Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - III
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Nice truck. Nextime put Mt Hood in the background ok?
Hindsite:
One of your posts, if you go up one level, has a review on Ranger. I guess to sum up on the two the nod to Tacoma for a sportier truck, and Ranger to more of a truck/truck, a fair essesment.
I thought too of what you said regarding a crash test on a 4X vs a regular 2X. Fair question but, according to the report the following was identifed, the forces applied to each vehicle for an equal crash:
Thoracic Trauma Pelvic Deceleration
Ranger 50 81
Tacoma 106 145 (you died)
4-Runner 25 50
Would love to know why 4 Runner is so different.
Does anyone actually answer questions in this group other then cpousnr (thanks for link on gear ratios) answer questions. The only way to get a response here is to insult someone.
I think it fair to say that the Tacoma does have some serious safety issues and is pricier but how can anyone say that a truck that has more ground clearance, more HP(I concede it has less torque), can haul and tow just as much as the most equiped Ranger and definately more then the S-10, and has never recieved a bad grade by anyone regarding its off road capabillities with any trim level not be considered a truck? There is also no question about its reliabillity. If these factors dont constitute a "truck/truck" then what exactly does?
YOu see, the trend now is to go for higher valves, and lower liters, with more reviing. Take a look at the new 2Ford f150's. That engine is state of the art. You guys need to remember that the Ranger 4.0 is a very, very antiquated engine. In terms of cooling and engine life, it is pretty week.
"Get a truck engine, lower compression and
a shorter piston stroke. Will not wind up as fast
or as high. Longer stroke = higher hp as I recallthe equation."
The Tacomas 6 is an absolute GEM. Every review has RAVEd about the Tacoms v6, and most reviewers are very lukewarm about the Rangers antiquated 4.0.
ANd please dont forget that better gearing and better crawl ratios are instrumental in towing and climbing. Especially on boat ramps.
I suggest you all take a look at those great pics of the Tacoma pulling a giant modified f150 out of the mud. Now THATS one tough truck.
OH, and does the Ranger come standard with tow hooks?
Face it guys, the Rangers 4.0 is a pretty outdated engine. Its not very good in performance stats either. It also tends to overheat alot in high temps.
The Tacoma beat it in every single performance category.
And CSpounser and all you other high country loving truckers....you NEED to remember that the higher you go up in elevation, the lower your HP and torqu goes.
I would say Cspounser is running at 130 HP at 9000 feet. Go even higher, and his HP diminshes even more, right along with his torque.
Thats too bad.
Now if I took my TRD up there..... lets see....260 HP, 280 Torque.....ahhhhhhhh its so nice!
YOu need HP at higher elevations. I bet those 4.0 Rangers have to be mashed to the floor in some of those colorado passes. That low HP will do that to you. When it falls off high up, so does your torque. OUCH.
In the next few years, the Japanese makes WILL surpass American cars in sales. They are high in quality and technology ON A WHOLE. We can say this American car has this and that car has that, but if anyone looks around, it's plainly obviously that Honda and especially Toyota can't make a mistake and continue to make the best cars on the road. Each new Toyota model (Tundra, new Camry, Celica) has broken new ground in technology and reliability in each market segment. The only reason Toyota doesn't outsell everyone is a lack of production capacity. They simply don't have the infastructure to make 2 million cars in the US, YET. When they do, there will only be one reason to buy American cars, and that is price. And, that may not be a problem when domestic production of Japanese makes is up to snuff.
In short, there is no answer to my argument. American carmakes continue to fall short of standard with each new car. They either have too little horsepower or the proverbial "American Quality and fit and finish". So, in short, we are relishing the last golden years of American car manufacturing. In the Future, the car industry will be controlled by Japanese companies just like the TV industry. A very similar event, actually, was the story of RCA. It had similar market share and technological clout, but lost it when the quality and technology of Japnese brangs out did them. Oh well.
If only AMerican car makers would take the same time PERFECTING quality and fit and finish just as the Japanese have, they wouldn't have to rely on "ground-breaking" designs and low cost to sell cars. It shalln't happen in my lifetime, and as far as I can see, will never happen.
Thanks for reading
Btw I have some great sites for the Ranger and nothing bad.
I don't know if height counts, but I still would like to see some crash test done.
Yep I did send that E-mail to you.
"Wonderful Tonight."
Vince, I know you like to make it an issue, probably just because Ford offers one and Toyota doesn't. Toyotas have long been known for their off-road prowress, all the way back to the Land Cruisers of the early 70's. Some have been offered with true locking diffs (some LC's, TRD Tacomas, some 4Runners, I'm not sure how many/few have actually offered them), but I'm guessing that Toyota has never offered a limited-slip if they don't offer one now. From all of the rave off-road reviews of Toyotas for which Spoog is so fond, it is obvoiusly still not an issue that Toyotas don't offer a limited slip.
I have personally been in blizzards in my 4Runner (drove from Gunnison to Denver in near-white-out conditions with about a foot of snow/ice on Hwy. 285), gone over moderate to difficult mountain passes that require a lot of 4-low creeping over rocks and never had a problem. Drop the limited-slip vs. open debate. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE. I dare you to PROVE to me that it is. I know I don't have a Tacoma, but I'll bet you that the 4WD hardware with Tacomas and 4Runners are identical.
Limited slip is better than an open axle, any offroad person will tell you this. Just as the locker is better than a limited slip in rock climbing or extreme offroad conditions. I have already conceded many many posts back that a locker is better than limited slip, if I claimed otherwise I would have been laughed off this site!
My point is the locker is only good when the button is pushed and at 5mph and in certain situations. We all know just how much our trucks see offroad, maybe every weekend or so?? Most 4x4 don't even see gravel. The limited slip is ready all the time.
I also will continue to post pictures of my "Grocery getter" doing its duty here in the Northwest. My point is the Ranger CAN go anywhere a Tacoma can, haul, tow, whatever and for less $$$$.
Hind, don't understand what angle you are coming from. You switch from day to day.
If you're considering a 7 year old engine to be antiquated, then well... If you know anything about engines, you'll know that horsepower is derived from torque. I think the formula is something like HP = Torque/(5260 X RPM). And, peak horsepower is usually obtained at higher rpm's on overhead cam motors. This is the reason that manufacturers put high displacement OHV engines into trucks. They produce more torque at lower revs. This is simply to accomodate the truck buyer. Like I said earlier, if you want to put up great performance numbers, buy a car. The reason that your taco has such a wonderful "crawl ratio" is that the engine has to wind up to produce its power. This is toyota's way of compensating for the engine's lack of torque (especially in the lower revs). Take a look at a torque curve. Then, you'll see the difference between a 'truck' and a 'car' engine.
Where in the world do you get your data on "cooling and engine life" on the 4.0? Is this some of your anecdotes and here-say, or just something you pulled out of your a@@? LOL
tuzinator, you are greatly misinformed. By your post it seems like in the next 5 years Ford and GM are going bellie up are are going to be bought by Toyota/Honda?? or an already bankrupt Nissan who was already bailed out by Renault?
As far as market share GM now has about 30% of the U.S. market. This is more than all Japanese models combined. Ford is also on a huge roll. I believe Fords market share is about 23%. Don't forget they have Volvo, Jaguar, Mazda. GM ownes multiple companies also.
Honda is not that large of a company either. Their sales are not that great in Japan. The only place they really have a demanding market share is here in the U.S. I believe Honda is 12th worldwide when it comes to sales.
The market share the Japanese are grabbing has leveled off. This is even true in California which is where the Japanese have about a 55% market penetration. In fact I read an article about 6 months ago that Honda is ripe for buyout by either Toyota, Ford VW or GM. Honda is small my friend, they don't have the deep pockets that Ford/GM/Toyota/VW/Diamlerchry have.
As far as engines. Please visit the Ford/GM/Dodge research sites and then tell me they are behind in engine technology. GM is coming out with a whole new line of engines in their 2000/2001 models. Ford has multiple High tech V8's and a Duratec V6 along with its Zetec 4's form Europe. Sorry for the long post.
See you in the hills!
i too have a truck with an open diff. For my personal uses, the 4wd fulfills my needs. If I had a choice between the locker and a lsd, I'd go with the lsd because its use is not limited. A lsd would probably be a better choice for most people. The people who would benefit from a locker and know how to use them probably own an old CJ or something already...
Cthompson: I agree with you on the American vs Japanese thing. Its a global economy now, and anyone who doesnt realize that is a complete fool.
AS for your claim about the Tacoma, its torque is excellent. In fact, 4wheeler gushes over how it "pulls throught the entire power band like a small block v8"
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/tech.html
Its a refined, modern truck engine. It's the future of engines. This v6 design with the high valves and long powerband was first introduced by Toyota back in 95. Soon enough, ford started following suit with multi valve truck engine technology. The principple behind these new engines is that trucks work hard, and allowing them to "breathe" with higher revs and mutli-vlave technology will not only lengthen the life of the engine, but allow it to maintain its mechanical edge.
Its basically a matter of moving forward. If your used to the ole' pushrod engines, more power to you. But Toyota has, and is paving the way ahead. Take a look at its new v8 for the Tundra. Considered by every truck mag known to mankind to offer " the smoothest, fastest, most powerful standard v8 engine ever DESIGNED for a full size pickup". It OUtows, out accelerates, and outruns
all the big three V8's except the Ford 5.9(optional). NOt to mention the Tundra outbrakes and outhandles the big three....and as usual offers the highest ground clearance.
Anyway, the new v8 has been unanimoulsy chosen as the best standard v8 for full size pickups bar none. IT is another multivalve engine by toyota.
I find it funny actually that many truck mags are picking the Tundra over the others ALREADY in its first year!
Comments on the Tundra:
I own a 4x4 V8 Tundra. It is a great truck but I think the claims above are a stretch. The comparisons were done using the big 3's smallest V8's. Most of the big 3 trucks are sold with engines one size up from the base engine. Example: Chevy comes standard with a 4.8 but most purchase the optional 5.3 which puts out 270hp vs. the Tundra's 245. Ditto with Ford, 4.6 standard, 5.4 most popular. I think the truck is faster because it comes standard with a 3.9 rear vs 3.7 rear (or less) for the domestics, also the Tundra is lighter. One comparison not mentioned is low end torque, the Tundra is a little weak in this departent (I believe "no substitute for CI"), as it's multi valve engine likes to rev., once the RPM's hit 3k it's alomost like a turbo kicking in, fine for a car.
I'm very happy with my Tundra and think my standards are higher than most, which is why I can critique it. I bought the Tundra because of perceived Toyota quality, longevity and it's uniquness (I believe Chevy is junk and Ford is marginal). It does everything I want it to do, well. If I needed a serious work truck to haul or tow tractors and bricks, I would have bought the Ford.
As for towing and payload, the Tundra is superior verse the f150 and Chevy and Dodge 1500's.
The Tundra also out accelrates those trucks while towing 4000 pounds up steep passes.
Im not a huge Tundra fan, Im just stating the performance specs. I think it stinks they don't offer a manual trans, and Im not too big on the interior(although its light years ahead if CHevies fisher-price looking interior).
Im also curious as to why they dont offer a TRD package with a locker.
Please, don't get me started on the "I wanna play with the big boys truck" Tundra. Two engines is what the Tundra offers, how many cab configs? how many suspensions? The Tundra doesn't even offer a limited slip or locker. The Tundra interior room is about the size of a Dakota. I don't understand how Toyota can get away with calling this a "full size" when its dimensions are not up to the already set standard of GM/Ford/Dodge. Pricing once again is a joke when comparing like options.
Now lets get back to Ranger VS Tacoma.
About the Tundra, it's a downsized full-size truck that falls in a class with one other entrant, the Dodge Dakota. I sure hope that its best engine offering can beat the likes of the base offerings found in the Big 3's full-sized trucks. They're all pretty weak in a vehicle of that size. If the Tundra couldn't, they'd sell all of a few dozen per year, like the T100. I'd love to see a shootout between the Dakota and Tundra. They seem like two evenly matched trucks.
As for 0-60 times in a truck whether full-sized, compact, or V6/V8, I don't even care. It's a truck, not a sports car. Don't kid yourself into thinking that it's fast.
For Ford's 4wd, I have the pushbutton 4wd in my '98 Ranger. It works flawlessly. You can engage it up to 75mph (who in the hell would do that anyways?) and disengage just the same. It works like an on/off switch. It has always stayed in 2wd/4hi/4lo as selected regardless of what I have done, such as turning off the truck. It sure beats the hell out of my old Blazer's x-fer case, which was a pain in the [non-permissible content removed] to get into what you wanted.
Oh, and when I'm towing a few thousand pounds, I'm really concerned about my 0-60 time. LOL
The so-called "lockers" offered on many of the full-size trucks that people are discussing in other topics are really lsd's, NOT lockers. True lockers (like TRD & aftermarket) are for use in stuck/serious situations only.
First, spoog, I never said that Toyota makes bad engines. I have owned vehicles with the J45, the 2T-C, the 18-R, the 20R and two with the 3S-FE engine. Miles were 101K, 136K, 134K, 128K, and 177 & 180K on the 2 3S-FE's that are my kids cars. The 18R developed a ticking cause the cam was soft and I wore down a lobe. But the 3S-FE is definitely a high rev engine like the Tacoma's 3.4. It is just the classic truck engine IS a high torque, lower hp and GENERALLY has a bigger bore and shorter stroke than the higher hp/rpm engines to work with the required torque. this is not to say you can' put a high hp engine in a truck but I tend to agree with the comments regarding the gearing to compensate for the lower torque, IN GENERAL. I AGREE with you regarding the 3.4 and support the reviews feelings and the 220 torque is good for that engine.
The Ranger XLT 4X4 has 2 front tow hooks and mine will have 2 rear ones when I get some time to put them on the frame. Back to engines, the 4.0 is not that old, introduced 92 along with a 2.9LV6. I would doubt the 4.0 has that much hp at 9K but it works OK but the 3.4 would have lots of guts at that altitude.
Spoog, people are getting in excess of 150-180K on the Ford 4.0 between rebuilds.
tuzinator:
I would agree with you to a point. Edward Deming installed the Quality mindset in the Japanese after his ideas were not accepted by Ford in the late 50's, and Japan started kicking butt. Quality issues hit the American car makers but they are improving as of late. True statement that almost every car Japanese companies put out are great, the best perhaps being the Camry, however, the 81-83 Toyota diesel PU, I owned one, was a DOG. There ARE some ground breaking ideas coming from Ford and other American makers, will try to find the URLs as some look very bad to the bone. They are trying to get in on the successes of others and the market where people WANT these kind of things.
hindsite:
Re the sites, was not suggesting agreement, just curious how you FIND these things.
mmcbride1:
Mostly, I agree with you however a REAL hard-core 4 wheeler thinks the open is good for nothing. LS differentials are great, however, you MUST, if you change differential fluid, put in some compensator, or the clutches will engage when you don't want em, like on a curve. Plus the clutches WILL eventually wear out and need replacement but that is dependent on heavy use etc. But there is an edge vs an open with the LS. But more than likely if you are in 4 wheel drive, you will not hit a place that both front and rear are spinning a tire, and either of the 2 working correctly will pull you out. Lack of a LS or locker is no reason not to 4 wheel, unless it is all in bad mud. I agree, having owned a 71 Land cruiser, that not much stopped it and I think it was a 4.56 to 1 open.
vince:
Anyone with an open should have a come along or go with a friend to move a vehicle from a situation you describe, just in case. An open is only a serious disadvantage to, like a said, a hard-core off roader. Four Wheeler mag employees would not like it. You can get by without one but the LS is a nice feature. But in fairness to spoog, a locker is worth it if you need it. I can just never think of needing one. My solution is I am saving for a winch with a front receiver. That way, I can pull myself out if needed, front or rear pull, and the winch goes to my next vehicle. I would hope I would never need to use a winch.
cthompson:
You are more than likely dead on regarding the Taco crawl ratio and why it is what it is. Now before spoog and hindsite jump me, that was NOT meant as a negative. It is just to compensate for the higher hp.
The cooling issue spoog refers to is that older 4.0 engines had smaller radiators than the 98-00 and there was an overheat problem. A bigger radiator is/was the cure. My temp gage never even moves when four wheeling, ac on, ac off.
You know, the LS is nice and is an advantage in some circles, as is the locker. But the open is on quite a few Jeep Wrangler's some coworker owns and it never stops him.
I am going to look for the sites on the new upcoming fords. Even spoog would think they were mean. One was something like a 340hp V8 with just TONS of torque in an Explorer basic size. And strong indications they are going into production.
Ford Excursion, it is totally incompetent offroad.
Whats the point of posting Concept vehicles?
You (and you too, vince) must admit though, the TRD is the closest thing to a production hard core 4 wheeler out there (outside of a Hummer or G-wagen), because TRUE offroaders (as you said yourself) will want a truck with a TRUE locker. Not a limited-slip.
The limited slip is better than an open axle there is no question about this. And as I have said the locker is better than limited slip in hard and heavy offroad terrain. But as you said, in this type of terrain you will mostly see CJ's, and older type 4x4's that have been modified and the guys/gals don't care if it gets dented or severely scratched. Heck, I won't even take my 19K Ranger into places until I check them out and make sure I am not going to severely scratch or dent it or ruin a part of the suspension.
See you in the Hills. Snow is a fallen on MT Hood hope to make it up in the next 2 weeks and bring some good pics.
Vince - precisely the point - who is going to pay $20 -$30 thousand for a truck and and play Baja 500 with it? I don't dislike Toyota, own a 91 Toyota Cressida now and have owned four other Toyota products. Bought the Cressida upon return from Persian Gulf because nothing else came close to the value it offered. Like my purchase of a 2000 Ranger last month - couldn't see spending several thousand more when I wanted 4 doors and considered the use of the vehicle. Have 1500 miles on the Ranger now - and all is well. Great performance (without a supercharger) and value.
I realize there is a seperate discussion for this but I respect the opinions of MOST of the people in here. Does anyone have opinion on drop in vs spray in bed liners?
i often do that to see if people are listening.
You are correct, in GENERAL regarding the longer stroke for the higher torque engines.
mviglianco1;
SPRAYIN, SPRAYIN, SPRAYIN!
Clear? I have the Ameriguard sprayin and love it. Nonskid finish, takes a lickin, keeps on tickin. . .
Very good price on the TRD and good luck with it. Ah humm, when your back butt is sore, think of my comfortable (independently assessed) Ranger, and be REAL careful with them there side impact crashes cause you still have to pay it off even if your not around. . .(just gotta keep in the party line. . .).
Now it would be interesting to get the Tacoma automatic transmission ratios and COMPARE and run the numbers for it's crawl ratio. I would BET it would be very close to the Ranger automatic crawl ratio numbers.
Anybody have the Toyota automatic 1st gear ratio numbers?
and the Four Wheeler article was EXTREAMLY BIASED"
lol!!! I would hardly call beating the Ranger in every single performance category biased. Were talking hill climbing, offroading, 0-60,
braking, handling, ect. Look Cspounser...Petersons Off Road picked the non TRD over the Ranger in june in their compact pickup square off article.
The Ranger had the advantage in the 4wheeler mag.
It had a shorter wheelbase, which reduced its weight and its length.
The Rangers "offroad" package is a sticker and some shocks. Cspounser, you have that "delicate" rear end, dont you? Also Cspounser...how do you know you got the payload capacity option? If you didnt pay 70 dollars for that option, your looking at 1200 pounds max payload.
The Rangers with 40:1 just arent that common. YOu and Vince should have both done some studying
before purchasing your trucks. YOur crawl ratios really hurt in the mountains.
1. The Four Wheeler article WAS biased towards the Tacoma given the difference in the configurations of the vehicles.
2. The Four Wheeler article WAS incorrect in describing the Ranger. It DID NOT have the offroad option as proven by the math calculations of the crawl ratio, agin BIAS.
3. The crawl ratio of a Ranger 4.10 rearend 5spd. Manual IS within 2% of a Tacoma and less than 4% of a Tacoma TRD.
4. I do not consider my truck rear end delicate, as the Four Wheeler article considered the AUTOMATIC trans combined with the 3.73 delicate. My crawl ratio is 34.41 (which is quite a bit better than the 22.48 cited in the article, around 35% better to be exact exact) and makes it in the mountains just fine.
5. There is not, as I understand it, a 40.0 to 1 crawl ratio in a Ranger. But a 37.825 (ranger manual with 4.10 rear end) is not that bad.
If a Tacoma owner would provide the ratio of the automatic 1st gear, we would
I drove a '90 Chevy 1/2 ton, 2WD, standard cab,
short bed for 9 years. I recently purchased a '99
Mazda B3000 (same as the Ranger) 4WD extended cab.
I loved that Chevy, but I just didn't need that much truck. So I took the plunge and switched to the compact. Steering, braking, handling, and build quality are all superior to my previous truck. But the thing I have really liked from the outset is the compact's maneuverability and ease of use. Around town, commuting, parking, off road, the '99 B3000 does many things very well. For me, I like the smaller size. It has turned out to be a good move. Going to a compact from a full-size is not for everyone. But for some, it is certainly worth considering. Good luck in your decision...