Pet Peeves

[Robert Jay]

Auto stop/start

otherwise perfect to me

I’ve been slipping it into sport mode as I stop, then back to drive when I start moving and that eliminates that pev.

Sponsored

 

[Colin Stuffmann]

The warning message when you are on gas pedal and lightly tap the brake

 

[Ricky Racer]

I do like the size and manuverabiity of my Ranger. However, I have been able to turn the headlights on and put it in 4x4 in one smooth motion when getting in, one with each knee. I think I have that one figured out.

The view out the back with the ARE canopy hides small cars completely.

And about the octane discussion- my 2.0 Turbo Escape got 7% better mileage using 91 over 87 octane. However, the price difference was usually 10%.

 

[FULLSCALE]

The warning message when you are on gas pedal and lightly tap the brake

What warning message do you get?

 

[Indy650]

Auto-start stop
That damn double-honk when i get out of my running truck with my key in my pocket. Either give me a proper key and switch or stop annoying me when I use the convenience feature.

OMG i hate that! I like to leave my truck running when I go in a store quick and I can't stand that double beep. Drives me insane.

 

[Indy650]

You can fix the double honk with FORScan. I did.

you mean this thing?
https://www.amazon.com/Forscan-Scan...nt=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-637551798938&psc=1

 

[Indy650]

That's just by getting 26-28 mpg. Very doable if you drive eco-concious (not even hyper-mileing). Even when running 87 like I do. I've gotten over 500 miles on a tank before. Granted that was during all highway driving, but it is still very possible.

over 500 miles on 87? I find that quite hard to believe.... I run 91-94 octane depending on the store and always non-ethanol and I get at best 24 mpg. I could see close to that with a 2wd but not a FX4

 

[RedlandRanger]

you mean this thing?
https://www.amazon.com/Forscan-Scan...nt=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-637551798938&psc=1

Something like that plus the FORScan software, yes.

 

[ch47dmechanic]

I ran for a month on 91 and a month on 87. The difference was only in tenths (which could be attributed to temperature differences, honestly) with exactly the same kind of driving. I only used the truck for commuting for two months to measure it. People have been buying into the myth of higher mileage out of higher octane for decades but it's an old wives tale.

Back on topic, I agree that the small tank is annoying. My 2.7TT Crew Cab F-150 would run from Oakland to Palm Springs on one tank with fuel leftover when I got there. That's about 500 miles and I didn't have the larger factory tank. I would've expected the Ranger to do the same but I've managed about 425-435 tops on extended interstate trips. Meh...I can live with it. Just wish it had a couple more gallons or so. Maybe 21.

 

[Deleted member 1634]

over 500 miles on 87? I find that quite hard to believe.... I run 91-94 octane depending on the store and always non-ethanol and I get at best 24 mpg. I could see close to that with a 2wd but not a FX4

I ended up not making it all the way to 500 since there wasn't a fuel station at that point along our route, so I had to back out early. But doing hand calcs of everything (gallons used vs gallons remaining and mileage so far on that tank), I could've made it, with not much to spare though. I know one guy on here got 530 or so out of his (and 30+mpg) multiple times. I forget who it was though.

That particular trip consisted mainly of smooth, relatively flat, highway (60mph) driving with some small sections of rural towns (35mph) and portions of faster sections (70mph). It's not something everyone can achieve obviously, but since that's how most of our trips go around here, I can benefit from it. The minute you go faster, gun it taking off from a light, or have to climb a steep hill it drops. So again, not achievable for everybody on a regular basis, but it is possible.

My next goal is to actually hit 500 on the miles traveled. Probably won't be able to do it until spring, since winter is coming and that doesn't help mileage.

 

[SFB]

Found a couple of paint blemishes, one is a fisheye in a spot of passenger front door that you cannot see unless you are on your hands and knees, the other is a spot on the hood where it looks like the clear coat didn't stick! Wind noises around the driver door above 50mph. Auto stop start not working , otherwise known as ASS! That doesn't bother me, except it's not working due to a weak battery, come to a stop it says Vehicle charging., I have a few things to go back for....but yes I do love my truck

 

[SFB]

I ran for a month on 91 and a month on 87. The difference was only in tenths (which could be attributed to temperature differences, honestly) with exactly the same kind of driving. I only used the truck for commuting for two months to measure it. People have been buying into the myth of higher mileage out of higher octane for decades but it's an old wives tale.

Back on topic, I agree that the small tank is annoying. My 2.7TT Crew Cab F-150 would run from Oakland to Palm Springs on one tank with fuel leftover when I got there. That's about 500 miles and I didn't have the larger factory tank. I would've expected the Ranger to do the same but I've managed about 425-435 tops on extended interstate trips. Meh...I can live with it. Just wish it had a couple more gallons or so. Maybe 21.

Higher octane gives you cleaner burn, bit less carbon buildup than regular.

 

[mransr]

upon further review...
The ride height is my biggest pet peeve. The front is too low for the 4x, big tire, off road guys and the rear is too high for the 2x, light duty guys. Ford REALLY should have had two different suspension setups for the Ranger rather than making it a part 4x and a part 2x.

 

[VAMike]

height seems just right to me--the back is only too high if you never carry a load.

 

[mransr]

or carry a load that is more bulky than heavy...I've had the bed full of "stuff" and it didn't change the ride significantly.

Sponsored