My Ranger had 208,000 on it and the brakes, plugs (twice) and an IAC were all that were ever replace and my wife wrecked the truck on black ice or I would still be driving it.

 

puff,puff,pass..puff,puff,pass...We all want some of what you're smoking.
We have a fleet of those at work. BOTH types of trucks you describe, equipped just how you're describing, and they get the SAME fuel mileage. Some of the Rangers actually do worse on fuel. I manage the maintenance on all of them,and can assure you that there are no tune up or other issues either.
JL

 

I quit smoking in 1967 so those are facts whether you like them or not.

 

Our 4.6L supercab F150's here with a ladder rack, toolbox, 3.55 axle, 4R70W and various materials/tools on board average 15mpg. That would mean by your claims, a similarly equipped 4.0L Ranger would be at 20-23mpg. I have personally NEVER seen or heard of ANYBODY with a 4.0L ranger that gets better than 18mpg-NOT EVEN ONE. Our Rangers are 4.0L supercab 2WD trucks,and NONE of them get better than 15mpg, and very rarely 16mpg. That is ALL. Facts and Data agree with me. I see the miles driven and fuel used on all of those trucks, and calculators DO NOT lie.
JL

 

Which is just as good as yours. I was a factory train professional mechanic for a long time and am now retired, plus I raced cars and boats for years. So I have as much experience as you and know what I'm doing and know my ****.

 

The goals of "serious fuel economy" and "truck" are mutually exclusive. If OP is getting a 4x4 then economy REALLY doesn't matter so grab the big 'un and enjoy the room and cargo capacity.

Ask the folks from Serious Snow states what the best snow TIRES are because four driven wheels without traction won't do much good!

Some college students have money, some not, choices can be made accordingly.

DO pass the hat for gas money when helping other students move their stuff.

 

One thing is for sure, the Ranger has a lot smaller frontal area than an F150 and that has got to help with mileage. And at $4 a gallon Fuel economy always matters.

 

The cd of a 2001 Ford Ranger is .49 with a frontal area of 25.9 sq-ft.
The '97-'03 F150s are .43 with a frontal area of 31.5 sq-ft.
JL

 

The F-150 will not beat a 4 cyl Ranger for fuel economy. I've owned both. I love my F-150 but as gas prices keep soaring, I miss my Ranger.

 

NOBODY here has said that an F150 will beat a 4-cylinder Ranger on fuel economy.
NOBODY.
JL

 

I wasn't trying to put anybody down. I made a simple statement of fact in response to the subject at hand.

You need to lose some attitude and get off my back.

 

Maybe loaded up they get similar mileage, but he will be driving it empty most of the time.....I don't see how a v6 in a compact truck would get the same mileage as a v8 in a full size truck when they're empty. It's not like a v6 has to work hard to move a ranger

 

Same way with a 96 dodge Dak and a 98 Ram1500, ram had a 5.9 and the dak had a 3 something. The dak got 15 mpg, the Ram got 13-14, all combined, all empty. We're talking real world driving here, not the friggin EPA estimates. I swear I will NEVER downsize to anything less than a fullsize ford for my DD (cars exempt of course

 

Well say you drive 10,000 miles per year at $4 a gallon....

Dakota 15mpg = 666.6 gallons = $2,666.66
Ram 13mpg = 769.2 gallons = $3,076.92

You're spending an extra $410 on gas every year!! 13 to 15 may not seem like a big difference, but it actually is 13% lower

Also, full size is more expensive to insure, register, and has bigger tires. For a college student all that adds up.

 

You are absolutely correct, until I needed to carry tools and tow a trailer, then the dak simply wasn't enough It as OK to drive, but after driving full sizes, it's worth the extra $500 a year to have it when I need it (a few times a months) with extra storage room and ability to carry passengers. Just my .02 Personally not a big fan of mini trucks