The Gladiator placed 3rd out of 4th in a comparison!

"LJ909" (lj909) 05/01/2019 at 13:55 • Filed to: Jeep

0

64

You read that right. The bro peoples savior was second too last in a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! comparison against the Ranger FX4 (4th), Ridgeline RTL-E (2nd) and the Colorado Z71 (1st). The reason? They said its long wheelbase makes it not really suited for offroad, where its frame bottomed out on them a few times (they called it a dachshund) and its high as tested price of nearly 56k for the Overland trim, which isn’t even where it tops out at. None of this should stop the hotcake like sales this thing will have. Oh and all of the trucks with the exception of the Gladiator, returned a measly 15 mpg on their 400 mile loop. The Gladiator did one worse at 14.

Edit: Frontier and Tacoma werent included because they are too old.

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 14:41

4

This combined with the frankly insane pricing in Canada has basically killed all desire for one.

Fuck you jeep!

*goes back to browsing wranglers*

412GTI > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 14:45

3

Besides ease of parking, size and such, mid-sizers make no sense. Bad use of interior space, bad fuel economy, etc. Just buy a full- size! Did they say why no Tacoma in this test? 

Spanfeller is a twat > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 14:53

0

Im sorry, but anyone that choses a Colorado over a Ridgeline is officially not equipped with the knowledge to be a car journalist 

benjrblant > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 14:53

0

Ranger, Ridgeline, Gladiator, and Colorado? Why Ridgeline over a Tacoma or Frontier? Seems odd.

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 14:56

2

Chatting in the background “J6 J6 J6 J6 J6 J6“

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > 412GTI 05/01/2019 at 14:57

1

Yup, we need half tons and real small trucks., like an old school ranger. 

HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles > Spanfeller is a twat 05/01/2019 at 14:58

0

I think they were testing offroadyness

CobraJoe > 412GTI 05/01/2019 at 14:59

4

I have a full-size crew cab truck, and I’m starting to wish I shopped around more for a midsized.

We don’t need that much interior space for 99% of what we do, I don’t need that much cargo or towing capacity, and I’m really not enjoying the poor fuel economy. Plus, it’s still annoying to park and barely fits in my garage.

LJ909 > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 05/01/2019 at 15:00

0

You arent missing much besides the bed so no big loss.

LJ909 > 412GTI 05/01/2019 at 15:02

2

Right. The Ridgeline was the only one in the test that had comfortable interior room/volume. But its vanlike. And yes forgot to mention that. Taco/Frontier weren’ t included in the test because, frankly, they’re too old.

LJ909 > Spanfeller is a twat 05/01/2019 at 15:08

1

It looks like it was based on off road use. But they did acknowledge that they think the Ridgeline is what midsize truck buyers should be looking at want due to how comfortable and roomy it is.

shop-teacher > Spanfeller is a twat 05/01/2019 at 15:11

1

It depends on what you’re doing with it.

412GTI > CobraJoe 05/01/2019 at 15:11

1

Oh I get it, full-size truck are a pain to deal with and I do enjoy driving mid-size ones , but they just seem like a compromise to me. Worse space, nearly same mpg, etc. When I sold for Ram, we constantly had truck buyers swapping their mid-size for something bigger or vise-versa on our used lot.

Choice is always a good thing, no doubt about that. 

LJ909 > benjrblant 05/01/2019 at 15:11

0

Like I mentioned in someone else, they pretty much said they didn’ t include them because they are far too old, with the Frontier being older than the Tacoma. The Tacoma is still pretty much a heavily refreshed version of the one introduced in ‘04.

412GTI > HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles 05/01/2019 at 15:11

1

Exactly! 

412GTI > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:13

1

Can confirm. I drove a Ridgeline loaner and while that truck makes a ton of sense for most mid-size buyers, it looks and drives like an Odyssey.  

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:19

4

Counterpoint: just buy a stripper base model, not a $56k Overland.

Saracen > 412GTI 05/01/2019 at 15:20

1

They don’t really say why, just that the Taco is ancient.

LJ909 > 412GTI 05/01/2019 at 15:20

0

i t looks and drives like an Odyssey.t looks and drives like an Odyssey.

This is the downside that Im sure turns a lot of buyers off. Because the thing actually has some useful gimmicks. But its sales are non existent compared to others in the segment, and the only buyers it attracts are seniors it seems.

412GTI > Saracen 05/01/2019 at 15:24

0

It is I guess, but still seems weird considering it’s the classes best seller. 

loki03xlh > HFV has no HFV. But somehow has 2 motorcycles 05/01/2019 at 15:27

1

This is why I still drive my 22 year old S- 10.

Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!! > benjrblant 05/01/2019 at 15:28

1

All of these magazines do it the same way. Vehicles come in for a comparison and if they lose they aren’t invited back for future ones un til they are changed. Taco and Frontier are both approximately 203 years old and were previously beaten by the trucks included, so no entry. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:31

1

Yeah, it’s really 3rd out of 6 , I guess?, since they didn’t even give the Tacoma a chance. LOL

LJ909 > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 05/01/2019 at 15:31

1

Yea but good luck finding a base model. Bitch ass dealers, from my search, are only stocking loaded Overland and Rubicon models all in the low to mid 50's. I did a nationwide search and only found a total of 5 Sport and Sport S models all in the mid 40's. MSRP for the Sport model is $33,545. I dont think you wil l ever be able to find a stripper Gladiator .

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > CobraJoe 05/01/2019 at 15:32

0

Getting 19.5 in my manual Tacoma, fwiw. 

fintail > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:32

1

Lifestyle vehicles often come at a premium, and that’s what this will be.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:33

0

Design matters.

For all its faults, my Tacoma always gets the “look-back” from me... 

ShrimpHappens, née WJalopy > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 05/01/2019 at 15:36

1

I agree. The Sport S trim is likely just as comparable to the others.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:40

1

Launch models will always be higher spec’d. I’m sure base models won’t be super common, but they’ll eventually show up.

Chuckles > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:40

1

Buying a Jeep probably isn’t a rational, numbers based decision for a lot of people. It’s just what they want and that’s fine. My friend recently bought a Ram Quad Cab. He has very little need for a truck, but he likes trucks and that’s what appealed to him. And that’s fine.

Plenty of Gladiators will never see more than the occasional dirt road or snowy street. 

ShrimpHappens, née WJalopy > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:41

0

Guess that depends on where you are? Jeep dealers in my area have had plenty of the lowest-trim JL Wrangler.

LJ909 > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 05/01/2019 at 15:42

1

True. But with some models, especially ones that sell well, dealers will stock top trims because that is what sells or brings in people. Its why you cant find base model’s of Miata’s. Hopefully they do show up though. A base Gladiator at the right price is tempting.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:45

1

They’ll probably be left sitting on lots at the end of the year ( with a discount too).

LJ909 > Chuckles 05/01/2019 at 15:48

1

You just pretty much described the entirety of the SUV market.

LJ909 > ShrimpHappens, née WJalopy 05/01/2019 at 15:50

0

Oh yea same here. But I think and hoping its like you said, given time those base models will come around.

nermal > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:53

1

They’re not wrong, other than not including the Frontier & Tacoma.

Factoring in pricing, the Frontier would probably win, despite being on a platform older than its target market. 

Chuckles > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 15:55

1

Sure, but I’m not sure how much emotion really goes into a person’s decision to get a Honda Pilot over a Honda Odyssey. The Pilot is a little better in winter weather, and maybe they only occasionally need that third row. Whereas the Jeep is an impractical choice but relies on terms like “rugged” and “adventurous” and “Mu rica” to sell a lot of units. That’s not to say that Jeeps are bad, just that on paper they’re never the best choice.

CobraJoe > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 05/01/2019 at 15:59

1

I’m jealous, I’m stuck with an auto , and I’m getting 14mpg now. (05 Titan, t hough 300hp makes it not boring).

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 16:07

4

Stripper gladiator? Not judging but that's quite a fetish.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 16:12

2

15mpg!? I had an 03 GMC with the 6 liter. It averaged 15mpg! And wouldn’t drop unless towing a 6000lb trailer, then it was 12mpg, and even then that wasn’t in overdrive and was at 75mph. How are these so bad?

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 16:12

0

In the numbers comparison:

https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2019-ford-ranger-2020-jeep-gladiator-2019-chevrolet-colorado-2019-honda-ridgeline-comparison-complete-specs-results-1556718247.pdf

It’s pretty disappointing to see that the best fuel economy was only 15mpg... even for the Ranger with the 2L Ecoboost and the 10 speed auto it has. I bet in the real world, that same Ranger equipped with a manual would get at least 20% better fuel economy . Too bad you can’t get it with the manual in North America like in other markets

And based on Pricing, even though it’s rated last, I predict the Ranger will sell reasonably well.

But I also have to say that in terms of style, it’s the Jeep that stands out from the crowd in a good way and will get sales for that reason alone.

LJ909 > nermal 05/01/2019 at 16:18

0

Exactly. The Frontier and Tacoma are probably more trucks than the Ranger and Colorado.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > AMGtech - now with more recalls! 05/01/2019 at 16:20

0

I suspect the answer may be in the 0-60 times combined with the curb weights and AWD.

6.1 seconds in the 0-60 and a sub 15 second quarter mile used to be something only sporty cars or special sport trucks (like the Typhoon) could do

https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/2019-ford-ranger-2020-jeep-gladiator-2019-chevrolet-colorado-2019-honda-ridgeline-comparison-complete-specs-results-1556718247.pdf

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/01/2019 at 16:31

1

Yeah yeah yeah but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. It's not like my old truck was a lightweight. It was 4wd and 4 wheel steer, crew cab, HD, blah blah. And had half the gears to get the job done. Manufacturers can do better.

Saracen > 412GTI 05/01/2019 at 16:32

0

I think at this point it’s the perception that it’s the best.

I’ve driven all the mid-sizers. The Taco isn’t the best. That would be a two way tie IMO between the Ridgeline and Colorado, depending on your tastes.

Most Taco owners are repeat buyers, or just Toyota owners who decide to get in on the pickup craze. Toyota faithful aren’t going to buy a Nissan or god forbid, a domestic brand.

I also think the unusually strong resale value lends to it. It’s barely any cheaper to buy a 1 to 3 year old Taco, so just buy a new one instead.

LJ909 > Chuckles 05/01/2019 at 16:46

1

A rational buyer will think about things like usability or family, i.e kids. Those things can go hand in hand with irrational choices, like wanting awd and living in a warm weather climate or how a raised ride height gives a false sense of security.

Jeeps sell on what you mentioned: pretty much “Fuck Yeah Murica” They are rolling impulse buys. On paper, they are terrible vehicles: inefficient , not roomy, not good at handling cargo etc.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > CobraJoe 05/01/2019 at 16:48

0

I have 450 in my car, so I’m okay with my slow truck the other days.

Honestly p retty fun once it gets moving, though, and handles curves remarkably well. 

Chuckles > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 16:53

1

They certainly can serve a purpose, and if you’re interested in a truck with removable doors it’s probably your best option.

Every vehicle purchase involves at least a certain amount of emotion, otherwise we'd all be in beige people movers. But Jeep seems to rely on emotional appeals more than many other vehicles do. Hell, I've wanted a Jeep ever since I saw Jurassic Park as a kid. There's nothing rational about that want. And a Honda Ridgeline might be "better" but that's irrelevant. 

LJ909 > AMGtech - now with more recalls! 05/01/2019 at 17:08

0

I think at this trim it can be enjoyed how it should be enjoyed. Adding shit like leather etc, you might as well buy a Grand Cherokee or something else. 

LJ909 > AMGtech - now with more recalls! 05/01/2019 at 17:10

0

I suspect it might have something to do with the weight and those offroad tires. Even without them though its probably not much better.

LJ909 > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/01/2019 at 17:23

0

Yea thats pretty damn low. From what I’ve seen,some real world figures people are getting seem to be about 19-20. C&D did seem to say that the 10 speed auto was way more than what was needed as well.

Tristan > AMGtech - now with more recalls! 05/01/2019 at 21:51

0

15 mpg with an LQ4 quadrasteer 2500HD?! I can’t even touch that hypermiling in my extremely comparable Suburban. Best tank ever was 14.7, and it usually hangs around 12.5. Towing returns where from 6-10 mpg.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > LJ909 05/01/2019 at 22:06

1

Joke.

Your head.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Tristan 05/01/2019 at 22:09

0

1500HD, technically, because of the quadrasteer. But yeah. Super consistent. 12mpg towing. 15 mixed driving not towing. Maybe the difference is gearing? Can't remember what mine was, but they could have different rear ends. Or mileage? Mine was fairly new and under 30k the whole time I had it.

Tristan > AMGtech - now with more recalls! 05/02/2019 at 00:38

0

1500HD is even closer to matching the specs of my Burb... I have 4.10 gears. You had the choice between 4.10s and 3.73s. The 3.73s really only benefited the highway MPG slightly at the cost of towing capacity.

Maybe you had a factory freak. If my truck got that kind of mileage I’d probably still daily drive it. I do quite enjoy the truck, but the mileage kills me so unless I need to drive it, it sits.

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Tristan 05/02/2019 at 01:19

1

Hmmi guess it's possible 

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/02/2019 at 08:45

0

Not that it makes this any better, but I think that 10 speed auto might actually out-do a manual.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 05/02/2019 at 08:52

0

In the EPA tests, yes.

In the real world in my experience, no.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/02/2019 at 10:42

0

Ah okay, pity we won’t be able to prove it out, haha.

Overall though 15 mpg seems very low for the Ranger, considering Fuelly result are markedly better:  https://www.fordf150blog.com/2019-ranger-real-world-fuel-economy/

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 05/02/2019 at 11:11

0

Car and Driver testers probably drove them hard as well.

In my experience, you can get really good fuel economy on a turbo engine if you stay out of the boost.

And with regard to not being able to prove the fuel economy difference... it can kind-of be done by testing the real-world fuel economy of the 2.5L Ranger with the manual sold in other markets and compare it to the automatic Ranger we get.

The 2L Ecoboost and the 2.5L regular engine should get about the same fuel economy, if all other things are equal (AWD/RWD, body style, etc).

For example... search for a T6 Ford Ranger with the 2.5L 4 cyl and the manual on fuelly.com and you can find something like this:

So as you can see, at worst, I think a manual Ranger would be 10% better in the real world, but possibly as much as 30% better.

And this squares with my PT Cruiser experience I had in the past. According to the EPA, the manual and auto PT should get about the same mileage.

In reality, a properly driven manual PT gets about 30% better mileage AND better performance compared to the slushbox.

Hell... my old/worn PT got better mileage than a nearly new Buick Verano I rented... which had a DI 4 cyl, 6 speed auto and an EPA rating that said it should get at least 10% better mpgs than my PT.

Manuals get unfairly penalized in EPA tests because the shift points are fixed at a relatively high RPM... something that gets heavily gamed with automatics.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/02/2019 at 11:24

0

Fair enough, I was under the impression that automatics in the last 10 or so years had surpassed manuals. I would love to see a modern 8 or 10 speed put up against a 6 speed manual in a true apples-to-apples comparison.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 05/02/2019 at 11:48

0

It can be done with vehicles like the Mustang. Here’s one example (but with a really small sample size) I was able to find on fueleconomy.gov :

I like fueleconomy.gov because you can do direct apples-to-apples comparisons.

Only downside is there isn’t as many people entering data as on fuelly.com

And this is the story with the 2006 PT I had:

I personally averaged between 28-29mpg over the 2 years I owned my manual PT.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 05/02/2019 at 15:10

0

Mustang is a good idea, I thought, but then I went through fuelly and I think some people are almost exc lusively peeling out of cars and coffee and averaging like 13-14 mpg.

Need a more boring car, haha.

For a 2017 5.0:

M: 21.6, 17.5, 16.1, 13.5, 14.8

A: 19.2, 16.3, 17.7, 17.0. 15.5

It’s also odd, they list 3 transmissions: manual, standard and auto. I imagine a standard is the same as a manual, but do the users know that?

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 05/02/2019 at 17:16

0

That’s why I don’t like fuelly.com that much... hard to make direct comparisons like you can on fueleconomy.org