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

13468913

Comments

  • 09-2002 YTD sales / percent change / 09-2001 YTD Sales(calculated)

    Truck Market.2,154,233 -1.98% 2,197,762
    FullSize........1,629,681 0.24% 1,625,783
    Compact........524,552 -8.29% 571,979

    So, at least compared to all true trucks, the Compacts are generally not selling as well, BUT I didn't factor in the Avalanche, as it's too new.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    Well, I'd agree that that is definitely significant. However, if slacking sales are the reason for coming out with "bigger" compact trucks, then this decline must have been going on for some time. My feeling, though, is that the auto makers are forcing bigger vehicles on us as the profit margins are likely bigger. Call me a cynic. :)
  • which vehicle is the best. There's been a lot of talk about Jeeps in this conversation and I'll use them as an example. Far more Wrangler Sports and Wrangler Saharas are sold than Wrangler Rubicons. Nobody here (whoops, I may be wrong...) is going to argue that the Rubicon isn't the best, however.

    The same point applies to the Ranger vs. Tacoma debate. Like the Rubicon, the Tacoma TRD isn't a best-seller because it costs more - but it comes better equipped and has the better reputation.

    I personally don't care if the Tacoma places 5th in sales or 1st.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    dc is only building 8000 rubicon wranglers. it is a limited run. so to say it is better but doesn't sell as well really isn't a fair comparison. and just in your mind is the TRD better equipped and has a better reputation than ranger. in others, it's the opposite.

    however, sales numbers do obviously tell what the public wants in a vehicle. and for like 15 years in a row, that has been ranger. there is no argument about that.
  • It's 18+ years in a row... :)


    It think the Tacoma is a great truck, but not as many people are buying it for it's off-road abilities that has become the golden goose egg some make it to be.


    Tacoma Sales

    ..........2002YTD | 2001YTD | Pct Change

    4x2......71,080 . . . 70,946 . . . 0.6

    4x2......46,863 . . . 50,982 . . . -7.7

    Total...117,943 . . . 121,928 . . . -2.8


    Maybe everybody is turning towards TRD Pre-runners?


    http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display_release.html?id=20021001b

  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    "dc is only building 8000 rubicon wranglers. it is a limited run. so to say it is better but doesn't sell as well really isn't a fair comparison. and just in your mind is the TRD better equipped and has a better reputation than ranger. in others, it's the opposite"

    And you think Ford doesn't manufacture tons more Rangers than Toyota does Tacomas. Someone find a statistic on the percentage of tacomas that are sold at their original value that Toyota wanted to make off of them vs. the same percentage of Rangers. It may just be me, but this time of year I hear WAY more ads from Ford stealerships about clearing off their lots and distributorships than that of Toyota's.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    no one is saying the ranger is better simply because it outsells the tacoma. we're just saying that more people choose the ranger for some reason......insert your reason here. if its saving money, more power to them. and i would assume that it takes a lot less to build a ranger than a tacoma. anything foreign built or with foreign parts is always more expensive. and don't ask someone else to do your dirty work. if you want a stat (what you want is impossible to get anyways), get it yourself.
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    If I remember right one of the reasons that Toyota limits their production is that they have to pay an import tax on each vehicle (even though the trucks a "built" in the US).
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    hehe, OK.

    Otherwise, point taken.

    But I would like everyone to remember a time when you said the main reason why you dislike TRDs is that they are a "dime a dozen." Seems to me that Rangers are a dime a dozen, too, much more so than any other compact truck.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    does everyone remember that? okay, good. just wanted to make that clear. im sure i said that at one point or another in the last year. how many other things can we bring up again that's been rehashed several times in the last year?

    there was once a time when seeing ZR2 S10's, TRD tacomas, and off-road pkg. equipped rangers were somewhat of a rare occurence. now, all these trucks are all you see when you see a respective model. ZR2's especially. i had a reg. cab '97, and it was very rare. heck, they don't even make reg. cab ZR2's anymore, but back then a ZR2 was truly a hard truck to find (especially light metallic blue like i had). now, they're dime a dozen, just like the TRD tacomas and FX4 rangers (just a fancy new name for the past off-road pkg. rangers). but the cool thing is that the FX4 Level II is the most hard to find off-road pkg. truck now. you won't see many of them. now does that make them better? no, not in some minds. but i guarantee there aren't as many built as TRD's and ZR2's. and for me, that makes it cool. had they made a crew cab in it, i'd have one in my garage.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    here on campus, there are several TRDs, about 6 ZR2s and one FX4 ranger, a couple of FX4 f-150s, and about a million Z71s.

    Do you know how many styles of Alcoa wheels are offered with the FX4 rangers? I remember at first, they were those with about, what, 6 or 8 holes in them - good looking rims. The FX4 at school has some other rims (the look like some sold at Wal-mart), but they still had an "A" in the center. Are these aftermarket wheels?
  • Hey guys,
    I was in a bad accident and my Tacoma died. I got hit in the rear and the truck rolled and slid on the roof. I injured my hand pretty badly as well as lots of scrapes, however, the Tacoma kept me in my seat and the roof didn't collapse which is why I'm still around. The Tacoma was a good truck but it was light and had a high CG. A much heavier vehicle hit me and pushed the truck sideways. It didn't do well going sideways so it rolled. Anyway, I liked the Tacoma a lot but I'm going bigger next time and getting a Tundra. I'm just thankful to be alive. By the way tbunder, the Avalanche is one ugly and cheap looking truck in my opinion. I didn't even consider buying one. I just looked at the Ford and the Tundra and the Tundra was a better deal.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i never said the avalanche was a nice looking truck? what are you talking about? all i said is that it is selling 200% better than it was a year ago, and that for '03 gm is offering it without any of that plastic clad. basically it will look like a weird silverado with chrome bumpers.

    nice to hear you are still in one piece. but if i were you, i'd buy a super-duty or an F150 super-crew. no other truck is as tough or safe as a S-D. the tundra is just a tacoma with a bigger body. don't get reeled in. i guarantee a super-cab SD with a 5.4 can be had cheaper than any tundra access cab with a V8 and four-wheel-drive. i'd shop around if i were you. as i said, the tundra is just a glorified tacoma. to each his own.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Good to hear you're alive.
    What vehicle hit you?
  • Hope your hand gets better. Better the truck take the damage than your body.

    If safety's what your after, well, I'd rule out the F-150 for sure. The IIHS rated it by far the worst in its class. Of course, the NHTSA gave it good ratings but I believe the IIHS' ratings are more credible, as they're an independent entity, versus the federally-run NHTSA. Besides, the F-150 is just a glorified Ranger, hehe.

    The Ford SDs are good trucks, but a 5.4 isn't enough motor for them, IMHO. Can't comment of tbundy's claims of the SDs prices and safety - just keep in mind what his "facts" are worth. Of course, you've been around here long enough to be well aware.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I didn't start seeing any Avalanches until dealers started marking them WAY down. They were advertising Avalanches that stickered for $32K+ for $26K and the like. That could be why they sell so good.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    again, you are practicing selective reading. i recommended a super-crew to allknowing. not an ext. cab which is the model to receive poor marks from iihs. i won't research the model, but i would bet the super-crew got high marks. it does have a b-pillar separating the two doors, unlike the ext. cab. and as far as you saying the F150 is just a glorified ranger- it's not (i assume you were kidding, but we all know the tundra is just a glorified tacoma- and that's not saying much). big differences between an f150 and a tundra. big differences- i wont go into them, but the f150 has larger everything. and a 5.4 in a SD is plenty if one's not going to tow a 10000 lb. boat or haul 3000 lbs. of sheetrock. again, i won't research it's safety ratings, but i would bet it is way up there for trucks. my dad had a V10 SD 4x4, and it was built like a brick sh7t house. solid axled dana 44's all around and could pull a house. they're huge inside as well. and as far as being cheaper to buy than a tundra, that's a no brainer.
  • "my dad had a V10 SD 4x4, and it was built like a brick sh7t house. solid axled dana 44's all around and could pull a house. they're huge inside as well. and as far as being cheaper to buy than a tundra, that's a no brainer."

    Wow, you mean a Superduty v-10 4x4 is cheaper than a Tundra??!!

    "and a 5.4 in a SD is plenty if one's not going to tow a 10000 lb. boat or haul 3000 lbs"

    Bull. Even the 5.4 Expedition and its engine are known for being extremely underpowered compared to the competition. Read page 54 in Car & Driver's August 2002 issue:

    "Like so many Americans, it's overweight and underpowered...it's way more than the engine can handle...Ford's 5.4 liter lays claim to the lowest specific output, the lowest rev limit, and the least refinement in this test. This runs contrary to what one would expect from a large overhead-cam V-8..."

    Ford's 4.6 and 5.4 are weak enough that when these engines are offered in their upscale Navigator and Aviators, they employ different heads that use - GULP - 4 valve DOHCs (which you believe are worthless) to boost horsepower and torque.

    What I'm saying is the 5.4 is a weak engine (at least in its SOHC form), and the massive superduty is too much truck for it. Don't get me wrong, the superduties are great and I've said that before, but it deserves the diesel. Putting that 5.4 in it is like putting a 302 in a freightliner.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    this isn't really the place, but the 5.4 isn't a total dog. it makes 260 horse and 350 lb/ft of torque at an ultra low 2500 rpms. like i said, unless you're pulling an extremely heavy load or hauling something very heavy, this engine is more than enough to get the job done. i highly doubt they were just hauling motorcycles and pulling ski boats with the car and driver test you mention. sure, the V10 and diesel are better and more powerful, but that's why they cost more.

    and yes, i would say a V10 4x4 SD could be bought cheaper than any TRD tundra 4x4 loaded up. that's a no brainer. they're like over $32G's, whereas any ford truck can be bought cheap. they advertise these supercab SD 4x4's in des moines at charles gabus ford for $23999 every sunday. a 6-spd manual is also standard. they won't pull a house down with the 5.4, but with that much torque at such low rpms, it isn't a bad rig.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    the dohc heads got the navigator?
    it makes more horsepower yes, big deal. but we're talking big 4x4's here. the dohc heads only makes for 5 lb/ft more torque. woohoo. and READ clearly-it comes at the expense of the engine spinning 250 more rpms to make that 5 more lb/ft of torque (2750 rpms). so that just shows you right there. ford knows that low end torque is important, this is why they still use the SOHC you say sucks.

    research my man. research.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    do you make statements that aren't true pluto? show me where i have ever said that any dohc engine was worthless? if that were true, all my crotch rockets i have owned would have been "crap" imo. i also have a 2.0 zetec which is a dohc engine in my mercury mystique. it now has 110000 miles on it and runs like a top. i also have an old mercury capri 2.3 sohc efi turbo with 154000 miles and still running like a top. both designs are good.

    most generally with any dohc design, it's going to spin higher to get the torque. not all the time, but most of the time. the navigator 5.4 is a perfect example. it takes 250 more rpms to get only 5 more lb/ft of torque that you say is the result of having dohc. if this is the advantage, i think ill take the sohc design. a lot cheaper to maintain or repair.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    glad to hear you made it (relatively) unscathed. as Scorpio asked, what vehicle hit you?
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    as well as Toyota?? How about we compare the 4.0L engines from both mfgs? Not trying to be ugly, just making a point. I will ride that horse anywhere!
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    obviously you have never ridden in a Lincoln Mark VIII or a '96 or newer Mustang Cobra. both have 32 valve all aluminun dohc V8's that will throw you back in your seat and not let you touch the dash. trust me, ford knows how to build them. it's just that they know for torque at lower rpms's, the SOHC works better in their trucks.
  • 4 valves do increase efficiency in the engine breathing, but it will increase cost to manufacture and cost to maintain. 2 valve engines are still capable of great amounts of horsepower, just ask the Ford Lightning. 4 valves can still produce matching torque, except you have to further invest in variable timing and variable length intake plenum runners to maximize airflow and valve lift at different RPM's. Also the debate should not be SOHC vs DOHC, but really 4 valve vs 2 valve.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I won't dispute that.

    And the Ford Lightning isn't even naturally aspirated. We know what is possible when you add s/c and stuff like that. I wish Ford would invest more in developing better engines for their special vehicles. Like the new Roush mustang -- just put a blower on it and be done. Come on, that is kinda cheap, an awesome car, but cheap. And then they claim it to be a Vette killer. Ok, then let em add a s/c to the vette. Don't get me wrong, it will flat out run and I love em, the Lightning too, but alot of folks really disagree with the way ford is going about SVO right now, including me.
  • "the dohc heads only makes for 5 lb/ft more torque. woohoo. and READ clearly-it comes at the expense of the engine spinning 250 more rpms to make that 5 more lb/ft of torque (2750 rpms)."

    Well, in THIS case, you seem to think an extra 5 lb-ft of torque is worthless, especially when you have to go 250 rpms higher to get it.

    But earlier, the fact your Liberty had to go a WHOPPING 800 RPMS HIGHER TO GET JUST 15 MORE LB-FT THAN THE TOYOTA'S 3.4 didn't bother you at all.

    800 rpms higher to get just 15 more lb-ft of torque? In a vehicle that weighs 600lbs more?

    You said it best - "woohoo."

    And so goes another entry into my fat "The Grand Inconsistincies of the Wishy-Washy Tbundy" notebook...
  • Hey all. It is good to see that you are all still arguing the same old points. As you know, I personally love my Tacoma and would never buy a Ranger. Just to rub it in, deer season starts this weekend and (since it is muzzle loader season) you can shoot both sexes this weekend (as we like to say in the Great North Woods, "If it's brown it's down!"). Furthermore, the weather forecast is for snow on Friday night so hopefully we'll have good tracking conditions on Saturday morning. Anyhow, I'm staying at camp with the boys and our camp is about 14 miles into the woods on a dirt logging road. Thankfully I'll have my 4-WD Tacoma to pull me through no matter what the weather conditions. Hopefully I'll bag a big buck. In any case, I'll be enjoying the great outdoors with no pollution, no traffic and definitely no noise. Eat your hearts out city slickers!

    Take care and I'll see you on the hunt for the big old gray buck...........Steelman.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    same old story. once you've been proven wrong, you TOTALLY change the subject matter. you're getting predictable. ill accept your white towel. once stang agrees with anyone, you know the other party is wrong since he is by far the most knowledgeable person about engines on this forum. i dont know crap, but i do know a lot of the common sense stuff.
    just look at the v8 in the tundra. you have to wind it up to get max torque. again, it's a dohc design, or 4-valver.
  • There is no longer a Ford SVO(Special Vehicle Operations), but there is SVT(Special Vehicle Team). Jaguar has a SVO group, but I cannot say if this is a reincarnation or just a relocation. They currently have the Jaguar XKR-R which sports a 4.0l 4 valve V8 with over 400 HP and Torque. (Compare that to your Toyota 4.0l! :)

    The current Lightning, Cobra, Contour(?), and Focus special editions are all by SVT. Sure some people might not like how they are coming out, but I would bet they are not in the majority.
13468913
This discussion has been closed.