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 - III

1101113151625

Comments

  • smcpherrsmcpherr Posts: 114
    I know what the numbers say, but please go sit in one. Perception counts for a lot and in my opinion the Tundra is cramped compared to the Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram, and I'm not just talking about leg room either. One dimensional numbers are just lines. When you talk about "space," three dimensional layout is more important. How big is the center console, how the window curves toward your head, how close to the window does the driver sit, is the floor between the driver and passenger open or closed, all this and more affects the amount of "space" in a vehicle, and Toyota did not apportion the "space" such that I feel comfortable in it. If they do have similiar linear measurements as Ford, then good for them. Maybe they can things around a bit and free up some space. Until they do, they aren't going to make it past the first item on many people's check-off list.

    I have also sat in a Dakota, and in my opinion the Dakota and Tundra have very similar interior space. I also don't care if the Tundra is classified as a full size truck or not, in my opinion it is closer to a Dakota, and naturally I feel a comparison between the Tundra and Dakota is more telling.
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Posts: 114
    One last though, and I'll let this die. As I have said, the Dakota and Tundra are very similar vehicles, yet the Tundra is labeled a full size truck and the Dakota is not. I read somewhere that the Dakota beat the Tundra in some comparison test, I forget where but I think I saw it in the Welcome Toyota Tundra topic. I also have heard that the Dakota is undergoing serious engine overhaul and will soon come out with a wicked 5.9L V8. The Dakota is a very nice truck and is continually improving. Maybe Toyota made the Tundra a full size so it wouldn't have to be compared to the Dakota. The Tundra certainly competes with the full size truck well, but maybe they just didn't want to compete with the Dakota? Who knows. This is probably a topic better suited for other rooms...
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Smcepher writes:


    ". I'm sorry for taking up space on your
    board with full-size info, but it important to getfacts straight."


    The facts are that full sized pickups are rated full size when you can fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat in the bed, NOT on how cavernous the cab is.



    "One last though, and I'll let this die. As I have
    said, the Dakota and Tundra are very similar
    vehicles, yet the Tundra is labeled a full sizetruck and the Dakota is not. "


    And you wonder why this is. BECAUSE the Tundra can fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat in its bed, and the Dakota can NOT.

    Are you understanding this now?

    Run along little Jimmy..........
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Posts: 114
    I was not talking about the fact of the Tundra being a full size. I was talking about your incorrectly stating the size of the Ford engine. And it is a FACT that there is no "midsize truck" class, but I feel that if there WAS such a class, the Dakota and Tundra should be in it. Thats my opinion, and I know the difference between fact and opinion. I understand the classification method as you have stated. This was never in question. I just don't necessarily agree with it. I don't think of the Dakota as being a compact truck, and I can't see comparing the Tundra to the Full size trucks, there is a difference in the size of the vehicles. Dodge bent the compact truck classification a bit by making the Dakota a bit bigger than the others. Tundra bent the full size truck classification a bit by making the Tundra a bit smaller. In the end, the Dakota and Tundra are similar in size, although they technically come from different categories. Therefore, I feel that there should be a third category to cover these two trucks.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Isn't this supposed to be a Tacoma vs Ranger room?
    The Tundra has had very good initial sales but they are starting to go flat. The Tundra is not as large inside as the Big 3 offerings of full size trucks. The Tundra doesn't even offer a limited slip axle. Offers only one V8, one V6. GM/Ford/Dodge offer how many engines, cabs, suspensions?
    Toyota picked the lower end V8's to compete with because they knew the Tundra could't beat anything else Ford/Dodge/GM have to offer. In fact sales figures show most Ford/GM/Dodge buyers DON NOT opt for the lower end V8. The Tundra is also lighter and all around smaller than the trucks Tundra is comparing with too. And once again the price factor comes into play with Toyota. Lots of dough when comparing trucks option for option. The facts are starting to come out in the wash. The Tundra is no threat to Ford/Dodge/GM they just offer too many options in the full size truck arena. The Tundra is a wanna play with the big boys truck. There is a room now that actually compares the Tundra to the Dakota and this is a better comparison.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    Any vehicle that takes sales away from you should be considered a threat. This is the mistake the big 3 made back in the late seventies and early eighties. I think (Opinion) that Toyota is going for the entry full size market and will tackle the other Silverado/Ram/F150 offerings with future releases of the Tundra. I think this based on what has happened already. History most often repeats itself.

    I have sat in both trucks. I personally (Opinion) found the F150 to have a "Little" more room in the Xcab (As the #'s support) and to be mostly the same in the front. It would be difficult for me to judge "Cramped" because i own a Tacoma and both models are going to feel bigger to me anyhow.

    Lastly i will agree with Vince8 for the first time...

    "Isn't this a Tacoma vs. Ranger Room?"

    Let's get back to the topic at hand shall we.....

    -wsn
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    differential
    http://cars.bestrate.com/pricingreport/report/19995741.html

    spoog?!? No limited slip? Vince, would seem the Tacoma DOES have a limited slip.

    When I add up on this site all the options that I have on my Ranger, the Tacoma has an invoice of $21,136 and retail of $23,878. Now that is not a lot of options, cause the Ranger XLT was fine for me at $17,400. Sooooo...

    If some of the Tacoma owners are getting your trucks for 19-20K, it would seem you are getting a great deal, a couple of grand under invoice.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    If you look at the site you posted it does show Limited slip as an option, but if you go Toyota it does not. Intersrting enough though Carpoint show the price of the LOCKING REAR DIFF. to be the same as your site does. I think it MAY be fair to say that if carpoint and toyota show it as LOCKING and a "So So" car site shows it as Linited, i'll go with it being LOCKING...

    Also that was probably the case with the 97 post i made earlier. Good thing i sad it may be true and didn't state in as some sort of FACT...

    Spoog i think you claims of no Toyota LSD still holds true.

    Sorry CP!

    Hey CP have you cleaned you engine yet. I'm getting ready to due mine and you usually seem to be up on this sort of thing. If so what are you using, and how are you applying it?

    Thanks in Advance
    -wsn
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    Any site you see claiming Toyota offers a limited slip is wrong. I sell these things and you will not find a more partisan fan of Toyota than myself but I can't make a claim that is not true.

    I have seen way too many Ranger pickups at trade in to ever consider buying one. At 100K, they are done or nearly done. There are exceptions but not many. On the other hand, I have seen numerous 200K Toyota trucks traded in that were not only still running but running strong and still worth good money. I have never seen a Ranger do that.

    I realize this is anecdotal but I have been doing this for 6 years. When I see a customer pull up in a Ranger that is older than 5 years, I know what I will find. I will see a truck with valve and rod knocks, interiors that are falling apart and transmissions that either have been or need to be replaced. We also must test the 4WD system to see if it still functions.

    With older Toyotas, I wont say I have never seen a dog, but on the whole, they are in great shape. Before '89, we see body rust and some V6s have had head gaskets but they are still running great. I have seen '87 4X4s with 175K miles bring $2000 as a trade value with the beds falling off. A similar Ford is worth $200 if we can start it.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    Cleaned it twice. I use the environmentally safe stuff from Checker, not sure of the name. It is in a spray can. The old airbox was fairly covered so did not worry about it. With the KKM I will use a big baggy to cover the filter.
    Just taking dust/mud and some road grime off so far.
    Actually that site I cited is fairly good for comparisons. You can go back to a Ford or whatever on another window and see the standard and optional equipment.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    And people wonder why the Tacomas cost more......

    Welcome to the fold.
  • gonzo7gonzo7 Posts: 259
    I've been Mr. Tacoma on this site.
    However, the Tacoma has some of the thinnest sheet metal and flimsy jokes for bumpers. Look at the front of a Newer tacoma 4x4. It's all plastic with some crappy little chrome decorative ornaments. This offers basically no protection whatsoever.
    I had an old lady back into my front "bumper" of my truck at about 2 MPH. only $678 of damage!
  • Nice looking truck! Don't get me wrong I like
    Rangers but I don't think they have the off-road
    capability of a Tacoma. I think your tires
    that you put on help out the situation alot.
    The Toyota's stiff suspension really outperforms
    off-road. HAS ANYONE SEEN A DIRTBIKE VIDEO CALLED
    CHILDREN OF THE IRON HORSE. Well I think that
    is what it is called, anyways they take a stock
    toyota and they are jumping it and getting like
    3 or 4 feet off the ground, both tires! The bottom line is I know you can put on aftermarket
    crap and make the Ranger a better off-roader then
    a stock Taco but I don't want to spend the time
    or money doing that, I want the best, out of the
    box offroading compact pickup.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    No problem. I did not take any real offence.

    I DID however take Medano Pass, a 10,000 ft pass, graded 4 in the book I use, with the stock Firestones and it was a bit more difficult, to say the least. That pass has mud, steep turning climbs, stream crossings, rough off camber rock crossings and about 8 miles of the Great Sand Dunes National Monument. I have cut thru mud, snow, rocks and gravel with the BFG's and they do make a difference.

    Anyone using the Goodyear AT/S that have 2 wide grooves and side lugs like the BFG AT KO's?
    I think Tacoma comes with the Goodyear GSA's, right?

    I understand what you want and yes the Tacoma would fit the bill better. Ranger owners really like to play with their trucks, having a good platform to start with.

    Maybe your comment on thin metal is the reason a Tacoma is so much lighter than the Ranger. They are very simular in size. I have not done it myself but have read if you ever have to remove a
    Ranger door, be aware it is a lot heavier than it looks.

    My ONLY point of my comment was that Rangers can be rode hard, put away wet.
  • trenttrent Posts: 86
    Is rear wheel torque related to rear end ratio? If so the 4 wheeler review is comparing a Toyota with 4.10 and a Ranger with 3.73. Now that seems a little misleading when the Ranger is available with a 4.10 and they don't test it?
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    I have been wrong before, but I believe there is a big difference between torque at the wheels and torque at the driveshaft. I believe most torque figures are quoted at the driveshaft to avoid such issues as rear end rations.

    Anyone can feel free to correct me on this one.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    First, your rear wheel torque statements are extremely shortsighted. Those figures take nothing into account relating to transmission, wheel size, and gear ratio. The Ranger was poorly equipped (can we say bias) to produce poor wheel torque. A manual tranny, 4.10 gearing, and bigger tires would have produced quite the different set of numbers. You only grasp onto this pathetic straw as an attempt to somehow prove to yourself that the taco has got a better engine when talking about torque. It doesn't. Everyone knows it. Get over it. Just look at the engine specs listed for both trucks, and you'll have your answer staring you right in the face.

    Second, a full-sized truck is exactly what a full-sized truck buyer/owner says it is. Some full-sized trucks don't even have big enough beds to haul that sheet of plywood in. Does that make them compact trucks? Nope.

    Third, if Toyota's top-of-the-line V8 offering can't beat the smallest of the V8's from the big 3, then god help them.

    Fourth, when I'm talking about success, it means sales and reviews from various automotive critics. I was comparing it to the flop of the T100. Toyota has been doing their homework and brought a truck more suited to the U.S. market. You really should read more carefully. It seems that everything posted to you just goes right over your head.

    You also post:
    "And you could do the same seeing as how I proved
    you completely wrong on the torque issue." Your mind must be as simple as 1+1=3

    Finally, are you bringing back your "denser metal theory" in a new form? LOL

    Enough of this full (er... mid) -sized truck crap.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    I would believe that you are correct. You can always manipulate gear ratios to produce more/less torque at the wheel. This is why Toyota puts a 4.56 gear on some of their 4cylinders.

    spoog:
    Sorry to take away your only hope, spoog, but that 2-year-old article you post (your reference count has got to be well over a 100 posts) just isn't accurate when it comes to torque (and a lot of other things as so many people have pointed out). Please, please, please don't make me explain to you again the relations between torque, transmissions, tire sizes, gearing, etc... to you again. Don't you get it yet???
  • My 2000 Ranger SC 4X4 is at 2600 miles and a real pleasure to drive. Maybe the 4.0 is a little louder than it could be - but all else is great! When I can order a Toyota exactly like I want it equipped, in the desired color, with 4 doors - within a grand of a similar equipped Ranger, I may be driving one and make us a two Toyota family (spouse drives and refuses to part with her 1991 Cressida). It boils down to what I want, not what there is to chose from. I have had better reliability with Ford products than with Toyota - owned more Toyotas than Fords - and consider them my only real considerations. When I need to go somewhere where "crawl ratios" and an inch of clearance makes a difference - I'll walk and give the environment a break.
  • haybhayb Posts: 5
    I have been reading this site for a while and I just can't take it anymore. How a Ford fan can knock another makes sheet metal is beyond me. I've owned four Ford's over the last few years, including a ranger, F-150, and two explorers. My wife still drives my second explorer. The half ton wasn't too bad, but the ranger and both explorers left something to be desired. You can't lean against one without getting a dent. I swear if it wasn't for the paint you could see right through the metal. While I absolutely love my 4.0 SOHC, the Ford's integrity is questionable (inside and out). Also, I have heard a lot about ride quality and how the ranger is better than a Tacoma. Am I the only one that has ever turned a ranger (or explorer, they ride very similar) into a driveway or into any other bump. The thing rocks so hard you feel like your going to be thrown out the side window. Better ride??? Maybe on an extremely flat test track. I just don't see it, and I dang sure never felt it. I was a Ford man for a long time. I got tired of compromising.
  • Post #405 is exactly what I have been talking about!
  • I know all about this post and the arguments
    created on here. But for a change how about
    you check out post 1375 on a diesel compact.
    What do you think? Great gas mileage and torque!
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    I was just curious if any taco owners out there experienced this: In my '95 ranger when going over a large bump at moderate to high speed I'd sometimes get a sideways hop by the back end of the truck. It used to scare the crap out of me. You'd be driving down the freeway at 75mph, hit a big pothole, and be slightly sideways until the back end came back into line. Older rangers I've driven also seemed to do this, but not even close to as bad as my '95.
    With the stiffer riding suspension of the taco, I was just curious if this ever happens. Thankfully, Ford alleviated most of this problem with the suspension mods in '98. Still, I wouldn't feel comfortable cruising above 80mph in 'bout any truck. They just tend to 'float', and it'd be pretty easy to lose the rear end in a vehicle with most of its weight on the front wheels.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    I was just curious if any taco owners out there experienced this: In my '95 ranger when going over a large bump at moderate to high speed I'd sometimes get a sideways hop by the back end of the truck. It used to scare the crap out of me. You'd be driving down the freeway at 75mph, hit a big pothole, and be slightly sideways until the back end came back into line. Older rangers I've driven also seemed to do this, but not even close to as bad as my '95.
    With the stiffer riding suspension of the taco, I was just curious if this ever happens. Thankfully, Ford alleviated most of this problem with the suspension mods in '98. Still, I wouldn't feel comfortable cruising above 80mph in 'bout any truck. They just tend to 'float', and it'd be pretty easy to lose the rear end in a vehicle with most of its weight on the front wheels.
  • benz88benz88 Posts: 42
    The Tacoma TRD ride is very stiff but predictable. I have not experienced the lateral hopping you have described.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    My 94 Ranger also used to hop. My 98 Taco does not, as i don't think the new Ranger's do either.

    How about it CP do they?

    -wsn
  • my 2000 ranger will do a lil hop if it hits a bump on a curve, but if there is anything in the bed it is not a problem
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    To be honest, mine hopped once like that. I THINK tires/shocks play a part, the Firestones, as it has not done it with the BFG's.

    I understand the 98 did have a hook in the rear but they are not on the 99. I added the chrome 10,000 lb ones partly for looks.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    I did make the disclaimer about anecdotal evidence. I really don't want to get drawn into the madness that seems to dominate this board but when you see as many used up trucks as I have, you can draw some conclusions.

    Here is some speculation for you. Is it possible that Ranger outsells Tacoma because you Ford owners have to replace them so much quicker than the Toyota guys?
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    Some people like the Tacoma and a lot more people like the Ranger its as simple as that.
This discussion has been closed.