Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - V
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
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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?
-wsn
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
http://www.ford-trucks.com/news/news20.html
a little old article but the point is there
"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.
Ditch those awful grills! What the heck are you guys thinking????????
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
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)
-wsn
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.
(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. . .
As Meatloaf says. . ."Tow out of three ain't bad. . ."
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.....
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
Nice try though!
-wsn
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.
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.
The engine isn't larger. It's still 4.0 liters. It now has a OHC compared to the previous OHV. Its output has been increased to 205hp and 235ft/lbs of torque.
http://cartalk.cars.com/Survey/Results/Demographics/Makes/toyota.html
mags the Tacoma wins?
How many people actually responded to this "all-knowing" survey that you graciously posted to shed light on us all? I can't seem to find any numbers.
8^)
Whacha means we's not ucated?!?
Good post on the engine issue. Very informative.
I have carried a ton more than once, no problems.
Here's an example:
Hindsite does NOT search the web all day looking for sites that bash Ford.
What mods have you got on your truck so far? I've got the KKM Tru-Rev and plan on adding a Gibson cat-back and a Superchip. That's probably as far as I'll go. After that and you're starting to put out much more green for modest gains (unless you go supercharger with lotsa green and lotsa power). But, there are many pluses and minuses with supercharging.
Heck, even a cheap old Ranger has them, complete with AC in the fan position to rapidly clear even the foggiest side windows.
Cthompson:
Well, since new added Skidplates($150), the 31 inch BFG's($525 but hey, tires are a wear out item), Amerigard spray in bedliner ($345), TecSport soft bed cover($159), EGR bug screen($59), KKM Tru Rev ($100), a couple of chrome tow hooks on the rear($15) and overload progressive springs ($125) which puts me up to around $18,650 for the entire rig.
I want a bull bar, chrome if I can swing the price, a winch with front reciever. Thought about a superchip but I like running the cheap gas(85 octane out here in Denver area) and while the extra umph might be nice, have not found a compelling need so far. Would have to get more than likely the 92 octane with a chip at (gulp) $1.50 a gallon. Paying $1.27 now.
BTW found out that the KKM bolt torque rating is 104 inch pounds max.
Well, since new added Skidplates($150), the 31
inch BFG's($525 but hey, tires are a wear out
item), Amerigard spray in bedliner ($345), TecSport
soft bed cover($159), EGR bug screen($59), KKM Tru
Rev ($100), a couple of chrome tow hooks on the
rear($15) and "
What? You had to ADD skidplates? what the heck? lol!!!!!
You also had to add tow hooks? what the heck????
I can't beleive this stuff isn't standard. But passenger side vanity mirrors are? lol.
REAR tow hooks. There are 2 front tow hooks standard. As I understand it the rear tow hooks were standard on the 98.
So how do you defog the sidewindows spoog?
Hankerchief, papertowel or just the palm of your hand? I turn on a switch. 8^)
Seriously folks, no side defog on a Tacoma? Is that true?
By the way how are the BFG's holding out? Any pics yet?
-wsn