I've had a 1983 Ranger (new) 2.8 V6 4 speed, a 1985 Ranger 4x4 2.8 V6 5 speed, 1991 Toyota SR5 4wd 4cyl 5 speed. These all got around 23 mpg highway. I now have a 2004 Ranger V6 auto 4x4, I'm lucky to get 17 with it. My company Silverado gets that without effort.
I read the specs on the new Ranger and wonder why anybody would want one. They were originally an economy truck, for people (like me at the time) who wanted a pickup without the expense of a full sized truck. One weak point of the Ranger has always been the rear suspension; despite the weight ratings, just carrying a spare tire would fatigue the springs. Yet this new truck apparently features their infamous mono spring suspension... I will pass. If I bought a small truck I would expect real numbers around 28-32 mpg. otherwise it's better to just buy a real truck to begin with.
I read the specs on the new Ranger and wonder why anybody would want one. They were originally an economy truck, for people (like me at the time) who wanted a pickup without the expense of a full sized truck. One weak point of the Ranger has always been the rear suspension; despite the weight ratings, just carrying a spare tire would fatigue the springs. Yet this new truck apparently features their infamous mono spring suspension... I will pass. If I bought a small truck I would expect real numbers around 28-32 mpg. otherwise it's better to just buy a real truck to begin with.