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
I believe its all the overhead cam, dual cam, overhead valve, high tech jargon that most have fallen prey too. The 4.0 is a pushrod engine that has been refined through the years. Ford is coming out with a 4.0 single overhead cam V6 that produces 204HP and 240ft/lbs of torque for the Ranger sometime in later 2000. Torque is what a true truck owner and user is after, not 0-60 times.
> seconds? Can your mind comprehend .6 seconds?
At 60mph .6 seconds equals almost 53 feet. That is substantial. I guess you can say that I can comprehend 6 tenths of a second.
The bottom line is the 4.0 ford, for it's size is outdated, underpowered (for its displacement), and guzzles fuel.
The fact that Ford is coming out with a new 4.0 is proof in itself that the old 4.0, your 4.0, can be substantially improved and is lagging behind the competition.
Again, the point is, your trucks engine is nothing to brag about.
I'm not knocking the Ranger. I think the Ranger is a fine truck. I just don't think your arguement holds up.
I don't dispute the 4.0 is "old" technology, but hey it works right?? And of course when you say "underpowered" we talk HP once again. Torque my man, Torque is what you want in a real truck.
My engine is a 4.7 liter, 245 horsepower, 315 torque.
I would agree with you that your Ranger can do anything a Tacoma can do. I don't own a Tacoma but can probably speak for them in saying; they expect more trouble free miles, better fit and finish, an equally powerful engine which is more fuel efficient. Some may think that 3k to 4k extra is worth it.
I think the Ranger is a good truck in it's class, though not the best. If you factor in the Rangers retail price it may make it "best in class". I don't know what the Ranger currently sells for but historically they've been the most bang-for-the-buck. However I can see why some people might be willing to pay more for a Dakota or Tacoma.
The term "can do anything a Tacoma can do" is cheap. You could compare a Mitsubishi Diamanti to 7 series BMW and make the same argument. People pay more for quality, fit and finish Etc., and of coarse, as you say, "yuppieness".
And this proves that you are too damn afraid to come on over and hear about the faults with the Tacoma. Enjoy your overpriced, overrated, worst crash test compact truck on the market today.
I didn't call you names. I don't do that. I think I said "Ranger-boy", but then again I'm "Tacoma-boy". This is an attempt by you to avoid all the facts that I threw your way. You've done it three times now. Each time I OBJECTIVELY compare both trucks without prejudice or bias because I have owned both and can look at the issue from both sides of the table. Have you ever owned a tacoma or much less driven one? I suspect not. Your experience with tacomas probably goes as far as the time you got wasted at a stoplight by some little humble "chink" truck, and now you've got to go into every toyota chat site to convince us traitors that we sold out to the Japanese. I will say this for most toyota truck owners I have encountered. They are people who have driven "American" trucks, tried the alternatives (nissan, toyota) and like those results better. They are objective and see all cars as products to be considered and not as attempts by a foreign power to circumvent our nation. I drove a Ranger, liked it, decided to try a tacoma. It proved much more reliable, and had more performance. These are not opinions, but facts as proven by countless magazine tests, owner surveys, and independent testing. (By the way, the first time we met, you pulled that .6 sec difference from 4wheeler magazine, so I went to check on it. Did you know that that same magazine named the tacoma as its compact truck of the year for 1998? I guess you closed your eyes to the big cover picture of the blue tacoma and saw right through all the BS to that .6 sec difference and the tacoma's poor crash rating results. I don't know what I was thinking. How could I have missed that?)
So anyway, I drive a tacoma now and will continue to unless a better product (foreign or domestic) comes along. You might want to look past your own ranger heritage and give OBJECTIVITY a try. I am done arguing as there are too many sources that confirm all I have said. I will not beat the issue to death. And I do not come over to the Ranger chat site because I simply do not own a ranger anymore and do not want to debate it. Once again, this is a toyota chat site. Why don't you try jumping in on the Nissan 3.3L chat site. I think someone over there said something about the ranger 4.0 being low on hp or something to that effect. Why don't you go educate them? Remember, it only comes up .6 seconds short 0-60 versus the tacoma. Mention that and how it is only 2 feet of difference, and you should have no problems getting a debate going.
Maybe I'll see you around.
http://kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.rp?kbb&&11&99fordranger
"Final Word
The new Ranger may be the best compact pickup
truck on the market. Its driving qualities leave
the other trucks in the dust... offers plenty of
power and hauling capacity .... Handling is superb ...making this truck a good companion for everyday driving.
Mazda is selling mechanically identical models...
the Ford looks tough, the Mazda looks sporty.
Mazda B-Series trucks offer acompelling alternative to the Toyota Tacoma, with the Mazda
delivering more truck per dollar."
"...more truck per dollar"
I can go on and on regarding the incorrect information posted on this board regarding the Ranger but why not take a minute and come over to the Ranger vs Tacoma board and find out just how close the two trucks are in performance. Crawl ratio on the 4X4 versions are all within a few percentages, with a nod to Ranger for any gear other than 1st, Consumer Reports consistaintly selects Ranger over Tacoma in its selection for best P/U in its class, etc.
Most importaintly, my vehicle will survive a side impact crash very well compared to Tacoma, where you stand a darn good chance of serious if not fatal injury. And the 4.0L engine, incorrectly degraded over here, was introduced in the 92 model, is built for torque, not hp, generally what you want in a truck engine and has, thru my investigations, a life of in excess of 150,000 miles between rebuilds.
The Tacoma is a very nice vehicle, but it is not the only small p/u on the block. Just really get the facts straight if you post something about another truck over here. I can back everything I have stated with sources.
The Ranger tested was a BOTTOM OF THE LINE Ranger.
It DID NOT have off road options, read into that street shocks, no skids, no beefed up off road suspension, no 4.10 differential and may have been a paid advertisment by Toyota, as they cite that test on their hompage. Also, using the information provided on that test I calculated that the ONLY advantage in gear ratio was in 1st gear for the Tacoma when you compare it to a Ranger 5 speed manual, 4.10 rear end ratio.
Rangers rule!
Rangers are tough trucks. I wouldn't buy another Full size Ford truck if my life depended on it (hate the new triton engines), but if I were to buy another midsize truck, the Ranger would definitely be considered first.
I OWNED A RANGER. ONCE AGAIN, I OWNED A RANGER. I WAS RAISED DRIVING FORDS. You guys seem to keep glossing over these important details. I already said I was a fan of the Ranger. Now I own a tacoma. I like it better for reasons already stated, but here they are again: reliability, power, acceleration, build quality, payload, etc.
And CPOUSNR, you are a fool. Of course, Toyota would cite something like winning 4wheeler's contest on their web site. All manufacturers tout the magazine articles or awards that their products have won or done well in. Ever hear that Motortrend named the Silverado its Truck of the Year?
I'll go further to help you both in your arguments. Ranger won in Car & Driver's test last year of compact trucks. It wins almost all the evaluations when pitted against the tacoma, s-10, dakota. It does a lot of things well. Consumer Reports, which by the way, should only be referenced for reliability ratings because their tests are asinine, always make the Ranger a Best Buy. Motortrend, Automobile Magazine, Truck Trend, and on and on and on, all like the Ranger the best. Like I said, it does a lot of things well. But in every test, it got its assed kicked by the other trucks, and specifically, by the tacoma performance-wise. The tacoma in ANY form (4x2, 4x4, reg cab, whatever) has more HP, equal torque, although at a higher rpm (3600 vs the ranger's 2750 in 6 cyl form), more payload, better acceleration, equal towing ability only in 6 cyl. form because in 4 cyl form it has almost doubles that of the ranger (3500 vs. the ranger's 2000 lbs).
And CPOUSNR, "150,000 miles between engine rebuilds" is a very idiotic thing to say in defense of an engine. Any number of engines on today's market will easily do at least 200,000 miles. The tacoma has thousands of DOCUMENTED owners with 300k, 400k, 500k, and on up. These numbers are without rebuilds and usually involve original parts. You can't begin to claim that about any other truck on the market, let alone your Ranger which goes "150,000 miles between engine rebuilds."
And while I'm at it, Vince8, your're a fool as well. All you ever respond with is that your beloved ranger RULES because it sells the most, blah, blah, blah. Why don't you heed my earlier advice about responding with OBJECTIVITY. I also wonder, do you even read, or do you have one of your other ranger buddies type your responses for you? It seems I put all my energy into making sense just to have you come in and tell me your ranger is the best because "it sells the most and Rangers RULE, man." Such a f#@king moron. Oops, appears I've gone and called some people some names. It also looks like this response went a little longer than I wanted it to.
First, this topic is about engines. I would rate the 3.4 V6 second to the, I think 3.0 engine used in the Camry. The 3.4 is a great engine. My kids currently have 2 87 Toyota Celicas running 170K and 183K, on the 2.0L DOHC but you gotta watch the oil use on those two.
In regard to the 4.0 Ford which is taking hits on this site, its MPG is not as bad as stated here. Unless you consider 22-23mpg hwy, 19-21 in town bad. That is what I got on my 4.0 Ranger prior to changing tires to 31.10.5's. It is about 20-21 hwy, 18-19 around town, all on the cheap low octane regular.
Reliability of an engine is greatly increased by the way it is treated. Fail to do the required maintence on even the very well built Tacoma 3.4 and it will not last you.
I really just wanted to clear up some of the misconceptions stated here regarding the Ford engines. It is designed as a truck engine, low compression, non OHC with lower rpm torque and hp. Toyota chooses to go with the DOHC, high rpm, higer hp/lower torque. Somply different designs for different purposes. Has nothing to do with and engine being an old design as the 4.0 Ford dates to 1992, the 3.4 Toyota to 1996 (or maybe a bit earlier).
Anyone know why?
Just curious.
I checked your profile, Unixgod, and you are a Chevrolet driver. This comes as no surprise. I would surmise that you either drive a camaro or silverado. If the former is true, scrap that last comment I made above. If you drive a Silverado, then I'm game.
My pushrod V8 will work circles around your "Toy" and get better gas mileage too. I owned a 96 Tacoma 4X4 Extended Cab, loaded. At 21k, it was about 6k too much money. Breathed heavy at the slightest inclines pulling an 18.5 ft bass boat and that was even in 2nd and 3rd gear.
I am not necessarily a Ford Ranger finatic, but I do know that the Ranger is much more truck and a much better value for the money....ANYDAY!
1/4 mile race, yeah your Tacoma "car" will win. I didn't buy a truck to race stoplight to stoplight. If I wanted a sportscar I would have bought a vette, which no Japanese import has ever beat yet. German and other some other sportscars, yes. [non-permissible content removed] junk sportscars, never in a million years.
The only reason I hang out here at these import topics is because I get tired of the false statements of reliablity advantages. You Yoda "boys and girls" act like we can't afford to buy a Toyota or we are blind to some kind of Toyota superiority. You boys and girls are tooting your own horn. I can easily buy several of your Tacomas or even the way overated and overpriced Tindra, but why should anyone pay that much money for less vehicle to help the [non-permissible content removed] further take over our country. They already own 80% of our banks and insurance companies (the biggest revenue industries of our country)!
Stop claiming a false reliability advantage and those of us that refuse to continue selling out our country will leave you turds to further destroy our economy.
I do try to support observations with facts hence my many comparisons between the two. Most of the time, the difference is within 5% either way, a statistical dead heat.
Both are good trucks but it is comfortable to know I guess that your truck engine will outlast the truck body.
You are a racist in every sense of the word. I wish I was Japanese just so I could be more offended by your remarks. This way, I might be motivated to do more than just write this sarcastic e-mail. I would like to pay your Redneck [non-permissible content removed] a visit and beat the sh#t out of you! Unfortunately, there are laws which prohibit this as well as the commmandments of my God. And why is it okay for German cars to be superior to ours but not Japanese cars? Is this because you think all Germans are white-skinned, blond-haired?
The first time we spoke, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in regards to intelligence, humanity, etc. I won't be so nieve in the future.
And just so you are a little more educated for future discussions, I made a list of your f#@ckups and simple steps to fix them:
1. The full-size toyota truck is called TUNDRA, not TINDRA. The tundra is a very cold place where only really hairy animals and moss plants survive. I don't know what the hell TINDRA is. Is that in your West Virginia dictionary?
2. Your "pushrod" engine gets 14/18 mpg in normal driving and lower when towing. The tacoma gets 19/21. It only follows that your truck will still get less mpg when towing 5k lbs versus the tacoma towing 5k lbs. because towing its max weight is not going to strain the tacoma to the point where it is sucking down less than 14 mpg. Do I need to phrase that again?
3. I've run out of time and space. I hope I or no one else has to finish this column for you later or tomorrow. I hope you decide to keep your s#it in the Silverado chat site where I'm sure you'll find more eaters of it.
unixgod--What is it about a contrasting opinion that gets you so upset?
Also how they discount the locker that only works up to 5mph then goes to an open axle. But hey, its a Toyota and they spent tons of cash for a perceived quality/reliability advantage so, its ok.
Enjoy the sticker and watch that tin can!
PROS: The Tacoma is powerful, good-looking and competent off road.
CONS: The seats are the least comfortable we have ever sampled and the price is ridiculously high for a compact pickup truck
The Tacoma's biggest demerit, however, is its price. Our test truck had a sticker that approached the $30,000 mark. We think that a $28,500 price tag is much too high for a compact pickup, even for one with a Toyota badge. Edmund's long-term Ford Ranger stickers for $5,000 less than the Tacoma, and has more equipment, more attractive styling, and a usable rear seat. It has also proven to be very reliable for our first 10,000 miles of ownership. Is the promise of Toyota reliability worth five grand? We don't think so. Give us the Ranger and the extra $5,000. We'll put the money toward the purchase of a Wave Runner, thank you.
unixgog:
Hey Marine, a retired Navy Chief is asking you to cool the talk. Edmunds has a way of censure that may not be desirable to continuing INFORMATIVE discussion.
For the record, it is FREMONT where the Toy trucks are made, use to be stationed near there when it was a Chevy plant. Parts are for the majority imported from Japan but I think I have read the boxes are made here.
dwebb, a Silvarado will outpull an import anyday of the week. But the Tacoma, more than likely even with the 4 banger, can outrace the Chevy. But I did not buy my truck to race.
Still interested in knowing why the 4-Runner 3.4 is a lower hp from the Tacoma 3.4
Air Force loser. LOL! Now we got you pegged.
btw: if you still think you have what it takes, leave your email address and I will forward you my home address. Many Air Force pukes have tried, many many many have failed. Marines fight to win at all costs. If that seems cowardly, that explains why you don't have what it takes to be a Marine. You probably whined about having to have your pretty boy hair cut.
As for my needing a calculator, don't think so. I have a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering.
with a 3.8 GPA. I am pretty sure that takes more ingenuity than your "Desk Clerk" position in "Supply" with the Air Force.
Get a life. Loser!
This debate is not about which faction of the military is the best. I'll agree with you that the Air Force sucks--I'm out of it next friday. I'm no marine-wantta-be as well. I work with marines because, believe it or not, there is a field even in the Corps for Intelligence, and in the field, we must work together. I don't do it by choice.
CPOUSNR, I did not say that a silverado would not out-tow any import. I said that a silverado would definitely tow more, but the gas mileage would be horrendous in comparison with a tacoma. It was simply a point to demonstrate the complex workings of Unixgod's five brain cells.
Ponm: Mviglianco 1 is right, as long as the "god" lurks in here, you're not going to get an unbiased answer. You are right when you say that the tacoma weighs less and that this offsets the torque advantage that the 3.0 has. You know what I would buy, but if you must buy the Ranger because of your checkbook, it won't be a disaster.
Where you coming from?
While ASSEMBLED in Fremont Ca., the Tacoma is mostly, with the exception of the truck bed, I believe, foreign parts. HONESTLY not that it makes a difference to me.
My RANGER (in response to your post 115, did you hear that unix, I do not own a Tacoma) is built in the Ford Twin Cities plant (last time I went to school, that ment MINNESOTA), the Mazda (a japanese sounding name, which may bother some people, not me) is built in New Jersey, and the major foreign part on either vehicle is the manual transmission, 80+%American parts on those vehicles.
Do not discount foreign manufacturers just based on race. As has been stated here before, with such a global economy, it is impossible to not have foreign parts in ANY American vehicle.
I DO agree, to a point with unix in that edmunds for many years has stated the Tacoma lacks in interior comfort an is too highly priced. However, TO GET BACK ON TOPIC, with the exception of the 96-97(head/headgasket problem) their engines are solid, designed for high hp, but solid. Also, unix points to the weight difference. Well, weight loss has to come somewhere from a vehicle that is basically the same size as my Ranger which is 3-400 lb heavier. And MAYBE the lack of weight, ie lack of material in the doors/frame/etc is why the side impact crash is so poor on the vehicle.
But the engines are basically solid on this vehicle. Regardless, I still like the Ford engine for its lower rpm torque.
The 3.0 is the superior engine. The weight of the Ranger is not that substantial to make a difference. 15lbs of torque is quiet a bit also. The 2.7 is gutless and even Tacoma lovers shy away from it. Look at the Torque/HP curves and compare them between all Toyota/Ford Tacoma/Ranger engines. The Toyota engines have to rev and work much harder to reach max torque and all along the torque band. I have a 4.0 with 225ft/lbs of torque. It now has about 22K with no problems. Had a previous 4.0 Ranger 4x4 with 96K with NOT ONE PROBLEM. It really depends on what you are going to use the truck for? Let us know and I can set you up with a package. The Ranger offers more engines/packages than Toyota in their compact truck line.
technical data.
Dont worry folks...the FACT man is here!!
From here on out, no more here-say and lie spouting! YOu are all about to be taught a course in truth-seeking, in getting to the bottom of the barrel. Enjoy!
By the way people, the Tundra outhauls the Silverado with both trucks and their base v8 engines. It also out accelrates it with a heavier load.
Here you go, Ranger vs Tacoma 4wheeler pickup of the year.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/
Ouch!!! The Tacoma wins every single performance category??? OUch!! Look at those stats!!! "Unanimous decision"??? Ouch!!!!
Wow!!!!
Whats that? You want to discuss "quality"?
Well, lets take a look see at the National Highway Safety Transportation official governemnt database and have a look-see at safety recalls, tecnhical recalls, and DEFECT investigations.
Lets see:
94-99 Ranger ------ 590 Defect investigations
94-99 Tacoma -------60 Defetc investigations
89-99 Ranger ----- 200 some odd safety recalls
89-99 Taomca ----50 saftey recalls
Dont believe me? Take a gander for yourself:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/
It's all there folks. All the goodies the insurance companies, mag reviews eCT use to judge quality.
Be sure to check out the Technical repair bulletins as well. For you Chevy people.....you might want to NOT check out this sight.....its pretty ugly for the Chevies.
Also be sure to check out last June's issue of Petersons Offroad, in which the Tacoma was picked number one against the compact pickups. including the ranger.
The fact man has arrived!!! No anecdotal reviews here about gorcery space and parking smoothness! Were supposed to be talking TRUCKS!!!
And PLEASE people, when will you learn that seat comfort is an objective thing, NOT fact.
Enjoy!
Too dumb to be a Marine? THAT IS ABSOLUTELY THE DUMBEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD!!! Not to say all Marines are, I think far from it. But some of the dumbest guys I went to high school ended up being Marines. You know why? They couldn't even get into community college.
Dwebb-
Don't bother trying to introduce FACTS to vince. It is completely impossible to have a rational debate with him. Cpousner can and does listen to facts, just not opinions (I admit I am the same way). Vince has been ducking me in the Ranger vs. Tacoma room for a while now because I posted some FACTS that he didn't like.
Cpousner-
when I bought my 4Runner, I asked the same question about HP. The salesman said it had to do with reworking the exhaust (from Tacoma to 4Runner) where the HP is lost. Don't know if it is BS or not, but that's what I was told.
Unixgod: Hey, man, it's been fun, but I gotta do some out-processing, and I'm going to lose my computer privileges at work. I'll be back as soon as I get my home computer. I want to wish you the best of luck in the Corps, and hope you don't get stationed here at Goodfellow AFB because it tends to suck hard. Remember, cool heads prevail.
CPOUSNR: Good luck with your Ranger. You shouldn't have any problems, but if you do, don't be hesitant to give the Toys another try. You made an interesting observation about the weight difference between the tacoma and ranger. I would guess that the tacoma's lighter weight has a lot to do with its poorer crash test results. I could care less either way, but it's nice to be able to rationalize this shortcoming of my truck.
Mviglianco1: Take a bolder stance against some of these bozos.
Ponm: Seek unbiased advice elsewhere. I would try someone who has owned both of the vehicles that you are considering buying (CPOUSNR, Myself).
My thanks to all, again, for the interesting debates. I'll be back.
One thing you might want to consider with your braniac theory on defects and such. Toyota only sells 1 out of every 5 trucks TOTAL in the compact truck industry and 1 so-called "full size" out of every 12 . If more than twice the amounnt of trucks purchased are domestics, of course Toyota is going to look better in that catagory.
Your Toyota has all the same problems as any of the domestics. Fewer people are suckered into buying the higher priced "use once, then throw away" Toyota's and therefore fewer problem trucks are discovered. Its all in the ratio's......YA SPOOG!
94-99 Ranger------590 defect investigations
94--99 Tacoma -----60 Defect investigations!
Ranger a 22 crawl ratio, tacoma 4.10 crawl ratio ! YEeeeehaaaawww!!!!!
Toyota Tacoma 4 wheeler of the year? Unanimous decision? Petersons offroad june issue, Tacoma pickup of the year? Alright!
Tacoma has a higher standard payload and towing rating that n Ranger? Yep. Alright!
Toyota Tacoma offers offroad tuned suspension, higher transfer rate springs, rear locker, offroad shocks, standard skid plates, higher minimum clearqnce, clutch start cancel switch, higher engine intake, ect ! Yeeeeehaaaww!
WHy is the Tacoma rated a 3/4 ton truck, and the ranger rated a 1/2 ton?
Hey guys....guess what link I have? Do you really want me to post it? Its a pciture of a toyota tacoma towing a full size f150 up a hill in some serious mud! Enjoy!
http://www.tacomaterritory.com/
I have always thought and especially after the XTerra that Toyota should offer a stripped down off road version of the 4-Runner. It would be nice with the TRD and not so many luxury items. I think they would be a hit, I know I would like one, especially if 20-25K.
Just got a call from Line-X dealer, my truck is ready and will pick it up at 5. If the spayins bond so well with bed, how do they flex to compensate for flex in bed?
You will like it a bunch over a slide in and it should be guarenteed for life.
That may be the answer on the hp difference. Exhaust makes a difference. Really thanks for the input and good luck with your truck.
Just to ramble, got a line on a NOX system for the Ranger. A place in town builds up ONLY Ranger 4.0 engines. The Nitrous Oxide system gives a boost when needed, increases up to 75hp, in the same range as a turbo but without the constaint strain on the engine and is 25% the cost of a turbo.
Anything like that available for the Tacoma?