An F-150 with a long bed is expected to get 25.25mpg. The new Ranger is expected to get 30.25mpg. The F-150 actually gets 22, and the Ranger gets 26.
My understanding is that it's difficult to build a smaller truck that gets the required mileage. The result is that the new Ranger is the size of the F-150 from 15 years ago or so. You simply can't buy a compact pickup truck like the 90s Tacoma or Ranger.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy (scroll down to Agreed standards by model year, 2012–2025)
The new EU directive to hit 95g CO2/km is a much better regulation since it directly measures the goal: less carbon emitted. It also measures the fleet more directly, unlike CAFE that carves out tons of categories. It does allow for the double counting of EVs for a few years which incentivizes doing the R&D on EVs rather than paying penalties.
There have been efforts to change this, don't know their status.
I think the manufactures like building the bigger trucks cause they make more $$$, and most buyers are willing to take a bigger truck if the smaller ones aren't available. But, having owned a regular cab Ranger I bought new and now a regular cab S10; they're lovely vehicles as long as you don't need to carry people. Amazing visibility; no fiddly bits, and you don't have to worry about curbs or parking stops.
That is, consider a bare-bones light truck with MSRP of $18K. After the tax, it becomes 23K. You can get an F150 for 28K, so in America you might as well get the bigger truck. Whereas if it were $18K vs $28K that would draw some of the market towards the smaller imported truck. And if some of the market is drawn towards the import, domestic makers might be forced to compete (e.g. with the Ranger).
#iWorkForGM