sad eh?? lets talk about the comfort level... i think i'll sacrifice a couple of mpg and keep the F150!!

 

Yeah, if you think you'll get better mileage downsizing to a Ranger, you're gonna be disappointed. The 4 banger is the only engine that gets a little better mileage, but is so weak it falls on it's face when you crank the A/C up on high. The 3.0 and 4.0 V-6's are no more fuel efficient than the V-8's in the F-150's. Should be, as the Rangers are much lighter, but that's not the case.

 

With some PCM programming tricks mileage can be increased significantly on the 3.0L V6. You sacrifice power and it won't be emissions compliant but it can be done. Keeping the power the same, and fully emissions compliant... no dice.

 

can someone come up with a good reason as to why it works that way??

 

Why what works what way?

 

why a truck that weighs 1/2(not sure exactly) of an F150, with way less motor and power gets equivalent mpg...

 

Because of aerodynamic drag. Once you're rolling at a decent speed, the majority of the fuel is being consumed to push the vehicle through the air. That is where the energy is being spent. Whether you have 4 cylinders or 8 cylinders, that same work has to be done to keep the vehicle moving, and the cost of the extra friction from the extra cylinders is low in comparison. That's why a car with great aerodynamics can get good mileage even with a fairly big V8.

 

because size of the truck and engine isn't the main thing accounting for mileage.

More often than not, how hard the engine has to work is the culprit for the mileage. A larger 300hp engine not really breaking a sweat, making say, 50hp/tq, will be eating the same if not less gas than a 75hp engine putting out the same hp/tq.

Like VFR said, air resistance is a big one. The ranger is closer to 4k lbs in their heaviest config, the F150s in their heaviest config are close to 6k lbs if not a little over. That's 1.5x the weight, not 2, but still significant. They both have the aerodynamics of a barn.

Then there's driveline losses; the ranger is still turning 31" tires factory, a larger (comparatively) load on the smaller engines. They use an 8.8" rear like the 4.6s if I'm not mistaking, and so on. The ranger may be one overbuilt truck, but that's what got them the reputation of being tough as nails.

The four banger ranger is the only one running smaller tires/wheels, and likely a smaller rear end and tranny... and sits a decent amount lower than the v6's. and the gas mileage shows it. But by that point you have to ask yourself if it's gonna be able to do what you need it to. If you only need it to haul around some tools or a bit of furniture, or take it offroad or whatever, the ranger will do great... if you need it to haul that 30' travel trailer, even if it's under it's max towing weight, you may wanna look somewhere else...