Man you're comparing using a 6.0 or 7.3l diesel (or similar). Put the gas equiv of that in your garage and see what your maintenance costs look like...not to mention I'm not sure why they put the digital gauge on there because staring at 7mpg doesn't make me feel good:). Good point though in that another thing that has eliminated an advantage of diesel is that in their quest for a peppy diesel engine, companies have created diesels that need oil changes every 3k instead of every 6 months.

We have had a fleet of 5 to 8 F-350 mason dump trucks at my company for over 20 years. In the 80's, it didn't particularly matter what you got - it lasted. Through the 90's we replaced the fleet with mostly diesels. As diesel prices caught and passed the price of regular fuel, we stopped opting for the diesel engine and have begun to circle back to gasoline. We have service reccords on each vehichle up to the day we traded or sold them. 11 gas trucks and 14 diesels - and the diesel that cost us the MOST in maintenance still cost over 2K less in its lifetime than the gasser that cost us the LEAST. If you compare them right down the line, the diesel option just about pays for itself in maintenance costs over the life of the truck if you keep the truck for 100K to 150K miles. The question is why pay more for something up front, if you are only going to break even by the time you're done with it?

 

What do you mean diesels that need the oil changed every 3k mikes? Most diesels need it changed every 3k.

Your comparing work truck vs DD trucks.
A work truck is probably going to have more costs due to they are being put to work 24/7.

The only thing I see the diesel being better at DD wise is fuel mileage and no spark plugs lol.

Now if they made a Diesel ranger that gets 50 MPG maybe people would go that direction.

But everyone I talk to who wants a diesel wants one because there cool, and have power.

 

Used to be hours based reccomendations for oil changes on diesels...every 500 hours sticks in my head which usually converted to over 10k miles. Diesel fuel itself is a great lubricant, and you have a much lower rpm engine, all adding up to less lubrication needs.

Good point...I am comparing work trucks which obviously take a lot more beating. I am comparing diesel work trucks to gasoline work trucks - same make, some model, roughly if not the same model years, and doing virtually the exact same work - and the gas trucks require more maintenance. You're right though, I can't say if the same would be true for a DD.

It seems like in a DD, at some point you have to factor in that your gas engine is about ready for a rebuild at 150k, and your diesel is only about half way there. It's true people don't keep vehichles that long, but part of that is because they are so accustomed to having reliability issues develop around 100K miles. When your diesel has 100k miles on it, it'll run like a top...and probably not be half way to any problems yet. Sure plenty of well cared for gas engines will go 250K...but the AVERAGE diesel can stay on the road that long - not just the one that's been taken great care of. Personally, I wouldn't write off not having spark plugs with an lol - lack of electronic ignition adds a lot of reliability.

I agree with you that right now the motivation to buy a diesel ranger would be pretty questionable. You aren't going to use it as a work truck (or at least not get the same work done as a full size), so your advantages are down to MPG, reliability, and longevity. Personally, I think if enough high MPG diesels make it into production, the cost of diesel will go up to make sure the PTB keep making their money. That being said, there was a ranger in the 80s with a 2.3 or something diesel that got mid 20s or so MPG city and 29 mpg highway...40 - 50MPG now isn't inconcievable.

 

This is so close to being sweet, but not quite. They need to beef it up a little, maybe a F-150 style hood and bigger wheels etc.

 

A v8 in a small truck a waste of time? small blocks in small trucks are kick ***! 5.9 dakota= sex truck. lol 6000k for a ranger a light load? Rangers are'nt even rated that high. The dakota's 4.7 can tow around 7k, that's pretty damn good imo

 

Dakota size doesn't = Ranger size. Used 6k as an example, because that's what a Ranger CAN pull...but probably doesn't. That's why I said most guys tow "probably a lot less" than that, so why do they need a v8? And, yes, Rangers are rated that high, when equipped properly from the factory. When I ordered my '08 I could get it tow rated at 6k...and I think same goes for the '09. The 2010 shows tow capacity @ 5,760. And, with a v8, the larger small truck Dakota only manages an extra 1,000 pounds tow capacity? That's exactly the point I was trying to make - In a compact truck a well equipped v6 seems to haul as well as a much pricier v8, so...if I really needed to haul heavy loads with a heavier full grown truck, I'd try an F-series. Need to tow 3 tons or less, seems like a v6 in the Ranger is fine.

 

if you want to put it that way the dakota can tow 7500. From what i read on ford's website a properly equipped ranger can tow 5760 max. There's a difference between towing and towing comfortably, granted not using gvwr. I would never tow anywhere close to my rig's limits. If i knew that i would be towing 5760 pounds regularly i would choose the dakota cause i would know im not on the brink of my limits. But what you said earlier about just dropping a v8 in a truck isn't gonna raise a trucks capacities significantly its gonna take other things too, look at the colorado a 5.3 is rated at 6000 lol.

 

Im not so sure I like the styling, if they'd keep the current styling and move it to the South American/Everywhere else but here model, that'd be sweet to me. As for the hood, I like the powerdome!

 

If you're going to be towing regularly, the ranger, dakota, or colorado would all be a poor choice - and dropping a V8 in isn't going to change that. The point was a lot more than just the hp has to change before you have a bonafide work truck vs. a great little pickup / utility capable daily driver. If they drop a V8 in the ranger, it will be to appeal to the guy who wants a dd pickup with a lot of juice and doesn't care if it costs more to drive it - it won't make the ranger a work truck capable of yanking a trailer around all day every day.

 

lol that's what i kinda said. If you could get the job done with a smaller rig and cheaper than why not? so you're saying the dakota can't handle 5760 all day everyday?

 

Man I just don't think the smaller rigs are really up for towing and/or hauling every day. 5,760lbs puts you at 85% of a dakota's maximum towing capacity. I don't know if you've ever used a truck to tow/haul day in and day out, but I've had a rotating fleet yanking trailers and hauling dirt and rock around every day for 20+ years - and it whoops em no matter how gentle you try to be. You hook a Dakota up to a 6,000lb trailer, and you will have a tired truck in a short number of years. Maybe the engine will still have plenty of pop, but just about everything else on that truck will have you wishing you went with a full size. Not saying there's anything wrong with that - a ranger or dakota are both great trucks for what they are intended to do, I just don't think the job description for either of them should entail daily towing of anything more than a hot dog cart or teardrop camper.

 

My thoughts exactly, and the main point I was trying to make got a bit sidelined into a compact VS mid-size comparison. I was just trying to emphasize the fact that a high hp v8 in a compact truck was a waste - v8 Colorado doesn't have a higher tow rating than a much weaker v6 Ranger. Personally I wouldn't compare a Dakota to a Ranger, or a Dakota to a F-series.

 

They sure do a good job at covering up their cars while testing, compared to here where you can clearly tell what the car looks like.

 

I kinda like the styling.