Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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



  • Try it again:


    Repeat as necessary.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897 admit it now.....that was what? 6 month ago? Do you happen to remember why you tried to convince us it was 600 lbs heavier? "My Ranger is 600 lbs heavier because it is made of real steel, and not tin". Which still brings up the question of what was your Ranger made of (especially since it had overbuilt components so you could sleep better at night), but that's for later.

    As for winning formula:
    We brag about Taco RC because it is lightweight, at mere 3000 lbs, the 2.7L engine is more than enough for it. With a short wheelbase that truck spanks everyone with Xtracabs.

    Now.....can you specifically name that "some trailing" that small tires are good for? Gee.....all those people spending their money on getting 35s, 37s and bigger.....when you could have 30s!
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    "only you quote a magazine article that is going on six years old where your precious tacoma tied a wrangler with an OPEN DIFFERENTIAL. now if that isn't pathetic, i don't know what is..."

    -actually it was just a year ago, the wrangler DID have a limited slip, and the taco beat the wrangler.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,403
    Same guys making the same points, referring to the same information, over and over and over...

    NOBODY is going to change any minds here. That's pretty obvious. Time to give this up and move on before the real mudslinging starts and this gets shut down again...

    PF Flyer
    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    if the shootout between tacoma, wranger, and hummer was just a year ago, can you direct me to it? just fyi, it was a 1998 four-wheeler article i believe. you know, the first year for the TRD pkg., and you know what scorpio says, whatever is new and hot in it's first year usually wins the awards.

    pluto, yeah you have the weight thing down, that im not arguing. im arguing YOUR theory on how the DOHC design of the 3.4 is better when it's clear that the 3.7 of the liberty makes more torque per CC, gets better mileage, and is the old SOHC design which according to you, is old hat. i concede weight to the tacoma, why wouldn't i? there isn't much that doesn't outweigh the thin tacoma. i assume you will dodge this question for the umpteenth time. you'll probably say that they had to squeeze so much torque out per CC due to the liberty's heft, right? whatever. either way, your tacoma is still down on power and torque to the liberty, not to mention the all important mileage thing. and that's hilarious.

    yes i do remember why scorpio, i was thinking of frontier crew cab's weight. which is around 400 lbs heavier than tacoma and ranger. the thing is stout.

    and for the love of god (as the late great chris farley would say) pluto, just admit you were wrong. and stop referring to every mistake you ever made or mistyped as a huge joke.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    And until I hear of one Toyota axle breaking, the Dana axle stuff doesn't mean jack to me. I mean really.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    FourWheeler, May 2001, I have the issue sitting at home.
  • smgillessmgilles Posts: 252
    Better gas mileage..right? Pull my other leg it plays jingle bells. You must have gotten some "super" fuel pump that the other pre-lowered Libertys didn't get. I still get 21 on the interstate and that's with a S/C.

    As far as fender flares falling off you need to get your info. correct. The problem involves a litte rubber gasket (1/4") between the fender and fender flare. The gasket starts to come loose in varying spots. How do I know...? I had to get my gaskets replaced. You go to Toyota and they put 4 new ones on.

    Can I come and visit you in that world you live in..? I am tired of reality.
  • It's not MY theory that DOHC is better than SOHC. Go read the Multivalve article at

    Pay special to attention to the parts that read:

    "Improving breathing is one of the keys for power enhancement. Unquestionably, in the 2-valve era valves used to be the bottleneck, hence the need for more valves...A typical 2-valve engine has just 1/3 combustion chamber head area covered by the valves, but a 4-valve head increases that to more than 50%, hence smoother and quicker breathing. 4-valve design also benefit a clean and effective combustion, because the spark plug can be placed in the middle...Formula One cars and even the Ferrari F1 cars which was once famous for 5V engine has switched back to 4-valve design a few years ago...In the mid-80s, both Honda and Toyota made 4-valve engines standard in virtually all mainstream models. The Western car makers did that some 10 years later!"

    Also consider this:

    Your extra .3 liters in your Jeep SOHC is only giving you 20 more horses and 15 lb/ft torque (at 800 RPMs higher) more than the Toyota's 8 year old 3.4.

    By comparison, the Toyota's new DOHC 4.0's extra .3 liters is making 35 more horses and 48 lb/ft torque (at only 3400 RPMs) than your SOHC 3.7.

    Why is the extra .3 liters in the Toyota DOHC making so much more power than your extra .3 liters?

    You stated "if the shootout between tacoma, wranger, and hummer was just a year ago, can you direct me to it? just fyi, it was a 1998 four-wheeler article i believe. you know, the first year for the TRD pkg., and you know what scorpio says, whatever is new and hot in it's first year usually wins the awards"

    Nope, the Tacoma has been winning awards since its first year and continually thereafter. Sorry.

    You stated "either way, your tacoma is still down on power and torque to the liberty, not to mention the all important mileage thing. and that's hilarious."

    Nope, we've already been down this road. The Tacoma has the better power to weight ratio. Your extra 600lbs more than cancels out your miniscule torque advantage you keep bragging about.

    Better mileage? Nope, in V6, 4x4 trim and auto tranny, the Liberty gets 16/20, the Tacoma 17/19 (manual Tacoma probably even better). Please explain to us all how the Liberty gets better mileage. I'm dying to hear this one!

    "Can I come and visit you in that world you live in..? I am tired of reality."


    I couldn't agree more!

  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    sad- why would it mean "jack" to you, im not directing it at you. you don't even have a front axle.

    pluto- the '03's get 17/21 mpg. better than tacoma auto. check it out, you're incorrect.

    at least you didn't plagiarize that article now huh? your article doesn't say anything. basically it says that the more valves, the better breathing. well, not in this case eh? your DOHC design is still down. break it down all you want, you're still on the losing end einstein.

    stop comparing the new 4.0 engine to the 3.7. it's not even available in a tacoma. it's too bad you have to live in the future to beat todays jeep engines.

    smgilles- ok, so if you don't fix it it will fall off. big difference there eh? either way, my ranger's nor my liberty's flares aren't even loose. toyota can't even get a little flare to stay on. pretty sad. awesome quality though, right?

    pluto, if the tacoma keeps winning awards like you say, how come it only managed to get third in four-wheeler's pickup truck of the year contest this year? is that what you call winning? and the liberty finished second only to the grand cherokee in the four-wheeler of the year shootout. they hated the tacoma's suspension and even recommended switching shocks. and this is on your awesome TRD, factory off-roader. pathetic. if you call that an award, i understand your rantings.

    i guess im the only one who doesn't live in a world full of blind consumers who drive toyota vehicles. the ones who call loose fender flares and sludged up engines common maintenance. lmao
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    1. If you don't fix it it will fall off: You are the one with a busted fuel pump and leaky interior drain pipes. And our Tacomas didn't have to be recalled because their diffs exploded.

    2. 4-wheeler: Blah blah blah blah blah. Tohico shocks are stiff, so what? They hated the suspension....that was it. So it took a 3rd place. Do you know an easier way to stiffen up the suspension so that extra weight does not cause sag, other than to put stiffer shocks? TRD package is awesome for a starter, it makes a Taco very offroad-able off the showroom floor.

    Sludged up engines: no comments about the sludged up engines in Mercedes Benz? I posted a link....I guess their practices don't sound so good anymore.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    "pluto, if the tacoma keeps winning awards like you say, how come it only managed to get third in four-wheeler's pickup truck of the year contest this year? is that what you call winning? and the liberty finished second only to the grand cherokee in the four-wheeler of the year shootout"

    -probably for the same reason that the Wrangler never finishes 1st year after year, when it really should. I mean, is there really any vehicle that can compete with the TJ for off-road ability? no, not even close. But no one would buy the magazine if they had the same winner every year.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    benz engines and the jeep production facility in which manufacturing techniques (ie. assembly techniques) mirror those of MB factories in germany are two totally different issues. benz engines and chrysler engines have nothing in common. nice try though. i wonder if all those indy car teams with mercedes-benz engines would agree with your implication on quality.

    otoh, toyota built those engines that they tried to escape fault with. is that all you can drudge up on jeep engines? and concerning the hvac draining in the jeep on early models, at least chrylser adopted a tsb to fix the few problems. toyota doesn't even accept that some firewalls leak inside on tacomas. that's their whole philosophy, keep the tsb's and recalls down to make their products look better. the sludge issue is the perfect example of this. it caught up with them.

    it's good to see at least someone accepts that the tacoma can't hang with a TJ. now, the new rubicon is a TJ on steroids, and to be quite frank, is the most capable stock 4x4 production vehicle ever mass produced. end of discussion. anyone want to argue that? i can't see an argument for it, but im sure pluto will put his TRD against one. anyone who is a 4x4 nut and hasn't seen one in person should go look one over. they are truly awesome. dana 44's front and rear- locked at both ends, diamond plate body sills and skidplates, a 4-lo crawl of 4:1, etc. only jeep could build such a hardcore vehicle.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Benz engine was an example that sludge happens. By the way, Benz is also telling customers that it's their fault.
    Toyota agreed to fix 3000 engines, didn't it?
    And yes...there was TSB on the Lib leaks. It's just that I fail to find any problems involving leaky firewalls on Tacoma. You keep saying show some posts where people say they are leaking.

    Ford hasn't acknowledged the "persisting" problem with rear glass leaking, has it? Or is it that there is no persisting problem, but rather just one truck that got a defect? Think about it.

    TJ: Yes, it rules offroad, but how would you describe Jeep behavior onroad? I have one word for you: brick. While Taco combines best of both worlds, Jeep is the king of one, and a joke of another.
  • Regarding your theory on Toyota keeping their TSB and recall numbers low to make their products look better: BULL. If that were the case, Toyota wouldn't sell record-breaking numbers of cars - today's consumer is smarter (uh, there are exceptions...) than that. Consider the Corolla is one of the world's best selling cars, Camry has been #1 seller in America many years now, and it only took Lexus 10 years to become America's most popular luxury car. You don't achieve this success simply by refusing to issue TSBs and recalls. Sounds to me like you're jealous. And why no link supporting your theory?

    I don't deny the Rubicon is very capable (it should be, it's only designed for off-roading) - in fact, I've already told you that numerous times. But the very fact you're comparing it to a Tacoma (a TRUCK, LOL!) seems like an endorsement to me! BTW, do you think it's just a coincidence that only now Jeep is offering stock lockers? Or maybe they're trying to keep up with the competition? Hmmmmmmmmm....

    "they (Rubicons) are truly awesome. dana 44's front and rear- locked at both ends, diamond plate body sills and skidplates, a 4-lo crawl of 4:1, etc. only jeep could build such a hardcore vehicle."

    Your last sentence is wrong - "only jeep COULD build..." Puleeeze. You make it sound as if Jeep has the best engineering expertise in the world simply because they did what your average shade-tree mechanic can do - swap lockers and axles and weld skid plates. Give me a break!
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    we've hashed it out enough.

    have you seen the 2003 FX4 level II rangers? available in new sonic blue with blue/black two tone seat trim. this a freakin awesome truck.
    not to mention thicker glass, larger brake rotors. still dont see a full size spare though. could be mistaken however.

    also, the regular FX4 ranger (previously just "off-road pkg") now comes with a LSD standard. about time.

    gotta love that totally manual t/c in the level II.
  • smgillessmgilles Posts: 252

    More Tacos than Rangers were sold in September.

  • kbtoyskbtoys Posts: 62
    Have anybody drove a vehicle with a front locker? Yes it will crawl over anything but there is just no turning the wheel.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Its hard to turn with the locker engaged, but once its unlocked, steering is no heavier than a 4wd is over a 2by.

    And tbunder -- I care about front axles even though I don't have one, just like you seem to care about tuff vehicles even though your favorite "truck" was designed for women. Go make a run to the mall! Sorry, you just keep harping on my wimpy 2-tire pull truck. They lowered liberties cuz women and girly men like ___ complained about them being top heavy. Oh yeah, they were designed with offroading in mind - sure. MY BUTT, what a load of crap. Give me a break. For what they are, they are great for leaving the pavement but thats it. I like your company here immensely, but this is getting really old. Can you please go back to arguing for or against Tacos and Rangers? One a side note, tell me about your new Blaster.

    By the way, my new favorite 1/2 ton truck is a FX4 supercrew, but only in one color, white with tan bottom. Gorgeous truck. Also, no truck lover can help but like those Superduties. So don't say I am a complete Yota loyalist.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    that hurt. in any case, i know my girly jeep will traverse places that you could only dream about. with dana axles front and aft, trac-loc rear end and 13" of gc from frame to ground, there isn't a whole lot of places i cant go. plus, my jeep climbs like a leopard.

    blaster is a well, blast. cheap and fun. redesign helped 100 percent.

    the new '03 super-duty's are in a class by themselves. they stomp any gm or dodge truck with any tranny or engine. just did a huge test with all three. the ford trounced them. the new power stroke diesel will probably be one of the best truck engines ever produced.

    and just fyi, it was some magazine that wrote a bad article on the liberty that spawned the lowering issue. that's why DC lowered them. CR couldn't get one to roll however. and they even said the pre-lowered ones behaved better on road than the one they got after the raping took place.

    i looked at a new level II FX4 today in sonic blue, and a TRD in white. both trucks are truly awesome. i'd have a hard time choosing. id probably go with the ford simply cuz of the more powerful engine, bigger underbody hardware, dana axles (you can't beat them), and better interior mapping. the toyota, imo, looks cheap and plasticy and stuck in the '80's on the inside. but imo, the white TRD is probably one of the nicest looking trucks on the road. the new yellow ZR2's are sweet too. but the FX4 level II just has an aura about it. pretty rare to begine with, manual t/c, and some pretty cool white faced gauges and cool black and blue/red interior with buckets. plus, with that alcoa sticker on the wheels, you know it's special. just one of the little things the FX4 will be remembered for. specific off-road hardware. yeah, and the rear axles on early built examples.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Tacoma looks like a truck that was designed 8 years wonder. Kind of hard to compare a newly redesigned truck to an old design.

    I wish you would stop mentioning the "trac-loc rear and 13" LLL", because it sounds really sad when I have a locker and 15" try to make it sound special, and it isn't. You can say that the difference is all tires, but it isn't. And if it is, you can't put 31s on anyway without lifting it.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i picked up some '03 brochures at the dealer the other day. tonight i was just looking at them and noticed a few numbers i really couldn't believe.

    running ground clearance:
    Liberty 4x4- 8.9
    Wrangler- 8.8
    also, remember that these are lowered liberty's. add another 3/4 to an inch on pre-lowered ones. (i got one)

    approach/departure angles:
    Liberty- 36/31.5 degrees
    Wrangler- 41.8/31.3 degrees

    breakover angles:
    Liberty- 21.8 degrees
    Wrangler- 22.3 degrees

    track- front/rear
    Liberty- 60/59.7
    Wrangler- 57.6/57.8

    transfer case:
    Liberty- NV231
    Wrangler (non rubicon)- NV231

    what does all this mean? well, imo, it means that the liberty has a little wrangler blood in it. i didn't know they both shared the same t/c. also, interesting that the liberty has more ground clearance.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I have been curious but have never heard you speak much of 3/4 ton trucks so I didn't include that in my last post. Its gonna be a 6.0L, right? V8 still or did they go to an I6? I bet it will be hard for some to give up that old 525 ft-lb beast of an engine they use now. But yeah, I like lots of things about every thing on the road. I just could never buy a Mopar vehicle. They seem as cheaply made to me as Tacomas obviously do to you.The mopar vehicles I have dealt with personally not only felt cheap - everything broke. Though, the Tacoma interior may be old. Not one thing inside has broken after over 2 years of rude friends. If my last post "hurt" as you said and you were being serious, I messed up and the true point was not fulfilled.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    525 lb/ft of torque is a drop in the bucket for the new 6.0 V8 diesel in the new '03 super-duty's. the new one spouts out 560 lb/ft of torque at an incredible 2000 rpms, and 325 horsepower at 3300 rpms.

    like i said earlier, go sit in a liberty, drive one, or just look at one close. slam the doors, check out the door mounts. the thing is thick, and the door mounts are huge. especially the one in back. it must be 1/4 inch back there. trust me, i am very anal about my vehicle selection, and the jeep is not a cheaply built vehicle. everything was thought out very cleverly on the liberty. it does what it was supposed to do. provide good on-road driveability, while providing off-road performance that will play with the best of them.

    the cool thing about the new sd diesel, is the new 5-spd auto tranny. it senses when the brakes are applied and immediately downshifts to help slow the vehicle. read the article on it's pretty thorough.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I went and saw a little about the new diesels and saw that NO ONE will care about giving up the 525 ft-lb beast. Hehe. Oh well. Know of any place I can read about the actual engine and whats new about it that allowed it to be so much smaller yet so much stronger. I am pretty interested in this kind of stuff. Big trucks are the best!
  • This may be of interest to you

    As a sidenote, I would like to add that though I'm not a fan of "American" compact trucks, I think that Ford makes, bar-none, the best full size truck out there but only in diesel trim and manual transmission. Their gassers (and everybody else's) don't impress me much.

    I've been around enough horse trailers and rodeos in my lifetime to know what people who do serious towing and hauling drive, and they drive powerstrokes. I estimate I see 8 powerstrokes towing horsetrailers and backhoes (20,000lbs and up) for every Chevy or Dodge. And that's not coincidental. It's nice to see Ford hasn't compromised its trucks like Chevy has and still uses a solid front axle.

    Because I'm a traditionalist and would rather buy something with an established and proven design, I would be skeptical about buying the new 6.0 powerstroke. Let them work out the bugs first. Besides, with the amount of torque we're talking about with these engines, do you think you'll ever pull anything heavy enough to appreciate the new engine's extra 35 lb/ft?

  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    that new engine probably needs a couple of years to work out the kinks (IMO), just like everything no matter what the make. But I do agree that Ford makes great 3/4 tons, Chevy could give em a run if they had not given up the solid axle - that really made me mad. Oh well.
  • luca1luca1 Posts: 29
    why is this discussion continuing. It seems that this has nothing to do with the Liberty and some of the participants are more interested discussing pick-ups. No flame, just a question.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    but that's just me. i like to try new things.

    i don't believe in the theory of "working out the kinks" in a new anything. if you guys really knew all of the testing and prototyping that goes on before a vehicle is released for sale, i don't think you'd have that theory anymore (the liberty had been prototyped in some form or another since back in '97). sure, when the general public buys thousands, it's different than testing because everyone does different things to their vehicles. but an engine can only run or not. i haven't had one problem with my liberty aside from a part that im sure has been used in dc vehicles for years. and the engine is smooth as butter and runs harder than my ranger's SOHC.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    do you not consider the ford super-duty a pickup? that's what we're talking about at the moment.

    i stop talking about the liberty when everyone else does. i had to defend it to others who don't know jack about it and stereotype it as a ford escap/hyundai santa fe/rav4 type of vehicle. it isn't. not by a long shot. it has the same transfer case as the wrangler comes with, and has better running ground clearance than wrangler, has better departure angles than wrangler, better breakover angles than wrangler (pre-lowered '02 liberty's), and only takes two feet more to turn in a circle. not to mention it shares dana axles in the rear with the wrangler (non rubicon- it has 44's all around) and has a ifs dana 30 up front. how many escapes or rav4's or even tacomas do you know of with dana axles?
  • "i had to defend it (Liberty) to others who don't know jack about it and stereotype it..."

    Believe you me, I know exactly how you feel!
  • luca1luca1 Posts: 29
    I have a Liberty, and believe me, I always hear how it's not a real Jeep. I guess I was just curious as to why pick-ups were being compared to the Liberty. They are totally different vehicles except I guess they are all trucks. I'll just stay with the other Liberty discussions.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    hehe, don't let us scare you off. we all love 4x4's around here. i use to have a ranger 4x4 (3 in all- 2 reg. cabs), and adamently follow the tacoma and ranger and S10 ZR2's (2 of those- one a reg. cab). i love them all. i just like debating these toyota guys over my vehicle choices. i like to point out things that the toyota guys don't know about. the tacoma is an awesome truck, but without some competitive debate, life is a drag. due to a growing family, i had to get a different vehicle. i wanted something relatively cheap, but which still offered 4x4ability. yeah, i could've bought an explorer (not a new irs one), but figured for the price of a used explorer i could have a new liberty sport with more 4x4 hardware than any explorer can ever dream about. the manual t/c being the big thing as the explorer isn't horribly bad off-road (here they come on that comment).

    pluto- hehe.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    My thoughts about first year vehicles are really mimics of the things I have always heard about things. No real experience to speak of except my moms Chrysler car. Still runs good but the interior is long past "still together." Some companies seem to have trouble though. Think about the trailblazer, escape, and maybe some Yotas, I just don't know of em. What's the hurt in waiting a year if you have any doubts?

    And I love this one--> "i stop talking about the liberty when everyone else does." I guess you are right! Hehe.

    Has anyone seen the specs on the new Colorado - the Ranger and Tacoma have nothing to worry about. I was expecting alot more -- and its gonna be stepped up to midsize??? Good luck.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    the colorado is going to have the 275 horse I-6 standard i assume. and it going mid-size is what the competition will be doing too i assume. the new ranger is supposed to be bigger too. people just don't want smaller trucks anymore. this is backed up by the fact that the small truck segment is way down on sales. also, i read that there will be a new ZR2 pkg for the colorado. (what a stupid name for a truck).

    liberty just surpassed escape as #1 seller in its market. just fyi.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,870
    quote- this is backed up by the fact that the small truck segment is way down on sales.

    Perhaps if they would redesign the small trucks they would sell more. Toyota and Nissan are both selling well. When was the S10 last redesigned? 1994? Ranger? Can't even remember.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    if you really want to look at it, the ranger is still outselling everything. am i not correct? i will make that statement without even looking at any facts or stats.

    and the S10 was refreshed in '98 with a new front end. each year, there have been minor improvements. and i will also blanket that the S10 is second in sales.

    the ranger got re-designed in '98 with SLA suspension and a larger cab. in '01 it was again re-designed a little with an all new front end, new braking system, larger engine, etc. also in '98, it got a larger frame from front to middle of truck. it is fully boxed.

    in comparison, the frontier design got refreshed (plastic all over) in '01, but same as the '98 totally new design.
    the tacoma was new in '95, it hasn't changed at all except for front end treatment.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    But Rangers' advantage is slowly disappearing. Remember, you used to say "Ranger outsells Tacoma by hundreds of thousands"...well, looks like Tacoma outsold Ranger in September. Maybe in good times Ranger was outselling Tacoma, but when economy hit the bottom, look at what happened. Ford makes headlines talking about "restructuring", Toyota makes headlines making money.
    S10 maybe second in sales now, but not by much. Next month Tacoma could be in second place, the way S10 is selling.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    What We Know: This replacement for the aged S-10 compact pickup will have a larger overall size and a new range of engines derived from the 4.2-liter in-line six-cylinder currently sold in the TrailBlazer SUV. The base engine will be a 2.8-liter in-line four-cylinder that is expected to generate 170 hp at 5,600rpm and 175 lb-ft of torque at 3,200 rpm. A larger 3.5-liter in-line five-cylinder is projected to churn out a healthy 215 hp at 5,600 rpm and 225 lb-ft of torque at 2,800 rpm. Both engines are all aluminum and feature advanced technology like dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder for maximum power and effciency. Buyers will be able to choose between either a four-speed automatic or a five-speed manual depending on application. We also expect the Colorado to offer standard, extended, and crew cab bodystyles and an interior that draws heavily from the General Motors corporate parts bin.

    This is from the S-10 future vehicles page here at Edmunds.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    but do you really think gm will come out with an all new larger "midsized" truck with only 215 horses? when it already has the I-6 sitting there? speculation aside, i do not think that 215 horses will be the most powerful colorado engine. i could care, because i know the new ranger will have some sort of V8. unlike the new tacoma, which will still settle for the new 4.0 V6. it may make more power than the new ford V8, but i guarantee that the new V8 ranger (when it gets here) gets will make more torque, which is really the important thing around here.

    scorp- it's still third hat in sales. it will never be #1. or #2. take that to the bank.
  • Good for Tacoma! It is #1 in compact sales this month. Still alot of catching up to do to win #1 for the year...
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    but this year I wouldn't be surprised if Taco hit #2 in compact sales the way S10 is selling. It might actually be #2 already if you use September data and do some math. Of course, it's speculatory, but given the sales volume this year, highly likely.

    The new Ranger may have a V8, but lets was first supposed to come out in 2003? Then 2004? Now it is pushed back to 2005? With all the headlines about "restructuring" in Ford...who knows.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Doesn't matter, it'll make it to #1 eventually. What matters is that before tbunder used to say "Ranger outsells Tacoma by hundreds of thousands", and now it's down to "tens of thousands". Besides, if it makes #2, that's quite an accomplishment for a model that's been on the market for 8 years only.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    but for like the past three years people have been saying that about it getting the I-6. If it was, don't you think Chevy would be bragging about it too. Heck, they were bragging about the I-6 for two years before the Trailblazer came out. I could be wrong, though. Its about time. Hehe.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    is that the avalanche is on the heels of the beloved tundra. not to mention it is up over 200% in sales over last year. now with a new avalanche coming out in '03 with none of that body claddding, it will sell even better. plus, it isn't as bad to look at it. looks like a normal truck. the days of hundreds of thousands over the tacoma are done simply because people aren't buying small trucks like they used to. ford isn't selling as many as they used to, therefore they aren't building as many. the whole market is soft. the ram is very impressive however in sales.

    sad- i dont know nor do i care. i won't buy a new colorado. it will be a new ranger i assume. as i expect the new one to kick [non-permissible content removed] whenever it comes out. there's always something new and better around the bend. no matter when or what you buy.
  • Yes the Tacoma sold more trucks in September 02, according to

    However for the Year of 2002, Ranger is still over 181,000 vs Tacoma's 117,000.

    But Yes, again, the Tacoma did sell 618 more trucks in September...

    See what I see?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    If people aren't buying small trucks like they used to, why aren't we seeing that behavior with Tacoma?

    Avalanche vs Tundra: who cares?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Like I said, Tacoma will get to #1 eventually, if they choose to. It's not like Toyota is making 200,000 Tacomas a year and can't sell them. They are going rather well without any rebates and 0% financing.
    Ranger still sells more, but it is no longer the "hundreds of thousands" more units. I'll be laughing when Tacoma tops S10 in sales for this year. Tbunder said to take it to the bank that it would not. We all know how much his "facts" are worth.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    I would like to see some data showing that compact truck sales have significantly dropped off. (adjusted for the fact that all vehicle sales are down due to the economy) I'm skeptical.
This discussion has been closed.