Howdy, Stranger!

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





Ford Ranger vs Toyota Tacoma

Rule 1: Make sure you fully understand the statements others are making. Read their posts twice, even three times if necessary.

Rule 2: If you are questioning a statement someone else made, make sure you understand it first. The is no such thing as a stupid question, especially if we bring clarity to our discussion. If what others are saying still does not make sense to you: Verify their statement first, debate it second.

Rule 3: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Be aware that every truck enthusiast is likely to have their own opinion. Exercise your right to being a grown up, and understand people will disagree.

Rule 4: Show respect to others, they may just return the favor. Try not to challenge others, as this causes a breakdown and eventually another forum to be locked.

Rule 5: Abide by the Edmunds.com member Agreement:
http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/memberagreement.html

If you can't follow the rules, or generally do not play well with others, please find another forum
«13456720

Comments

  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    Was our other conversation that bad? I thought it was quite civil I think there was 1 insult That was using the term idiot. And there was the paint chip comment which I always find amusing. There was no swearing or even insinuated swearing.
  • I will be performing my own experiment. I will be purchasing a new vehicle in the early part of 2003. I own a 1993 Ranger with 141,000 miles on it, and it has been very reliable and trustworthy. I will be looking at various makes and models, but mostly compact trucks. I will be purchasing a truck that fits my needs, budget, and demands, and I am not limiting myself to Ford dealerships.

    So we shall see what turns up as the best deal. The most truck for the least amount of money. I want a nice looking truck, with a good amount of features, plenty of power, a comfortable ride, and also somewhat economical in gas mileage and upkeep. Oh yeah, I don't give one hoot on off roading ability. Only time will tell what truck is the best for me...

    Lariat, it mostly boiled down to an argument that was quite misunderstood and misrepresented. But I do believe the answer lies in the proof, of which proof was never provided, only insinuated by those who always seem to be the last one to post before one of these forums gets locked. They know who they are... :) I'm sorry they didn't get the chance to dig themselves deeper.
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    Up here in Alaska one of the best deals is the Mazda b4000 it is just like the ranger but can generally be had for 1k-2k less than a comparable ranger. The Tacomas are nice but we are trapped up here and the dealer has that "if you dont want to pay the sticker price then the next person will" attitude. The bad thing is that up here it is true. You can buy a Tundra SR5 for $2000 more than a Tacoma. I paid $500 less for my 01 ram quad slt 4x4 with the 5.9 than the Toyota dealer was willing sell me a Tacoma ex cab with the TuRD package.
  • I live north of Dallas, Texas, and there are at least 10 Ford dealerships and 5 Toyota dealerships within an hour of travel. So there is quite alot of competition to help lower prices. I will be paying careful attention to sticker and invoice prices. I might even go full size if I can get a decent deal. About the only thing I really desire is a manual transmission, at least a v6, room for a motorcycle in the bed, and a truck payment under (or around) 350 bucks.
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    I was having fun for the first time in 3 years of reading edmunds in that forum. I understand what Pluto was saying but he only read what he wanted to and refused to believe that a V-6 can be balanced or that a V-6 is suitable in many applications that used to require V-8's years ago. Also it is hard to believe that he could not understand that being an owner of a V-6 himself.
  • "a V-6 is suitable in many applications that used to require V-8's years ago."

    >>I'm sorry, but that contradicts everything the Ranger crowd has been saying all along. Time and again, we've been told that the key to the Ranger's superiority is its displacement advantage over the Tacoma. Because, after all, "there's no replacement for displacement" and big cubes make big torque.

    If that's the case, how can a small V6, no matter what its performance specs, replace a larger V8?

    That's hard to believe being that you own a truck with a large V8 yourself.
  • V6's make the power a V8 once made, "years ago". What used to require a V8 can now be done with a modern V6.

    There is no substitute for cubic inches, if what you want is Torque. Currently the leader in that category is the Dakota, or keeping within the scope of this forum, the Ranger has the most torque and the most horsepower. It appears in 2004 the Tacoma will be able to offer a new engine that will earn this accolade.

    But if all you want is a little more zoom to your daily commute, then a V6 is perfectly fine, and much more economical than a V8.
  • Midnight_stang Perhaps rule #4 should be rule #1 ?

    Lariat My brother has a 2001 B4000. He paid about $2000 less than I paid for my 2000 TuRD ! Thats in the Montery Bay area in Cali. The Mazda is a really nice truck.We go fishing/camping in the Sierra alot. The B4000 has gone everywhere we've ever asked it.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    alot happened tonight while i was out.

    looks like pluto got another one locked up. sure would be nice if he would take his crap to another forum and spread it around.

    anyways, im offering him a challenge that i know will go unheeded just like every other challenge ive offered him.

    pluto- SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT MY V6 IS BETTER BALANCED THAN ANY V8. I WANT POST #'S AND QUOTES.

    if you can do that, people will start respecting you around here. but until then, i hate to say it, but most everyone will consider you a liar and a fake, just as scorpio even did in the last forum. that was funny. even he saw through you bud.

    another thing- either way, balanced or unbalanced, my little 3.7 still makes more power and torque than your puny 3.4. cubic inches don't matter if the engine is good enough to produce horsepower and torque numbers higher than even the larger engines it's up against. take the SOHC 4.0- it is an awesome engine. it makes a lot more torque than your little 3.4 as it should. but the 3.7 isn't that much larger than your 3.4, and it makes A LOT more power and torque than your 3.4 and more power and nearly as much torque as the SOHC 4.0. so this cubic inch thing you bring up is just another subject you clearly don't understand.

    either way, im sure you'll take my words out of context and use them to your advantage. but if you do, make sure you give me credit mr. plagiarizer
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    my ranger's fender flares ever falling off.
    or my power steering pump ever failing. or mailing other ranger owner's foam to put in their dashes because they rattle so bad that only home improvement warehouses are the solution. and how about this post from a tacoma owner, PLUTO- you may enjoy this one in particular.

    569 of 577 Unbalanced 3.4 & "Clunk" by koko164 Sep 26, 2002 (07:29 pm)
    Anyone else notice their 3.4 gets kinda rough
    and loud around 2,800 to 3,200 rpm? Mine does
    and I'll say I'm a little surprized by this
    because my 3.0 in my Sienna is silky smooth from
    idle to 5,000 rpm.

    And on the axle wrap or whatever.. I notice that
    if I throw my automatic into neutral just before
    I come to a complete stop the "clunk" is completely
    gone! Wouldn't the springs still wrap under braking
    or is the tension relieved from being in neutral?

    maybe those sludgy 3.0 engines are better than that "rough and clunky" 3.4.
    my 3.7 is butter smooth- not to mention it has 210 horsies and 235 lb/ft of torque.

    after perusing the tacoma problems board, these are the issues. oh, let's not forget those wonderful tokico shocks on the DC. brilliant toyota.

    seems like the tacoma has some major problems. seat belts that aren't even tight after latched. leaky interiors, bad drivetrain characteristics, and now, obviously needed is a better balanced V6- eh plutonium? lmao

    what happened to that toyota quality?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I don't recall my Tacoma fender flares ever falling off (20K miles now), nor my power steering pump ever failing, nor being mailed foam to put in the dash (which means I have no rattle).
    My 3.4L does get louder around 4K rpms, but I'm fine with that, I'm not driving around in a van, it's a truck, for Christs' sake.
    Maybe those sludged 3.0L aren't better.
    Tohico shocks: well, lets see. You got extra 500 lbs of DoubleCab, putting stiffer shocks sounds like a sensible solution without having to revamp the suspension.
    Again, your conclusion is wrong: Tacoma does not have some major problems. For every problem you post on the board, there's 10 trucks without that problem. Leaky interiors? Says who? When it rains in TX, it pours, and I am still to notice any water in my cab. Nra, OTOH, was not so lucky with (according to you) his suppositively leak-proof Ranger.
    Problems happen. Why do you beat on the old issue of fender flares? It was fixed in 2002, 2002s don't have that problem anymore. Does that mean we can go back to teasing Ford for exploding rear diffs, repeated (I think this is 3rd year in a row) recalls for heater core failures, rattling timing chains, squeaking tailgates, leaking axle vents, etc? What happened to Ford quality? Since there are guys here who swear by their Rangers with 70K miles.....there's no way this all could be happening, is there? Not according to Billy Ford!
    Btw: what seat belt issue?
  • If "Quality is Job #1" at Ford, would they have to force it upon us?

    That's the difference between Toyota and Ford - Toyota is noted for quality, Ford advertises it.
  • You are comparing Jeep's and Ford's most recent engine offerings to Toyota's 3.4, a design that's going on a decade old now.


    What you are really saying is that it's taken the competition a decade to get a larger displacement engine to outperform Toyota's tried and proven 3.4.


    I predict history will repeat itself when Toyota unleases their new 4.0. Your puny inferior 90 degree V6 with its power-robbing counter-rotating balance shaft and wimpy SINGLE over-head cam design will be TRAMPLED by the Toyota's much bigger 4.0 with its DUAL over-head cams.


    BTW, according to http://www.alldata.com/TSB/04/020441F1.html

    your Liberty with its "Mercedes-like" built quality already has 26 TSBs.


    My Favorite?

    " 24-012-01 SEP 01 Evaporator Drain Tube - Water Leaks Onto Passenger Floor"


    Pretty hilarious, considering one of your biggest beefs with the Tacoma is its (according to you) leaky interior, don't you think?


    For Comparison, a 4WD V6 Tacoma Ex-Cab has 15 TSBs, only 2 of which outline problems (which didn't include leaks, LOL).


    OH, the irony of it all!

  • If a counter rotating balance shaft is Power robbing, what is a second overhead cam going to do?(Especially since you have 2 heads)

    And the more TSB's the better. In the event of a problem, I would rather the dealership know how to deal with my vehicle, than be out in the dark.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    If that's the corporate slogan.....why is it Ford Ranger Problems forums lists a wide variety of problems like:
    1. #501, Lemon (which happens to all) Ranger: AC problems, does not start sporadically, with 20K miles.
    2. One of my favorites: 3 week old Ranger melts CDs (along with Check Gage light). Hmm.....what was that about 6-CD changer? A new feature from Ford "We now can melt 6 CDs at the same time!".
    3. Driveshaft problems: not only they had to replace it once, but seems like twice! Takes 2 times to get the job done right. Msg. 512.
    4. 2001 Ranger Edge: drivers side mirror falling off.

    This was just out of last 23 messages.
    So, tbunder, you see.......while it seems Tacoma has just a small set of problems (which you quote every time, even if they got fixed in a previous year), Ranger problems seem to span the whole spectrum from interior to drivetrain. Point of all this: it happens. Toyota has its problems, Ford has its problems. Toyota seems to have less of them.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Yes, TSBs are nice. But when someone makes a statement about their SUV built in a state of the art facility with practices adopted from Mercedes, one does not expert to see:
    1. Squaking parking brakes.
    2. Long crank times on the engine.
    3. Flip-up glass latch malfunction.
    4. Evaporating water tube: water leaking onto the floor.
    5. Rust on center caps.
    6. Leaking flip-up cover.
    7. Creaking from front end.
    8. Rattling exaust.

    According to tbunders' links, Liberty production line stops if they detect a single problem. Looks like more than few got through. I doubt Mercedes builds their vehicles like this, their TSB list is very short.
  • "If a counter rotating balance shaft is Power robbing, what is a second overhead cam going to do?(Especially since you have 2 heads)"

    >>I'm truly astounded. Whatever additional friction and resistance is created by the second cam is more than overcome by the extra power 4 valves per cylinder provides. Furthermore, a counter-rotating balance shaft does nothing to increase power-output.

    You seem to think that two overhead cams and 2 heads are a bad thing. Obviously, the automotive engineers don't share your views because their creations aren't limited to SOHC inline six or inline four engines. In fact, the vast majority of high-output engines don't use that kind of architecure.

    While BMW is still one of the few manufacturers who build high-performance inline six engines, their designs employ DOHC technology, as do Honda's inline fours.
  • Why is this discussion listed under Jeep Liberty??
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    an ex-Ranger owner that visited this forum bought a Lib now, and wants to convince Tacoma owners that his Liberty will own our Tacos.
  • 4 valves hurt low end performance. 4 Valve heads can only help high end output. If 4 valve was god's grace to high output engines, you would find it in the Dodge Viper V10, Corvette Z06, and the Ford Lightning blown v8. A 4 valve setup will help top end output (so the HP figure will be higher), but you will suffer in the lower RPM's. This effect is lessened with variable length intake plenums, and additional camshafts or lobes for variable valve timing.

    A balance shaft reduces vibration in the dreaded 90 degree v6. With the vibration lessened, the engine can then make much higher RPM, and thus, more power.

    If you are truly concerned about parasitic drag off the crank, you can easily replace most water pumps with an electric pump.

    Finally, I never said having 2 heads was a bad thing. I also do not view two overhead cams as evil either. I do realize that they are two different ways of doing the same thing. Building an engine. Both have benefits and disadvantages.
«13456720
This discussion has been closed.