2002 Ford Ranger "edge" 3.0l V6 5-speed Black (needs Engine Repair) on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd

Diesel details: Comparing Ram 1500 EcoDiesel, Chevy Silverado Duramax, Ford F-150 Powerstroke

With specifications for the 2019 Ford F-150 Power Stroke diesel already out, and the details on the 2020 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel and Chevy Silverado Duramax (and its GMC Sierra twin) trickling out, we felt it was a good time to start comparing the full-size trucks' light-duty diesels. Bear in mind, we've only driven one of these new diesel trucks, so we'll be sticking to numbers for now. Some numbers haven't been announced yet, either, but stay tuned, because we'll be updating this post with additional specifications as they become available. And if you want to compare any other versions of these trucks with other vehicles, be sure to check out our comparison tool. Now let's start comparing, starting with our big chart of numbers below. As we can plainly see, these trucks are quite closely matched. Each one has six cylinders, a displacement of 3.0 liters and a turbocharger to boost it. The output of each is somewhat close, too. The Ram 1500 EcoDiesel is the torque king at 480 pound-feet, 20 more than the GM trucks and 40 more than the Ford. The GM trucks win on power, though, with 277 ponies, 17 more than the Ram, and 27 more than the Ford. GM does report that you get their trucks' peak 460 pound-feet of torque from 1,500 rpm to 3,000 rpm, whereas the others only report peak torque at a particular point in the rev band, but all of these trucks should have wide, flat torque curves as you would expect from modern turbodiesels. 2020 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel View 8 Photos Engine output is only one part of the truck performance equation. We also have towing and payload capacity, as well as fuel economy. With towing, the Ram 1500 is the current leader with a maximum capacity of 12,560 pounds. That tops the Ford F-150's 11,400-pound tow rating by well over 1,000 pounds. The F-150 can carry 2,020 pounds in its bed, but we don't know yet whether that's better or worse than the Ram or the GM trucks. We also don't have numbers for the GM trucks' towing capacities. View 9 Photos As for fuel economy, the Ford F-150 manages a thoroughly impressive 22 mpg in the city and 30 on the highway with two-wheel drive. Choosing four-wheel drive drops those numbers to 20 and 25 respectively. The fuel economy numbers for the Ram, Chevy and GMC haven't been revealed yet, but for some comparison, we can look at the old Ram EcoDiesel. That truck's best fuel economy was 20 in the city and 27 on the highway with two-wheel drive.

Car Stories: Owning the SHO station wagon that could've been

A little over a year ago, I bought what could be the most interesting car I will ever own. It was a 1987 Mercury Sable LS station wagon. Don't worry – there's much more to this story. I've always had a soft spot for wagons, and I still remember just how revolutionary the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable were back in the mid-1980s. As a teenager, I fell especially hard for the 220-horsepower 1989 Ford Taurus SHO – so much so that I'd go on to own a dozen over the next 20 years. And like many other quirky enthusiasts, I always wondered what a SHO station wagon would be like. That changed last year when I bought the aforementioned Sable LS wagon, festooned with the high-revving DOHC 3.0-liter V6 engine and five-speed manual transmission from a 1989 Taurus SHO. In addition, the wagon had SHO front seats, a SHO center console, and the 140-mph instrument cluster with mileage that matched the engine. When I bought it, that number was just under 60,000 – barely broken in for the overachieving Yamaha-sourced mill. The engine and transmission weren't the only upgrades. It wore dual-piston PBR brakes with the choice Eibach/Tokico suspension combo in front. The rear featured SHO disc brakes with MOOG cargo coils and Tokico shocks, resulting in a wagon that handled ridiculously well while still retaining a decent level of comfort and five-door functionality. I could attack the local switchbacks while rowing gears to a 7,000-rpm soundtrack just as easily as loading up on lumber at the hardware store. Over time I added a front tower brace to stiffen things a bit as well as a bigger, 73-mm mass airflow sensor for better breathing, and I sourced some inexpensive 2004 Taurus 16-inch five-spoke wheels, refinished in gunmetal to match the two-tone white/gunmetal finish on the car. That, along with some minor paint and body work, had me winning trophies at every car show in town. And yet, what I loved most about the car wasn't its looks or performance, but rather its history. And here's where things also get a little philosophical, because I absolutely, positively love old used cars. Don't get me wrong – new cars are great. Designers can sculpt a timeless automotive shape, and engineers can construct systems and subsystems to create an exquisite chassis with superb handling and plenty of horsepower. But it's the age and mileage that turn machines into something more than the sum of their parts.