Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Compact Pickup Comparison: Frontier, Ranger, Tacoma, S10, Dakota, B-Series, & Hombre

1161719212228

Comments

  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    you basically re-iterated what i said already. just like you, to get half the picture and then sound like you know what you're talking about. we all know better, eh? but who do you think will sell more trucks in '03?

    scorpio, last time i checked, the tundra was closer in size to a dakota, a ram towers over any tundra not to mention it can out-perform it in every way. the more you type, the dumber you sound bud.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    If 4.8L V8 is crappy and underpowered, what's 4.6L V8 from Ford? It's even more underpowered in all aspects. how about Dakota's V8s? THe only Dakota engine that is more powerful than Tundras' V8 is 1.1L larger in displacement (5.8L V8, that cranks out same hp and 20 more lb/ft of torque), because their 4.7L V8 is considerably weaker than Tundra's.
    How about Ford? Ford has to make an engine 0.7L larger in displacement to get more power and torque, because Fords' 4.6L is.....weak?

    So what half of what picture did I get? Everything I listed above was said by you as a fact, and defended until you were fed links and information showing that it was not true. Real steel? Ha! Bed welded to the frame? Yeah right.

    We know who will sell more trucks in 2003. Ford will. I'm not going to say that all of Fords' customer base is going to go out and abandon the company to buy a new Avalanche or , god forbids, a [non-permissible content removed] truck. Hell no, [non-permissible content removed] don't know how to build them trucks! We'll see which company has more growth sales growth rate (or declines in sales the least), closes the least plants and fires less people. We'll see who has more trucks leftover and what trucks have more recalls the first year.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    new Ram does tower over everything...including F150.
    However, older Ram models do look comparably close to Dakota.
    Tundra is still considered a fullsize pickup, whether you like it or not.
  • Who said anything about the 4.0l v6 being ditched? If the Ranger does grow in size, the 4.0l may just take the place of 3.0l models today.

    Also isn't the interior of the Tacoma slightly bigger than a Tundra already?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Well, on 2003 4Runner (but both are essentially the same vehicle):
    It'll get a new 3.3L V6 with 230-240hp and torque around there, with an optional V8, which will most likely be the 4.7L from Tundra.
    Also it seems that Tacoma will not be redesigned and for sale this fall (which would explain nearly complete lack of info on it, whereas 4Runner has been to trade shows), but instead will go into production fall of next year. New 4Runner will be available this fall. And it seems 4Runner may get cheaper because of design being done completely on a computer (like Boeing does with new planes now). Maybe.
    Thats all the rumours.

    stang: Bigger Ranger would weight less, and 4.0L wouldnt really pull the weight too well at that point. The 3.0L will probably get ditched, but what'll take place of the new engine? Which V8 from F150 lineup?
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    Which truck keeps outperforming everything else (even Jeeps, Hummers and Land Rovers)?

    Which truck is rated as the most reliable?

    Toyota Tacoma, on both counts.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    "a ram towers over any tundra not to mention it can out-perform it in every way."

    -Really? That's funny because the Tundra out accelerates the Ram (both empty and loaded with 1000 lbs.), outbrakes it, gets better fuel economy, has a quieter interior at idle and highway speeds, and has a longer bed. And if you believe Car and Driver, it has a higher towing capacity. (7100 lbs. vs. 6100 lbs.)
    Oh, but that's right, it's not quite full-size so I guess I shouldn't compare it to a REAL truck like the Ram, right?

    "the more you type, the dumber you sound bud."

    -my sentiments exactly!
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    mis-information. is it your middle name? go here and learn a little, and then compare and contrast (you can do that, right?)


    http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Specifications/Dodge/Ram%201500/2002.asp


    then here:


    http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Specifications/Toyota/Tundra/2002.asp

    do you see where the gvwr and tow ratings are higher on the dodge? also, would you buy a tundra to get .3 inch longer bed? what if you want a long bed access cab? is it available? negatory. ill give you the payload, but i still ponder at the article ive read where the tundra needs helper springs for large loads. also, how would i get a 3/4 ton tundra? i hate dodges. they're probably the weakest of the big 3, but this convo has led to these trucks. who really cares about acceleration speed in a pickup? wanna compare 4.7 to a lightning? 4x4 trucks are built for work. towing and the ability to handle large loads daily. the tundra, with its smallish tacoma drivetrain, is a joke when even mentioned to the real full-size trucks offered by the big three. we all know this, it is a poser. a grocery getter with a tird sticker on its azz. its racing development gets it to the mall parking lots faster than any other truck. but not to the construction sites, as it would easily be outclassed by a real truck.

  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    I guess it must really bother you that the Tundra can compete, since your response was emotional.

    The links you gave also show that the Tundra has a tighter turning radius (no surprise) and better ground clearance. I didn't even realize that the Tundra has a higher payload rating as well. Not bad for a truck that's "not really full size," huh?
    Now why is the Ram better again? those great trannys?
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    entitled Compact Truck Comparison....Now that's real good.
  • Scorp--->I just said in the post before, if the Ranger does grow in size, the 4.0l will then likely replace the 3.0l. Choices in v8's, well who knows, Ford produces so many variants that it would be hard to guess. Let's not forget the current 4.2 v6 in F-150's, the 4.6 v8, the 5.4l v8, the 7.3l v8, or even the 6.8 v10(probably not, but I still can wish). There is also a 3.9 v8, the 3.8 v6, and the rumored Diesel I-5.

    Take your pick, because your guess is as good as mine for what will be available in a new Ranger model. But you have to admit there are much more choices with Ford, instead of one 4.7l v8.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Yes, they have more choices.....what I'm wondering is this: will anyone ever be able to justify having like a 5.8L V8 in a midsize Ranger? Sounds like a pretty big overkill to me....if you actually need that power to tow something, you ought not have a Ranger anyway.
  • For one, a there is no Ford 5.8l, unless you're talking about the 351 Windsor, but I don't know of any current vehicles that come with this factory equipped.

    Second, If (or when) the Ranger becomes midsize, which should place it to be similair to the Dakota, do not forget the Dakota offers a Magnum 5.9l. Of course you probably would say that both are too much power. I would just say that Ford (and Dodge) offer more options and models than Toyota does, again.

    The Ranger is a great tow vehicle. Granted a 25 foot boat is not in order, but a pair of jetski's or a motorcycle trailer is definitely on the menu (even with a 4 cylinder). The current 4.0L should be able to tow a small boat or even a light race car with no problems.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Well, yes, 5.8L does not exist. What I was trying to say is that I think it'd be hard to justify giving a midsize (if and when) truck that much power. There's a tow limit, and current V6 can tow anything in that weight limit anyway. How many people do you see driving a Dakota with the biggest V8, that are towing at the limit of their truck? People go with Ram for that, because there's a safety margin there, and you don't work your truck to death fast.
  • you can make is that the heavier your tow vehicle, (generally) the more steadily you can tow heavier loads. So, as long as the frame is sturdy, and the truck itself is not uncumbersome, there is not reason a larger Ranger(, or a Dakota) should stick with smaller displacement motors, simply because they have larger cousins available from the same factory. You can count on a full range of options from pure economical to performance and power. I think the comparison you are trying to make is similair to a Honda CRV getting a 454 Chevy big clock under hood. Yes that would be overpowering the frame, but Ranger's are pretty beefy to begin with, and have a great rigid frame already. There is no reason to believe a bigger version would less stout, only the same or better.

    The 10,000 dollar question is, that since Ford likes to fill all the niches available, (I.E. Explorer, then Expedition, then Excursion, then Escape, and might as well say Econoline), if the Ranger goes midsize, just under all of the F-Series, then could there be another compact truck in the making? For has full size and compact trucks under their belt, if they move to fullsize and "midsize", they might not be abandoning teh compact genre. This is just speculation mind you, but it seems like a possibility.

    Side note: I know you were just making an example, but the 5.8l or 351 Windsor can fit in my 93 Ranger. This engine is available as a crate engine from Ford. It's actually not that hard to fit that engine under hood, it's dealing with all the wiring changes and such if you go with EFI. And it wouldn't be to much of an overload on the truck, but doing this wouldn't really be for towing(although it's definitely possible), it would be more for racing.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    I'd agree with your speculation. Ford sells a hell of a lot of rangers, so I think it's weird that they would drop the compact line all together. actually, compact pickups in general sell quite well. who knows, these companies spend millions on market analysis to see what "we really want." I guess we'll have to wait and see.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    the compact segment is dropping yearly. and rumors are that the compact pickup will totally be discontinued. a full-size can be had for just a little bit more a month. blue oval news or somewhere i read that. hence the move to bigger mid-size, or so rumor has it.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    After all, not everybody likes big [non-permissible content removed] V8s with their gas milage. As weird as it sounds coming from a guy who drives a truck, I do want more economical vehicles around and would buy a hybrid truck if they came out with one (that would have decent power).

    stang: A 5.8L would be quote nice in a truck that could handle it all. It is at least very possible to drop a 4.6L V8 from Lexus SUV into a Taco, some drilling required, of course, but nevertheless, it works.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    I guess I better buy a compact soon before they're gone. Living in an urban area sucks when you have to manuever a full-size truck around.
  • jim4444jim4444 Posts: 124
    Cant be. Look at how many are out there. There will always be a market for them.

    Ford, GM would be foolish to discontinue them.

    (I know the midsize trucks are coming soon from both)

    They are "entry level" vehicles as well as nicely equipped trucks with all the goodies.

    How could you abandon a market segment that you sell so many trucks in?

    To tell the consumer "if you want one of our trucks now you have to spend more on a bigger truck" is just one step away from selling nothing but full size trucks.

    Nothing wrong with a full size truck, the compact has its advantages as well.
This discussion has been closed.