why mid size trucks gets the same gas mileage as full size

[kkgg]

General question,
Why is it that all midsize trucks gets the same gas mileage as full size trucks.

Ranger, Tacoma, Ridgeline, Gladiator, Frontier, Colorado, Canyon.
All of these trucks are rated at 17-18 City (few grand more and we can get a full size truck with same gas mileage)

I know, Maverick and SantaCruz are compact trucks, and I see Santa Cruz is not great in gas mileage too(about 21 in city)
My Maverick gives 25 city(atleast thats what the screen shows)

So midsize trucks is just a preference at this point

Sponsored

 

[Redd]

Auto makers will, given a particular powertrain, body, etc look to maximize a vehicle's overall capabilities (acceleration, handling characteristics, towing capabilities, etc) while keeping it within an MPG range they determine to be acceptable or competitive for that particular vehicle.

For mid-size trucks, that general mileage range you're describing is what they work to stay at or above as a current benchmark. It's a balancing act.

 

[GPSMan]

It's a balancing act but also laws of physics.

It takes similar amounts of fuel to move a ton of metal, no matter the make & model.

It takes similar amounts of fuel to heat and cool the cabin, no matter the make and model.

It takes similar amounts of fuel, to make electricity to run lights and accessories no matter the make and model.

It takes similar amounts of fuel to sit and idle no matter the make and model.

They have similar (overall) wind resistance, no matter the make and model. I mean they are all pretty "boxy" and none are tear-drop shapes.

Where you'll see a bigger difference is working hard, towing for example.

A 2x heavier truck will of course get worse MPG, but are any of the ones you are comparing double of the other or are they all within 20-25% of each other?

One may be a beagle; one may be a spaniel but they're both dogs.

Hybrid to EcoBoost: not so similar.
More like Foxes and Hounds.

 

[yamahaSHO]

My Ranger has been getting 24 MPG in town. Even on the last tank, which consisted of me dialing in the transmission tune, my mileage didn't change at the pump.

 

[bombast]

2 things, as far as I can tell.

1. The truck form factor is kind of abysmal in terms of gas mileage, which means manufacturers have to work even harder for efficiency.

2. If you make a tiered list of concerns as to whats important to the average truck consumer, mpg is pretty much at the bottom. Power, capacity, size, seating position, available colors... all of these things are more important. Hell, when the Santa Cruz and Maverick were first announced, a lot of people here made it clear that "looking like a truck" was more important than things like better warranties. The Ford Lightning probably wouldn't sell a single truck if they had switched the 4 foot tall grill out for something more aerodynamic.

 

[Scupking]

Or a hybrid F-150 gets about the same mpg as the eco Maverick! My cousin has one and says he sees 30mpg on some trips!

 

[realshelby]

Aerodynamics and weight. Weight is simple to figure, takes more energy to get heavier to 70 mph than the lighter vehicle. More energy to pull hills and maintain speed.
Aerodynamics are more complicated. You may see a drag coefficient that is close to equal on all the midsize pickups, even the full size ones. But what doesn't get discussed is frontal area and underflow under front bumper. Tall vehicles that allow a lot of air under a front end have a lot of drag. Under body is not smooth and causes substantial turbulence compared to flow over the roof for instance. Newer vehicles are smoothing up the underbody considerably, but there is still a penalty for allowing a lot of air under a vehicle. This is a big part of why 4x4 vehicles get lower fuel mileage. The problem with midsize ( I owned two new Rangers...but the new ones are too big ) is that the frontal square foot area is very similar to full size. Might as well get a full size and enjoy the better comfort. Bottom line is that mid compared to full size is just too similar in weight and aero drag.
I suspect the Maverick as a rather low drag coefficient for a "truck". It also sits low ( until the Tremor is figured in) for a truck. Still has ground clearance, and that is a pat on the back for going with a Unibody design. The frontal area is a LOT less than a Ranger or F 150.

 

[ejouie]

'21 Ranger Super Crew 4x2: 4,232 lbs, 21/26 MPG
'21 F150 3.5 Super Crew 4x2: 4,696 lbs, 18/24 MPG
'22 Maverick FWD Ecoboost: 3,563 lbs, 23/30 MPG

Makes sense to me. The difference in size/weight is about the same as the fuel economy.

 

[thevol]

'21 Ranger Super Crew 4x2: 4,232 lbs, 21/26 MPG
'21 F150 3.5 Super Crew 4x2: 4,696 lbs, 18/24 MPG
'22 Maverick FWD Ecoboost: 3,563 lbs, 23/30 MPG

Makes sense to me. The difference in size/weight is about the same as the fuel economy.

Yup, and the biggest factor is the driver. Always get a chuckle when I see people perplexed that they are getting horrible mpg when they are likely slamming on the brakes, tailgating, and flooring it most of the time. There are so many variables with mpg its hardly worth discussing, yet probably the number one topic for most vehicles.

 

[mikellmikell]

I have a 22 Maverick hybrid. Close to 50 in the city and 35 on the highway at 80 MPH . My highest was71 in the city at about 20 MPH

 

[Maverickman74]

The newer Ranger has nearly 270 hp has the same width and height as a 90s F150 and tows 7500lb. Now look at this copied from www.letstowthat.com.
1996 F-150 Towing Capacity:
The 1996 Ford F-150 was the last model that I was able to find specs on (for now) and offered three different engines which were: the 4.9L, the 5.0L and the 5.8L engines. These three engines were offered all the way back to 1977, with a few other options mixed in as well.

The towing capacity for 1996 F-150’s ranged from 4,600 lbs.-7,700 lbs., when equipped with an automatic transmission and ranged from 1,700 lbs.-3,600 lbs. if they came equipped with a manual transmission.

Automatic Transmission:

Engine	Conventional Towing	5th Wheel Towing
4.9L V6	4,600-5,700 lbs.	Not Specified
5.0L V8	4,700-7,100 lbs.	Not Specified
5.8L V8	5,500-7,700 lbs.	Not Specified

Super Cooling is required with trailers over 2,000 lbs. (907kg). Super Cooling and Handling/Suspension Package or trailer towing



According to a 210hp 325lbft 5.8 1996 F150 4x4 supercab gets 14 mpg city 17 mpg hwy. So factor in advances in fuel injection and completely omit the fact that the motor is half sized and turbocharged. The current Ranger really is doing about what it should for its capability. 2 other interesting thoughts that F150 originally cost about half what a similar ranger would cost today. And Ford offered a 300 6cyl in that era. It got up to 20mpg hwy. Imagine if it or even its older 250ci design was turbocharged. It would probably make near what the 5.8l did in power and return the same mpg as the current Ranger setup.

One more thing they also weigh about the same 4000-4400lbs between configurations and the modern ranger shaves about 1.5 seconds off the 0 to 60mph times. Thats probably all transmission and gearing.


So yeah the current ranger is a full sized truck in all measures except internal occupancy space. But it has airbag everywhere filling up that gap.

 

[JBryant]

Yup, and the biggest factor is the driver. Always get a chuckle when I see people perplexed that they are getting horrible mpg when they are likely slamming on the brakes, tailgating, and flooring it most of the time. There are so many variables with mpg its hardly worth discussing, yet probably the number one topic for most vehicles.

You are right. I would swear some people have been around my wife and have contract a disease she has had for years. We have been to numerous doctors and so far no one has been able to help her get over LFS - Lead Foot Syndrome.

 

[rlhdweman]

You are right. I would swear some people have been around my wife and have contract a disease she has had for years. We have been to numerous doctors and so far no one has been able to help her get over LFS - Lead Foot Syndrome.

Yeah, some people have no idea of economical driving, they drive with 2 feet, or 1 foot that is always pounding either the gas or the brake, no concept of coasting a bit. I've ridden with people like this. It's like a big toggle switch on the dash, brake one way & gas the other, there's just no in between.

Sponsored