What's the point of a 6 cylinder ranger when a Inline 6 f150 gets the same mpg but does everything better?

What's the point of a 6 cylinder ranger when a Inline 6 f150 gets the same mpg but does everything better?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    There isn't a point that's why the F-150 has always out-sold the Ranger 1000's to 1. Same with every other half ton and it's small truck equivalent.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    They were engineered from day one to be overhyped by early 20's fangirls on the internet. Straight 6 will always reign supreme.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    the 4.0 is based though

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong 4.0

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I hate you inlinefags, always having some god damned snarky answer that can't be refuted

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >snarky answer that can't be refuted
          rekt
          Oh but for me? It's the big block v6
          well, 2 of them.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous
            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              based and TORQUE pilled
              Man that thing would sound cool

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Chill out homo. You sound like a homosexual.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                bad day?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >he doesn't want a car that sounds like a fucking P-51 mustang

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                No. Mustangs are gay and are for women.

                bad day?

                Yeah

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >implying there were female pilots while the P-51 was in service
                Dumb homosexual

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Technically there were, a lot of the pilots who tested planes at the factory and ferried them from there to bases were women.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's still true today. Why drive a 4cyl ranger when a V8 5.0 F-150 get the same fuel economy and is much more practical?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Why drive a 4cyl ranger
      05 4cyl raner = 27mpg hwy

      >when a V8 5.0 F-150 get the same fuel economy
      05 v8 f150 = 19mpg hwy

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong year. F150 has seen much r&d and gotten more efficient while the ranger grew pigfay. The 5.0l trucks have a reputation for beating the epa #. (I typically hit over 22 hwy when running dead head with one a few years older that doesn't have the 10 speed (epa sticker I think said 19.))

        I don't know much about the new ranger, but I think that 2.3 shares a lot of DNA with the focus rs motors that get all head gasketty.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Something made 3 years ago has nothing to do with why the Ranger was popular for 3 decades.
          That's like saying a Bugatti is slow because a 1963 beetle couldn't hit 80 mph.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            except it has everything to do with it because you're comparing apples to hamburgers. again, see

            >pitting a 3000-3600 lb vehicle with arguably the best 4 banger Ford ever made against a 4700-5800 lb vehicle that had probably the 3rd and 4th worst gasoline v8 engines in the history of motor vehicles
            false equivalence, party of one

            S10's are garbage.
            There's a reason for every 1 S10 still on the road there's 50 Rangers.

            uhhh... Mexicans?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >apples to hamburgers.
              Ranger came out in 1982.
              Other anon posted mpg's comparing ranger to F150 over 20 years later.
              You literally had to dig until the last few years the Ranger was available to find data that matched your bullshit idea that is only kind of accurate for 5% of the Rangers made.
              Fucking retard.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                there's more than one person in this argument dummy, and it absolutely is apples and hamburgers because like I said (and I'm

                >pitting a 3000-3600 lb vehicle with arguably the best 4 banger Ford ever made against a 4700-5800 lb vehicle that had probably the 3rd and 4th worst gasoline v8 engines in the history of motor vehicles
                false equivalence, party of one

                ) you're comparing two vehicles that during the same model year had a literal ton of weight difference and the lighter one came equipped with ome of the best engines ford ever made while the heavy one came with two of the worst. it has about as much merit as comparing a V6 mustang to a GT40 for lap times or a F-350 with a V10 Triton versus one with a 6.7 ps in towing capacity, they are just so far and different categories they cannot be compared fairly on those metrics.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I see an equal amount of Mexicans and Americans driving a Ranger or S10/Sonoma

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >pitting a 3000-3600 lb vehicle with arguably the best 4 banger Ford ever made against a 4700-5800 lb vehicle that had probably the 3rd and 4th worst gasoline v8 engines in the history of motor vehicles
        false equivalence, party of one

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Ranger is sort of a specialized truck for mountain areas and off roading imo. The smaller size makes it way better on twisty roads and especially Jeep trails, and the turbo engine is ideal for people who live or spend a lot of time over 5000' where N/A loses a lot of power and consequently fuel economy.

      Wrong year. F150 has seen much r&d and gotten more efficient while the ranger grew pigfay. The 5.0l trucks have a reputation for beating the epa #. (I typically hit over 22 hwy when running dead head with one a few years older that doesn't have the 10 speed (epa sticker I think said 19.))

      I don't know much about the new ranger, but I think that 2.3 shares a lot of DNA with the focus rs motors that get all head gasketty.

      >I don't know much about the new ranger, but I think that 2.3 shares a lot of DNA with the focus rs motors that get all head gasketty.
      It's a relative but doesn't share the same issue, the Focus headgasket problems mostly came from a supply chain fuckup in early production and people aren't gonna be taking Rangers to the track and running 30 minute sessions and constant redline like they did with the Focus anyway. I can only find a couple of headgasket failures on Rangers, and one of them had an unknown tune on it, while the other seems to have just been a freak lemon.

      It's always interesting to me that people are so skeptical of the Ranger's Ecoboost despite very few reported major problems, while at the same time talking about the current Tacoma like it's the Hilux from Top Gear and ignoring the massive number of engine failures they've had since switching to the new V6.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Ssshhhhh Toyota good, turbo bad

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >The smaller size makes it way better on twisty roads and especially Jeep trails
        A modern Ranger is like 3'' narrower than a F-150... If a half ton is going to get pinstriped a small truck will too. Why are you taking either off road if you're afraid of scratching the paint?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It's a lot shorter than a CCSB F-150 and has a noticeably tighter turn radius, though. Generally better approach/breakover/departure angles too.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You know your "Jeep trails" stared off as logging roads right?

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              That's not true of all of them, especially in the area I'm based in, many were built specifically as recreational trails by jeep clubs back in the day or as part of formal OHV areas. A lot of ex-logging roads have gotten functionally narrower and harder over the years too, due to being maintained only for Jeeps and smaller trucks.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >modern ranger
          Once again... "but this one later model that is nothing like the previous 30 years worth of models fits my narrative..."
          For the vast majority of rangers they're 10 -13 inches narrower than their fullsize counterpart.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    when you want the same power but need a smaller/compact vehicle.

    how does ranger compare to f150 on small tight trails?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Oh yeah that's why everyone bought a ranger. For overlanding. That must be it.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        They sold millions of the things anon, people have built them into rock bouncers, dune buggies and everything in between.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      90s f150 is fairly small and way more torque on those trails

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe anon wants a 4x4 vehicle that is smaller then a 2wd f-150?
    or maybe he wants a smol pickup to carry light loads and is easy/fun to drive?
    I haven't driven a smal truck but my friends old toyota seemed really fun
    Shit I can drive a 2500 and compare it to a 1500 the ride is totally different.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    There's no point. It's a shitty rusty truck that can't haul anything. I really hate Ford people.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I don't want a big truck, I want a small truck with a big engine

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Difference in bed length between a Ranger and a F-150 is, what, maybe a foot or two? While payload difference is maybe 1000 lbs? It's not like there's a huge difference in either of those capacities. The Ranger is nicer to drive and park, and cheaper to buy and run. If you need to haul more than the Ranger can, just use an Isuzu N-series or International 4-series.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You're right the 6 cylinder S10/Sonoma is way better

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      S10's are garbage.
      There's a reason for every 1 S10 still on the road there's 50 Rangers.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The 4.3 PoorTec soured me on GM forever. It's shit to work on in an S10, made less power and torque than the 4.0 Ford, Dethcool ate intake and head gaskets and the spider injectors liked to fail. I'd buy a Chrysler 2.7 before I touched on of those tree-fiddy with 2 cylinders chopped off abortions again.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The first gen TBI and CVPI 4.3's were unkillable beasts. You bought the worst generation of 4.3's. Those 4.3's are still used as boat engines to this day unlike the Ford 4.0.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Engine Yes
      Now if only the rest of it wasn't inferior

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If you're going to drive a small truck (both F-150 and Ranger are small trucks) why not drive the smaller one?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      F150 is still large enough to pull people out of ditches easy and tow a fair amount for a normal person

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    There isn't a point in the USA.
    Ranger is made for markets without such big open roads.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Because I like the ranger

Your email address will not be published.