This.




Which is the reason I'm likely going with a GMC Canyon for my next truck.

 

Do it! Vote with your dollars, that's how we get better trucks.

 

Plus, that Canyon is a pretty sweet little truck.

 

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall and find out first hand whether or not the 2.7L met Ford's expectations or fell short........and now they're stuck with it.

I have three co-workers whom all own four cylinder 4x2 Tacomas for the purpose of having a small truck that gets superior MPG's. They are all reporting between 24-26 and seem to be very proud of that. Not bad considering that their trucks are doing what they were intended to do.

Now, if the 2.7L 4x2 F-150 actually achieves 26 sustained then that kind of forces the small truck buyer to admit that he/she just prefers a small truck. Nothing wrong with small trucks as there is a market for them and I'm glad that the car builders that build them stayed the course. This is one of Ford's many dumb moves that will cost them.

 

The ironic thing is that my '07 Ranger (below) gets 25-26 mpg. It just amazes me why Ford didn't put any money into updating what was arguably a 10 year old design that had good bones and with an updated transmission and new exterior would be a winner at much less costs than completely designing a new engine and trying to get us to drink the Koolaid...

 

The problem is that once Ford went though the expense of redesigning the ranger, they'd hve a truck that costs them about as much to make as a base model F150, and would get worse crash ratings, and probably not that much better fuel economy in the EPA testing cycle. They'd also have to sell it for less than a similar F150, so in the end, they'd make less money per truck.

 

This reminds me of the Bronco discussion. The market for small trucks has contracted severely over the last ten years, fueled in large part by manufacturers neglecting the segment. The Ranger was a dinosaur, and the current offerings from Toyota and Nissan are growing long in the tooth. GM is making a big gamble with the new Colorado.

If it's successful I think it's likely that we'll see a redesigned Ranger over here. I don't think it will be though, and if not Ford will have saved itself considerable expense at what could be a huge blunder. Why would I want a small truck when I can get a big one that gets 26 MPG for about the same cost? Some will, but I think most won't.

 

Conversly, I know more than a few people with v6 4x4 rangers that never got more than 16-18 mpg, those trucks didn't stay around for the long run for a reason, I agree that ford should offer a smaller diesel powered pickup truck for those that want it, but will it be profitable for Ford? I think that the 2.7 will deliver, but when you look at the figures, it wont feel like the 3.5, torque dosent come in early enough.

 

To the best of my knowledge, those 4x4 v-6 Rangers that got 16-18 mpg were 4.0L with automatic transmission. If one could have gotten a 3.0L 5spd. manual transmission Ranger, they would have delivered 20-25 mpg. And some would prefer a Ranger-size truck because of ease of parking and they'll fit in most any garage. None of the F150's I've owned would fit in a garage very well.

 

That's the other thing that had me looking at the Canyon:

Crew Cab F150 with 5.5ft bed:
19ft 4" Long
6ft 5" Tall
6ft 8" Wide (no mirrors)

Canyon Crew Cab with 6.2ft bed:
18ft 8" Long
5ft 11" Tall
6' 2" Wide (no mirrors)

So I would end up with a bed that's almost a foot longer in a truck that's 8" shorter overall, 6" lower in height, and 6" narrower. It's actually closer to the size a half-ton used to be!!

The only downside is you can't put a 4x8' sheet flat between the wheel wells (44.5" vs 50" on the F150). However, on these short bed trucks that's not a big deal breaker to me, as you already kinda gave up on the ability to haul full size sheets when you went with the <8ft bed.

 

I don't mind the length, but there are many days that I wish my truck was narrower though. Maybe because I'm one of those jackasses driving and parking in urban areas every day. Lol.

 

Trannys aside, the 3.0 got the same mpg as the 4.0 but paid a huge penalty in power. Don't try and mislead people into thinking anything different.

The 3.0 is bullet proof and will last a long time but that is a different story.

 

This is largely true, with the 3.0 being rated for slightly better city fuel economy. This is from Fuel Economy for a 2004 Ranger:

 

Test drove the Canyon this past weekend and came away VERY impressed. Well-mannered, very quiet cabin, and lots of get up and go (drove the v6 crew). Regarding the 4x8 plywood - a sheet will fit through the tailgate opening and above the wheel wells. The truck bed provides groves for support slats that will support the plywood above the wheel wells. So this truck will do a lot.

 

They have have something that replaces a Ranger......it's called a car