Was not impressed with the Escape from a fuel economy standpoint....but If I could get decent fuel economy out of a Ranger, I would actually be open to owning one.

Have to see one in person as the front end is just not my cup of Beer!, Fuel economy is good, very impressive. 

4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Have to see one in person as the front end is just not my cup of Beer!, Fuel economy is good, very impressive. 

Indeed.. matching the combined rating of a diesel while having more HP than the diesel (but less towing capacity... can't have it all) is quite an achievement.

Still, personally... I'd really rather have a V6.  And in the GMs, the V6 can run as a 4-cylinder.  At cruise, they get really good (better than EPA) highway mileage. 

29 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Indeed.. matching the combined rating of a diesel while having more HP than the diesel (but less towing capacity... can't have it all) is quite an achievement.

Still, personally... I'd really rather have a V6.  And in the GMs, the V6 can run as a 4-cylinder.  At cruise, they get really good (better than EPA) highway mileage. 

And from a personal standpoint, I do find the GM twins to be a bit better looking.

7 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

And from a personal standpoint, I do find the GM twins to be a bit better looking.

The GMC, yes. The Chevy, no. 

I just did a build and price on the Ranger and the leasing options they look to be offering right now seem very attractive.  Of course, the one I'd want would be $38k.  GM's leasing sucks right now. No kidding $200 more a month for the same MSRP truck. 

Hmmm.... 

I was able to option a Lariat up to almost $47k...wowza.  And no sunroof available that I can see.   That's a lot for a 4cyl midsize truck.

28 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I was able to option a Lariat up to almost $47k...wowza.  And no sunroof available that I can see.   That's a lot for a 4cyl midsize truck.

Suddenly 35 large for the WRX STI I lust after does not seem so expensive.

37 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Hmmm.... 

It actually looks good in that color Drew.

31 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I was able to option a Lariat up to almost $47k...wowza.  And no sunroof available that I can see.   That's a lot for a 4cyl midsize truck.

Post how you'd configure it

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Post how you'd configure it

I know this was directed at Robert. ..but XLT out the door in the extended cab version but not the crew cab is 30K roughly with a bed liner. With the money Ford will inevitably put on the hood for interest rates and a bit down...I could be at 450 a month real easy for a nice truck.

27 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Post how you'd configure it

Super Crew 4x4 Lariat.  Saber (orange).  Re-did it and got it to $48,020 by adding all the available packages and options.  Though some packages seemed to cancel each other out or include others.  Ford's B&P configurator is a bit confusing, but my goal was to see how high I could get the price. 

 If I were doing one for real, I'd probably leave off the retractible bed cover and few other options.     

The chili pepper red is an extra-cost option you missed.

7 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

The chili pepper red is an extra-cost option you missed.

Well, going from blue to saber added $2295 (the saber color adds 501A, drops 500A).  Hot Pepper red only adds $395.

Not really impressed with those est. MPG numbers.

The 2018 F-150 2.7L 2WD is rated 20/22/26 (My 2016 F-150 2.7L 2WD gets those numbers smack on).

How is 21/23/26 a real improvement? Going down in vehicle and engine size and towing capacity is not paying much--if any--real dividend, MPG-wise.

1 hour ago, Guest Garnermike said:

Not really impressed with those est. MPG numbers.

The 2018 F-150 2.7L 2WD is rated 20/22/26 (My 2016 F-150 2.7L 2WD gets those numbers smack on).

How is 21/23/26 a real improvement? Going down in vehicle and engine size and towing capacity is not paying much--if any--real dividend, MPG-wise.

That's pretty impressive for a Truck that size.

2 hours ago, Guest Garnermike said:

Not really impressed with those est. MPG numbers.

The 2018 F-150 2.7L 2WD is rated 20/22/26 (My 2016 F-150 2.7L 2WD gets those numbers smack on).

How is 21/23/26 a real improvement? Going down in vehicle and engine size and towing capacity is not paying much--if any--real dividend, MPG-wise.

Could it be that the Ranger has a better power to weight ratio?

59 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Could it be that the Ranger has a better power to weight ratio?

I would be happy with a ranger that did 27-28 on the highly. I had one of the original four banger rangers that was lucky to get 28....this thing at 27 or 28 would be spectacular.

29 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I would be happy with a ranger that did 27-28 on the highly. I had one of the original four banger rangers that was lucky to get 28....this thing at 27 or 28 would be spectacular.

Your old ranger hardly had any power though. This new one does.

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

Your old ranger hardly had any power though. This new one does.

That is exactly the point.  That kind of fuel economy out of a vehicle like this is really cool.  Granted, GM offers a diesel in the Colorado Canyon but....Yowzers....this is pretty good.

Just now, A Horse With No Name said:

That is exactly the point.  That kind of fuel economy out of a vehicle like this is really cool.  Granted, GM offers a diesel in the Colorado Canyon but....Yowzers....this is pretty good.

Yeah, but the GM twins diesel is slooow.

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Yeah, but the GM twins diesel is slooow.

....And after selling back the TDI I think I am going to stick with gassers for awhile.  This Truck is actually kind of growing on me.

Shoot, I don't see a durn thing wrong with this STX, it looks great in realtime: