Howdy, Stranger!

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





Welcome to the Edmunds forums! We are changing the way you sign into our forums. Click here to learn more.

Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - V

meredithmeredith Posts: 578
edited March 2014 in Toyota
This topic is a continuation of Topic 1469....

Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - IV. Please
continue these discussions here.

Participants are reminded of their Participants
Agreement
and the requirement for civil discourse.
Offending posts will be deleted, and those who
cannot abide by the Participants Agreement will be
banned.

Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
«13456720

Comments

  • LOL ... well we didnt get frozen ...
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Meredith must have some serious patience. I have to commend her for not shutting us down, kudos Meredith.
    I know at times we all can be quite childish. Overall I think we all have supplied good data/links/info to those wanting to know more about the Ranger/Tacoma and their strengths and weaknesses.
    Just out of curosity. On the Ranger, below the oil filter they supply a funnel with a tube that goes along side the transfer case so no oil drips onto the exhaust/mechanicals of the truck. The oil left in the filter goes very nicely into your oil pan. A very nice feature if I may add. Does the Toyota offer this?
  • more Proof that tsb's are not even relevant to a trucks reliability... The Chevy S-10 is the LEAST reliable of all the small trucks.. (this is documented from Various sorces (i.e. consumer reports, jd power, etc.)) but yet a Tsb search on a 98 s10 only turns up three results, while the 98 ranger turns up 89 and the 98 tacoma 14. so If the tsb's were truly relevant the S-10 would be the most reliable truck, but we all know that is not true.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    Sorry Chief not me! I have made no such comments regarding 2.7's or 3.0 v6's

    -wsn
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    Well the topic is not exclusive of 2WD vehicles.

    Would love to here from more Tacoma 2WD vehicle owners.

    Just so you know, your clearance is about an inch more than the 2WD Tacoma. I have measured them.

    Great post. You point to what you get for what you pay. Reinforces the Consumer Reports comment of a "BEST BUY"

    Want another statistic? Measure the THICKNESS of the doors on Tacoma and Ranger. Ranger is a much heavier constructed door. The newer ones for sure are built tougher than the older models and in my opinion are equal or better in construction to any Toyota on the road.

    And for the people that think the Ranger is an old style never changed, well do not forget that in 1998 Ranger got a New Front suspension design and over the years the rear suspension has changed a bit. As I stated before the frame design changed in 1998 from 5 to 8 cross members and you will notice that Ranger has no recalls or TSB's on frame problems, something the earlier Tacomas cannot state.
  • I stated I would prefer the 2.7 to the 3.0. This is completely based upon my experiences driving frriends trucks wih these Engines. Have you ever driven the 3.0L? Noisy and difficult to maintain speed and again noisy. Looking at the numbers from carpoint these two engines are almost identical in MPG, a slight edge to the 2.7 in HP and a slight advantage to the 3.0 in torque. But agian my opinion stems from my firsthand driving experiences. This is only my opinion and sure others see it differently.
  • reddogsreddogs Posts: 353
    to throw in those Mud Flaps doggone it!!....:0]
  • i am planning on keeping my truck for at leat 6 years... and for that price i could have gotten a 4WD Ranger pretty much loaded. Spending $6000(remember rebate) dollars more was not an option that would fit into my current budget. if i wanted a Prerunner type truck the Ranger stance package would have cost me.. $14,406 wich is still About $4000 less expensive.. still no doubt in my mind about what to buy there... I admit the Tacoma is a little more reliable but not $4000 more reliable. Now you can go and talk about resale value but that will be six years from now at least and my finacial situation will be much differnt than it is now, and at that point ill probably be buying a 4wd ranger. my previous car was an 85 bronco II with 125000 miles on it. never had a major problem with it and that was an Eighties ford. and by the way Trucks are a very poor INVESTMENT i have a lot better ways to invest $4000. The ford engine could blow up right ater the warranty expired and i could have it replaced for under $4000.
  • i payed 500 under invoice for my ranger including all ticky tac fees.. $30 mud flaps wernt going to be a negotiating point... Just glad they came standard
  • hindsitehindsite Posts: 590
    I have worked with the GC and I view the unions as a part of the industry. I have done a lot of work in the past in hi rises, public agencies, and public schools in the NY metro area. Businesses here are still booming and will probably continue for the next year or more. Personally myself I have a deep respect for the people in the trades. One branch of the contruction business that I do not like is the coalition. One bad scene happen to me a while back with the coalition and reminded me of being back in a forward area or on the line. I can say when your life is on the line you fight back. Thanks for those flattering comments about my web site. Hope all goes well up there.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    It is no secret that option for option a Ford RAnger can be had for less than a Tacoma of any model.
    The 3.0 has 150HP and 193ft/lbs of torque, the 2.7 has 150HP and 177ft/lbs of torque. My buddy has a 3.0 4x4 and his runs smooth? not noisy and has plenty of pep. I have been to other Tacoma rooms and have heard many say the 2.7 is weak and should not be used in a 4x4? I am trying to find the torque/HP curves again, but I know the 3.0's torque curve is much better than the 2.7's. The 2.7 has to work harder in order to reach its peak torque.
    I too would like to hear from more 4x2 Ranger owners out there.
  • After trying to find info on the 3.0L numbers I am confused and give up. I cant find any sites that agree on numbers. Cant get any torque numbers from Ford site. Ford says there FFV 3.0L has 140hp and Carpoint says 150hp. Who knows and if they stated 300hp I would still say it doesn't drive well. I have two friends with the regular 3.0L and both seem loud and weak.

    If you visit Tacoma Territory you will see many off road equipped 2.7L. In fact most of the more modified Tacomas seem to be the 2.7s

    I drove a V8 Eddie Bauer Explorer this weekend and it felt like a rattling, noisey, ball of inertia that just did not want to stop when the brakes are applied. Very boat like and it made me sweat on the mtn roads. The more I drive my Tacoma the harder I find it to drive other vehicles.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    There are two forms of the 3.0L V6. One is the plain old Vulcan 3.0, and the other is the FFV 3.0, which can run on almost 100% ethanol. Each of these rate a little differently in hp and torque. Ford has alternately boosted hp/torque on both of these engines in different years. This is why the numbers do not seem to match.

    I had a '95 Ranger (traded in for a 4x4) with the 3.0L V6 and an auto tranny. The engine was smooth and offered pleanty of pep when the revs were up and during lower speed cruising. Highway driving could be annoying at times when in hilly areas because it would have to downshift (cruise set to 65-75) to maintain speed on a medium-large hill. This could easily have been cured should I have purchased a manual tranny equipped 3.0 with the 3.73 or 4.10 gearing. The 3.0, auto tranny, and 3.55 gearing do not mate well in my opinion.

    With the manual tranny and 3.73 or 4.10 gearing, a 3.0 Ranger is actually pretty quick. My father had one (in the 2.9L version), and I believe it could have beaten my 4.0 4x4 auto that I currently own due primarily to the manual tranny and 4.10 gearing on his 4x4.

    Unfortunately for the economy-minded out there, a 4 cylinder powerplant cannot provide the low rpm torque figures needed for "truck" duties such as a 6 cylinder powerplant. (Except maybe if you use some form of forced induction)
  • right out of the ranger catalog..

    150 hp @ 4750 rpm
    190 lb/ft @ 3650 rpm
    18/21 mpg 5 sp manual

    2.7 Liter I4 from Toyota's website

    150 hp @ 4800 rpm
    177 lb/ft @ 4000 rpm
    17/21 mpg 5 sp manual
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    I believe that the FFV 3.0 (which has higher hp and torque output) is the only 3.0V6 offered in the current ranger.
  • ""The consumer preference is reflected in Ford Ranger sales, which rose 26 percent in April, making it the fourth best-selling vehicle in the U.S. this year."

    http://www.ford-trucks.com/news/news20.html

    a little old article but the point is there
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    "Chassis refinements, including revised front suspension tuning and a sound package, improve ride quality and increase interior quietness while the four wheel anti-lock braking system (ABS) - now standard across the board - adds confidence to driving under all conditions"


    "Revised front suspension tuning" ? Ouch.

    I thought maybe FORD would wise up and rip apart that previous Ranger suspension(CspounserS) and put a decent one on there. Looks like that's not going to happen.

    Also, if anyone happens to follow Scottss link, I noticed alot of the Ranger "improvements" are purely cosmetic, pointless things. I don't see any hardcore 4x4 features added here. I certainly don't see word of increased towing or payload capacity. Where are the TRUCK features? I read of seat belt light warnings and other neat doo-dads, but these "features" wont improve the Ranger in offroad conditions at all.

    Where are the clutch/start/cancel switches? Where is the increased ground clearance? Where is the factory locker? Where is a REAL offroad suspension?Why does the Ranger still have the pavement favored suspension 4wheeler.com ripped on? Where is the wheel articualtion? Where are the ACTUAL "active lifestlye" features? lol!

    Looks like Ford is all about IMAGE, and selling an image. They are CERTAINLY not about substance, or they would be putting a beter suspension on the Ranger and adding REAL truck features, not KEn and Barbie Ranger features.

    And isn't Vince 8 the one who says "enjoy the sticker" ? lol

    Well gang, looks like the Tacoma will once again dominate in the offroad department.

    ON highway performance and figures remain to be seen.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    FORD AND TOYOTA:



    Ditch those awful grills! What the heck are you guys thinking????????
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    I had a 94 Ranger supercab XLT and it had the 5Spd 3.0 v6 combo. It wasn't that bad but on the highway it was awful. No passing power on the highway or even around town. had to spend alot of time downshifting a gear or two. My uncle had the same setup with the auto and it was a real dog. Couldn't get out of it's own way.

    The only thing i miss about my Ranger was it had the old fold into the side wall rear SuperCab seats. They were completely out of the way when you needed them to be unlike the Tacoma and the new Ranger ones...

    -wsn
  • still refusing to acknowledge the new engine.. that itself will increase towing capacity, if not payload as well.. and a Tacoma Fan should not rip on ford for marketing an image.. The Tacoma is always marketed as an image.. Ford's philosophy is giving people what they want. I wouldnt pay $200 for a clutch cancel switch, i wouldnt ever need it.. Locker.. gonna have to agree with vince, id rather have a limited slip rear end.... Ground clearance... that all comes with bigger tires and most buyers would rather have a smooth ride over 31"tires.. if one want them with some of the money they saved by buying a ranger they can go get some top of the line offroad tires, and still have money in the bank..

    And spoog what do you know about revised suspension..... what do those words tell you... just a new washer on it... or maybe new heavy duty shocks... maybe greater suspension travel.. I dont even know so im not getting excited but you need to take a pill and not rip on something that doesnt mean anything.

    as for my feelings... the edge will probably end up in the same place as the splash...

    I like the new grill...

    the new engine will increase all performance aspects especially the percieved ones such as its offroad ability... the increase in power will come with an increase in confidence of the driver in the trucks ability..

    now i cant wait to see head to head reviews of SIMILAR 2001 Rangers and Tacomas (ie both with thier respective offroad packages)
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    Hmmm... You rip on a company for improving its product's performance in 99% of its general use. No comments on the new engine or transmissions (auto or manual) either?

    It sounds like somebody is a little insecure and needs to justify the extra 7 or 8 grand they spent on their truck (remember that extra $3,000 for the supercharger?). By the way, what did you pay for your truck?

    Another thing, off-road performance is not the only factor in a truck's utility. I'll bet even your truck is on pavement at least 95% of the time. With most purchasers, I'll bet it's even greater exceeding 99%.

    I have never heard of anybody complaining that a payload of 1500lbs and a towing capacity of 5000lbs is too little except for toyota guys trying to critisize the ranger. Anybody with serious towing duties would be crazy not to opt for a full or mid-size truck with V8 power.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    I would be careful with quotes from Carpoint msn, SOMEONE on this board has blasted ALL Ranger people that have EVER posted from there. Remember, they do not evaluate trucks therefore they do not know what they are talking about?
    (psst I do not agree with that. . .)

    Nice post on the Fremont plant. I lived about 3 miles from there for a while.
    Hope they do not substitute a Chevy tranny by mistake. . .
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    my mpg is about the same or greater than Tacoma and my cargo room is greater.

    As Meatloaf says. . ."Tow out of three ain't bad. . ."
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    This is what Tacoma owners just plain fail to see. Ford Ranger has hit the mark when it comes to what the MAJORITY of compact truck owners want in a truck. Heck, even my Ranger sees offroad about 20% of my total driving time I would say. Most truck buyers want comfort, ride, options. The TRD package isn't image?? LOL. Nice sticker!
    The new Ranger will probably toast those Tacoma owners who talk 0-60 times, or braking distances since Ranger has 4wheel anti-lockes as standard.
    Isn't it funny how a Tacoma owner can quote MSN and its ok and good data, but when a Ranger owner quotes MSN (carpoint crash data/reliability data) its garbage.... hmmm.....
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    You must remember 2 things.

    1) This is not a post from carpoint just a repost from Kiplinger's

    2) If i remember correctly everybody was willing to accept carpoint's views, but certain people were not willing to accept both pro's and con's

    I myself will accept carpoint's views. will i say they are not somewhat subjective and are they the bottom line on expertise? NO! Do they give people a good starting point and Pro/Con reviews? Yes!

    Can i accpet their (Dan Herald) review of the Tacoma? Yes!

    Kiplinger is an Investment Outfit, and it was nice to see that an Investment Outfit agreed the Tacoma was "Of Value" and was grade on this "Value" as well as heavily on "Performance"...

    -wsn
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    It was a repost from Kiplinger's, not a Carpoint/MSN review.

    Nice try though!

    -wsn
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    "the new engine will increase all performance
    aspects especially the percieved ones such as its
    offroad ability... the increase in power will come
    with an increase in confidence of the driver in the
    trucks ability.."



    huh? What are yout talking about?
    " Perceived offroad ability" lol!
    HAving a larger engine will make the ranger driver feel like the Ranger is a better offroader?

    The Ranger needs an entire new suspension to be a decent offroader, and a few more rugged features.



    Cthompson -

    I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but the ranger's standard payload number is 1,100 pounds. Thats what Cspounser's is. You need to have a 70$ option to get it upgraded to 1500 pounds. The standard towing is also somewhere near there.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    "I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but
    the ranger's standard payload number is 1,100
    pounds. Thats what Cspounser's is. You need to have a 70$ option to get it upgraded to 1500 pounds. The standard towing is also somewhere near there."

    Oh, I'm definately aware of it, and I think that it's GREAT. The purchaser only pays for what he wants/needs. Most people can get along just fine with the payload package #1. Others, like myself, paid the $70 for payload package #2 because I needed the extra towing ability.

    Maybe if Toyota would take this approach, they could sell more trucks. People could only purchase what they wanted, not have the price jacked up by adding "value" packages that had some wanted items and some unwanted items.

    In fact, I believe Ford's approach to optioning trucks is superb. You only pay for what you want.

    Take a look at the F150, the #1 selling vehicle in the U.S. It can be had in multitudes of trims, engines, and all types of configurations. You can custom tailor a truck to fit your needs.
«13456720
This discussion has been closed.