Howdy, Stranger!

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





Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

1171820222359

Comments

  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Be careful posting stuff like that. LOL
  • kbtoyskbtoys Posts: 62
    I know that we can't use magazines as reliable sources but did anybody check out this years consumer reports automobiles. It showed overall that the Tacoma was the best in compact pickup while the Ranger was in the poor section.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    about Consumer Report testing. They showed a Taco DoubleCab vs. Ford SportTrac, going up the rock cropping CR has setup for testing. Taco made it up without any problems, SportTrac spinned and smoked tires, and barely got up there.
    Two trucks, same course, same driver. Hmm.
  • kbtoyskbtoys Posts: 62
    The sports track was the worst of all the pickups according to CR
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    sport trac vs tacoma? are you guys insane? now that's a fair comparison. the funny thing about cr is that one year they'll rank a vehicle in the good or excellent category, like the ford explorer which is considered to be bulletproof by cr, but the next year they'll call the same vehicle poor or to avoid it. and it's the same overall vehicle with no changes at all. its just a magazine that changes its tune each year to sell magazines. nothing like the real world. luckily people don't believe everything they read, if they did, ranger wouldn't outsell everything else year in and year out.

    but for the sport-trac to go exactly the same place a tacoma could is pretty awesome, considering that thing is a four-door explorer with a bed. really, it makes the taco look bad when the sport-trac could climb the same section as a taco. sport-trac has crappy tires, no locker, lower ground clearance, lower approach/departure angles, no off-road suspension, and it still went where the taco did. we all know which truck had more power though.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    SportTrac is the only viable alternative to Taco DC, isn't it? What else would you compare a DoubleCab to?
    As for power......yeah right.
    Ford SportTrac Curb Weight:
    2WD: 4100-4300 lbs (Choice, Premium)
    4WD: 4300 lbs (Choice, Premium)

    Now compare that to 3700 lbs weight of Tacoma DC. I'd say that 20hp or 20 lbs/ft of torque is far from enough to make up for the weight difference.
  • Is the Sport Trac the Ranger? No. Is that the closest thing to a "compact" crew cab truck from Ford? Sure. Must be the same power in a Ranger is just too much for ya.

    But if you want to argue crew cab in other Ford Vehicles, I'd like to remind you of which vehicle that is on topic with this forum that offers standard air conditioning, ABS brakes and available V6 in a regular cab. How about 4 doors on a non crew cab model? How about the 2-4 extra inches of room in every direction? How about 200 pounds of extra payload? How about edmunds's consumer ratings showing 8.7 for the Sport trac and 8.1 for the Tacoma crew cab?

    Also, lest you forget, that's 20 PEAK hp, or torque at a full 600 less RPM(3000 VS 3600). Cubic inches will help you out in RPMS closer to Idle, and these peak numbers only support that. More cubic inches also respond better to upgrades and mods, than smaller engines.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    i never said anything about which is faster. who cares in trucks. i said more power. but you got a point, the sport-trac is heavier, which only provides added protection in a crash. and you already proved that it can go anywhere a taco dc can go, right?

    also, those dakota crew cabs with that sweet 4.7 are pretty cool. not to mention the nissan crew cab 4x4 for barely over $20K loaded up. both of these trucks undercut any toyota by thousands.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    The test that was shown was a simple rock bed, with concrete and rocks. SportTrac failed to take that hill comfortably, so no, it will not go anywhere a Taco DC will.
    The added weight may or may not provide additional protection in a crash. Unless that added weight are the safety features, it probably won't. Heavier vehicle carries higher energy than a lighter vehicle at the same speed. Therefore it takes a lot more to stop the heavier one. At a headon impact with a wall, for example, either the wall or the truck have got to give in, and it usually ends up being the truck. On the other hand, if SportTrac runs into some other small vehicle like Honda CRV, you can kiss the Honda goodbye.
    Heavier weight only plays part if your truck is heavier than the other one.
    Either NHTSA or IIHS have tested the fullsize trucks before, and Tundra came out on top. In the same tests, F150 came in last. That does not give any support to "Heavier is safer" that you are trying to say here.

    And who cares about Dakota and Nissan CrewCab? This was about a Ford and Toyota, and you are changing the subject away from that. Dakota may be powerful, but from what I heard they go through engines like peanuts. And Nissan...well, lets just say that "Supercharged 210hp V6" may have sounded great 10 years ago, but now it sounds like a joke.
  • tclemonstclemons Posts: 31
    ...are you located? I am originally from Hattiesburg, now living in northern VA. Just curious.
  • Why should it surprise anyone that CR rates the Tacoma much higher than the Ranger. We all know that to be true. As for TBunder, he chooses to ignore yet another magazine that rates a Ranger poor and rates Tacoma high. Are we surprised? Nobody will ever convince me that a Ranger is better than a Tacoma. If you really believe that a Ranger is better, I've got a great bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Take care.....Steelman.
  • NHTSA rates F-150 better than Tundra. I still don't understand why this was brought up, as neither trucks are the Tacoma or Ranger.

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2001Pkup.html

    F-150 - 29 out of 30 stars or 97% (combined ratings)

    Tundra - 6 out of 10 stars or 60%

    The IIHS report does favor the Tundra, however this was only one model tested per vehicle, and one crash, (front offset against a solid barrier). So those results only hold up if you crash your respective vehicle into a brick wall. How often do you see that in rush hour?

    If you look at the 5 mph crash results, the tables are turned.

    http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/low_speed_lgpkup.htm

    But let's get back on topic here...

    The IIHS reports the Ranger and Tacoma to be very similair in overall crash result(in their one and only test). However the Ranger does not have any "Poor" ratings while the Tacoma does.

    NHTSA is a different story. (2001 models)

    Ranger has a combined 17 out of 20 stars showing 85%.

    Tacoma has a combined 10 out of 15 starts, showing 66%.

    To me, I would tend to trust a .gov over a .org anyday, especially because they don't rely on one instance on one model to define their findings.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    To make a point that "heavier is not safer" as tbunder said. I still believe that unless all that weight difference are safety features, a heavier vehicle would be subject to higher damage in a collision. Sure, it would go through other, smaller vehicles, like knife through butter, but colliding with something solid would do a lot more damage to it than it would to a lighter vehicle.
    Nissan Frontier is 600 lbs or so heavier than Tacoma. The crash tests for it are pretty bad. Heavier does not mean safer.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    I don't know if I'd trust the government that much... :)
    Keep in mind that the Tacoma was rated best in class of compact pickups by the IIHS. Also, I believe the frontal offset crash is the most common type of vehicle to vehicle accident.

    The conclusion I drew from comparing Ranger to Tacoma in terms of safety is that they are both at the top of compact pickup pack. Ranger beats tacoma in some categories and vice-versa in others.
  • smgillessmgilles Posts: 252
    Consumer reports just published their reliability ratings for all vehicles for model years 1994-2001. Most reliable small truck...Toyota Tacoma. Most reliable full size truck...Toyota Tundra Anyway, the point is all the reliability information published my Consumer Reports comes from just that....the consumer.
    Matter of fact, the Japanese vehicles had the best reliability history for all classes of vehicles.
  • Well, imagine that, Consumer Reports indicates the Tacoma as the most reliable small truck. That is what I've been saying for several months now. But, don't expect Ford Fanatics (especially TBunder) to believe it. As some Ranger fanatics would say, CR must be getting paid millions by Toyota to publish such information. Maybe that is why their trucks cost more, because they have to pay so much more to all these magazines so that they'll publish these blatant lies. It has to be a major conspiracy. I hope the media cracks this conspiracy before some more nit wits buy a Tacoma thinking it is better than a Ranger. Take care......Steelman.
  • rickc5rickc5 Posts: 378
    I closed a deal on a new 2002 Ranger XLT Extra-Cab on Wednesday. Fully loaded (4.0L V6, auto, AC, power, cruise, 4 doors, buckets, limited slip, "off-road", etc.), except I didn't get the 6 CD changer, just the MP3/CD player. Price = $19.4K + $500 in taxes. Seemed like a great deal.

    I don't know what Tacomas sell for these days, but that is $2600 less than I paid for my '99 Tacoma three years ago, and I supposedly paid invoice for the Tacoma.

    cpousnr: Hey Chief, When the nice weather gets here, lets do some 4-wheeling!

    After 2 snowy days here in Colorado, I have no complaints. It runs well and handles great on slick roads.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    for my Tacoma with SR5, ->TRD<- with alum rims, power, V6 4x4 manual, buckets, clock!!! I also paid invoice on it. Not bad, considering those trucks go for 23K+ MSRP.
    Offroad package?
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    sounds like you have a new fx4 ranger, am i right? buckets are standard on them, and a 6-disc changer is not available with the fx4, just mp3 (dream on toyota owners) player. you have a truly rare truck. if its a manual, better check your rear axle though, the manual fx4's are recalled cuz of a bad axle design for the torsen lsd. you got a good deal, considering an fx4 stickers loaded up for around 26K.

    if they offer a crew-cab this fall, i will snatch one up. ford really pisses me off for not offering this yet. i love those fx4's, especially in silver.
  • rickc5rickc5 Posts: 378
    The "off-road package" on my XLT includes:

    1) Larger body shocks
    2) Skid Plates
    3) the all-important "4x4 Off-Road" decals on the rear flanks

    No Bilsteins, no torsen.

    Plus, I have the better-looking 5-spoke 16" alloy wheels, rather than the ugly (IMHO) 15" wheels on the FX4.

    The FX4 interior offered with the silver exterior is BLACK, not grey like mine. Why, oh why, would a manufacturer offer a black interior on a vehicle supposedly used for off-road duty? One trip and you will have a beige interior (or red, depending on the color of dirt in your area). Plus, the black interior was just too stark and dark for me.

    Bucket seats were a $200 option on my truck.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    sounds like you have an exact copy of the 2001 i use to have. i had the off-road pkg, along with 4.0, step bars which i removed and still have actually, and ford bought me some bfg all-terrain tires since it came with firestones, i had the 6-disc in-dash changer. it was awesome. i got a larger tire size, 265/70/16, which is the same height as stock 245's (30.7), just an inch wider (9.5 vs. 10.7). they look tons better too while offering better off-road bite. my truck stickered for around $23900, and i got it for $18K, while it had a $2000 rebate from ford and i bought it outright. good truck and climbed like a son of a buck. a little stiff on the suspension side. if i would have kept it, i would have put on fx4 bilstein shocks. those 15" wheels you didn't like on the fx4, are actually very trick. they're made by alcoa and are specifically built for baja duty-they're forged aluminum. that fx4 is a pretty trick truck period. it has a revised intake to accept 2 feet water fording capability, and a host of other exclusives. but basically what it boils down to is shocks, tires, and rear lsd, its different than what's in yours. you can also get a totally manual t/c on the fx4's. what color did you get? i had the bright island blue in a regular bed, they don't make that color anymore since last november. i like the silver myself.
    i also bought an fx4 front frame crossmember/steering linkage skidplate for $140 from ford. it finishes the front off. regular off-road trucks do not have this, only 2000 off-roads did. it was chrome. the fx4 one is black, but same otherwise. i had 60/40 split bench, i had my 2 year old's toddler seat in the middle. i like the more passenger room capability. later
  • white250white250 Posts: 68
    You can't compair a toyota to a sport trac. My wife drives a sport trac. It is a explorer with a pick up bed. It does'nt have the same capabilities a truck has.
    Even said, the sport trac is not bad. I live near detroit, MI & last year near ford headquaters they had an off road challange course set up. You could test all of their suv's & the sport trac was quite impressive.
  • rickc5rickc5 Posts: 378
    We bought white for two reasons:
    1) Lots of white Rangers in the lots around Denver and virtually NO silver ones. I thought maybe a better deal could be had on something the dealers had lots of. Maybe I was right....
    2) Silver (or any metallic color) doesn't hold up well in the desert sun. Since we hope to move to New Mexico in the near future, white seemed a better choice.

    Just got about 16 mpg on the first tank of gas. I hope that improves as the engine breaks in.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Ive been out to CO for a spring break of skiing. I now realize where Ranger's sales numbers get such a boost. I saw lots more 4x4 Rangers there, in a day of driving, than I would see in a year here in MS. I never thought you guys were lying or anything, its just that I finally see some proof for myself. Lots of TRDs too, though. Haha.

    I remember a good long time ago when us Taco guys would get assaulted with the "no 3rd door bit" we would reply with the fact that the Ranger was not offered in a 4-door config. That was always quickly dismissed with the statement "The dbl cab taco is more closely related to the Sport trac than the Ranger." Just some food for thought -- anyone remember that?

    And TCLEMON, I am from Vicksburg, MS, but I spend most of my time at MSU in Starkville. I can't believe you were able to leave such a perfect place, man. I love it here, but I imagine that I'll have to move somewhere, too, in the next couple of years.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Just went to the Ford Ranger Problems thread.....ouch. While in Taco Problems people are discussing which supercharger there is for 2.7L engine (and "my dash is squeaking"), Ranger problems are "check engine light came on", and recommendations on buying a 4x4 98 XLT: drive 50-70mph to check for drivetrain vibrations, and of course, the infamous alldata.com data for 98 recalls. The list of TSBs is 30 items long at least, with 3-4 recalls. How do you Ranger people live with your trucks?
  • frey44frey44 Posts: 230
    I just stay close to home !!
    ;-)
  • Do you guys just sit at home (or work) and try to come up with something to post that is Anti-ranger?

    Does it bother you that much that Ranger costs less, offers more, and does just as much as a Tacoma can?

    Guess so, since ya'll are trolling the ranger problems thread and jumping on ONE Check engine light post. You forgot to mention that the same person says the truck still runs great, and it more than likely is a result of a change of octane (he was running 93 octane for a long time, then went lower).

    Me? I'd think the LED light was out since I've never seen the check engine dummy light on since I've owned it. Unless you count the times it flashes everytime you start the truck.

    And frey, When are you gonna quit belly aching and fix your damn truck?

    saddaddy--->Ranger with 4 doors exists, just not 4 full doors. There was a "spy" photograph I saw on a website early in the year showing a small ford truck in a crew cab configuration, so everything may be equal in 2003. I'd say it's a fair argument if anyone here who owns a sport trac wants to step up to the plate...

    rickc5--->Plus white stays cooler during the summer sun and heat.

    scorpio--->Do you even know what TSB really means?
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    can you possibly tell me where to go to see that pic? im interested. thx
This discussion has been closed.