Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of the assumptions that regulations might be using are ridiculous. Namely, that forcing crewcabs on buyers will somehow make them carpool. Just look at the vehicles on weekday commutes, ANY kind of vehicles. Most still have a driver and nobody else, even though nearly all of them can seat from 4 to 7 people.
I just can’t wait for the day “they” combine the privacy-invading digitech bits to check on whether people are actually filling their seats to capacity and, if not, disabling the engine. Then watch the screaming begin.
Because it wouldn't get better mileage than the turbo 4, all while having less power and not cost enough less to matter. Since fuel economy is still important for the time being, why sell a version that only tens of people would want? Same with the single cab issue. CAFE rules favor the quad cab for requirements, so they tend to look more in that direction. If a good business case could be made for single cab non-turbo 4 cyl trucks, they'd make them. But there really isn't a good business case for them after regulations and sales patterns are taken into account.
The Toyota 4 cylinder RWD trucks are popular as work vehicles. I don't know how CAFE relates to truck cabs... Doesn't it only use interior volume to classify cars?
The Toyota 4 cylinder RWD trucks are popular as work vehicles. I don't know how CAFE relates to truck cabs... Doesn't it only use interior volume to classify cars?
it's a comparison of wheelbase and passenger space to calculate acceptable fuel mileage for the category, and crew cabs with short beds are classed favorably for the manufacturers.
CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup.
But the Ranger happens to fall into the “dead zone” of the CAFE footprint formula. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint. The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for. Equipped with a V6 and an automatic transmission, it would only return 14/18 mpg IRL, a figure that can be equalled by certain version of Ford’s V6 and V8 F-150 full-size pickups. By 2025, a theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFE. The 75 square foot F-150 would only have to reach in the high 30s CAFE.
For the past several years, truck manufacturers have been adding more double and crew cab pickups to their build orders. They say customer demand is behind this increase, but could a combination of factors — the most important of which is pending federal corporate average fuel economy regulations — ultimately cause the regular cab pickup to disappear? It could, and here's how.
First, understand that the newest set of fuel economy regulations — set to have a major effect in 2017 — penalize truck manufacturers for selling short wheelbase versions of full-size trucks. The reason? The newest regulations are based on a vehicle's "footprint," which is calculated as the square footage between all four wheels.
As you can see, regular cabs jump to the top of the list, as they have the smallest footprints. This is bad for their future because fuel economy targets are based on this figure, and they're proportional. For example, a Toyota Tacoma Regular Cab with a footprint of 46.4 square feet must achieve 32.8 mpg in 2017, and 45.4 mpg by 2025. A Tacoma Double Cab with a 6-foot box, on the other hand, needs to achieve just 26.4 mpg in 2017 and 35.5 mpg by 2025.
That difference of 10 or more mpg by 2025 is huge in the truck world. A regular cab is a little bit smaller and lighter than a double cab, so it should do a little better in terms of mileage, but not 25 to 28 percent better.
Whether looking at a regular cab short-box Ford F-150 or regular cab short-box Toyota Tundra, the story is the same: A full-size short-box regular cab has to get from 8 to 13 percent better fuel economy than a double cab or crew cab version of the same truck. And if it doesn't? Every regular cab sale hurts a manufacturer's fleet fuel economy rating, to the point where the truck's manufacturer will owe millions in fines to the government.
It should get better gas mileage than the old ranger, but I wish it had a v6 option.
There will be a Ranger Raptor that looks nice, but it wont be cheap.
"Expect any U.S. model of the little Raptor to be powered by Ford’s 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6, with outputs similar to the 335 horsepower and 380 lb-ft that the engine makes in the 2019 Edge ST".
I would never buy a turbocharged vehicle. I think this will be a bust for Ford.
I think their bust might be, only selling Trucks, Crossovers and mustangs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Configurator"??
