At this point I will reiterate that the pickup vs sedan preference is a regional/cultural divide that has more to do with image than function. But for me, a pickup is far more suitable to my own uses than a trailer towed behind a car. In past years towing trailers has often been a necessity that I have learned to hate. For all the pleasure I get from boating the struggle to tow the boat led me to keep it at the river. And I still have a car hauler but dread using it. A friend has bought a Prius because it suits the image he wishes to present to clients. The Prius wouldn’t even be on his list of possible choices otherwise. The Outback would suit him much better. But the deal maker and breaker is IMAGE-IMAGE-IMAGE.
“But the deal maker and breaker is IMAGE-IMAGE-IMAGE”. For me, IMAGE was very important. I drove the same car to work for 33 years–an Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon that I bought new in 1978. After the first five years, it looked out-of-style. After 15 years, it was really out-of-style and had suffered a few battle bruises. However, as a faculty member, it was great to drive to important functions with the university administration. It is important to go to these functions portraying the poor professor image. I also wore an old raincoat to further enhance my image. Columbo had nothing on me.
“From 1990 to 2010, the Tacoma in creased it’s base 2wd wheel base by 6 inches (103 to 109 approx.) and it’s weight by about 600 lbs. The highway mileage rating went up ( to 26 mpg) from just over 20 mpg for the old one. The newer 4 cyl. motor still has 50 more horsepower and dramatically more torque. It looks like the change was for the better. It moves a bigger truck more economically. The new 6 cylinder has a similar mileage rating in 2wd as the old 4 cylinder.”
Not quite…The old, indestructible 22R engine, 2.4L, was rated at 21-26 mpg by the EPA…102hp and 132 ft-p of torque…The new 2.7L 4 banger delivers 160hp and 180 ft-p torque but highway mileage has dropped to 25…The 2013 standard cab base truck costs $17,500 today…The 1990 Toyota Pick-Up, 2wd, 4-speed, sold for $7990…
I argue the merits of an SUV and a trailer over a pick up, only because I have so much access to other vehicles that do all my load carrying. When I age a little more and move back into town and have to pass on my toys, I will have a small pick up again. My Favorite vehicles of all time were my small pick ups. A bike rack on front, a canoe on top, a cap with screens and sleeping bags. What more could a vagabond want ? Right now, a pick up with out a plow is too restrictive and I need the SUV comfort for mountain dirt road and taking long trips to visit the grandchildren while wife needs room for her girl friends and she to do their thing… But, there will come a time when the will bury me in a pick up.
But, there will come a time when the will bury me in a pick up.
“The 2013 standard cab base truck costs $17,500 today…The 1990 Toyota Pick-Up, 2wd, 4-speed, sold for $7990.”
Adjusted for inflation, the 1990 Toyota would cost $14,200 today. Still a lot less than today’s base Tacoma, but not the large difference listed above.
If manufacturers can improve the fuel mileage of full size pickups to that of earlier compact pickups why can’t they make similar improvements to the compacts and continue selling them? A 35 mpg Ranger would be a great alternative to a 26 mpg F150 for a great many truck owners.
Because Rod, IMHO, these small ( read narrow) halfton rated trucks are rollover queens compared to wider models, ride too poorly and have too little room for the average truck driving lardo. If they sold well, the Ranger would be a market leader and still being sold. It wasn’t and isn’t.
@bscar2 thanks for the Texas two step.
I would guess that Ford doesn’t want to sell the Ranger so they obsoleted it by design just as MoPar obsoleted the Dakota. If Ford dealers had stocked bare bones basic Rangers in recent years they would have sold them but made less profit so they only stocked the high end Rangers that were very nearly as expensive as the F-150s and didn’t offer much improvement in fuel mileage. If the Ranger had been given serious attention would a 35 mpg 4 cylinder be reasonable to expect? And if Ford built an updated bare bones Ranger would MoPar and GM see the need to jump back into that market? The public buys the models that are on the lot ready to drive away and the manufacturers are stocking the high profit fully equipped models. GM scrapped the Cadette before it even hit the show rooms because it would compete with their more profitable models, not because the public didn’t want it.
BTW, some years ago a customer’s business was doing well and he wanted 6 new bare bones pickups. The local dealers wanted a substantial deposit and more than a month lead time to get the trucks and they would cost more to special order them with manual transmissions, no AC, rubber floor mats and no radio than the price of the loaded models in stock. Go figure.
Exactly Rod Knox,they dont want to do it. I guess its conspicious consumption.most of the early fifties vehicles or at least a lot of them werent these huge behomeths we have now.I think a smart car is ridiculous,I also think a new chevy pickup verges on the ludicrous(try to reach something in the bed of a newer heavy duty chevy or gmc pickup you will see what I mean.Its really tiresome to behold all these massive vehicles rolling up and down the road,sure they will haul more then a small one ,but can you not give the small ones a corresponding increase in efficiency too?My 2006 Dakota most be one of the most inefficient vehicles ever made.I really like the design,but 14-15 mpg with a small V-6 sure isnt outstanding,but it is a 4wd.I could haul almost as much on the Nissan D21s I used to own and get 26 mpg average with them but they werent autos or 4 wd either.But now my friends tell me they can featherfoot their 4wd silverados(autos) and get 22-24 mpg with them,what gives? I’m perplexed-Kevin
In your case, the 4.7L V8 in the 2006 Dakota is actually slightly more fuel efficient than the 3.7L V6. The V6 simply has to work harder to move the truck around. Fun fact, the 2013 Ram with the 8 speed automatic, and Pentastar V6 is rated for 21 MPG combined.
Trucks, by their nature, are heavy and strong (compared to cars) and not very aerodynamic either. People don’t buy them expecting high mileage…They COULD offer them with turbo-diesel 4 cylinder engines and push the mileage well up into the 30-40 MPG range but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards…As the big over-the-road trucks switch to LNG fuel, the price-pressure on #2 fuel oil (diesel fuel) should slacken from the premium it sells for now making diesel consumer vehicles more attractive…
I don’t know if they still offer it, but Ford had a retractable step on the sides of the bed, as well as the tailgate, so that helps with loading/unloading
Thanks FoDaddy,think I’ll stick with asian next time-Kevin
@kmccune. @RodKnox
I feel there is a limit to the gas mileage you can expect from a pick up compared to a car with the same motor. With the higher ground clearance, very poor aerodynamics, highway mileage, usually the highest for most cars will always suffer in a truck. The ElCamino approach I grant you, compensates in some respects but looses practicality while doing it. Just sticking the most efficient motor you can in a Ranger is not the answer. Efficient gas motors often lack torque needed, and, it’s still a Ranger with a poor chassis and poor aerodynamics. Add 4 wd in any truck, and the ground aerodynamics suffers dramatically more still, let alone the added weight penalty.
Remember, for many years the Ranger just used a variation of the Pinto motor. The mileage difference between the two was always significant.
Updating a Ranger without enlarging it would never compete successfully with a Tacoma. Ford is not interested in building a larger compact at this time, that takes sales away from their precious F150. One of the biggest reasons the Ford outsells all other vehicles, is the lack of competition from a larger midsize truck in it’s own stable.
GM sales are not only counted as being divided between two identical trucks, GM and Chevy, but they offer two identical but differently branded midsize trucks that compete with the full size from both GM and Chevy. IMHO, the Ford sales leadership has always been somewhat contrived and GM actually has sold more half ton pick up trucks over all in some of those years.
Ford didn’t continue updating the Ranger for the US market because sales dropped every year since at least 2002. Why would Ford update a truck that is not worth saving? Sure, they could put a small turbo-diesel in a Ranger, but it would cost as much as a decent F150. Who would buy it when they could have a more desirable F150?
There are a ton of people who would buy a slightly larger vehicle then the Ranger with a 3.5 Eco boost motor that has 365 hp. It gets 22 mpg highway in a full size truck and with a substantial reduction in weight and lower frontal area of a midsize, it should push 25 mpg and more and absolutely scream. Woudn’t you buy one ? 130 more hp then the Tacoma v6 and the same price and gas mileage…are you kidding me ? They would be selling out…at the expense of the f150.
Ford Ranger sales dropped because Ford wanted them to drop.
@RodKnox. How about, “allowed them to drop”. If they had stayed high enough, IMO they would have continued making them but without any “engineering intervention” , if that makes sense.
Ford continues to build the Ranger in Asia and South America. I read rumors on Wikipedia about waiting until the Colorado update that might occur in the 2014 model year. That would put the new Ranger in the 2015 or more realistically 2016/2017 time frame, if Ford builds it at all. I also read the same thing on Truck Trend and Autoweek (Colorado/Canyon update).