NGTD said:Depending on how much towing you do a regular old Chev/GMC will beat the Ridgeline any day on MPG. The V6's are gas hogs once you hook something up to them.
The Ridgeline and most of the older small pickups seem to suffer from this issue of losing a lot in capability to a full size half-ton but only getting slightly better gas mileage overall.
I've owned two Tacoma Double cabs, 2005 and 2019, both V6 automatic 4x4. Reliable as a stone. Neither has done better than 17 mpg under any circumstances.
I think Ridgelines are rated to tow 5000 pounds. It will be comfy, but you won't find a lot of torque.
Those Explorer Sport Tracs are horribly uncomfortable.
I would argue that pickups don't get MPG's. A good friend of mine had a 4-cylinder 5-speed standard cab Ranger, bought new. It got 20 mpg.
Just get a 1-ton Duallie and burn up some dead dinosaurs. 
rslifkin said:NGTD said:Depending on how much towing you do a regular old Chev/GMC will beat the Ridgeline any day on MPG. The V6's are gas hogs once you hook something up to them.
The Ridgeline and most of the older small pickups seem to suffer from this issue of losing a lot in capability to a full size half-ton but only getting slightly better gas mileage overall.
Or get worse fuel economy than the full size in a lot of cases. When I get 24mpg highway, 15 towing and have a towing capacity of 6700lbs what is the Ridgeline or Taco going to offer me? Marginally better parking ability?
I get 23 highway in my 97 f250 7.3 extended cab 2wd, but I sort of drive like a grandpa at 75 and it’s not 4 doors. I think that the 4 doors were 4wd possibly and those are over budget.
I would probably get a 3.6L Ram with your criteria. They're rated 20 combined on epa cycle. Fuelly.org entries look promising.
If you want a unicorn find a 4.8/5spd quad cab GM 1500. Good luck...
For similar reasons and needs I’m focusing on 14-16 4x4 silverados with crew cab. They’ll drag the whole family or both my dogs on road trips and tow anything I intend to mess with. Unfortunately it take 15-20k to get into them.
For 10k I’d also be watching first gen tundras with the 4.6.
First gen Tundras had the 4.7 and are pretty unexceptional in mpg. Still one of the best trucks of that era for regular half-ton truck stuff.
I think people saying a GMT800 will get 20+ mpg on the highway drive in places that are very flat and don't travel faster than 70. For me, in the hills of NJ and PA, traveling with traffic, it is much different.
I had a 2000 Tahoe with the 5.3, 3.73 gearing and 4x4, a typical truck in the area. It netted me a best of 19mpg strictly highway. My parents Ridgeline would consistently beat that when I drove it. The numbers that ring strong are 15 vs 18mpg mixed, 19 vs 22mpg highway.
The Ridgeline is a fine pickup for people that don't need a pickup everyday. Payload is as good as any midsize (1400lbs on my parents Ridgeline, compared to the 1300lbs on my Colorado). Towing capacity is 5000lbs with a 600lb tongue weight is plenty to balance out the trailer too. The interior is well put together and the independent suspension makes it ride very good.
In reply to MINIzguy :
I'm used to being called a liar for going on 13 years now. This truck has been coast to coast. It actually got it's BEST mileage across the section of I10 in west Texas where the speed limit is 80 (cruise set at 82). Like I've said for over a decade, you got to get the truck with the right options. No 4wd. No 5.3. No 3.73's. 4.8, 2wd, 3.23's and 245 tires (actually lost 1.5mpg with the 265's). Driving slower than 70 actually nets WORSE mileage because of where the engine sits in the power band and tuning (anything under 1700 rpms to be exact. 80 = 2k rpm for reference).
13 years and 110k miles later, even in my 30 minute S-n-G drive home (12 miles) I am AVERAGING 17.9 mpg. High of 18.6, low of 17.1 over the last 8 tanks. We have the original sticker from new, it was originally rated 16/21 and outside of towing I've never seen anything less than 17.
I always find that mpg and speed claims are overstated by about 10%.
mtn said:This is just an info gathering thread that will likely go nowhere. For reasons that make no sense whatsoever, I want a pickup. It would need to be a crew cab.
So I'm wondering, what options with a crew cab give the best MPG's? Figure a $10k max budget. Some guidelines here:
-I'd like to be able to tow my Dads boat, which is about 4,500 lbs fully loaded
-I think the only options that I'm ruling out off the bat are the S10/Sonoma, the Explorer truck thing, and the Subaru Baja
-I don't like Dakotas. If they're the answer here, convince me
-4WD is nice. I really would like to have it. It is NOT necessary.
-Diesel is ok. A chip/reflash is also ok, assuming that it maintains reliability (Still not convinced about this point just from a clean-air perspective, but I'd like to hear about the options regardless if they're still a thing)
EDIT: By Crew Cab, what I really mean is "fits a baby seat in the back, safely". If the Tundra half-crew cab or the Ram half crew cab thingys do that, they're in play.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say, with the 4wd option negotiable: Roadmaster wagon.
I don't see anything that says you want a truck, just that you want to tow and that you need to haul family. That's right up Roadmaster alley.
1988RedT2 said:I would argue that pickups don't get MPG's. A good friend of mine had a 4-cylinder 5-speed standard cab Ranger, bought new. It got 20 mpg.
Huh?
I got 20mpg in a B4000. Extended cab 4wd. Towing an RX-7 on a steel deck tandem axle trailer.
Keep it over 65mph and it'd even pull hills without needing a downshift.
If you're getting 20mpg with a Lima engined Ranger, you're either incompetent as a driver or you spend a lot of time in traffic jams.
In reply to Knurled. :
I'm jealous. My extended cab 4.0 4x4 ranger just did 11.6 on its last tank. No towing, or even anything in the bed other than a storm door.
bobzilla said:rslifkin said:NGTD said:Depending on how much towing you do a regular old Chev/GMC will beat the Ridgeline any day on MPG. The V6's are gas hogs once you hook something up to them.
The Ridgeline and most of the older small pickups seem to suffer from this issue of losing a lot in capability to a full size half-ton but only getting slightly better gas mileage overall.
Or get worse fuel economy than the full size in a lot of cases. When I get 24mpg highway, 15 towing and have a towing capacity of 6700lbs what is the Ridgeline or Taco going to offer me? Marginally better parking ability?
You also get the advantage of not looking like a weenie.
RevRico said:In reply to Knurled. :
I'm jealous. My extended cab 4.0 4x4 ranger just did 11.6 on its last tank. No towing, or even anything in the bed other than a storm door.
Pushrod or SOHC?
It might be just me. I did recently wow the Swedespeed forum with my near-30mpg exploits in teh R, and my RX-7 fuel economy record is 32mpg back when I had a carbureted 12A...
In reply to Knurled. :
Sohc, and I drive like an old man.
Short trips and low speeds seem much worse for mileage than highway driving.
RevRico said:In reply to Knurled. :
Sohc, and I drive like an old man.
Short trips and low speeds seem much worse for mileage than highway driving.
Yes, yes they are. To an incredible degree. Stop-start and hybrid technology are MPG improvers for a reason.
On a cold start, I've seen 3mpg "instant economy" crusing down the road at 35mph, in teh R. And in the RX-7, with my previous engine/controller combo where I could log this sort of thing, I noted about 2mpg city and 29mpg highway. OTOH rotaries are the next worst thing to turbines for loaded:unloaded efficiency ratios.
It's too bad they never made a 2.5/5spd Quad Cab dakota. I've gotten 24mpg on a 300 mile highway jaunt doing 75 with stuff in the bed in an extended cab version. The quad cab is marginally heavier but not so much that I think it would send the acceleration or economy below my line in the sand. I mean, i understand few would have been sold and i dont blame them for not making it, but if it existed i might own it and if i drove 65 it might even do like 27mpg.
I remember my old 90 2.5/5spd Caravan would do 33mpg @ 55 mph (27 @ 75). That thing with a 5 ft truck bed would reach truly 3rd-world levels of small truck pragmatism. 
RevRico said:In reply to Knurled. :
Sohc, and I drive like an old man.
Short trips and low speeds seem much worse for mileage than highway driving.
The SOHC doesn't have MPG going for it.....or frankly much if anything over the OHV pushrod. You have to rev them much higher to get power out of them over the OHV
My 91 4wd, OHV,supercab , manual,with ladder racks and loaded with some tools gets 21mpg pretty much always with 23.8 as my highest.
Vigo said:If you want a unicorn find a 4.8/5spd quad cab GM 1500. Good luck...
Or another unicorn. 4.7/5sp crew cab Dodge 1500.
My friend that has a crew cab long bed 4.7 5 speed 1500HD loves it other than reverse being a bit tall for backing up with a heavy trailer.
iceracer said:I always find that mpg and speed claims are overstated by about 10%.
Again, I've been called a liar for 13 years. Nothing new there. It's always the same argument: "I had a [insert completely different combo] and it never got over [insert low number]." Never changes.
Vigo said:If you want a unicorn find a 4.8/5spd quad cab GM 1500. Good luck...
Sadly that was never made. No CC 1500 was ever offered in a manual trans.
Small trucks are just excuses for people who want to pretend they are getting good fuel economy. It's astounding how much is compromised and how little is gained (or sometimes lost).
Look for an early ecoboost in the higher trim levels that has served a little time as a work truck (which will drop it's price tag). You will NOT regret it.
bobzilla said:iceracer said:I always find that mpg and speed claims are overstated by about 10%.
Again, I've been called a liar for 13 years. Nothing new there. It's always the same argument: "I had a [insert completely different combo] and it never got over [insert low number]." Never changes.
I've never gotten more than 22 highway out of an NA miata either. I think people claiming 25+ don't know how to math.
You'll need to log in to post.
