental silverado a few weeks ago in Chicago (with a side trip up in Wisconsin ) First two days (out of traffic) I average 21 Mpg on the last day driving thru traffic in the North suburbs and headed to ohare Knocked it down a little below 19MPG. Still not bad considering it was a 4wd crew cab with the longer bed. It had pretty good power not like a V8 but it would fine in every day driving or towing a few thousand pounds.
I never trust any information from the EPA.
Neither do I if I can help it.
Those who decry the EPA need to spend a week in Beijing. You’ll see what happens when pollution isn’t regulated.
I wouldn’t want to live in Bejing, or anywhere in China, for that matter. I agree that pollution needs to be regulated. I’m all for clean air.
There’s a big line between not trusting all data presented by an organization and outright wanting it gone.
So, what data don’t you trust, and for what reasons?
You can complain about their politics and regulations, but their methodology for obtaining mileage estimates is well documented. No method is going to be perfect. Personally I’ve never had much trouble meeting or exceeding their estimates. Trucks can be a bit different because there are so many configurations it would be next to impossible to test them all. But that should be common sense.
I used to own a 4 cylinder 5 speed Ranger, and it was a DOG. With the a/c running it was almost impossible to start smoothly from a stop. It knocked and pinged, it was completely gutless. It was a 1998 base model. There is a trade-off between fuel economy and other attributes sometimes, and while I don’t crave outlandish horsepower figures, I do like torque and smooth power delivery. The 3.0L automatic Ranger I got later was much more pleasant to drive, and the real life fuel economy was not very different.
My beef with modern trucks is that they are HUGE and sit up too high…I hate climbing up into a truck, and hate lifting things too high to get them in the bed. That’s why I have an old Volvo wagon, and use that like a truck with a camper cap on it…carries 90% of what I ever need to haul, and gets 25 MPG on the highway. It does suck on city mileage, but you can’t have it all.
The high bed is a valid complaint and a trend I wish would reverse. Even at 6’3″ I find my bed isn’t very accessible from the sides. The solution seems to be bumper and retracting steps, which I’m not a fan of.
I’d like to see a better Ridgeline. I think Honda was close, very close, to being onto something great there. They just missed the mark in a few crucial areas.
The solution would be a lower truck with drop down sides. I see contractors all over Vancouver importing such trucks from Japan, mostly for yard work.
New Ridgeline is in the works, according to Internet rumors, with more conventional, and quite attractive, styling. If the new Ridgeline is as successful as the Odyssey, it could be a game changer for pickups. Yes, I know it’s not small, and won’t get great mpg, but it’s got potential.
and if you had a 4.0 Ranger, the fuel economy would have been bleh. my 4.0 4×4 struggles to average 20 mpg.
The Ford 4.0 V-6 was an abysmal engine for fuel economy, at least with an automatic in the Ranger/Exploder. You are lucky to average 20. Other competing V-6’s are not so thirsty.
It’s an unforgivable shame that Ford didn’t keep the diesel engine option for the Ranger truck longer than they did.
How many did they actually sell? I doubt it was financially viable to keep it around if the take rate was small.
if this article is to build a case that compact pickups are a waste of money, i completely agree.
I disagree. Full-sized trucks are good vehicles, but compact trucks should have their place.
My intention was to illustrate how 1/2 ton crew cab pickups return better fuel economy than many might think. How better to do that than by comparing them to compact pickups?
The Toyota Hilux pictured is a 1 tonne payload ute, Nobody has manufactured a ute with a 500kg capacity since the tiny Suzuki Sierras.
Bryce, the half-ton nomenclature here is a throwback of sorts to when that was the actual payload capacity for a pickup. The official payload capacity for the Ram pictured is between 1800 and 1900 pounds with a towing capacity of 7,550 pounds. It’s likely capable for much more, but manufacturers here rate things rather conservatively.
The Toyota pictured would have an advertized nominal payload in the 1200lb range.
Wasn’t that one of the reasons Ford offered for the discontinuation of the Ranger.
A few years back I cross-shopped several small and full size trucks. I quickly discovered that there was no difference between them with regard to price and fuel economy.
I drove a 1992 Toyota, very similar to the 1991 pictured, from 1992-2000, and kept a mileage logbook. I experienced 27mpg in suburban driving and would crack 30mpg on the highway; not exactly the “1991 Toyota: 19 mpg city; 24 mpg highway; 21 mpg combined.”
That’s a good incentive to keep the compact Toyota truck. I’ve been driving Toyota trucks since 1990, and I’ve had no problems with it. If one wants a full-sized truck there’s the Tundra. But for those who want a smaller truck, this should be it. 🙂
My thoughts exactly. My 85 “Faux” Runner (4×4, 22r) got about the same as the above EPA estimate, and my 82 pickup got even higher.
Up until recently, I had a 2001 Chevrolet S10, with a 5 speed and the 2.2L 4 cyl engine. After 14 years, I sadly let it go because I didn’t use it nearly enough as a truck (I live in a condo) to tolerate the abysmal driving experience. The Toyota Matrix I got from my S/O feels like a rocket in comparison, with a 20% improvement in fuel mileage, and I hope to find that it serves as well on a practical level.
Larger pickups, be they full size or mid size, are too big for what I need, and are nearly impossible to fit in my garage. I would welcome something like the Fiat Strada being offered in the US, and I’m sure it would deliver far better real world mileage than my old S10, a Ford Ranger, or anything else currently offered does. It may be that we’re so conditioned to think bigger is better that a compact truck would be a tough sell. Just like the Mazda 5 failed as an alternative to today’s “mini” van.
Hey, they Mazda 5 isn’t down and out yet. At least I think they still make them.
please keep in mind 3 important factors:
1. epa numbers are valid for the testing conditions but probably do not reflect your typical driving conditons. for the epa highway testing conditions see: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml you will see that over the course of ~13 minutes the top speed is 60 mph and the low is 30 mph. this represents what epa calls, “…a mixture of rural and Interstate highway driving with a warmed-up engine, typical of longer trips in free-flowing traffic.”
2. in 2008 epa changed the test slightly to reflect, ” Faster speeds and acceleration, Air conditioner use, Colder outside temperatures.” so cars manufactured prior to 2008, ie 2007 and older will have slightly inflated epa estimates compared to a 2008+ model year.
3. manufacturers have been known to prep for the test modifying vehicles to take advantage of epa test not necessarily how you or i drive. they know the questions before the exam, they just prep the cars for the exam. or some outright lie (looking at you ford (fusion hybrid), hundai and kia.
personally, most of my mileage is hwy (90+%) and i typically drive at 60-65 mph on rural roads for 20 minutes or more. my manual diesel always beats the epa hwy estimate because it drives at a steady 60 – close to the sweet spot for mileage. when i drive at typical interstate speeds 75-80mph it drops considerably. close to 20%.
if you drive a mix of city and hwy do not expect epa hwy mileage estimates
if you drive faster than 60 mph on the expressway do not expect epa hwy estimates drop at least 20-25% from your expectations.
hopefully knowing this we can all relax and enjoy what we drive!
My ’08 Honda Civic beats EPA highway estimates by a lot and I drive a mix of city/highway. I get 39 to 41 MPG in combined driving in warm weather. However, if the temps drop to teens or colder, mileage drops to 31-32 MPG.
“2. in 2008 epa changed the test slightly to reflect, ” Faster speeds and acceleration, Air conditioner use, Colder outside temperatures.” so cars manufactured prior to 2008, ie 2007 and older will have slightly inflated epa estimates compared to a 2008+ model year.”
if you look at the numbers on fueleconomy.gov, they’ve estimated the pre-2008 ratings down to what they would (likely) be tested to the current standard. My SRT-4 was rated at 22/30 on 2004, the numbers on the EPA site are revised down to 19/28.
Pickups are very popular in our area. Despite all these fuel economy claims that manufacturers make, the real world mileage of fullsize trucks hasn’t dramatically improved as much as the EPA numbers suggest. It seems the manufacturers just care how well their vehicles perform on EPA tests and not the real world. With most vehicles having onboard computers to calculate MPG’s is surprising how bad many of these modern trucks can be when driven by real people in the real world. Despite the fact that the Ram and little Toyota have similar fuel consumption ratings, I’d be very surprise if in real world conditions the Ram used as little fuel as the Toyota. Further, the payload of that Ram probably isn’t as high as you think. These new coil spring Rams have very low payload capacities, with some of the more loaded trucks being quite pathetic.
If you don’t think the mileage gains have been dramatic, I think you’re overestimating what they used to get. Plus HP and towing is way up. There’s been a big change just from my ’06 to the new ones, the base V6 now has the same HP as my 5.4 V8.
EcoBoost engines are either Eco (good MPG) or Boost (good power) with little in-between. You drive it like me, you get the former. You drive it like my uncle, you get the latter.
That’s been the thing I’ve found rather comical with the name Ecoboost vis-sa-vis Twin Force, as it was originally to be called.
Turbocharged engines historically have been marketed towards performance minded enthusiasts, With Ecoboost though the masses seem to look at that combination of words as “economy boost” rather than “economy, boost”, which are two very different things.
Theoretically, a boosted engine producing 200 HP will burn less fuel than a non-boosted engine producing 200 HP.
Not when both are making 200 horsepower at the same time. Turbocharging is all about potential energy and efficiency, you have a much broader window between miser and guzzler than you do with N/A depending on driving style. All forced induction engines have to run above stoich to keep the cylinder/exhaust temps cool, even with DI. All else being equal(weight of vehicle, gearing, c/d tires, ect) the N/A motor making the same peak 200 horsepower power at full throttle is going to use less fuel doing so than the forced induction engine running richer.
Regular driving is where you have the potential to use less fuel with the Turbocharged vehicle, since out of boost you are effectively running a small N/A motor with a correspondingly N/A like air/fuel ratio.
and the people who I’ve heard complain about the gas mileage of theirs always claim they drive “gently.” Any time I’ve rode along with them, their idea of “gentle” is “stomp on the gas until I have to stomp on the brakes.”
Since several years the Ford Ranger is also available here. As Super Cab (below) or as Double Cab. The only engine options are a 4-cylinder 2.2 liter diesel and a 5-cylinder 3.2 liter diesel.
Payload capacity for the Super Cab is 1,254 kg / 2,765 lbs.
It will always be a niche-vehicle. Folks who want a Ford work truck (that’s why you want a truck) just buy a proven and no-nonsense Ford Transit with a flatbed.
According to Ford’s Ranger-brochure the average fuel consumption of the 150 hp 2.2 liter diesel
(with a 6 speed manual) is 8.3 L/100 km. Which is 28.3 US mpg.
In real life you’ll probably get somewhere between 23 and 25 mpg on average.
The Ranger you have pictured intrigues me mightily. In my periodic pipe dreams about moving to another continent, such as Australia, I have been able to see myself owning one – and the one you have pictured is mighty nice. Ford England and Ford Australia have very nice websites.
I bet you like it….
A few weeks ago a Ranger like this passed me on the freeway, in the same metallic orange / copper color. I looked it up on Ford’s website. It was the Wildtrak, the top model.
It comes with a 200 hp / 347 ft-lb 3.2 liter 5-cylinder diesel.
A lot of goodies too, like leather / alcantara upholstery. It’s almost too nice to get dirty….
If you maintain your diesel engine, you take care of your pickup truck, it should last indefinitely. The problem was that not many Toyotas were offered in the US with a diesel engine, and apparently, therefore, not many places were offered to service the diesel engine. That can be a serious problem.
Eventually the frame rusts away and all the wiring gets brittle and the wire insulation cracks.
“indefinitely” just is not possible.
Rust can happen to any vehicle. Even Toyotas.
yes but Toyota pickups in the US have been notorious for excessively rapid rusting (and weakening) of their frames.
My experience working for an organization that has thousands of vehicles in its fleet where the Ranger and F150 are the most common is that the Rangers all drink gas as heavily if not more than the F150. The extended cabs with four cylinders and automatics in particular. They are cockroaches of the road in a good way however. They may buck, snort, moan, and groan(even when new), but they keep on going with fewer problems than the F150’s.
With proper maintenance, any vehicle will last indefinitely, provided there are enough places to have maintenance done. 🙂
2006 Chevrolet Colorado 3.5 I5 4sp auto 2wd + ideal 40-50mph rolling hill no stop 37 mile commute = 24.3 mpg lifetime, not great but sure beats EPA predictions (17/22) and FITS NO PROBLEM IN MY GARAGE
Trucks are huge cash-cows. It’s not like there’s a lot of technology, or even regulations, involved in their production. Their objective is simple: hauling stuff. So, someone like Toyota, who pretty much now owns the small truck market, has absolutely no incentive, whatsoever, to improve their product beyond what is the most minimum necessary.
The small pickup regular cab version, in particular, is going to remain the same for just about eternity. Very few are sold to civilians, with most going to commercial fleets. They love the longevity and, although they’d love for them to get better fuel mileage, it’s not like they’ve got a lot of choice in the matter. So, Toyota just keeps building them with only minor cosmetic changes, and just keeps right on selling them.
Really, the one critical thing that keeps fleets buying the small pickup is their maneuverability in relation to the full-size trucks. It’s the one trump card they have. Those small pickups, although they are worse in just about every other characteristic, are a whole lot easier to drive in any circumstance, thanks to their smaller dimensions.
Demand for large trucks has prompted manufactures to invest enormous R&D dollars making their products irresistible. Obviously fuel economy is one of the issues that was addressed directly.
-Not too long ago a big block V8 with 3-speed auto would typically provide just 200 hp and sub-10 mpg.
Mini trucks work well in other countries, but in the US, truck buyers want economy AND capability. While a F150 is now pulling 7000lb, minitrucks with 4cly are good for 3500 typically…but with a cramped interior and similar fuel consumption.
The value proposition for small trucks isn’t there….unless you are person who just wants a small truck for personal, not functional, reasons.
Exterior dimensions say nothing about capability.
The Ford Ranger I posted above has a 2,765 lbs payload capacity plus a 7,700 lbs towing capacity. And it does have a 4-cylinder.
Although “conservative ratings” (as mentioned by Jason Shafer in one his comments) might also be involved.
I’d like to see it and the Ram loaded with 2700 pounds and see which one handles it better in the real world. Not to mention the difference in volume that the boxes can hold.
Part of the reason US trucks have lower payloads than you would expect is that the center of gravity is more of a factor than the actual weight it can handle. I don’t think there’s any way that Ranger would be rated that high if sold in the US.
Agreed. Towing and payload ratings in USA are not directly comparable with ratings ptovided for other markets. The American lawyer class has created a “unique” legal climate for manufacturers, and that is reflected in the towing/payload ratings.
Regarding the volume that the boxes can hold: that’s why I called the Ranger a niche-vehicle and the Transit a proven and no-nonsense work truck.
Below an older model Ford Transit with exactly the same payload capacity as the current Ranger. The perfectly flat and rectangular cargo bed is 110 inch long and 76 inch wide. The sideboards are folded down as you can see.
I think this is what happened: outside the US, a small truck has always stayed a small truck, whereas the pickup truck (which is also a small truck) in the US has evolved into the successor of the Brougham landyachts.
Mind you, there are plenty of US pickups around here, and I like them. These are bought by the enthusiasts, people who want something differerent, something that stands out on the road. Not because they have a bigger cargo bed or higher payload. Yet all of them are used professionally, as a commercial vehicle. When looking around I’d say that the (post 1993) Dodge Ram is the most popular.
Sideboards folded up. It’s a 2005 Transit with a 2 liter diesel and a 5 speed manual.
A truck like this with a 4-door cab would definitely intrigue me. I know they exist, I just don’t know how they compare in terms of ride, handling, interior comfort, safety, etc.
It would be nice to have the choice, that’s for sure.
Well, things like comfort, handling, safety, sound insulation, options (like an automatic) and power output have vastly improved in the past 10 to 20 years. But it is what it is: a small truck, a tool, something you (only) need for your job. They all come with diesel engines. Around 2.0 to 2.5 liter displacement, and around 3.0 liter for the bigger ones.
I can certainly imagine one uses a well-optioned Ford Ranger Double Cab (or an F150) as a daily driver. I would never drive a Ford Transit Double Cab flatbed truck as a “family car” though. The Ranger and F150 are much closer to a big SUV and can be used as such.
Folks around here who want to combine a commercial vehicle with a family car have a van with rear seats. Like a Ford Transit Custom (below) or a Volkswagen Transporter. Metallic paint, a set of nice rims, full options, and off you go with tools and / or family.
Not the big model RWD vans though. These are…well, too big…
Interior of the current Ford Transit Custom van. Obviously with a 6 speed manual.
That’s nice, I love the 3-across seating in front.
The unsaid “get-out” clause with many of the “rest of the world” midsize pickups is that you might find the rear axle load limits what you can carry rather than the stated payload, if you can’t get the CoG far enough ahead of the rear axle. From what I can see (F-150 specs) the rear axle load limit less the payload level is much closer to the payload figure.
Wow, no functional reason for a smaller size. I’ve been driving a 2000 S-10 2.2 5-spd stretch cab for the last 8 years. It is a work truck, supporting carpentry and property maint. I’m a 5′-6″ old guy. I can walk up to the truck and load my compressor right over the side. The custom ladder rack just clears the roof – I can load it flat-footed while the guys with the large trucks are getting out the plastic stool they all carry. I constantly parallel park in an urban setting -(mostly Cathedral Hill in St Paul) short and low work here. I find the interior very comfortable – as I never carry a passenger the right seat is the “office”, tools live in the back. It will haul 1500 lbs at 70, yes, I may have to kill the air on a bad grade. I look at new trucks at the lot, often I literally cannot see into the bed. I hear little ladders can pop out as an option. My truck is at 181,000 and starting to rust, getting into that bad “rusting brake line” time of life. At the dealer they seem to be catering to the “my daddy didn’t respect me” or “my wife’s screwing her dentist” type of problem, not “Steve’s got to put stuff in his truck and park in a tight space”. I will probably nurse the truck along to the end of my career while dreaming of the four cylinder stretched cabover the rest of the planet gets to drive. Steve
Whoever says there’s no functional need for a small truck should have his head examined. Large trucks like the Ford F150, Chevy/GMC 1500, or the Dodge Ram 1500 are good vehicles, but not everyone needs or wants a full-sized pickup truck. Sometimes a smaller truck is all a person needs. If he needs a larger truck, he could ask someone he knows if he may borrow his. I’ve driven two Toyota trucks and they’ve both served me quite well. 🙂
Well said Steve Gray.
Wish we had a like button Steve. That is sort of what I did. Retired now and have no pickup. Trailers made from old Nissans and Ford Couriers do the dirty work. Drove Nissan 620/720/and hardbody till I quit.
If you are referring to those little Isuzu cab overs, those things will haul some stuff but they are no fun to drive long distance.
LTD- Altima gets 38 highway not 39(if you are quoting EPA numbers…if not then of course you are able to beat it and I will take your word for it). Altima does not have a Direct Injection 4 cylinder engine available. The 2.5 is not offered with DI in any of the North American models at this time. Rogue is rated at 33 highway in front wheel drive and 32 in AWD…so the MPG difference is more like 5 MPG not 10 like you stated. I have driver 3 2.5 Altimas -1 2013 model 1 2014 model and 1 2015 model for approx 6k miles each and my mixed of highway and city driving has netted me about 32.5-33.5 so far. Just my two cents on the subject.
I really assumed it had DI after the Sonata did to get its mpgs, all that ugly engine noise you just assume…
Only 32 mpg? Even in the middle of the summer when I leave it idling a lot with the remote starter I never get under 35. I guess everyone’s results may vary… And as to the Rogue, be it 5, 6,7 or 10 mpg, my only point was the difference should be 0, slap a wagon back on an Altima and be done.
Slap a wagon back on whatever and watch the mpg take a big hit particularly the hwy numbers.
Nope. Aerodynamics might be slightly affected, but not over 1 MPG. Compare some identical wagon and sedans. I have a Volvo V70, rated at exactly same as S60 sedan.
I always look at fuelly.com to compare real world numbers. If you look at it I think trucks have improved quite a bit in the last 10 years but that still does not push them much past 20 real world MPG on the highway. But if you want an example my 1996 Dakota with a 318 averaged around 15 MPG and never got more then 17-18 on highway trips. Most fullsize crew cabs can handily beat those numbers today.
It all depends on how they’re configured. Weights can vary by 1000 pounds or more between models. If you get a decked out 4×4 crew cab, you’re probably not going to get the EPA numbers. I believe I read somewhere that Ford’s panoramic roof adds almost 200 pounds by itself.
My experience with friends’ TDI Volkswagens is that they meet or beat EPA highway figures in the U.S. And at least now, in many states diesel fuel is significantly cheaper than gasoline. So if a TDI Jetta can get ~50 U.S. Mpg on the highway, I would think a similar pickup (Amarok anyone??!!) could get easily high 30’s even with more rolling and wind resistance plus some additional weight. And the 2.0 TDI would seem to have adequate HP and torque for light duty hauling. I own an older 3.4 V6 automatic Toyota T100 4wd truck. It gets about 18-20 on the highway and perhaps 16-17 in town. Not great, but total cost of ownership is low and I like having the roomy bed for chores and the 4wd for off pavement exploration in the desert and mountains. The T100 was another interesting experiment that failed (like the Ridgeline) but in many ways it’s an ideal blend of interior and exterior size and payload that was ignored in the U.S. market. With an update including amodern VVT V6 like the new Tacoma is getting, and a 6 or 7 speed auto or 6 speed manual, I think Toyota would have a winner.
My rule of thumb for a vehicle like the Amarok (size and weight) with a 4 cylinder turbo diesel is 25 to 26 mpg on average (so combined). Real life numbers, keeping pace with the rest, and doing 75 to 80 mph when on the freeway.
Yes, city fuel economy does drag down the combined figures on diesels. Our gasoline hybrid Prius gets better combined economy than my friend’s TDI Jetta, but his Jetta is better at highway speeds and much more pleasant to drive at 70+ mph than our Gen2 Prius … quieter, low revs, gobs of torque. For my personal use, a truck with hauling capacity and 4wd would be used for recreation involving long stretches of highway to get to mountains and desert. In that duty cycle, highway fuel economy, and tank range (not much fuel, let alone affordable fuel, in Death Valley) are paramount for me. I’m waiting to check out the diesel Colorado when it arrives here.
It’s true, that city driving, with lots of stop and go, tends to make fuel economy suffer. A VW Golf TDI that usually gets between 35-40 mpgs on freeway driving would probably get between 30-35 mpgs driving around town. I would think that it’d be true with both gas and diesel vehicles.
Volkswagen states 6.9 L/100 km for “out-of-town” driving. Most powerful Amarok 2.0 TDI with a 6 speed manual. That’s 34 US mpg.
Never buy a (new) diesel when you’re mainly cruising (low speeds/revs, short distances) in and around town.
You guys are all affirming why I would like to see a compact diesel truck sold in the U.S. And unfortunately I am skeptical about the refinement and quality of.the upcoming GM 2.8 four cylinder diesel (aka Isuzu) and the Colorado/Sonoma twins it will be offered in.Toyota’s chief Tacoma engineer was quoted at the U.S. Announcement of the new Taco, at Detroit earlier this year, justifying why a diesel Tacoma made no sense in the U.S. But with 50% (or even more) better highway fuel economy and range, especially when diesel, I think he and Toyota are missing a huge opportunity. Probably like Eugene, Oregon, my part of California is full of old Toyota pickups, and Mercedes and VW diesels (new and old). A 4wd diesel Tacoma would sell like hot cakes here.
I couldn’t agree more. It may not be much of an increase in mpgs over the gas version, but it’s an increase nevertheless. And there *are* people who want diesel. I’d buy a diesel powered light truck if I could afford one now. 🙂
dman, me thinks the GM 2.8 liter diesel is basically an Italian VM Motori engine. But I’m not 100% sure….The VM Motori 2.8 liter inline-4 diesel is also in the Jeep Wrangler.
The Isuzu D-Max pickup (same segment as the VW Amarok) is also available here, and all versions have Isuzu’s 2.5 liter diesel under the hood.
If I were in the market for a diesel pickup in this segment, it would definitely be a Toyota HiLux with the 3.0 D4D engine.
Whoever provides the best quality diesel engine, should be the one to provide the engine. For the past 30+ yrs, diesel engines have been given a sorry reputation for being poorly built and the vehicle not being built to withstand the torque and compression diesel engines are known for.
….meanwhile I did a bit of searching.
Quote:
“The GM split from Isuzu Ute was completed with the introduction of the current Colorado range: the three-litre Isuzu engine has been replaced by a GM/Fiat-owned, VM Motori 2.8-litre diesel, as used by Jeep as well.”
Source: http://www.outbacktravelaustralia.com.au/working-4wd-vehicles/working-single-cab-ute-survey
This confirms that the GM 2.8 Duramax is a VM Motori engine. By the way, VM Motori is now fully owned by the Fiat Group.
Some nice flatbed-utes there on that site !