By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
http://edmunds.com/edweb/Incentives.html#rebate
Good luck in whatever you buy
The skids are a bit different between Tacoma and Ranger.
The Tacoma turns the tank skid up about an inch over the bottom edge of the tank, a nice touch.
The Ranger has a xfer case skid that goes accross the whole frame to frame area.
But the metal is about the same thickness.
spoog:
I think I already posted before that the Tacoma has max front clearance that is an inch or so higher than an equally equiped (with 31 inch tires) Ranger in the front. Minimum clearance is around the control arms next to the steering knuckel and is very close for the two vehicles. But I think that hindesite very accurately has implied that the inch or so clearance advantage is insignificant.
Off the subject,to spoog, sighted in my .300 Win with 165 grain Hornady's, ready for the elk. . .
They are both pretty good trucks and a great improvement over what they were in the 1980s. Guess that happened cause they, mini trucks, got so popular.
The SVT, from what I remeber, is a limited production vehicle and yes I think it is just 2 wheel drive. I will look again for the site I saw it on and post. I KNOW there are some people that have Rangers with 302 V8s on this site:
http://www.fordranger.com/offroad.html
In particular a guy that uses the handle KTRANGER.
He has a nice XLT with 302, 3-5 inch lift, 35 inch tires and runs the bogs in Fla with his Ranger. He also built a skid plate simular to the front skids of the Tacoma to install on his Ranger and has shared the plans for such.
There are some pics posted of Rangers that make the Tacoma and my Ranger look, well the best word that comes to mind is, meek.
Would you care to take a look spoog and challenge THOSE Ranges with your Tacoma. I would not bet my pink slip if I were you.
http://www.fordranger.com/v8.html
http://www.homestead.com/therangerstation/index.html
Yes, hindsite I did post production numbers in the last Tacoma vs Ranger room. And yes, sales do matter after 12 years.
Put someone down? You posted sales numbers not me. Anyone could read those and see who was ahead of the Tacoma. Why do you keep harping on me and my responses to spoog?
I realize that I must harp on you for the fact is that what you can say about Spoog you will say about someone else you do not agree with you. Really can't you say something new and this goes for Spoog also.
Seriously does your truck run hotter with that superchip. Sounds like a viable choice for those that want to boost the power all around.
Barlitz,
Did you read that article in Trucktrend about the SVT Lightening. It destroyed the Dodge counter part.
Did anyone catch the rumor flying around that the R/T Dakota originally had a towing capacity of 6,000 lbs is now 2,000 lbs?
Does any one know if the ranger comes in a 4 door supercab I was waiting in the doctors office and I picked up a auto magazine it had an article about the ranger 4 door (just like the nissan 4 door short bed)going through the mountains in south america,I haven't seen any in the US.
I changed my mind about the lightning it seems every time I drive it I like it more,it may be a little impracticle but it's worth it for now anyways.
Hindsite. I was wondering if you are a Jets fan I know they play the Pats first game of the year.
Barlitz
Helping us navigate Class I and II trails was probably no big deal for Tedeschi, but it proved to be more than enough for us to gauge the off-road abilities of our assembled troop of vehicles. When the dust settled, it was clear that there was one vehicle in the group, and only one, that was purpose built for serious off-roading: the Toyota Land Cruiser.
The Land Cruiser was able to tackle the hardest terrain of the day without breaking a sweat. The Cruiser's suspension smoothed out bumps and its precise steering made it easy to pick a line and stick to it. Heck, it even offered a remote radio antenna controller that allowed our drivers to adjust the height of the antenna from inside the vehicle; perfect for making sure that the thing wouldn't get snapped off by an errant branch.
Brauer commented that the Land Cruiser was the only sport-ute in our test that could be driven over the more difficult sections of our route one-handed. Palmer agreed, stating that the Land Cruiser was so good that it was almost boring on the relatively easy trails we traversed. I found the Land Cruiser to be the most forgiving of our novice four-wheeler mistakes. The Land Cruiser refused to punish us for stupid approaches and departures, literally gliding across boulder-strewn terrain. Anderson made the point that despite its high price tag, he was least afraid of damaging the Land Cruiser. He found that it lived up to its name by turning the nastiest terrain into a veritable pleasure cruise.
The only complaint registered about the Land Cruiser's off-road experience was its tendency to lurch into second gear when creeping along, sometimes disrupting a careful ascent over steep terrain.
The second place finisher in the off-road portion of the test was the nimble Isuzu Trooper. Easily the smallest vehicle in the test, the Trooper had the uncanny ability to squeeze through narrow openings on the trail that the other trucks had to lumber awkwardly through. The Trooper's short hood length also made it simple to line up an approach for the trickier aspects of the terrain, prompting Palmer to state that she felt most confident in this truck.
Clor found that the Trooper's smaller engine was not the penalty he expected on the tough river-bottom trails, commenting on the fact that the Trooper always had more than enough grunt to clamber over steep outcroppings and large boulders. All was not perfect in Trooperville, however, and things like inadequate ground clearance and a slow steering ratio kept it from taking the top off-road honors. Nevertheless, the Trooper proved to be the little engine that could off road, surprising all of our editors with its natural rock-climbing ability.
The battle for third place proved to be a vicious one, as the Denali barely managed to edge out the Expedition for the bronze medal. Again, the Green Machine managed to surprise us with its abilities, climbing over rocks and negotiating tight trails better than the hulking Suburban and wallowy Expedition.
The Denali's main off-road assets over the fourth- and fifth-place finishers were its steering and somewhat shorter wheelbase, both of which made it easier to maneuver on the admittedly narrow trail better than the largest competitors. The Denali's suspension, ostensibly geared towards an on-road bias, also seemed better at preserving our drivers' backsides, bouncing occupants much less than we expected.
The Denali did suffer on the trail, however; its integrated running boards were snagged enough times that we were afraid we might lose them. It also ended up with the worst paint scratches in the group, which was a real heartbreaker for those of us who came to love its emerald-green glow. Despite its four-wheel-drive competency, the worry that all of our drivers felt about scratching the Denali's paint and wrecking its running boards compelled Wardlaw to muse whether it was worth taking such a pretty, high-buck sport utility off road. We doubt that many owners will say yes to that question.
The fourth-place winner was the Ford Expedition, a competent trail buster that may have suffered somewhat because of the nature of our chosen route. Too long to negotiate the constricted jogs in the road, drivers of the Expedition often found it necessary to back up and try again.
Like the Denali, the Expedition's running boards also took a beating on the trail, serving as expensive rock-homing devices for some of our less-experienced off-roader drivers. Bruises notwithstanding, the Expedition faired well over the trail, giving the Denali a hard run for third place. I found that the brakes and steering, which felt overly responsive on the road, were perfectly suited for creeping over boulders. Minor corrections to the steering wheel and brake pedal allowed me to slither slowly over obstructions that other trucks in the group just could not finesse. This was truly a surprising accomplishment in an eight-passenger vehicle.
Unfortunately, the Expedition exhibited a great many creaks and groans when traveling over the rougher portions of the trail, prompting Wardlaw to wonder whether or not it would be able to stand up to the routine abuse of off-roading for any extended period of time. This, beyond anything else, kept us from naming the Expedition the third-place winner.
In its defense, we must acknowledge that river washes are not really the kind of places where Suburban drivers are likely to spend a lot of time. Nevertheless, the most technical portion of our off-road adventure took place in a river wash, and the Suburban didn't do well there.
Several of our drivers found the Suburban's heavy-duty suspension much too harsh for boulder bashing, punishing our drivers' heads and necks with every bounce over the trail. As one of our editors said of the Suburban, "When you mess up in this truck, it hits back."
The Suburban's 18-foot length was also not a benefit on the steep trail; Wardlaw caught himself banging the rear differential on obstacles he had thought were long past him. This long wheelbase also contributed to our editors' tendency to high center the Suburban on uneven ground and large boulders.
The Suburban's long hood forced drivers to set up approaches from too far away, and many of us found that we had forgotten what we were driving over by the time it was under the Suburban's tires. Likewise, the Suburban's towering height gave some of our drivers a false sense of security regarding the vehicle's ground clearance; security that quickly evaporated as rocks bashed against the truck's undercarriage, sounding like toddlers in a room full of pots and wooden spoons.
Interior Observations
Also read how Toyotas smoke offroad( all down the line people. These company engineering philosophies filter right down the line.......)
The Isuzu Trooper came in last place, not because of any inherent badness about the vehicle, but simply because it was out-gunned in too many categories. Too few horsepower, too confining of an interior, and too many rattles kept the Trooper from doing better in our full-size SUV comparison.
The truth is that the Trooper would probably dominate a comparison of midsized sport-utes like the Explorer, Blazer, Montero Sport, and Nissan Pathfinder, and, in reality, that is the market against which the Trooper is most often shopped. Nevertheless, the Trooper fit our criteria, so we pitted it against the big boys.
Despite its last-place finish, shoppers could benefit from the Trooper. Normal-sized families looking for a medium-to-large vehicle for family trips or running around town will not be disappointed with this Isuzu. In fact, its deficiencies in the test, namely its smaller size and less-powerful engine, could spell real-life gains -- especially when it comes to driving on crowded streets and paying for gas. Our Trooper's price tag is one additional feature that could move it up the list for some families. Our Trooper's sticker was $10,000 lower than anything else in the test, and $10,000 could pay for a lot of nice salmon steaks on those camping trips.
The fourth-place finisher was the Ford Expedition, a surprise for those of us who have been longtime fans of its powerful engine, modern design and impressive list of standard features. Like the Trooper, there was nothing horrible about the Expedition; it just didn't perform to the level we hoped when measured against the assembled competition.
Unfortunately, the Expedition was perceived to be the vehicle most likely to break during the off-road section of our test, and proved too difficult to drive confidently during the on-road section of our test. It was also the most difficult vehicle to load with our luggage, because there is little room behind the optional third-row seat. The third-row seat can be folded, which is what we did in our test, or it can be removed entirely. However, folding or stowing the seat knocks the Expedition down to five-passenger capacity.
The Expedition is a sales-leader in this growing market, and will remain so as long as people keep buying big sport-utes. Like many of Ford's products, the Expedition takes aim at a large group of people instead of a narrow, targeted market. The result is that the Expedition can win the sales crown without being the best in any single category. The idea is: appeal to a broad group, sell to a broad group. From a business standpoint, it's hard to argue with that type of idea. However, since we're journalists, not businesspeople, we'd like to see Ford concentrate more on a few specific areas, like on-road handling and off-road ruggedness.
The Suburban didn't win or place, but it sure did show. The Suburban showed us how to haul nine people in comfort; it showed us how to carry more gear than an Everest expedition, and it showed us that biggest doesn't always mean best.
All of the trucks in this test can move lots of stuff. The Suburban, though, takes stuff-moving to an artistic level. With the largest people, cargo, and towing capacity of any sport utility on the market, the Suburban is truly unmatched as a stuff-hauler.
Edmund's majority consensus, though, is that most people would not benefit from the Suburban's giant capacities on a regular basis. (If you are one of the people who do need that much space and power, however, quit reading here and call the Suburban the winner.) We feel that the trade-off between the Suburban's large size and everyday practicality may not justify its purchase.
The Suburban is hard to park, difficult to maneuver, and not very impressive off road. Its steering is slow, its brakes are mushy, and it has a cheap plastic dashboard. The Suburban is also priced within $1,000 of the very similar and much more manageable Denali, a truck who's presence undoubtedly kept the Suburban out of second place.
The Denali has most of the Suburban's benefits without as many of its faults. The Denali is large and offers a giant cargo space, but is designed to carry only five people, so it doesn't have to be as long as the Suburban, making it easier to park and maneuver.
GMC targeted the true luxury market with the Denali, so most of its interior materials are higher quality than those found in the Suburban. The Denali also has a better on- and off-road ride than the Suburban, a miraculous achievement considering that both trucks are built on the same platform with nearly identical parts.
GMC's Denali surprised Edmund's editors with its excellent road manners and more-rugged-than-expected attitude. The large truck platform that spawned GM's previous-generation of full-size pickup trucks and current lineup of full-size SUVs are notorious for their numb steering and slow response. Somehow, GMC was able to take that characteristic out of the Denali and imbue it with something approaching real road feel; an impressive feat in any sport-utility vehicle, doubly so for a large GM truck. Edmund's tips its collective hat to the Denali. We expected it to finish dead last, and it stole our hearts on its way to second place.
The hands-down winner of our full-size sport-ute roundup was the Toyota Land Cruiser. Better on-road than many cars, better off-road than a mountain bike, the Toyota swept every driving test we could throw its direction.
You are probably wondering if we are off our rockers, since Edmund's typically prizes value over pure performance, and there is a $6,000 price penalty for those who choose the Land Cruiser over the Denali. Is the Toyota really worth that much of an increase? You bet it is.
Although none of the trucks in this test was a slouch, none came close to matching the Land Cruiser's interior luxury, highway performance, off-road prowess, and all-around livability. Not the biggest, but by no means small, the Land Cruiser can haul seven people with its optional flip-down rear seats, or can move a considerable amount of gear. Beyond that, the Land Cruiser possesses an unimpregnable build quality that no amount of off-roading can tear apart.
In the final analysis, it looks like Edmund's editors made the right choice on that fateful night last fall. Our choice then for best full-size sport-utility vehicle was the Toyota Land Cruiser, and, after a multi-day flog through all types of conditions, it remains so. Nice job Toyota. Now, if only we can agree on where to hold our next editorial meeting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-Size Sport Utility Vehicle Comparison Test
Intro | Appeal | Power | Capacities | The Test | On-Road | Off-Road | Interior | Related Vehicles | Winners & Losers
Price & Options | Photo Gallery
Toyota Offroad quality......or Ford " quickest to break offroad" quality?
hahaha
Boston the only offroading I do is dodging potholes and metermaids,I do agree that the landcruiser is a very nice truck and would want it if I did offroading but its also very expensive,what about the landrover did they compare that truck in the article you read I do believe they have a model in the mid 30's where as the landcruiser is in the 50's.
I am a Jets and Buffalo fan, and also like the Giants and the Patriots. I got to admit the Pats should have lost to Buffalo last year, but I hope the refs this year will make better calls.
I don't know about the oils but have been using Quaker State for a long time. I change my oil between 2,000 to 2,500 at the Walmarts for $19.00. When I first went there they were telling me there was some special oil, but at long as it is 5W-30 it is good. One thing I do advoid is Hasting products.
Your lightening is a great truck. I just love the big block in my old Ponchos, but then supercharger is just as good in the end.
Spoog,
This is a pickup topic. Did you recieve a video from Toyota about the 4x4's line t hey and the tips on driving them?
First I spent the time reinstalling the old Ford OE assembly and air filter and removing the chip. It dyno'd at 161HP. I reinstalled the K&N air charger kit and the chip and it dyno'd at 184HP! So, I hate to tell you that aftermarket parts do help. If you are mechanic you above anyone should know allowing your engine to breath easier will increase HP. And the chip adjusts your timing and fuel mixture. As I have explained though, you have to run premium 92 octane with the chip.
I would also guess you are dealing with smaller engines vs HP/torque and so on. And yes a muffler can increase your HP. Not by 20HP though, its usually based on a percentage, usally 1-5%. I would bet your going to tell me that splitting exhaust doesn't increase HP/torque also? What kind of shop do you work at? a TUNEUP shop?? My next project is to split the exhaust. Even with these mods I am still way under the price of a Tacoma!
I thought this was a truck room, spoog?
By the way at about 50K the Toyota Land Cruiser better outperform a 25-35K Explorer/Expedition!!
Also, most people buy these sportutes as a status symbol or to tow a boat/trailer. Are you telling me the Land Cruiser can out tow an Expedition??. Once again we are talking the everyday user. The everyday user never takes their sportutes offroad. And who would take a 50K LandCruiser, 40K Lexus, Mercedes offroad to get scratched and dented?
Nice try on the HP, but your lying. Any mechanic worth his salt will tell you that
that "upgrade" wont give you 23 more horsepower.
You are completely full of it. Nice try.
Even a mechanic who read your post laughed at you.
Go figure. As for taking a 50,000 dollar SUV offroad...heck yeah! I sure would.
Because like the review says, the toyota will hold up extremely well in 4x4 conditions and the Expedition will fall apart.
I would GLADLY take the Landcruiser offroad. In fact, Im going to consider looking at used ones.
I like the factory locking rear, center, and fron diff locks on the pre-98 models, and the ability to adjust the ride height with a button.
I like some aspects of the Tundra(best engine in tis class..highest ground clearance, like toyota usually offers.)
Most people nowadays that want a good offroader and a good, fun vehicle to drive either go for Jeeps or Toyotas. People ARE getting smarter about their purchase decisions.
Its too bad really that the Ranger is such a bland, bland truck, sort of like a minivan with a bed. Oh well.
Seems to me I did post my experiences in, I think, April when I went up into the Wet Mtns to recover a Texas Longhorn I found while hunting last year. I made it to the snow drift at 10,000 feet and as turning around, saw the Landcruiser, bogged to the frame in mud, going nowhere in the middle of the field where he tried to go around the drift. I did offer to unload a few of my things in the back to take the children down to the camp ground.
Sorry spoog I will disagree regarding large SUV's. There are a lot around Denver and, just for grins, I ask what interesting places people have taken them, the Landcruisers, Lincolns, Explorers, Expeditions. . . Fully 95% have never had them off the road. Nor real scientific but factual. I have seen one Suburban while off roading this year and NO TRD's except one next to an ATV trailer.
Are you saying that the Landcruiser(top dog SUV along with Rover) can't offroad as well as the pickups and jeeps?
As for people taking their SUV's offroad I know a few people who do, and have seen many offroad.
I saw a test in Motor Trend a couple years back that was between the Hummer, Land cruiser, Blazer, Explorer and Jeep Cherokee. It was in the desert somewhere in Cali.
They said that the Cruiser actually did better in the sand than the Hummer.......they said that
"the cruiser ate up the giant sand dunes with the windows rolled up and the cool ac blowing, but that is the only sound we heard as the incredible rig glided over obsticals that the other vehicles just ahd problems with".
Well I have a nice scratch along my left side from off roading. Not anything really noticable, but I don't expect the truck to look spanking new for the rest of its life. I expect to get more scatches and dents with time off roading. It is the nature of off roading that brings proclivity towards damaging a vehicle.
Honestly I have to agree with Cpousnr about those big SUVs. I never see them off roading and in the area where I live it is a status symbol and family hauler. The station wagon of the 90's. Actually I see a lot of Explorers, Expeditions, Cherokees, Landcruisers, and 4Runners in my area. Then again I have heard good things about the Landcruiser so Spoog is right on that point.
Barlitz is right on the fact that they are all good trucks that anything else is a preference.
-wsn
However, since you breached the subject, I have been driving my sons 82 VW Rabbit since he has gone to the Army. Have NO problem beating every Tacoma or Ranger I come next to at lights and thru the first 3 gears. No problems at all beating them. I have been with my son in the Pike Nat Forest when he has taken that VW off road up ATV and 4X trails and it does do quite well, needs an align afterward but it will travers 4X roads and because it is narrow it can get into some places that my Ranger or the Tacoma cannot go.
Now given what I just said, does that make the Rabbit better than the Tacoma or Ranger.
No you say? Well on this board I have heard the same rational on why one vehicle is better than the other and it generally centers on speed away from traffic lights, cost, ability to do 4X roads/areas or other such things.
Lets deal with issues like hindsite has brought up.
Where it Edmunds when you need them to squelch mikey.
Okay you like to make bold statements show me the proof that what you claim is true regarding the hp gain. Time to put your cards on the table.
Also Dharlow1 is a tuner mechanic (tuners are the guys who get real horsepower out of motors, not some tack on aftermarket company, we are talkin' ported and polished heads, balanced and blueprinted motors, NOS systems) not tune-up, and if you don't know the difference, then it is just more proof that you may be yanking all our chains.
I misquoted before. The article I was refering to was from Fourwheeler.com. It was their 99 annual test of new vehicles to determine 4 wheeler of the year. The results were:
1. Jeep Grand Cherokee WJ 2. Toyota Landcruiser
3. Land Rover Discovery 3. Isuzu Amigo
4. Mercedes ML 430 5. Toyota 4Runner Ltd.
6. Chevy Tahoe Z71 7. Suzuki Grand Villa
8. Chevy Tracker 2.0 9. Kia Sportage
Man, an Isuzu?!? Time to open the fuel tank, put in the rag and light it if my vehicle got beat by an Isuzu. OR.......
Accept that it is the magazines opinion, nothing else and in no way should motovate me to not like the vehicle I had purchased.
" Also noteworthy was test-leading ground clearance in combination with all the important stuff tucked well out of harm's way--evidence of Toyota's worldwide experience in four wheel drive, and adaptations we knew would help it on the trail. "
It's a beautiful thing.
I just found it interesting that the Jeep, a Chrysler product, i.e. not known for its quality, was on the top of the heap. They noted in the article that on the first test, 25 years ago, that Jeep model also was their "4 Wheeler of the Year.
Could we be seeing that the mag wanted to award a 1st year and 25th year award to the Jeep?
Unless there is a real dog out there, you will see all the different models of the 4X's shifting thru the top 5-10 in different surveys.
If you ever looked under a Landcruiser, then an Expedition,
If you ever looked under a 4runner, then an Explorer........uou would know the half of it.
There ARE plenty of good vehicles out there. But there are only a few good trail runners. Those are Jeeps and Toyotas. These vehicles are designed with that use in mind first.
The 4wheeling options, the way everything is packaged underneath, the handling ect.
And you wonder why a Ford didnt make it on that list. They make excellent work trucks and people haulers, but they dont make good 4wheelers.
Spoog, we have gone this round before with the suspension/plates ect... of the Ranger/Tacoma. And, I sure don't see many Tacoma's where I go in my Ranger??
It is common knowledge most people don't use their sportutes for offroad trailing. Most sportutes are used to tow a boat or trailer or take clients around town in plush luxury and ride. This is what the Expedition/Explorer/Yukon/Blazer do best over Toyota. This is what the market demands, this is what the majority of people who buy these demand. Not how can I take that hill in my three piece suit and Explorer.
"This is whatthe Expedition/Explorer/Yukon/Blazer do best over
Toyota. This is what the market demands, this is
what the majority of people who buy these demand"
Hey Vince. Not only is the Toyota landcruiser considered more luxurious than those SUV's you mentioned, but it whomps them offroad too.
I dont know anyone who thinks the Expedition is luxury.
The Landcruiser is a major status symbol, along with the Range Rover.
And for 50K it sure better be luxurious. You can almost buy 2 Explorers for one Land Crusier. Or better yet. Get a V8 Explorer for lets say 28K? and take it to a reputable offroad shop. Give the the difference of 22K and lets see who will be the offroad monster.
I have a friend that has an Explorer and when he goes hunting he goes into the woods.
Wow Buffalo is Ford Ranger country. If anyone knows anything Buffalo has some of the worst blizzards. Then most part time 4x4 truck can do likewise. Guess those Rangers can make tracks with no problem in the blizzards. Hey, Vince don't think that I am glorifying Ford, but just being honest. I still find you to be offensive.
Getting backing to the Ranger with four doors I would like to hear some opinions from owners about them. What they like about them and what they do not like about them.
Resistance is futile. You will be assumulated into the Ranger collective. We are everywhere.
Hind, I keep reading in other forums around the net that there are complaints of squeaks and rattles with the 4door Ranger. I am sure glad I steered away since I take mine offroad.