 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / May 2006Whats the Smallest truck Best MPG recent years to buy?
I am looking for a small truck for my business. Rangers were one of my first choices but it looks like Gasoline will soon hit $3 or more. I want to find out what truck built between maybe 1985 1998 is the lightest and has the best MPG 2 wheel drive, standard cab, short or standard bed Has to be automatic I dont drive stick I dont need to carry a lot of materials because large shipments of lumber and drywall can be delivered but I will need to carry some items when the order is small. If you have a ranger what can you do to improve MPG I was thinking about a bed cover but what about front end body kits? One of those subaru brats / mini rancharo elcamino would be nice but there is no way i could find one. live in usa midatlantic states You can go to the government site and check all the mileages for yourself, not that you would achieve those numbers necessarily. I just want to point out two things. From an overall cost per mile standpoint, you would be best to avoid things like an old Subaru or Rancharo because of the parts cost, let alone availability. Your best bet is something mainstream where the volume base is large, such as the Ranger. Secondly, the biggest mileage gain in a small 4 cly. is going to be if you have the manual transmission rather than automatic. Knowing that, the decision is up to you whether you can or cannot drive a stick for physical or spiritual reasons. what would be a spiritual reason for not driving stick? >Knowing that, the decision is up to you whether you can or cannot drive >a stick for physical or spiritual reasons. > what would be a spiritual reason for not driving stick? "Preferring" to drive a slush box over a stick, like preferring brunette women over blondes or preferring Levies over Lees, It is a spiritual thing... >>Knowing that, the decision is up to you whether you can or cannot drive >>a stick for physical or spiritual reasons. " Knowing that, the decision is up to you whether you can or cannot drive a stick for physical or spiritual reasons." He can't hold his rosary or make the sign of the cross with his hand on the gear shift all the time. Actually, I intended "spiritual" to include any mental attitude, mind set, orientation or aberration that locked him into the automatic. For example, the poster may be dead set against the manual shift because he feels it's too masculine and macho for his nature. He needs something soft and smooth, like an automatic, something that gets the job done without him having to put his hands on it. or it could be that I find it hard to steer and WACK IT at the same time Safety First >" Knowing that, the decision is up to you whether you can or cannot > drive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > something that gets the job done without him having to put his hands on > it. > " Knowing that, the decision is up to you whether you can or cannot > drive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > something that gets the job done without him having to put his hands on > it. maybe he likes the fact that in the 1/4 mile an auto is faster than a stick? Whitelightning >I am looking for a small truck for my business. >Rangers were one of my first choices but it looks like [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >live in usa midatlantic states I know this a a Ford thread but you might look at a Toyota tacoma as they can get great MPG in 2wd models and they are VERY sturdy too and well built and have excellant engines for smoothness, drivablity, power and long life. The Toyota base motor has 16 more HP and 26 more ft lbs a of torque which is a asset for a work truck and if you get a V6 in a ranger MPG will suffer. WHile the Toyota is EPA MPG rated less than Ford, you will likely get it and more with it and less with Ford because Ford like GM and Dodge uses specail hand built and tuned vehicles for EPA tests (a loop hole is test law lets them) while Toyota uses regular production models in tests. ----------------- The SnoMan www.thesnoman.com > I dont need to carry a lot of materials because large shipments > of lumber and drywall can be delivered but I will need to carry [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > One of those subaru brats / mini rancharo elcamino would be nice > but there is no way i could find one. If the carrying capacity of a subaru brat is sufficent for your needs, I'd suggest you consider a car for your hauling needs. A Ford Crown Victoria will carry much more than a Brat, is many times more comfortable (comfortably seating five or six people) and will easily out perform the underpowered Subaru. The Crown Vic is known for its remarkabable reliability and longevity...Cab companies report getting 400,000 trouble free miles from these vehicles. The 4.6L V8 gets excellent mileage, better than any 4 cylinder pickup. > I am looking for a small truck for my business. > Rangers were one of my first choices but it looks like [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > live in usa midatlantic states There are two brats on Ebay right now, one automatic and both on the East Coast, plenty of El Caminos and Rancheros too. The Rancheros seem to old though. > There are two brats on Ebay right now, one automatic and both on the East > Coast, plenty of El Caminos and Rancheros too. The Rancheros seem to old > though. any ranchero is going to be 30 years old minimum because '77 was the last year. Whitelightning >> There are two brats on Ebay right now, one automatic and both on the East >> Coast, plenty of El Caminos and Rancheros too. The Rancheros seem to old [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Whitelightning I pretty sure 1979 was the last model year for the US Ford Ranchero... 1977-1979 With the Torino ending production after 1976, the Ranchero needed a new platform. This was found in the somewhat unlikely guise of the Ford Thunderbird personal luxury coupe, which was undergoing a reincarnation that year also, and sharing features with that year's Ford LTD II full-size car. The same three models available since '68 were still offered, and the Ranchero could be ordered in quite luxurious form. Engines fitted went up to the 400 in³ (6.6 L), a small-block despite its greater cubic capacity than some big-blocks. Production ceased in 1979. Cars were getting smaller, and the increasing restrictions on a car-based pickup truck made such a vehicle less and less attractive. Meanwhile, light trucks had to meet much less stringent requirements for emissions and fuel economy. Ford saw the way the market was going and decided that light truck sized pickups were the way ahead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranchero >>> There are two brats on Ebay right now, one automatic and both on the >>> East >>> Coast, plenty of El Caminos and Rancheros too. The Rancheros seem to >>> old >>> though. You boys need to get off this stupid el ranchero subject. This is a thread about finding a late model truck that gets decent gas mileage. You should be able to appreciate that it's worth discussing - It's back over $3 a gallon! Yes i saw the two Brats on Ebay and one of them is almost in driving distance but i think the owner said it needs a head or headgasket and exhaust which means i cant realy drive it home Also I saw on the EPA site that the Ranger / other small 2wd auto 4cyls actualy get better milage then the brat I think its because the Brat is a 1.8 - 4cyl and 4wd Unfortunately buying a crownvic is not an option I need to be able to carry 2x4 lumber, cabinets and other items That does make me wonder though what the weight ratio is that a large car like a crown vic would get better milage then a ranger. Crown Vic Base Weight 3817 LBS Ranger Base Weight 4800 lbs I wouldnt think a ranger should weigh a thousand pounds more then a crown vic Rangers have small cabs and front ends and have the truck bed that is about 2/3rds the size of the vehicle Guess it must be the weight of the springs >> I am looking for a small truck for my business. >> Rangers were one of my first choices but it looks like [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Coast, plenty of El Caminos and Rancheros too. The Rancheros seem to old > though. The mileage difference is probably related to how much tin has to push against air to move the vehicle. (You can run faster with a 4 X 8 sheet of plywood pointed edge against the wind than if you hold the thing so that you have the side against the wind... less energy required.) H. > Yes i saw the two Brats on Ebay and one of them is almost in driving > distance but i think the owner said it needs a head or headgasket and [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Coast, plenty of El Caminos and Rancheros too. The Rancheros seem to old > > though. Yea the standard 80s monte carlo vs the SS with the aerodynamic nose ss gets 5mpg better then the standard Also EPA test results are on a dyno and not real world > The mileage difference is probably related to how much tin has to push > against air to move the vehicle. (You can run faster with a 4 X 8 sheet [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> > old >> > though. Come on, get to the real reason some people choose auto...It's hard to start out from a light or drive in rush hour traffic trying to shift and hold your coffee in the morning!! :) Scott > Yea > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > >> > old > >> > though. On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:26:11 -0400, moo rearranged some electrons to form: > Ranger Base Weight 4800 lbs That can't be right. I think you are quoting the GVWR.  SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 10 days 12:54 > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:26:11 -0400, moo rearranged some electrons to form: > >> Ranger Base Weight 4800 lbs > > That can't be right. I think you are quoting the GVWR. I agree. Empty Rangers don't weigh anywhere near that. >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:26:11 -0400, moo rearranged some electrons to form: >> >>> Ranger Base Weight 4800 lbs >> That can't be right. I think you are quoting the GVWR. >> > I agree. Empty Rangers don't weigh anywhere near that. According to Edmunds the curb weight of a 2dr Standard Cab Ranger is 3028lbs and the GVWR is 4380lbs. The Supercab 4x4 Ranger's curb weight is 3705lbs with GVWR of 5000lbs. >>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:26:11 -0400, moo rearranged some electrons to >>> form: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The Supercab 4x4 Ranger's curb weight is 3705lbs with GVWR of 5000lbs. 2006 Ranger that is! sorry i dont have the link anymore but i think it was a 98 but still it shouldnt be that high I just want to find the smallest short cab short bed truck you know that is in general circulation in the USA not in the tight streets of europe or japan. >>>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:26:11 -0400, moo rearranged some electrons to >>>> form: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 2006 Ranger that is! > sorry i dont have the link anymore but i think it was a 98 > but still it shouldnt be that high > > I just want to find the smallest short cab short bed truck > you know that is in general circulation in the USA not in > the tight streets of europe or japan. How about the D21 or "hardbody" Nissan trucks? When did they stop making those? I see a few of those around in a 4-cyl, 5-speed, 2wd layout. They get about 25 - 30 mpg. > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:26:11 -0400, moo rearranged some electrons to form: > > > Ranger Base Weight 4800 lbs > > That can't be right. I think you are quoting the GVWR. Yeah he is off a bit, base weight 2002 ford ranger regular cab 4x2 is 2,988 pounds, the GVWR is 4,760 pounds. Whitelightning > I am looking for a small truck for my business. > Rangers were one of my first choices but it looks like [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > live in usa midatlantic states Tonka SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.