Ford Ranger vs GMC Canyon: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Ford Ranger burns about $2,650 of fuel annually against $2,800 for the GMC Canyon. That $150 yearly gap compounds to roughly $750 over five years and $1,200 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the GMC Canyon leads in both cycles — 22 mpg city and 30 mpg highway against 21 and 26 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the Ford Ranger is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (SIDI & PFI, SIDI, SIDI & PFI; with Stop-start), the GMC Canyon with 2 (SIDI, 2.8). Across 32 recorded Ford Ranger configurations and 74 for the GMC Canyon, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the Ford Ranger is offered with Part-time 4-Wheel Drive, Rear-Wheel Drive, the GMC Canyon with 4-Wheel Drive, Rear-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Standard Pickup Trucks 4WD and Small Pickup Trucks 2WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Ford Ranger emits 380 g/mile of CO2 versus 396 g/mile for the GMC Canyon. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.