whats better?

[Milker]

since ive been a member ive always wondered.
what do yall think of the f-150?

i have one and i love it, but i also love the ranger. both have good and bad qualities. given a choice if my f-150 has good heat id park the ranger for awhile (or seriously beef it up).

but besides the facts of the trucks do yins still think the f-150 is a good truck?

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the f-150 is generally a good truck. im particularly fond of the early-mid 90's generation.

like any other truck, theyve had their ups and downs over the years...but nothing major.

i just have no use or desire for a fullsize pickup. i enjoy the fuel economy, manueverability, and versatility of my compact pickup.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I like both, but givin the choice ill choose an F150.

The ranger is an extemely tough, hard to kill, beast of a compact pickup, but i like having an 8ft bed and a little more cab room. Gas mileage on the Fullsize isnt quite as good as on the ranger, but having enough room for 3 adults is also nice.

My favorite F series trucks are the 73-79, i dont care what anybody says those were the toughest ones ever built.

I used to be fond of the 80-86 models, and i still like the looks of them but after owning one i realize there not the greatest.

I never like the 87-91 models, good trucks i guess, but i dont like the looks or interiors.

I own a 96, and I love the 92-96, last years of Ford trucks with all there trademarks.

later,
ustin

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

IMHO, depends on what your doing with it. I went with a Ranger partly cuz it was what I could afford and partly cuz I knew I'd be puttin a few miles on it. But I don't hesitate to run the truck like an F-250. (in fact, I'd like to have an F-250 diesel so I could take some of the strain off my lil truck).

 

[racsan]

i dont like any ford full-size after the '96 model year. theres times i could use a little more motor, but most of the time my 4.0 will do the job. i've heard the 4.6 will get almost the same fuel milage as a 4.0 but ive yet to drive one. i know what a 302 or 351 will do. 4.6/5.4- just not sure of them. maybe someday i may find out. i do prefer the "old school" twin I beam/ twin traction beam front suspentions. im not sold on the E4OD auto either, give me a C6 or np435 creeper 1st 4 speed anyday (esp the np435 with the 300 I-6!) the only positive thing ive seen out of the newer stuff is that they dont seem to rust nearly as bad. the '73-79 series were probly my favorites, we had a '74 F250 with the 300/np435 2wd and later a '77 F250 with the 400/C6 4wd. now our farm pickup is a '94 with the 351 E4OD and 4wd. the '74 had 3.73 gears, the '77 had 4.10's and the '94 has 3.55's the '77 was a awesome plow truck, the '94 does the job, but not nearly the muscle as the '77. the '74 always did waht you asked of it, and got 15-16 hwy mpg. just dont expect to go over 70. we breifly had a '86 F250 diesel, it was a major dissapointment. had 2 bronco's also. a '89 with the 302 creeper 1st 4speed (dont think it was a np435) and we still have the '96 with the 351 E4OD. both were bought to pull travel trailers. the '89 puled a 24' and the '96 pulls a 27' now. i love the '96 but that 351 is thirsty. even not pulling it likes its fuel. if dad puts it up for sale i'll sell my ranger and buy it though. much better brakes and it does a better job with my 6x10 box trailer.

 

[97ranger4x4]

yeh I got a ranger because my dad wanted me to have a pickup, and with him having full size SUV's we had no reason for me to get a fullsize f150. my truck will tow anything I need. The only downsize is the lack of seats. Even with the extended cab, I can only fit me and one other. I wont even put anyone in the back seat. Its a bummer for doing road trips because I can never take my truck because it is more efficient to take another vehicle that seats more.

 

[1996 fordranger 4x4 stx]

Nice fucking trucks with tons of real world tests to squash the competition!

http://www.fordvehicles.com/2009f150/

21 mpg
******************************************
This was JUST released today!

The F-150 attracted 473,933 buyers this year, making it the No. 1-selling vehicle for 2008 — it's been the best-selling vehicle in America for 27 years running. Another 431,725 buyers drove off Chevrolet lots in a Silverado.

"The pickups are a solution to a need," says Bartlett, as those who buy the vehicles use them for their towing, off-road and cargo-hauling capabilities.

What Americans don't need, however, are gas-guzzlers that don't serve a purpose. Such is the case for the Nissan Armada, which rolls in at No. 5 among the worst-selling vehicles so far this year. Armada sales are off 49.1 per cent this year compared to last year, with only 14,753 buyers purchasing the big and brawny SUV. It gets a combined 14 mpg.

The pickups don't do much better on fuel economy, but their utility equates to their enduring, strong sales. Buyers who have a choice between an SUV and a smaller car, however, want good fuel economy, according to a survey Consumer Reports conducted in the summer. That's why the Armada, Bartlett says, "is losing consumer appeal."
Behind the numbers

To generate our lists of the best- and worst-selling cars so far this year, we used automaker-provided sales numbers from January to November. The vehicles with the highest unit sales made the list of best-sellers.

To find the worst-selling cars we looked at the lowest sales figures for the same time period, as well as the percentage decrease in sales from 2007 to exclude high-end luxury and performance cars that are produced only in small numbers each year. The vehicles with the lowest sales made the list.

As bad of a year as it's been for sales of the aforementioned Armada, it's not the worst-selling vehicle in 2008. That title goes to Hyundai Entourage minivan, with only 5,405 sold this year. Not far behind, at No. 4, is the Chrysler Pacifica, a cross between an SUV and a minivan that sold only 6,671 units so far this year, a drop of 87 per cent from the same period a year ago. No turnaround is in the works, either — Chrysler announced at the beginning of the year that production has ceased on the Pacifica, Chrysler Crossfire and Dodge Magnum.

The problem with the Pacifica and other crossover vehicles like it is that consumers have not embraced them as the new family car, says David Thomas, senior editor at Cars.com. "Buyers just aren't buying them. None of them have done well."

Joining the Armada, Entourage and Pacifica in the top five worst-selling vehicles are the Mitsubishi Endeavor, with only 5,687 units sold through November, and the Hummer H2, with only 5,721 sold.

No SUV brand is immune from the sales slump. In the second half of the list of the worst-selling cars, all five — the Toyota FJ Cruiser, Jeep Commander, GMC Envoy, Dodge Durango and Hummer H3--are SUVs. Furthermore, all five have seen a staggering percentage drop in sales of around 50% from the same 11-month period in 2007.
The bright spots

While consumer interest in most SUVs has waned, many fuel-efficient small cars have seen very strong sales in 2008.

Buyers purchased 352,248 Honda Civics and 184,152 Ford Focus cars this year, ranking sixth and 10th on our list, respectively. The gas-powered Civic gets 29 mpg, but the sales numbers also include the even more efficient hybrid version, which gets a combined fuel economy of 42 mpg.

Joining the two trucks and the Civic in the top five best-selling vehicles so far this year are the Toyota Camry (411,342 sold) and Honda Accord (350,638 sold).

But while gas prices had an impact on the sales of some small cars and hybrid vehicles, they haven't had as big of an effect as the economic crisis and credit crunch, experts say. In other words, their sales should be much higher.

"We have seen the best deals in terms of rebates and incentives in the last four months, but we are not seeing auto sales go up," says Thomas. "The economic crisis is stopping people from buying cars."

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/12/05/f-forbes-carssales.html

 

[Southern3.0]

I'd love a 150 and would take one over my Ranger any day. Dont get me wrong I love all 3 of mine that Ive had so far and they've all be great to me but the lack of interior space, that and a 150 feels alot better on the road to me.

The mileage I get from my '96 is great though, I just filled up tonight and got 21 mpg on my last tank, and I delivered Pizza all week on that tank. and I do like what Wicked said about the maneuverability. Still I rather have a '02 or '03 extended cab F-150 with the 5.4

 

[Milker]

love both my trucks good and bad things with both

im dreaming of a f-250 xtended cab fx4 (maybe off road) with the full back seat and 4 doors (suicide doors) short bed and a tractor supply aluminum diamond plate tool box

or an f-150 fx4 xtended cab 5.4l
but i have no money

 

[BigJohn76]

i have both of em and i love em both the same. the ranger has more room because of the extended cab and it gets better mileage. the 150 is bigger and is my baby. i rebuilt the thing myself so i cant bear to see it go. the fuel mileage sucks but thats what you get when you screw with stuff. i also like it because i can now do more without worrying about the mileage unlike the ranger which is now my dd. if given the chance and the money though, i would trade in the ranger on a Cummins in a heartbeat. i will never get rid of the 150.