Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
"taco is
a little better off-road, but ranger is better
on-road, "
No it isnt. The Tacoma beat the Rnager in every single performance category. That INCLUDEs on road handling and braking. The Tacoma is a finely tuned machine. If it has such a fab suspension offroad, what makes you think it cant handle the twist and turns? When it comes to performance, the Tacoma has the Ranger beat in every category. That can be PROVEN, and has been.
Unlike perceived seat comfort.
"so I'd net them about equal) and better
axle ratio. What you've pretty much got left is a
locker and front stabilizer bar."
And the tuned suspension, and the better gearing, and the higher ground clearance, and the better deaprture and appraoch angle due to the better wheel articulation. And the standar fuel tank and diff skid plates and the standard tow hooks ect and the standard clutch start cancel switch.
not like its crawl ratio.
The ratios are as compared to Ranger automatic:
Toyota
1st 2.80:1, 2nd 1.53:1, 3rd 1.0:1 xfercase 2.57:1
Ranger
1st 2.47:1, 2nd 1.85:1, 3rd 1.47:1 xfercase2.48:1"
Source please.
"Crawl ratio of Tacoma 4sp automatic with 4.1 rear
end is:
2.80 X 2.57 X 4.1 = 29.55"
What tires? What package? What engine? ect?
"Not anywhere near the 40:1 ratio of the Tacoma
manual. To state it further, an auto equipped
Tacoma 4X4 will have a crawl ratio far worse than
my Ranger 5 speed manual vehicle. "
Um, not really. YOu have the 3.73 gearing, and the 5speed. I bet your ratio is right aroun 25.
Id like to see what your source is.
"My POINT is that when you compare an automatic vs
a manual 4 wheel drive, the automatic WILL be at a
disadvantage. A FAIRER test would have put an aut
vs an auto or a manual vs a manual."
Not really. Source please? Even IF it was auto vs auto, tha Tacoma still has more max rear wheel torque(4whweeler.com). Although the tacoma was praised for its great gearing, the main problem 4wheeler had with the Ranger was its ENTIRE suspension. They even said it was tuned specifically for the highway, and was poor offroad. The "whoopty-doos" were a big problem.
Its gonna take ALOT of redesigning to get that Ranger suspension up to the level of a Tacoma. In fact, probably a complete redesign.
Thats just how it is. Ford builds their trucks for people hauling and cushy highway rides. They have never engineered their vehicles with offroad use in mind like TOyota and Jeep do.
"Which is better?
"By the way, I just installed my rear tow hooks on
my Ranger. "
Why were they not standard? How can you not have tow hooks standard on a "truck"?
mmc:
Called the forest service and they did close Rampart Road Dec1 but Indian Peaks just west is still open at your own risk Cpousnr@aol.com (I can alway filter out spam/disgurntaled Tacoma owners(just kidding!) Lets try it sometime or even next spring in so Colo or 4 corners. Wasn't that link nice? I thought you said you were there once.
http://www.truckworld.com/Truck-Tests/98-prerunner/prerunner.html
Toyota, like Ford only makes one auto and one manual for its vehicles, 4X2 or 4X4. The engine was the 3.4 but is irrelevent for what I am trying to say, other than it shows the gears in the auto tranny that is hooked up to the 3.4.
You said:
"You have the 3.73 gearing, and the 5speed. I bet your ratio is right aroun 25."
Yes I have the 3.73, transfer case of 2.48:1 and a manual 1st gear of 3.72:1, source for that is the manual tranny ratios in the spec section of your favorate Four Wheeler article. So you take 3.72X2.48X3.73 and you get a crawl ratio of
34.411, worse than the Tacoma manual at 40.0 but better than 29.55.
Now listen real closely spoog. ALL I was doing was taking the statistics from the Four Wheeler mag where they list the tranny gear ratios(MAzda and Ranger manual trannys are the SAME), xfer case ratios and rear end ratios EXCEPT I went to the above referenced site for the tranny gear ratios of the Toyota 4 speed automatic. I plugged them in to the equation TRANS RATIO * XFER CASE RATIO * REAR END RATIO = CRAWL RATIO. I considered the best case for both in rear end ratio, a 4.10:1 and ALL IT SHOWED iin that case was that a Toyota automatic 4X4 with 4.10 rear end would have a worse crawl ratio than a Ranger manual with a 4.10 rear end.
If you remember the Four Wheeler article pitted a Ranger Automatic against a Tacoma manual. I amd SUGGESTING, based on the calculations, that on paper an automatic equipped Tacoma would be no match for a manual equipped Ranger, GIVEN the SAME rearend ratio.
I did not consider tire size, just calculated crawl ratio in those two situations.
I did see that the ratio on the Toyota automatic DID have a better 1st gear ratio than the Ranger automatic 1st gear, but again, like the manual, the Ranger has better gear ratios in 2nd and 3rd gear.
I am not ATTACKING the Tacoma spoog, just trying to provide some info for people to make a good decision.
was taking the statistics from the Four Wheeler mag
where they list the tranny gear ratios(MAzda and
Ranger manual trannys are the SAME), xfer case
ratios and rear end ratios EXCEPT I went to the
above referenced site for the tranny gear ratios of
the Toyota 4 speed automatic. "
Werent the tires of different size on those two vehicles?
I would still like to see a site that actually gives you these figures with all the auto trans without playing "swap the truck".
"I plugged them in
to the equation TRANS RATIO * XFER CASE RATIO *
REAR END RATIO = CRAWL RATIO. I considered the
best case for both in rear end ratio, a 4.10:1 and
ALL IT SHOWED iin that case was that a Toyota
automatic 4X4 with 4.10 rear end would have a
worse crawl ratio than a Ranger manual with a 4.10rear end. "
Pure speculation. I d like to see some performance tests data. Link please?
"If you remember the Four Wheeler article pitted a
Ranger Automatic against a Tacoma manual. I amd
SUGGESTING, based on the calculations, that on
paper an automatic equipped Tacoma would be no
match for a manual equipped Ranger, GIVEN the SAMErearend ratio."
Whoa! Wait a second here. EVEN IF the Ranger managed to have a better crawl ratio , it STILL would not have beaten the Tacoma. Remember, the Taco won every single performance category.
The Rangers suspension is just NOT designed for offroad use(4 wheeler technical data).
Adding better gearing really wouldnt help it out that much. It would be like trying to feed a dead horse. The tacomas shocks, stabilizer bar, trd tuned suspension, and everything else is just an entire phase above and beyond the suspension and design of the Ranger.
Like I said, in order for the Ranger to compete, Ford needs to ditch the highway suspension. Until they do, the ranger will always be crippled off road.
Example: You decide to compare the rear wheel torque of the ranger and tacoma. You take in no account of the axle ratios, transmissions, and tire sizes (of which the ranger is biasedly equipped in the negative on each of these). This only demonstrates to me and all those who read this board your absolute ignorance. I feel that me explaining this to you is a complete waste of my time, as you will no doubt understand any of it. I am positive that all others reading this post do understand, so I'll press on...
For performance, I am referring to 0-60 times, 1/4 mile times, skid-pad G's, slalom times, stopping distances, ect... of which you hastily refer to as a means of declaring the "better" truck. The only figure that a "truck" purchaser would care about is stopping power (of which the taco is better, point to toyota).
For comfort, I would prefer something that did not ride as stiff as an old grain wagon. I do spend about 95% of my time on paved roads, and you probably spend more than that on paved roads too. Out of curiousity, I examined the TRD off-road pkg a little closer. Its suspension bits consist of stiffer shocks, stiffer springs, and a stabilizer bar. So, this question comes to mind: Do you define an off-road suspension as having stiffer shocks/springs and a stabilizer bar? You often say that the taco has an off-road suspension while the ranger has an on-road suspension. Would adding a stabilizer bar make my suspension into an off-road suspension (it's already got stiff shocks and springs)?
Oh, if you're wondering I also do own a car. It's a '99 SVT Contour. Since you crave performance so badly, why not get something similar in liu of your truck (you obviously bought it for image and not purpose). The new Toyota Celica GTS looks pretty tempting. It will roast your truck in every performance category for thousands less.
Your tales of street-light drag racing (endangering everyone else on the road) and your postings show me of your immaturity and ignorance in everything automotive. Please educate yourself and grow up a little before you hurt someone.
Please feel free to quote me and pick apart my post. Your ignorant ramblings are quite amusing (probably to the other readers too).
I just spent a couple of weeks in Costa Rica (mountainous country in Central America). The guides driving the little 2wd 4cylinder tour buses were able to maneuver through obstacles that would have left you and your TRD stuck. Experience and knowledge, of which you are lacking, is the key.
that bad. I would rather sacrifice a little
stiffer ride for the great off-road performance,
especially in a truck! You want Comfort go buy
a 1979 Cadillac. I'm sure you'll find comfort
and enough room in the trunk to replace the
Rangers bed. What is it with compact truck
owners today? I mean admit it when your wrong,
everybody knows the Tacoma is a better off-road
vehicle then the Ranger. I want to buy an American built truck (only considering a Ford)
but I won't do it until it gets a considerably
more powerful engine and a stiffer off-road
chassis. If I wanted comfort I would get the
Caddy. And also what is up with these people
lowering their trucks, I thought that fad has
ending but I guess Vanilla Ice did come out with
a new alblum. Oh and about the Taco vs. Jeep.
Had two friends recently purchase both of these
used this summer. Jeep had bigger aftermarket
tires both of them had 4cyl. engines. We were
offroading in Deep sand on a beach. Taco took
the cake. ....Also reason for so many Ford sales,
simply it's an American truck. Most americans
only buy american, but not for long "gen-x's"
like myself I am 20yrs. old, don't care!
!Warning! for Ford
MY bad i was a lil rude and im sorry..
Sppog bring out the worst in me LOL JKJK
On a different not, you mentioned NOS in a ranger on the Taco engine board, cool idea, but outside of mudbog racing or dragstrips, it would not be functional, you normally don't hit the luaghing gas until under full throttle, and you can only use it in shorts spurts, and it is very hard on motors, especially ones that are not professionally balanced and blueprinted, plus i saw a picture of a guys tank blow up in his garage. The car was demolished, it looked like a serious car bomb, and with the nitrous in a truck, where do you put it, not in the sun because heat is bad, and not in the cab beacuse that is suicide. Turbo's also are not great for off-roading because the don't spool up very well at low speeds/low rpms (turbo lag). A super charger is the only induction modification of this nature I would put into a 4X4, I think Paxton makes one for the 4.0, i don't think they do for the 3.0 though.
schmpherr:
A 4x4 truck of any make will handle better in the snow and ice than any 2wd vehicle, such as a car. Also, a properly equipped 2wd truck (your uses show little need for a 4x4) will also handle well in the snow and ice. I would suggest getting a truck with a limited slip differential, snow tires (cost you $400 from tire rack including rims), and 200-300lbs over the rear axle. Any of these would also help a 4wd truck traverse the white stuff. I got rid of my 2wd truck (no LSD, no snow tires) because I was having trouble getting stuck while towing snowmobiles. But, beyond this it wasn't too bad.
schmpherr:
A 4x4 truck of any make will handle better in the snow and ice than any 2wd vehicle, such as a car. Also, a properly equipped 2wd truck (your uses show little need for a 4x4) will also handle well in the snow and ice. I would suggest getting a truck with a limited slip differential, snow tires (cost you $400 from tire rack including rims), and 200-300lbs over the rear axle. Any of these would also help a 4wd truck traverse the white stuff. I got rid of my 2wd truck (no LSD, no snow tires) because I was having trouble getting stuck while towing snowmobiles. But, beyond this it wasn't too bad.
cthompson - I don't think that there is much doubt she is getting a 4wd. She already drives a car, (an 81 Mazda Rx-7, manny trans) and she doesn't like driving it in the snow. It's too low, too light and too powerful. That and its falling apart. So shes looking for a newer vehicle, one that can get her where she has to go. She knows 4wd doesn't make her invincible on snow, but she has had to get her car pulled out of a mound of snow before and doesn't ever want to do it again. (Or is it, I DON'T EVER WANT TO DO IT AGAIN?) Anyway, she's been looking for a while now, and I don't think she's looking to do anything until next summer, but the issue of winter is coming up again so I thought I'd ask. Thanks again.
Yea Tacoma's are more expensive, you don't have to buy one. Leave them for us seious off roaders that run w/the Jeeps.
Its nice to seem someone post something that makes sense for a change.
The Jeep and Tacoma are the best stock 4x4's offroaders made, period.
If you want more, you are talking land cruiser range rover money.
Thanks for the input on the shocks, did not consider that originally. Just going on what I was told regerding getting some for a Ranger. The RS9000's, while expensive, are attractive because your not stuck with the midrange, such as the RS5000 and I just am not sure about regular shocks as they could be too soft. Bus seriously, thanks for the feedback.
In regard to NOS, I just saw a system available and is was a lot cheaper than an Turbo or supercharger.
Thanks for the USEFUL imput.
smcpherr
Well even the highly regarded spoog, a Tacoma man, calls the Ranger a "Grocery getter" although my grocries seem to be on 9-10,000 ft 4X4 roads. . .
We are in the process of haveing a bad snow storm right now and I have been running fine with mine in 4Xhigh thru the real slushy areas because I do not have my sandbags in the back. Ranger with the Independent Front Suspension handles very well.
Test drive them both, then judge.
briscoe1:
I'm coming to Houston last week of Dec, I'd bet my Ranger will run with your Tacoma. . .
Now, SERIOUSLY, you think the Tacoma or Ranger can compete with a 93.4 inch wheel base?
Now I have stated often and it is the truth, I have never seen a Tacoma out where I 4 wheel, not to say they have never been there. But I have been wheeling with Wranglers, CJ's, Cherokees, older F150's, and older International Scout, S-10s(he was having some trouble) and even a Suburban on 10,000 ft 4 wheel passes in the Colorado Rockies not to mention some ATV's on wide ATV trails.
Now if I can keep up with them, and I did, with the exception of passing on a mud pit a Jeep thought I could go thru and that one time of hitting an icy 45degree slope with wet muddy tires, a Tacoma would be no challenge for me. Sorry to be blunt but Tacoma's are great trucks but they are no JEEP.
Check this story, nothing is invincible:
http://www.binderbulletin.org/cgi-bin/boneheads.pl?read=5
It does refer to "blowing something in the Tacoma" does it not?
; )
BTW you may be interested in this URL:
http://www.binderbulletin.org/trailreports/
Colorado Trail Reports.
Looks like a scratch for this weekend,kinda snowy right now as I am sure you know, but DO email me and maybe in the sping we will get together a trail ride of some local Denver 4X4's. I will keep your address in my list.
Do you know what vehicles are used at the Jeep Jamboress and JEep gatherings for emergency, tow, and follow-up puproses? Thats right, the Tacomas.
position that the Tacoma is the greatest thing
around."
It is the best stock offroader made excluding the fully stock equipped wrangle for under 40k.
"Check this story, nothing is invincible:
http://www.binderbulletin.org/cgi-bin/boneheads.pl?read=5"
LOL. This is Cspounser's usual lame tactic of trying to dillute the argument with pointless and silly links.
"It does refer to "blowing something in the Tacoma"
does it not?"
Something blows around here alright. Maybe its your saggy gearing and 100 horsepower at 9000 feet.
Texas!!! Ha, Ha, Ha, do they even have hills in Texas?? Do you know what the Cascade Mountains are? Have you ever seen Mountains?? Do you know how tall MT Hoood is? or even MT Rainer??? Offroad in Texas, HA, HA, Ha.
What is the 100HP thing at 9000ft spoog speaks of?? I have never had any problems in the mountains. Granted I do loose a bit of HP but not enough to make me stall or not able to get where I want to go. I would assume the Toyota would then have 115HP at 9000ft??
These folks who own these Tacoma's are just way over confident. I have a friend who has a Jeep and is an avid offroader. It is made for offroad, he has been in 4-wheeler mag several time, visited Moab, the whole bit. He would laugh his head off at these guys saying the TAcoma can keep up and do what a jeep can. Next time I see him I am going to let him know about this and see if I can get him on this board somehow.
A vehicle with a limited slip rearend would do the best on snow. Don't ask Tacoma owners, Toyota doesn't make a limited slip. Ford/Dodge/Chevy all make limited slips. And it can be had on virtually any model at that. I am not going to end this with my quote all of you hate to hear.
See you in some real hills, not bumps.
I would not have believed it either, but I have done it and seen it on more than one occassion. We had the Jeepers cheering one time. You see, when you have someones respect you can't put them down because their rig was impressive. I'll also admit watching them do some very impressive stuff too.
I consider myself a man of integrity and though my fish stories sometimes may include counting a few that got away, in the total. I am none the less honest. I was there and we were climbing stuff the Jeeps took 5 or 6 tries to do. Some of them could not climb them, gave up. One hill the Jeeps did not even come close, mind you it was an awesome ravine nearly straight up and 22' high. Don't under estimate the Tacoma. And I have the open diffs, still hammered the Jeeps on steep inclines, they would just slide down.
I was not aware this forum was for bashing Tacoma's. Save yourself the aggravation of wasting your time here. If you enjoy Tacoma's and great information go to
http://www.forums.delphi.com/tacomaterritory/start
I apologize to all for wasting my time w/those that have so much knowledge. Cheers to the mountain men.
Try this DNS
http://forums.delphi.com/tacomaterritory/start
Later
Toy and LSD's
The latest Landcruiser uses a locking center diff, and an LSD front and rear...
I agree with our Texas friend. All my Jeep friends dismiss most everything. They all like Toyota's though. One of them is a Sales Manager at a local dealership!
-wsn
I believe its a rear locking diff, not a center.
And this does concern me. Before the 99 model, the landcruiser came with locking diffs in the front, center, AND rear. All but one was yanked from the Cruiser for the new models. The 97 and previous landcruisers were basically tanks with rubber. They had such massive traction and power with all 3 of those locks on.
I hope this is not a continuing trend for Toyota.
I notice that the Tundra, while offering great ground clearance(usual toyota standard) just doesnt have the usual toyota offroad features, and no available locker. I hope this is not a trend for them. If so, my next vehicle may be a Jeep, even though their reliablity sucks.
I buy the Toyota trucks for their offroad prowess and the reliability. Take away one of those , and Im willing to look to Jeeps corner.
http://www.thecomplaintstation.com/f/ford_toc.htm
www.thecomplaintstation.com/t/toyota_toc.htm
But, upon further examination it seems that the vast majority of complaints are for minor items (search under Ranger, 15 total complaints), are for something breaking on a 10yr old vehicle with 100K+ miles on it, or are for something breaking due to lack of maintenence.
Really people, if you go 150K miles and put nothing but gas and oil in a vehicle, consider yourself lucky and go buy a lotto ticket. I would expect to spend a few hundred dollars on parts that wear out, such as tires, starters, alternators, etc... over the course of a vehicle's lifetime, which I consider to be 10-15yrs & 150-200K miles. If a manufacturer could build some sort of indestructible vehicle, everyone would buy it and only it. I have found that people who have their cars in the shop on a never-ending basis often know nothing about vehicles, and it seems that they are being taken advantage of.
I saw many complaints in that site that mentioned problems with Rangers that had low miles, 20k and less.
My family has purchased many Ford vehicles over the years. In general, a vehicle might have gone to the dealer once for a minor defect. Other than that the only major thing I can think of is a transmission rebuild on a truck with 145K miles. If you call that unreliable, what do you call Chrysler products?
-wsn