What fonefiddy is trying to get at is that there is a point where companies like toyota, GMC and Ford have a responsibility for the products they sell, how they are marketed to the general public, and the effect that can have on our ecomomy. A hole is being dug in the ground, and you can't DIG your way out of it. Something has to give sooner or later.

 

The consumers are already dictating the market. Just look at the fall in truck/SUV sales. I can't forsee it ever getting to the way it was in the 90's again?

The F150 doesn't need to necessarily get smaller. It just needs to lose the pork. The 93-96 150's were plenty big enough. And weighed in at around 4500 LBS. While the new trucks can easily tip the scales over 5500LBS. Screw's prolly over 6K. They weigh just as much, and more, as my 93 F250 diesel SCab, with a 1000 LB engine in it.

Ford was on the right track with the 97-03? Trying to improve aerodynamics. A few more big steps could do wonders. I think we've all seen the aero truck? The guy improved his mileage 12MPG with his funky looking exterior treatments. I'm not saying Ford needs to go that far. But just cleaning up the underflow is prolly worth 3-4 MPG.

 

i dont think getting any weight off the f150 will help the mpg like everyone thinks, my ranger weighs 3800 get 18-21 the dakota weighs around 4500 gets 15/20, the highest mpg rating i saw so i think aero touches and more importantly more efficent engines will help more then weight although the ranger has ancient engines and could prob do very well with a 6sp and mid size v6

 

The Dakota weighs 20% more than the Ranger and gets 17% worse city mileage. Seems like weight is a big factor.

I didn't check your numbers for the trucks. In order to directly compare them they should be from the same model year. This way the mileage ratings, and emission standards will be the same.

 

Its also worth mentioning that ford puts much less time and investment in the ranger than the F-series. The basic platform of the ranger has changed very little over the years which is not altogether a bad thing (I happen to like the ranger), but the engines are just not up to snuff by todays standards.

 

Personally I feel ford is behind the times with mpg for the light duties. My dad has owned many chevies (and ford and toyotas) as well as I have too, and the chevies both old and new have significantly better mpg than the fords in the same trim (all are reg cab long bed 4x4 except my short bed with base motors). His two chevies with 4.3's got 20-22. his 4.9L and my 4.2L average under 15. I know its hard for a direct comparison, but they were the equivelent of each other between the brands, all with base 6 cyl motors, all with 5spd, all 1/2 ton, all 4x4, all reg cab, all long bed except my short bed, all had hand crank windows and no power crap, etc etc. Now his 6L chevy he currently has gets 13-14, but thats also a 1-ton.

Yeah the diesel guys, the 2wd guys, they getter better mpg, but thats not what I am talking about.

This power race I think is kind of nuts. Sure, folks might really need the power, but thats for the 250's and 350's. I think folks have lost sight of what underpowered really means. I know a fellow who works on our farm that hauls the cattle trailer with his old 80's 150 with the 300 I6. Its in a really hilly area of carrol county and he barely makes it up the hills (literally, doing about 10mph by the top of the hill). But he isnt interested in the least in buying a new truck. Heck my old bronco stock was like 145 HP and even when it was stock it still felt like it could pull a tree out of the ground.

I've never hooked up a hitch to my F150, I dont need massive towing power. Mine isnt rated for crap either. I do put quite a bit in the bed, and the V6 hauls just fine. With my possible move coming up I might just switch to chevy for mpg. I would much rather stick with ford, but its awfully tempting.

 

I'm just wonderin how many people who buy pickups really need 4x4s? Same with SUVs how many really need it and use it. I bet you only about 1/3 only use it. So for those who are complaining about their pickups that drive 4x4s ask yourself, do you really need a 4x4? Just something to take in consideration

 

I agree same with all these peole with there monster pws,and i know quite a few people that havent worked it a bit

 

Some of this may be due to the support of the dealers. I know my local dealer is about 10 to 1 when it comes to stocking 4wd to 2wd. Unless you ordered a 2wd truck here you wouldn't have much choice than to buy a 4wd off of the lot.

Steve

 

Around here I'd say there are far more 2wd on the lot than 4's. But I'd never think of owning a 2wd truck even living in the city. My trucks been covered in mud more times I can count and she's never been stuck. Same with snow. And driving on snowy roads with my truck in 2wd is really scarey. Not that they get much snow here but all the family is in NE Ohio and northern NY and the truck frequents those regions.

Heck one time I picked up a cubic yard of soil and actually got stuck in a bit of a rut right there where they were loading me up. Couldnt get out, clutch would just slip. Had to put it in 4wd low and it creeped out just fine. I'd feel pretty helpless if I didnt have the second stick in my floorboard. Heck most of us could probably do without 4wd or even a truck. Need it for work? Quit your job and get one that doesnt require a truck. Move to the south were you dont have icy roads. Give up hunting so you dont have to drive across the muddy fields. Pay someone to deliver that sofa for you instead of doing ti yourself. You never really NEED a 4wd truck. Its part of your life style and the choices we've made over time.

But just because we a driving large vehicles that get less mpg than the average vehicle doesnt mean that you can expect ford will never work to improve the efficiency of the motor. I mean heck, even the prius hybrid owners can complain, they pay more to drive than I did with my '85 corolla that got 30mpg and gas was 78 cents. Thats still better than 50mpg and gas at $3.30

No, not everyone needs 4wd. But thats usually only worth a couple mpg, and has nothing to due with the efficiency of the motor. If the efficiency of the motor was increased substantially then both 2wd and 4wd would see a gain, just slightly less for the 4.

 

I would bet that far fewer than 1/3 use 4X4. Even most who do could get along fine without using it. I need mine due to the farm and mountains but my wife doesn't need it in her Escape but would never give it up because "I might need it." In our first 25 years of marriage, I had to put her snow tires on each fall and in those 25 years, she didn't get out in the snow a single time.