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

145791013

Comments

  • Excuse me, can you point out exactly where you proved me wrong?

    "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."

    >>Really?

    Tundra 4.7:
    245 hp @ 4800 rpm
    315 lb-ft @ 3400 rpm

    F-150 4.6:
    231hp @ 4750 rpm
    293ft-lbs. @ 3500 rpm

    No, you need to wind up the F-150 100rpms higher to get 23 lb-ft of torque less. You're confused.

    "i dont know crap..."

    Have to agree there...
  • "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! :)"

    >>Even more humiliating would be a comparison with Ford's 4.0!
  • Go to http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/00tundra.htm and pay attention to the part that reads:


    "Tundra V6 models have a 3.4 litre DOHC 24 valve V6 engine which develops 190 horsepower @ 4800 rpm and 220 lb-ft of torque at 3600 rpm. The real muscle and the real market however, lies with the optional 4.7 litre DOHC 32 valve V8 engine which offers 245 horsepower at 4800 rpm and 315 lb-ft of torque at 3400 rpm. This is the only twin overhead cam engine in this class."


    "Toyota's V8 compares well with its competitor's standard V8 powerplants. Toyota's 4.7 litre V8 has more horsepower and torque than Ford's standard 4.6 litre V8 and Dodge's 5.2 litre V8 engine, but less horsepower than General Motors new 4.8 litre V8 - although, it has more torque."


    "The Tundra's towing capacity ranges from 2336 kg (5150 lb.) to 3265 kg (7200 lb.). This is comparable with the F-150's maximum trailer weight of 7200 lb. with the 4.6 litre V8, and the Ram's maximum towing capacity of 7400 lb. with the 5.2 litre V8. (Towing capacity for the Silverado was not available.)"


    "The Tundra's payload capacity ranges from 633 kg (1396 lb.) to 863 kg (1902 lb.), again comparable with its half ton competitors with base V8 engines."

    Research, my man. Research.

  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    So what you are saying is that a fully optioned out Tundra is COMPARIBLE to a base F-150, Ram or Silverado?
  • One thing to remember when comparing power characteristics of motors is
    Bore Vs Stroke. The relationship between these two dimensions certainly would
    effect where a motors sweet spot is.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Actually the XK Jag is a 4.2L V8 and is supercharged. Its 390 Hp comes at a whopping 6100 RPMs and its 399 lb-ft torque comes at 3500 RPMs. Seeing as it has 2 extra cylinders, 5% more displacement, and a blower -- I think Yotas 4.0L 6 is not far behind.

    However, I still like plutos idea: if you want me to compare the Jag engine to Yotas 4.0L, then I want you to compare it to Fords 4.0L. Hehe, its only fair.

    Also, here is another example of FMC, just slamming a blower on it to make more power. I respect it and as a power junky its cool, but accept a challenge and build a real engine. As a hotrodder, stang, you should be able to appreciate what I am saying.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    pluto- you always change the subject back to the jeep once you have been proven wrong. you just did. and even then, you were wrong as my SOHC design V6 makes more torque and HP than your DOHC design 3.4.
    i proved you wrong in your thesis that the 5.4 in the ford f150's and expeditions was weak so ford uses DOHC heads for their lincolns. i pointed out that you only gain 5 horse at a higher rpm. you said that ford puts these heads on lincolns to raise horsepower and torque. well, look where your theory took us on the higher torque? a whopping 5 more lb/ft and at a higher rpm. and what do you do? you don't even acknowledge that and change the subject to my jeep again. pretty sad if you ask me. face the facts, toyota will never match ford in the engine departments. you can't even accept the fact my jeep's 3.7L has more power and torque than your tacoma, let alone the ranger's awesome smooth as silk 4.0 stomping it. get over it my man!

    and ill ask again, WHAT are you saying... that a fully optioned out Tundra can only match up with a standard 4.6 F150? that's pretty sad. nice thing with the ford is that there is an engine, the 5.4 to be exact, the one you slammed yesterday looming in the option box- that will anhilate any engine offered by any toyota truck.

    sad- let's compare the ford 4.0 to the new toyota 4.0. wait, the new toyota 4.0 isn't even available yet am i not correct? so seems to me that there is no comparison.

    also, if you want naturally aspirated ford engines, like i said, go drive a Mark VIII or pre-'03 mustang cobra. and then tell me your DOHC toyota engines are powerful. LMAO
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    Motors are designed for certain applications a 300hp engine @ 5000rpm but only generates 150hp @1500rpm will be great on the highway but not so good towing or hauling heavy loads at low speeds. On the other hand a 300 hp engine @ 3000 rpm may be great for towing and hauling but be very winded at feel like a 4 banger on the highway. Personnaly I like the low end grunt I very rarely rev my engine above 3000RPM and love having the ability to cruise up and down hills towing my boat in OD and not listen to the engine noise.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    why is all of a sudden slamming on a blower to make more power a bad thing, when that's what you toyota lovers do just to beat the ranger's horsepower and torque numbers? when ford does it it's bad, but if you guys do it to bring the wimpy 3.4 up to speed it's god's next creation. whatever. again, LMAO.
  • kbtoyskbtoys Posts: 62
    "why is all of a sudden slamming on a blower to make more power a bad thing"

    I don't think Sad is saying it is a bad thing to put a supercharger to add power, but when you are building a street rod like the mustang, and lightning you would think there would more to it than just add a supercharger.

    "let's compare the ford 4.0 to the new toyota 4.0. wait, the new toyota 4.0 isn't even available yet am i not correct? so seems to me that there is no comparison."

    But the new 4.0 is out. I saw it last night at the Toyota dealer in the 4runner.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    He means it's not in Tacoma yet.

    I hope it'll be placed in a Taco, but that does not mean that Tacoma will be bigger, wider and in the midsize truck class. New 4Runner is based not on Tacoma, but on Toyota Prago, which is good news for Taco owners because that no longer means Tacoma and 4Runner will go hand-in-hand. So.....next year we'll see what engine Toyota puts in the Taco. Hopefully it'll be a 4.0L, but if it isn't, it'll be something decent anyway, that'll last another 8 years (while competition catches up).
  • I think everyone in here has WAY too much time on their hands!!!

    I wish I had time to read all these posts, but alas, they all talk about the same thing over, and over, and over again....

    But yes, it amuses me to read all this jibberish on my lunch break, so please continue!!
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    Like the sign on my desk says.... "Please continue, I am somewhat of a bull!@#$$er myself but every once in a while I enjoy listening to an expert"
    That statement definitely applies to this board.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    First of all, the new 4.0L is available.

    Next, I am not slamming blowers. kb hit it right on the head. I know I have bragged on em for Tacomas. But there is a difference. Ford uses them as std equipment so that they can have some bragging rights - which they get hands down, except with the new Stangs. But with the resources that Ford has, as a car fan, I WOULD LIKE to see them try harder to make a real ENGINE and not just put a blower on an already strong one. Again I have buttloads of respect for these blown behemoths of Ford's, its just that they could be so much more.

    And who cares if the 4.0L is in the taco yet, none of Ford's engines discussed in the last 30 posts are in a Ranger either.

    Lariat---> What do you drive, bud?
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i think you misunderstand. if these engines that are blown could be so much more, what exactly could they be? is 320 horsepower not enough? because that is what the cobra before the blower had. that alone is right up there with WS6 ram-air pkg. firebird. and only 20 behind the vette engine at the time. making an all new engine would be much more expensive, thus driving retail prices up. and to be honest with you, i would bet that most of these svt vehicle buyers love the blowers. take the '89 to '94 thunderbird super-coupes which came with a 210 horse 3.8 supercharged V6 with 315 lb/ft of torque (more than anything 'cept vette at the time). this car was way ahead of its time because it could cruise down the highway and get nearly 30 mpg, but in an instant with no lag could top 145 mph plus with the help of the supercharger. you can have your cake and eat it too with a S/C. now with the ultra powerful engine behind the S/C in the new fords, i can just imagine what it feels like when you hit it with already 320 horses behind you before the blower kicks in. now is this necessary in a ranger or tacoma? imo, no way. 210 horse is plenty for the size of these trucks. if you need more, you need more truck and more torque. but to a hot rodder, this is the new millennium, and with that comes cheap power which a S/C makes.
    also, you need to go drive a Lincoln Mark VIII with the 32 valve all aluminum 4.6, and then tell me ford doesn't build an ENGINE. this engine is the cobra engine w/o the s/c. it is faster than h4ll and sounds meaner than a 302 flowmastered mustang when revved.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    They run 0-60 in 7.0 secs. At WOT, from the drivers seat you can barely hear a burble from the dual exhaust. Now I'm not sure if we're talking about the same MarkVIII cause I'd hope hell was a lot faster and a BOSS 302 sounded no where near as quiet as this Lincoln.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    4x4 SC stepside just turned 74,000 reliable miles!! And... not ONE problem!
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    and have no idea what I am talking about. Even my opinions are wrong. Holla.
  • ...doesn't think ford SVT just slaps on superchargers to make fast cars. I do understand that supercharging is just one method of squeezing in more air than the current atmospheric pressure allows. Most engines should be able stand 3-8 pounds of boost and still run fine. In the future you will only see more and more supercharged engines, as fuel economy and emmisions becomes more strict. The ford SV0 mustang wasn't just a 2.3l with a turbo. It was a completely different block (with same bore x stroke). SVT and SVO vehicles also have significant chagnes in suspension which any lead foot driver will appreciate.

    I don't think anyone can say Ford doesn't make real engines, when a majority on the road are from the ford fleet. Maybe not every engine is the pinnacle of technology, but every engine does fill a niche.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Sorry to put words in your mouth.

    Its just that domestic car makers like Ford and GM have a lot of the muscle influence that Toyota has never been apart of, so I look to them to make some neat powerhouses. I guess it comes down to what you said, though, stang, about the emissions and fuel economy that is becoming the real issue. Gone are the days of real muscle.
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    Currently I have an 01 Ram but I have had a toyota p/u that I traded for a Ranger then I got an f-150 then another f-150 then a 98 Ram now I got the 01.
    One thing I found interesting about emmissions is that I have a boat with a 300hp 351 ford engine, out of curiosity we stuck the tailpipe sensor in the exhaust and it passes the emissions test. We thought it was funny because all this engine has is a motorcraft 4 barrel and 2 4"exhast risers out the back.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I have heard that in the next few years, no new boat motors will be built that aren't 4 stroke. I wonder how much worse the current 2-strokes are than say a car or truck? The EPA makes em out to be smog factories. Times are a-changin.
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    The new 2 strokes are not as bad as the older one but thier emmissions are still way more than a 4 stroke. The problems that manufactures are having is making 4 strikes that are small enough to fit on the back of a boat like a 2 stroke. The 2002 model tear is the first year that the public could buy a 200+ hp otboard motor for the measly sum of .... $16,000.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    im talking about the '93 Mark VIII. this was the fastest year, even faster than the later LSC's with ten more horse due to the exhaust. no, they weren't sprinters, but when punched at around 65-70, they are faster than h7ll. and they get loud when revved like i said. that 4.6 is awesome.

    stang, are you into late model capri's and mustangs? i have an '84 Capri RS Turbo which is very rare. basically the same engine as the SVO mustang which came out the same year, but i believe the SVO had a hotter cam and a little more boost on the AiResearch turbocharger. they later went to duals on the '86 SVO which put it over 200 horse for that little 2.3. the SVO also had an inter-cooler which my capri does not have.
  • I have to say this forum is great. Lots of info on various trucks. Although it should only be for pickups, especially Tacos and Rangers. Can't see why anyone would compare a an SUV to a compact pickup, but everyone has a right to their opinions. The trucks I've owned below and opinions are based on my experiences. I wanted to share them with everyone.

    My first truck was great. It was a limited edition 94 Chevy S10 SS. This production truck was built between 1993 and 1998 before the extreme took over. I loved the black exterior with the red SS emblems. The 4.3L was extremely powerful, only a couple of CC's smaller than the 4.8L V8. I believe truck trend's 0-60 for the 1993 model was 7.8sec. Very impressive for 1993 since the sport truck market was limited to the full size Chevy 454 SS and the Ford Lighting. The only complaints I had with this truck was the recalls with the wiper motor, AC unit, and ABS. It also gave me a couple of sensor problems. Aside from that it was a great experience until it was stolen.

    My second truck, Ford Ranger Sport XLT, was probably the most comfortable truck to drive. It felt like a tall truck similar to the F-150. It was very attractive with the monochromatic bumpers and chrome rims. Ford is a great truck but it's hit and miss with Ford. Either you get a truck that constantly breaks down or one that will last as long as a rice burner ( 4cyl [non-permissible content removed] cars ). My major complaint was 3.0 engine. It had no power what's so ever. I installed a K&N filter to give it more power but It was replaced later because of the horrible engine noise. It's pretty embarrassing to have an engine screaming while everyone else is passing me at low RPMS. Imagine only having 150HP to pull over 3400 pounds. Aside from the engine knocking (see TSB), belts chirping while the AC was on and the lack of power it was a very attractive truck and fun to drive off road. I recommend you V6 shoppers to bypass the 3.0 and go with the 4.0L. Although fuel efficiency is a problem with the 4.0 it will pass once you open the throttle.

    My third truck, Toyota Tacoma Srunner is by far the best truck I've every owned. It's impressive 3.4L has great power between 1800 and 5000. I love the manual transmission, lowered stance and white face gages. For a $20K your getting a truck that does 0-60 in 7.3sec (according to truck trend) which was quicker than the 01Dakota Dakota 5.9L, 01 blown Nissan Frontier and 01 Chevy extreme 4.3L. Since I bought it last year I've opt'd and installed K&N FIPK. I love hearing that engine roar at 4800 rpms in 4th doing 115MPH. Also Toyota offers a supercharger for the Taco under factory warranty built by TRD. HP is increased to 260HP, respectively. I know everyone doesn't buy a truck to speed, but it's fun to open it up if you have the power to do so. Besides, my speed is usually limited to hauling my bikes and traffic, which it does without effort. I happy to say no problems to report since I first purchased over 15 months ago and 24,890 miles later. It's just like the old saying, why fix it if it ain't broken, which I have to say goes with the 3.4L. It's a proven engine for the last 8 years. Don't get me wrong guys and gals, I loved my Ford and Chevy but since I've grown older, reliability and lack of shop visits is becoming more of a factor when I buy.
  • Well TB, I love pretty much any mustang. While I love my bracket car, I would like something street legal to drive on the weekends. On that note I'll probably have to sell my '67 next year. That will be a good down payment on my next vehicle for sure. Any other project car I decide to purchase in the future would have to be something cheap. I don't like hunting down restoration parts or matching numbers as much as like good handling and acceleration. But your capri should be a good investment and a fun weekend toy. The reason I brought up the svo Mustang was because it is one of the rare breeds of mustangs that you don't see every day. Most people just think it is an aftermarket scoop and some rims, but it has quite a hot 4 banger made for canyon carving or autocrossing. I've seen modifications take that engine close to 300 HP at the rear wheels. Oh it seems Ford can build engines when they want to... :)

    Off topic again, I was driving to the store today and aparantly an avalanche behind me was in quite a hurry. He tried to pass me for about a block and a half, and he was really revving it. Unfortunately, he could not clear my bumper until we hit a stop sign. Guess those straight six's can't compete with a 10 year old ford 2.3l automatic. I didn't even know he was racing until I heard the exhaust outside my driver side window. Of course weight had a bit to do with it... Big ole avalanche vs a 93 Ranger Reg cab.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    what year is your svo? and the capri i have was handed down to me by my father. he bought it new in '84 when i spotted it on the ford lot and thought it was a camaro with its huge front spoiler, quad lights and bosch driving lights, and of course that hood scoop which only the 2.3 RS Turbo's got. the 5.0 RS's didn't get the scoop. also, it got the articulated ford sport seats with the square head restraints. but get this, it is loaded, but no power locks. weird huh? it's all original. ;o)
  • but who knows what I'll find in the future?
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    yeah, that's what i always say.
    but if you do get an SVO Mustang, i'd try for an '86. they were the most powerful and had dual exhaust. but the '84, being the first year, would be cool too. i think after '84, they got headlight that were flush with the front grille. the '84's were recessed back into the headlight frame. but the hood scoop on all were functional for the intercooler.
145791013
This discussion has been closed.