Nope, but I wish they would have kept the Ranger and added a V8 option (4.6 would make sense, they have it in the explorer, why not the ranger?) to replace the gap left by upsizing all of the halftons. they'd make it as capable as the halftons of 15-20 years ago basically. There are plenty of people complaining about mpg and how the half ton's don need 11k towing and 3klbs payload... those could easily move to a v8 ranger and not look back IMO. Hell, i know I would
__________________
2000 Excursion Limited 4x4 V10 - soon to not be stock anymore.
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs - Gone
2004 mach1 mustang, holding the garage floor in place.
I've been saying the same thing for months. No one seems to want to hear it
The truth of the matter is that they all want the most macho thing to drive. Must have something to do with the size of their ... um.. wheels, yeah thats it.
80% of F150's never see anything even close to the max GVW. They're used as macho commutor vehicles.
"In my opinion the F150 has gotten so overweight that it needs a 280+hp engine just to be accepted by current owners.
What Ford should have done is lightened the truck back down to around 4500lbs. Installed an engine that would get 28-30 MPG. And point people that need 8000lbs+ towing capabilities to a Super Duty. I know you can buy a well equiped SD for less than a new f150 Screw 6.5'
People would be lined up around the block, trading Chev's & Dodge's, to purchase a 1/2 ton truck that gets 25 MPG+
I stopped at a Honda dealershipt today to see the Honda Fit. It's getting rave reviews in the rags. There's a 3 Mo waiting list to get a Sub Compact car that gets 33 MPG.
If Ford could bring the F150 back down to weight and get a true 25 MPG. They could have the same problem Honda is having with the Fit."
__________________
93 F One Fiddy- 5.0/AOD/3.55 230K OEM
93 F Two Fiddy Scab- 7.3/ZF5/3.55/Sidewinder II,94 Turbo pump,G Inj's, Velvet Ride, Ride Rite Rear, Turbo Bumper, Alcoa's
85 F Two Fiddy-6.9/C6/3.54/ Holley Red, Racor, Soup Bowl,AutoJet 3",Ride Rite Rear
umm, the regular cab 2wd is pretty close to 4500 lbs.
the ranger at it's 3800-4000 lbs isn't anywhere close to 28-30mpg, even 25 actually...
to get that kinda mpg you need better aerodynamics, which a truck doesn't really allow, and an engine that won't be able to pull much of anything - 4 cyl rangers are about as close as they get, but how much can you safely tow/carry with one? the 4.6 in a ranger would get quite a bit better mpg than in an f150 - maybe almost as good as a crown vic? but wouldn't get close to 30mpg any day of the week
what we do need for that is the v8 for those who want power and the 4 cyl diesel they have in the ranger over in UK... along with their less restrictive emissions and better fuel then the engine would be able to be efficient enough at a lower displacement to produce the power to adequately move the truck and whatever else is tied to it... but don't hold your breath in this generation of al-gore brainwashed globalwarmers :P
__________________
2000 Excursion Limited 4x4 V10 - soon to not be stock anymore.
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs - Gone
2004 mach1 mustang, holding the garage floor in place.
umm, the regular cab 2wd is pretty close to 4500 lbs.
the ranger at it's 3800-4000 lbs isn't anywhere close to 28-30mpg, even 25 actually...
to get that kinda mpg you need better aerodynamics, which a truck doesn't really allow, and an engine that won't be able to pull much of anything - 4 cyl rangers are about as close as they get, but how much can you safely tow/carry with one? the 4.6 in a ranger would get quite a bit better mpg than in an f150 - maybe almost as good as a crown vic? but wouldn't get close to 30mpg any day of the week
what we do need for that is the v8 for those who want power and the 4 cyl diesel they have in the ranger over in UK... along with their less restrictive emissions and better fuel then the engine would be able to be efficient enough at a lower displacement to produce the power to adequately move the truck and whatever else is tied to it... but don't hold your breath in this generation of al-gore brainwashed globalwarmers :P
Even the 2008 ford ranger ext cab 4x4 w/ 4.0 v6 is only epa rated at 14 city 17 highway
trucks are work horses. the bigger the stronger the better. these two items will add weight every time.
want a lighter truck? get one without a fully boxed frame. get one will bend and twist with the challenges that come before it. have you ever seen the new tundra frame under stress? the reason the f150 will not bend or break is the very reason its so heavy!
umm, the regular cab 2wd is pretty close to 4500 lbs.
the ranger at it's 3800-4000 lbs isn't anywhere close to 28-30mpg, even 25 actually...
to get that kinda mpg you need better aerodynamics, which a truck doesn't really allow, and an engine that won't be able to pull much of anything - 4 cyl rangers are about as close as they get, but how much can you safely tow/carry with one? the 4.6 in a ranger would get quite a bit better mpg than in an f150 - maybe almost as good as a crown vic? but wouldn't get close to 30mpg any day of the week
what we do need for that is the v8 for those who want power and the 4 cyl diesel they have in the ranger over in UK... along with their less restrictive emissions and better fuel then the engine would be able to be efficient enough at a lower displacement to produce the power to adequately move the truck and whatever else is tied to it... but don't hold your breath in this generation of al-gore brainwashed globalwarmers :P
I have a reg cab 2wd and dont get any where near 25 mpg. I dont even get 20, the highest I have ever got was 18.5 I think.
__________________
-Josh
04 F150 4.6l Gryphon Powered 2wd reg cab XL 3:55 LS SISO Flowmaster S40 NCD Customs 2.5" Leveling Kit Burner High Power Fog Lights
I have a reg cab 2wd and dont get any where near 25 mpg. I dont even get 20, the highest I have ever got was 18.5 I think.
yep... i had one before the screw, and i agree on the mpg... even though the weight is considerably less than the screw, the mpg was about 2 higher, nothing to write home about.
__________________
2000 Excursion Limited 4x4 V10 - soon to not be stock anymore.
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs - Gone
2004 mach1 mustang, holding the garage floor in place.
"want a lighter truck? get one without a fully boxed frame."
Want rust due to water entrapment?
Even the famed HMMWV had severe problems with box frames, and on a small-truck note I just worked on a Tacoma that had a FIST-SIZED hole in the frame behind the cab from rust.
If I had a box-framed anything I'd thoroughly drench the insides in rustproofing.
What Ford should have done is lightened the truck back down to around 4500lbs. Installed an engine that would get 28-30 MPG.People would be lined up around the block, trading Chev's & Dodge's, to purchase a 1/2 ton truck that gets 25 MPG+
If Ford could bring the F150 back down to weight and get a true 25 MPG. They could have the same problem Honda is having with the Fit."
What engine would you suggest? Nobody yet has found one that will push a brick through the air and get anywhere near 30 MPG. The little trucks with 4 cylinder engines don't do it and they are nowhere near a 1/2 ton.
__________________
2004 XLT Regular Cab, Short Bed, 4X4 with 5.4 and 3.73.
I just find it ammusing that in '79 when they were marketing the 1980 F-150 they advertised an EPA of 15/21 mpg's with a payload of 2,440lbs w/ 3spd auto and a 302. Now in 2008, almost 30 years later, the trucks have double the plastic, towing and payload has barely incresed, and the new ones are rated at 14/17 mpg's.
__________________ 95 F-150 XL straight cab, long bed, 300 I-6, 4spd, 4x4 489k miles. You name it, it'll still pull it 95 F-150 XLT straight cab, short bed, 302 V-8, 4r70w, 2wd. Wife's truck mainly 94 Ford Bronco XL, 302 V-8, E4OD, 4x4 28k miles. Taking place of '05 F-150 as Daily driver
Although its only part of the problem, I am not sold on the fully boxed frame. If I remember correctly the F250 and 350 don't have fully boxed frames. They don't seem to have any trouble with towing...
I just find it ammusing that in '79 when they were marketing the 1980 F-150 they advertised an EPA of 15/21 mpg's with a payload of 2,440lbs w/ 3spd auto and a 302. Now in 2008, almost 30 years later, the trucks have double the plastic, towing and payload has barely incresed, and the new ones are rated at 14/17 mpg's.
The mileage is calculated very differently now. Back in 80, the 15 was much closer than the 21 on the highway.
__________________
2004 XLT Regular Cab, Short Bed, 4X4 with 5.4 and 3.73.
Join Our Site - Its free, quick and easy!
