They are not great on mpg but they are not that bad either, guess it depends how many miles you do. I only put 20/30 quid in mine for a weeks window cleaning but i mostly work within 5 miles of home.
My old van did 32mpg average, my truck does 26mpg during the week working fully loaded. Best ive had out of it was 37mpg totally empty for 60 miles down the m62.
That's really good.
My old Mk2 Ranger is too low geared for any decent mpg.
The record was driving it home from Reading where I bought it and it did nearly 28 mpg - empty and under ideal circumstances.
We have seen the new Ranger T6 bettering 40 mpg if driven carefully which is hugely impressive.
Government Urban MPG for the 2.2 manual Ranger is quoted at 39 - which is of course complete nonsense.
Talking about gears, i briefly had a 2007 ranger last year.
I only found out a few days later going down the motorway they dont like 5th gear. Kept popping out, only when i then looked online did i find out it was a common issue.
It was a great truck, just too old and tatty for my liking for work.
It's a weird problem.
It's only an issue on the MK3 (2006-2009) up until mid-2008 when Ford sorted it.
The other problem with the MK3 is that Ford upped the gearing of 1st & 2nd to somewhere ridiculous.
A lot of owners who were towing wrecked the clutches, DMF's and sometimes the gearboxes themselves.
Ford said it was the owners fault and there was nothing wrong with the truck.
But in 2008 they revised and lowered 1st and 2nd gear whist also fixing the issue with 5th and making the truck essentially bombproof again.
The usual fix is just to fit a MK4 gearbox (2009-2012) which solves all the issues - that Ford created in the firstplace.
It's interesting that the Mazda BT-50 version doesn't have the same issues - because Mazda wasn't stupid!
The older Rangers now have a massive cult following due to their dependability and are very difficult to find at the cheaper end of the market for sensible money. Newer versions are much cheaper, relatively.
