I was just wondering what the Toyota guys thought of the Tacoma engine falling to the back of the pack."
Not really. The TRD supercharger factory option(also warrantied with the original engine) easily puts the Tacoma WAY ahead of the pack. Were talking WAY AHEAD of the pack. So it's not really an issue. Again, this is a FACTORY option, and is WARRANTIED right along with the length of your engine warranty. TRD is legend among the truck and offroad community. There reputation is su perceded by no one.
If you get a 21k v6 Tacoma, you can have a 280 HP,300 Torque Tacoma for 23-24k. Id say thats a GREAT deal for the ballsiest factory compact made.
And lets not forget the rave reviews of the PERFECT balance of the Tacomas trans and engine. There is a difference between slapping a bigger engine in a vehicle, and putting an engine in a vehicle and fine tuning it so it meshes PERFECTLY with the other componenets, creating a lean and effecient atheletic setup.
See 4wheeler.com and the 98 pickup of the year review for the excellent balance of the Tacoma motor and trans. THAT is superior. It's not always who has the most, but how does what you have work together with other parts. It's called good design philosophy.
Tacking on an aftermarket supercharger at the dealership is not what I'd consider a "factory option."
Besides, I wouldn't be worried about the first 60K when the engine is under warranty but the next 60K when it's not. How long do you think an engine that hasn't been prepped for forced induction will last under the extreme stress of a supercharger?
Also, I have heard of TRD having a problem with their supercharger on the Camry (think it was Camry). Don't they use the same unit on the Tacoma? That's the way it looks on TRD's website.
Also, you're a bit off with your specs. The TRD Supercharger package bumps output up to 256hp and 267ft/lbs of torque.
I optioned it to be somewhat on par with the Lightning. I also optioned a Dakota 5.9 R/T to compare also. Their MSRP pricing is:
Ford Lightning: 31,300
Dodge Dakota R/T: 25,900
The Dakota looks like the performance truck bargain here with 250hp & 345ft/lbs of torque for about a grand less than the supercharged Tacoma.
The Lightning is really in a different league here with 360hp and 440ft/lbs of torque. A truck than run a 13s quarter in stock form would definately be worth the extra 4 grand to me.
Also, let's not forget the discounting available on domestics and number and proximity of dealerships. You'll be able to finagle a better deal at a Ford or Dodge dealership than a Toyota dealership. This is unfortunate. My wife liked the Camry we test drove a couple of years back. But, the extra 3 grand (would not bargain, no other dealers within 40 or so miles) for a 4 cylinder car just didn't make sense. We've since boughten an SVT Contour for less than the price of the Camry.
"There is a difference between slapping a bigger engine in a vehicle, and putting an engine in a vehicle and fine tuning it so it meshes PERFECTLY with the other componenets, creating a lean and effecient atheletic setup."
Which of these manufacturers is increasing engine size/displacement? I've heard that Chevy's I6 is 4.3L, Nissan is supercharging their 3.3 (seems like a band-aid to me), and Ford is switching to OHC technology with most of the same mechanicals and displacement (4.0 liters).
"If you get a 21k v6 Tacoma, you can have a 280 HP,300 Torque Tacoma for 23-24k. Id say thats a GREAT deal for the ballsiest factory compact made."
The thing here is that it's not factory. You're slapping on aftermarket parts at the dealership.
I only wonder when Ford will put the Adrenalin in the showroom... I've heard that the SVT has a Ranger prototype with a 351 sitting in their workshop. But, Ford has decided not to produce it.
Being an offroad person and doing this sort of hobby now for about 15 years, I just can't see why you need a supercharger on a 4x4????? When you offroad you are usually going slower than 20MPH anyway? The locker Toyota offers is good, don't get me wrong. But, you have to ask yourself how often will I use it? A locker is only used in EXTREME offroad situations that most trucks don't see. Tell me who is going to take a 23K+ TRD into an area that a locker will get its full use? All in all a locker is not used to tow, haul, pull anything. There is a room now that someone has set up about a Toyota Limited slip. Hmmmm... has the word got out that the locker is really useless? Enjoy the $3K sticker!
CP, where are you talking about under the front fender? The insides of mine are guarded with shields, pretty hard to see. Is it towards the front or back of the right wheel well?
Vince, you don't get use of a supercharger while offroading, but if you wanted to have a cruiser as well as a bruiser, I think a supercharger or turbocharger is a good idea for a vehicle. Personally, I think an off-road truck would rather have a turbocharger in it. Turbos are not chain driven from the crank so there is more lag from the pedal. I don't think additional boost while rock climbing would be wanted but rather avoided. Anyway, if I had my choice of a second vehicle I'd probably have a turbo'd vehicle. But I do know I would never choose to put a charger of any type on an engine with headgasket problems. Quickly leading to massive problems if you ask me.
As for the supercharger vs. turbo, it depends on what kind of supercharger you're talking about. With an eaton-roots type of blower, boost is constant (usually around 6psi) at any engine rpm. With a centrifugal blower, it is very similar to a turbo. As engine rpm increase, so does the boost (usually a peak around 15psi). The centrifugal blower operates off of the belt while a turbo operates off of the exhaust gases, same principal but different points.
I can see an eaton-roots style supercharger being useful on a 4x4. If the TRD charger is E-R, then it's increasing torque at low rpm too. I still haven't seen anything stating whether it's E-R or centrifugal yet. A centrifugal supercharger would be a waste for a 4x4 or tow vehicle.
BTW, the supercharger on the Lightning is an eaton-roots style blower.
The possible head gasket problem on the 3.4 never even occurred to me. I had a Quad-4 blow a head gasket and crack the head. What a mess, not an inexpensive repair. Great engine, fatal flaw.
"I optioned it to be somewhat on par with the Lightning. I also optioned a Dakota 5.9 R/T to compare also. Their MSRP pricing is:
Ford Lightning: 31,300
Dodge Dakota R/T: 25,900"
Too bad the Tacoma I mentioned is a FOUR wheel drive, not 2, like the lightening and Dakota.
"The Dakota looks like the performance truck bargain here with 250hp & 345ft/lbs of torque for about a grand less than the supercharged Tacoma."
But with no 4 wheel drive.
"The Lightning is really in a different league here with 360hp and 440ft/lbs of torque. A truck than run a 13s quarter in stock form would definately be worth the extra 4 grand to me. "
But without 4 wheel drive.
See Cthompson, your forgetting a few important things. With the Taco, your getting a legendary offroad setup AND a killer supercharger.
"Being an offroad person and doing this sort of hobby now for about 15 years"
What a joke Vince. If this were the case, you sure wouldn't own a Ford Ranger. Please get real. NOthing, and I mean NOTHING was designed by Ford for the Ranger with offroading in mind. NOTHING. It's just not a Ford design philosophy.
Of course, this is a fully optioned tacoma with all of the bells and whistles. But, so is a Lightning for 31,375. And, a Lightning would merciliously crush a supercharged Tacoma.
If you're after street performance, you don't want a 4wd truck. You've got all of that extra weight on the front of the truck. It only spells bad launches and poor 1/4 mile times.
I could think of a lot better ways to spend 33 grand on a vehicle (or two).
KILLER SUPERCHARGER is right! That's what you'll probably be saying when your head gaskets blow at 75K miles and crack the heads due to all of that extra stress on your engine.
You do know that the 3.4 is notorious for all head gasket failure? If I were you, I'd keep an eye on it. Check your oil often to make sure it's not frothy/foamy. That's the tell-tale sign of head gasket failure. It might also run rough on start-up, smell a bit funny, and emit white exhaust. The head gasket on my Quad-4 went all at once without warning. Cracked the head and big bill.
For some reason, most head gasket failure I've heard of is usually between 70-85K miles. Maybe you could unload your truck on some poor, unsuspecting soul before such time and get a V8 Tundra. They seem pretty nice. Then, you've got ample power w/o bolting on aftermarket supercharging systems.
Cthom, Oops, forgot about the Eaton Roots. I was thinking centrifugal. I agree, the Eaton Roots would be beneficial in a 4wd, increased power all across the range. But I still think a turbo would be better, where you would have little boost unless you gunned it. I wouldn't want to tap the accel and go vaulting off a cliff.
Hind, 15 years still qualifies as a newbie, huh? I guess I've got a long way to go.
Well, maybe I am wrong. Are they 99's or 2000s? I have not seen any Limited's around here and heard from many different sources that they stopped making them because their price was too close to the Tundra, but who knows.
There is less likelihood of the 4x4 receiving the same damage as the 4x2. There is a tendency for the likelihood of rollovers in the 4x4 when impacted on the side.
The Ranger has a higher rate of rolling over without the side impact, and could it be that the Ranger chances of rollover will increase with the side impact? Yes.
The ladder frame is weak in torsional forces and when turning or making abrupt maneuvers the frame will twist. However, if they stiffened the frame with struts it would allow them to tweak the suspension. The frame may have fewer adverse reactions to torsional forces, but the ladder frame is not stronger. The Ranger has seven struts, but does not have diagonal bracing. The Tacoma does have diagonal or cross bracing and is inherently stronger. The strongest geometric shape is the triangle. The strut connection to the main members on the Tacoma is also a strong point. Several of those connections have a built in gusset plate type connection resulting in strength and rigidity.
Thank you for the definitions/explanations. I have been reading this forum for about 3 weeks and it is....shall I say "interesting"? Once again thanks.
They are 2k Limiteds but they are few. I do think that Toyota should drop the limited and just add the Sport Seats and power mirrors as part of the SR5 pack or as options...
Spoog is lecturing me??!! on offroading. LOL! This is they guy who wants to use his ground clearance to go over objects! LOL. You just don't like it spoog that a Ranger CAN go anywhere, climb, trail anything a Tacoma can. I know, I have done it. 15 years is quite a long time in my book, newbee? I don't think so. Hind, where did you get this data? Link? or did you just make this up? Tacoma owners don't like it that their trucks finish LAST in crash tests do they. You are trying hard to scramble the truth. Ranger is better in crash results, just live with it. I just don't see why anyone would want to supercharge a 4x4. It is obvious they don't use it as a truck or 4x4. Spoog doesn't own a Supercharged Tacoma, he can't readily answer the quesion of what type it is@!
They are 2k Limiteds but they are few. I do think that Toyota should drop the limited and just add the Sport Seats and power mirrors as part of the SR5 pack or as options...
It is an E-R type as it is driven by a belt. In all fairness, Ranger owners have brought up the fact that the Ranger in the 4Wheeler test was not equipped properly so the test is not valid. It makes perfect sense that one can question the side impact crashes validity when considering the higher 4wd stance.
Hind - No offense taken. Although, I probably don't really count even as a newbie offroader anymore. I just don't have the time or the mountains for that right now. I DO wish I did.
jtc43 - You're welcome. I do what I can, and I agree, this forum is interesting. Keeps me awake at work.
I get your point, but for me I plan to make time. Hopefully, in a year or more I will retire for the second time. What do you most enjoy about off-roading if you do not mind me asking.
Hmm... Gave me a tough question. Probably being outside. I like mountain biking and hiking too, pretty much for the same reason. I don't really do it for the challenge of it, just for fun and to get away from people. Sometime down the road I would like to rebuild an older Bronco and use it primarily as an off-roader; I don't feel like taking my new F-150 to too many hard to reach places. I started shortly after I moved to LA for school, I had to get away from all the people. The best time I ever had was with my grandpa in Wyoming. He lives in a small town in the Big Horn Basin, and I had never been up into the mountains where he grew up on a ranch, so he took me up there to show me. Spent all day above the timber line in some seriously remote places (in my 97 F-150, 4.6L V8, no 4wd, 16" 235's, and an open differential). He showed me an old horse trail he used to take up to the top of the mountain. It was all loose stones and a pretty steep incline and my truck handled it like it was level and paved. We had lunch up there, "over there... that's South Dakota. And over there... that's Montana. Just on the other side of that range... is Cheyenne." Have loved being outside ever since.
The difference between a SC Lightning and a SC Tacoma is the prepwork. Ford (actually the Special Vehicle Team) modified the engine, intake, exhaust, tranny, and the rest of the drive-train to handle the added stress and power of the supercharged V8.
TRD simply adds the supercharger and makes no other mods. I believe that their SC is detuned. I'm sure it could make more power than the 256hp and 267ft/lbs of torque it currently does. But, the rest of the vehicle couldn't properly handle it without more extensive modifications. The reliability and longevity of a supercharged 3.4L V6 remains to be seen...
BTW, I'd rather have something built at the factory than bolted on at the dealership later on.
KILLER SUPERCHARGER is right! That's what you'll probably be saying when your head gaskets blow at 75K miles and crack the heads due to all of that extra stress on your engine. "
Pure speculation. But then again, thats no surprise coming from the Ford crew.
"You do know that the 3.4 is notorious for all head gasket failure? "
Yes, it was. I havent had any problems with it.
"If I were you, I'd keep an eye on it. Check your oil often to make sure it's not frothy/foamy. That's the tell-tale sign of head gasket failure. It might also run rough on start-up, smell a bit funny, and emit white exhaust. The head gasket on my Quad-4 went all at once without warning. Cracked the head and big bill.
For some reason, most head gasket failure I've heard of is usually between 70-85K miles. Maybe you could unload your truck on some poor, unsuspecting soul before such time and get a V8 Tundra. They seem pretty nice. Then, you've got ample power w/o bolting on aftermarket supercharging systems."
lol. YOu seem to forget that this is a Toyota product, not a Ford. If for some reason my gaskets fail, I am garaunteed a free full repair , and a free rental car for the duration of the repair.
Maybe you should be paying attention to the link I posted on the transmission expert/mechanic. YOur trans should be blowing right at around 75k, where as mine wont blow til 150k or much later.
It is an E-R type as it is driven by a belt. In all fairness, Ranger owners have brought up the fact that the Ranger in the 4Wheeler test was not equipped properly so the test is not valid. It makes perfect sense that one can question the side impact crashes validity when considering the higher 4wd stance.
Your 2 statements contradict themselves. I to would like to have "Specially" designed ride all around, but since that was not in the cards Toyota came out with something that fit the bill. Toyota did use a reasonable setup with the charger as to not "Stress" out componets. I find nothing wrong with this. As far as longevity the TRD SC does remain to be seen, as does the Lightning's logevity. Just because the SVT team did it does not make it above all. The SVT boys couldn't get all the ponies out the last SVT Cobra right if i remember correctly.
"The supercharger is an Eaton M-62, 62 cubic inch, modified roots type positive displacement pump. The positive displacement pump is far better then the more common centrifugal (Vortech type) blowers. The centrifugal blowers only produce their max boost as the engine reaches red line. They do not provide any usable boost at low or mid RPMs. So if you are always at redline these are the blowers to get. The Eaton type positive displacement superchargers are always ready to provide close to full boost, even right off of idle. They are always turning at the ideal RPM in relation to crankshaft speed. So as soon as you mash on the pedal you have instant boost at any engine speed. This is why most of the OEM manufacturers use Eaton superchargers on their cars and trucks. Ford, Mercedes Benz, GM, and Jaguar all use Eaton superchargers. Go to the Bell Engineering web page for more information on why centrifugal blowers are not the best. He does a good job in explaining it, but I disagree with his information on positive displacement superchargers. I think his information is a little dated there. Keep in mind he is in the business of selling turbo systems."
How is it that my two statements contradict themselves? Which two statements? I don't get it. All I said was that the TRD Supercharger on the 3.4L V6 has more potential than being utilized. To make use of this potential, TRD would have to make other mods to multiple systems. How am I saying something bad about Toyota? Please explain.
Re: Post #124 (mviglianco) I've got a 2000 Limited on order through carOrder.com. The dealer told me Toyota only makes 500/year. I'll let you know when it's delivered (or they cancel my order).
"I wouldn't call 256hp and 267ft/lbs of torque a "mean machine". Well, maybe for a Toyota I would..."
lol Cthomp. Compared to your little "whoopty-do" ranger it is. Lets see....higher ground clearance, TRD supercharger, 31 inch tires, button locking rear diff, clutch start cancel switch, TRD offroad suspension, and a nice quote from 4wheeler:
" The Tacoma TRD handled the rough stuff better than any vehicle we have ever driven"
BETTER THAN ANY VEHICLE THEY HAVE EVER DRIVEN!!!!
Does that tell you something Cthomp? It should. It should tell you that a supercharged TRD Tacoma 4x4 is ONE MEAN MACHINE.
And INDEED it is.
No offense Cthompy, but your highway suspension designed Ranger just does not compare with my vehicle in any way, shape or fashion. The Tacoma beats the Ranger in EVERY SINGLE PERFORMANCE RELATED CATEGORY WITHOUT THE SUPERCHARGER!!!
Does that tell you anything? lol. Schools over kiddie.
That's what I thought with my Quad-4 until it went BOOM!!! Having a Toyota nameplate doesn't make everything magically better.
What if this should happen when you're out somewhere without help?"
lol. Need I repost the recalls and defects for the ranger again? lol.
"Your transmission "expert" huh? LOL. He doesn't know his [non-permissible content removed] from a hole in the ground."
He is an experienced mechanic with a bias for American trucks, yet he reveals the facts he does. Perhaps you should have read his site better. IT is FACT that Fords Transmission dont last NEARLY as long as Toyotas. Any Transmission mechanic will tell you that. And he posted numbers that are QUITE alarming. Whereas the average Ford truck Trannie lasts till 75,ooo miles, the Toyota trucks usually last to 150,ooo miles or more. Thats TWICE AS MANY MILES. ALso see his amazing revelation on the Land Cruiser.
LEts see, all the reviews gush about toyota reliability.......and mechanic after mechanic backs it up. Is it all a conspiracy? lol.
Those aren't just regular mushrooms on your pizza, are they? Some kind of chemical seems to be affecting your brain.
For spending about 27+ grand on a vehicle, on-road performance seems rather lathargic. The best 0-60 you can muster is just under 8s? If speed is what you were after, you could have had a helluva lot more performance bang for your buck elsewhere. Even my 4-door "family sedan" would make your truck seem like a turtle.
"Lets see....higher ground clearance, TRD supercharger, 31 inch tires, button locking rear diff, clutch start cancel switch, TRD offroad suspension, and a nice quote from 4wheeler"
It true. The Tacoma does have those options. For myself (and 99% of truck purchasers), I would never use them. Why would I pay for them? I have never in my life in our home state of IL seen a place to even use them. Oh, but having a magazine say they like my truck would make me feel all warm inside.
A Tacoma (whether supercharged or not) as a street performance vehicle. LOL That's a good one.
I bought my ranger for light to medium off-road duty, towing, traversing snowstorms, and commuting to work in a comfortable vehicle. It excels in each of those categories.
He's so experienced and knowledgable that he doesn't even know a Honda Passport is a rebadged Isuzu Rodeo. I'll bet he thinks that Mazda B-Series is nothing like a Ranger. Or, the Chevy Prizm and Toyota Corolla have nothing in common (same car really).
Like I said before, he doesn't know his...
They should make a law against claiming to be an "expert", putting up a website, and fooling naive minds.
It just seemed like you were Trashing Toyota for not having an SVT like Tacoma, and in the next paragraph defending Toyota for detuning a SC so as to address the isue brought up in point 1...
I agree that any SC compact pickup for racing is a bit much, but a Compact SC truck would be great if you needed something that could tow, haul, and kick [non-permissible content removed] off road. Hence the Tacoma and the SC Tacoma. If you want something with a comfy on road ride that can tow and hall, then the ranger is you ride.
Do you think those assesments are fair. they both haul and tow but one is for comfy road rides and one is for off road ability?
I do think one is about comfort, and the other is about performance
Also for anybody who wants to 4wheel and tow a large boat. A SC small truck is the answer. Your not going to get an F150 in the woods. To wide...
Yes, I agree with you. The ranger is "built for the masses" with on-road comfort/ability in mind. The taco is built more for those in a smaller group with off-road performance in mind over on-road comfort.
I believe that the SC does make up for the lack of torque in the 3.4L, but it is outrageously expensive.
"I do think one is about comfort, and the other is about performance"
I agree if you're talking about off-road performance. Even a SC Tacoma would have trouble keeping up with the lowliest of sports cars, which costs thousands less. A Lightning would too. It has one mean engine, but it's performance handling is lacking. You just can't make something run the cones like a track star when it weighs 4500lbs. The same goes for the Tacoma especially with that much, much higher center of gravity.
I only take offense to some people (not yourself) attempting to trash the ranger by saying it has no off-road ability. It will do the job for 99% of the people who buy one. Hell, even a 2wd taco with the locker or a ranger with the LSD will can easily tackle most people's needs. If I were goint to do any hard-core off-roading, the vehicle wouldn't be stock for any make/model I might purchase.
Well, regardless, my Ranger has taken the worst that class 3/4 off-road trails in the Rockies has thrown at it and it does real well. Class 2 trails are NO challenge to it. My pictures prove that, not that it has to be proven.
My comment on the the Tacoma Ranger test. I feel strongly that if you take a low end Tacoma 4X4 and match it against my Ranger, the outcome would have been the exact opposite of the Four Wheeler test. Period. I KNOW what my Ranger can do, and I assure you a bottem end Tacoma, with less than 6.5 inches of clearance, would hang up on rocks where I have taken my Ranger. With the exception of knowing that some of the Ranger statistics cited in the article could ONLY have come from a bottom of the line Ranger, and my comment regerding the automatic final ratio on the Ranger, I think it was a fair test.
Really I think it was a test setup to have the newly built, perhaps not selling too well Tacoma, clearly beat a simular vehicle. Why else would they not choose a better equipped Ranger?
By the way, read the current Edmunds report on the 98 Ranger long term test. Very favorable.
It is so obvious that Toyota folks know nothing about the Lighting. Its performance numbers, 0-60, 60-0, slalom, ect. Better visit the Lighting room before you claim a 28K sports sedan can outrun it, out slalom it, you may be surprised. It is one of the fastest production vehicles made today in the world! So if it is made by SVT its garbage and will fall apart, if its made by TRD its gold right? The same old story over and over again. If it says T O Y O T A its perrrrrrfect! Yeah right LOL! I right along with CP, I have however gone up against a TRD Tacoma in the Cascades of Oregon. Needless to say, I could go anywhere, climb, trail, anything he could in my Ranger and at a $3-4K cost advantage! WSN, better hope a full size SUV, SUV or another 4x4 doesn't hit you! Enjoy the Tinodas boys!
"Really I think it was a test setup to have the newly built, perhaps not selling too well Tacoma, clearly beat a simular vehicle. Why else would they not choose a better equipped Ranger"
It s all a big conspiracy eh Cspounser?
Was PEtersons June 99 offroad mag Tacoma verse ranger comparison RIGGED as well? lol. Oh thats right, your the same person who thinks the government wont let us use the land anymore.
And as for a better equiped ranger, sorry, you cant find one stock that will be as well equiped for the offroad as a tacoma. See, its ALWAYS going to be an UNFAIR Tacoma verse Ranger offroad test, because the Ranger sIMPLY DOES NOT HAVE THE STOCK OFFROAD FEATURES THE TACOMA does!! DOh!!!!!
That was KIND of 4wheeelrs point.
"I feel strongly that if you take a low end Tacoma 4X4 and match it against my Ranger, the outcome would have been the exact opposite of the Four Wheeler test. Period. "
What? Are you serious??? hahahhahahahah!!!!!!!
Lets see, the Taco has higher ground clearance than you, has better approach and departure angles, has a better offroad stock suspension ( we all know what the Rangers suspension was designed for, HIGHWAY TRAVEL). Better brakes, and outperforms the Ranger in every single performance category.....hmmmm...
Cspounser....when in the WORLD WILL YOU EVER GET A CLUE!!!!! YOu have to be one of the most " out there" people I have ever met. YOur like a drunken fox who just doesnt get that he will get attacked by the dog when you inch towards the chicken coup. You just come back for more and more and more.
" I KNOW what my Ranger can do, and I assure you a bottem end Tacoma, with less than 6.5 inches of clearance, would hang up on rocks where I have taken my Ranger"
LOL. IT s TOO BAD CSPOUNSER THAT Toyota designs the Tacomas with offroading in mind, and Ford does not do the same with the Ranger. In fact, there is not ONE OUNCE OF THE RANGER THAT WAS DESIGNED WITH OFFROADING IN MIND!!! NOT ONE!!! ITS JUST NOT A DESIGN PHILOSOPHY OF FORDS!! CAPICHE????????
the tests by fourwheeler and petersons CLEARLY demonstrate this. I don't care wha tyou think your ranger can do. The fact is it was designed for highway travel from the bottom up. Until Ford rips out that highway suspension and starts desinging rangers with offroading in mind, they will ALWAYS be far distant second bananas to the Tacomas and Jeeps.
Comments
I was just wondering what the Toyota guys thought
of the Tacoma engine falling to the back of the
pack."
Not really. The TRD supercharger factory option(also warrantied with the original engine) easily puts the Tacoma WAY ahead of the pack. Were talking WAY AHEAD of the pack. So it's not really an issue. Again, this is a FACTORY option, and is WARRANTIED right along with the length of your engine warranty. TRD is legend among the truck and offroad community. There reputation is su perceded by no one.
If you get a 21k v6 Tacoma, you can have a 280 HP,300 Torque Tacoma for 23-24k. Id say thats a GREAT deal for the ballsiest factory compact made.
And lets not forget the rave reviews of the PERFECT balance of the Tacomas trans and engine. There is a difference between slapping a bigger engine in a vehicle, and putting an engine in a vehicle and fine tuning it so it meshes PERFECTLY with the other componenets, creating a lean and effecient atheletic setup.
See 4wheeler.com and the 98 pickup of the year review for the excellent balance of the Tacoma motor and trans. THAT is superior. It's not always who has the most, but how does what you have work together with other parts.
It's called good design philosophy.
Besides, I wouldn't be worried about the first 60K when the engine is under warranty but the next 60K when it's not. How long do you think an engine that hasn't been prepped for forced induction will last under the extreme stress of a supercharger?
Also, I have heard of TRD having a problem with their supercharger on the Camry (think it was Camry). Don't they use the same unit on the Tacoma? That's the way it looks on TRD's website.
Also, you're a bit off with your specs. The TRD Supercharger package bumps output up to 256hp and 267ft/lbs of torque.
So your performance "bargain" is:
V6 2WD Tacoma: 22,500
Supercharger: 3,000
Install Labor: 1,500 (estimating)
Total 27,000
I optioned it to be somewhat on par with the Lightning. I also optioned a Dakota 5.9 R/T to compare also. Their MSRP pricing is:
Ford Lightning: 31,300
Dodge Dakota R/T: 25,900
The Dakota looks like the performance truck bargain here with 250hp & 345ft/lbs of torque for about a grand less than the supercharged Tacoma.
The Lightning is really in a different league here with 360hp and 440ft/lbs of torque. A truck than run a 13s quarter in stock form would definately be worth the extra 4 grand to me.
Also, let's not forget the discounting available on domestics and number and proximity of dealerships. You'll be able to finagle a better deal at a Ford or Dodge dealership than a Toyota dealership. This is unfortunate. My wife liked the Camry we test drove a couple of years back. But, the extra 3 grand (would not bargain, no other dealers within 40 or so miles) for a 4 cylinder car just didn't make sense. We've since boughten an SVT Contour for less than the price of the Camry.
engine in a vehicle, and putting an engine in a
vehicle and fine tuning it so it meshes PERFECTLY
with the other componenets, creating a lean and
effecient atheletic setup."
Which of these manufacturers is increasing engine size/displacement? I've heard that Chevy's I6 is 4.3L, Nissan is supercharging their 3.3 (seems like a band-aid to me), and Ford is switching to OHC technology with most of the same mechanicals and displacement (4.0 liters).
"If you get a 21k v6 Tacoma, you can have a 280
HP,300 Torque Tacoma for 23-24k. Id say thats a
GREAT deal for the ballsiest factory compact made."
The thing here is that it's not factory. You're slapping on aftermarket parts at the dealership.
I only wonder when Ford will put the Adrenalin in the showroom... I've heard that the SVT has a Ranger prototype with a 351 sitting in their workshop. But, Ford has decided not to produce it.
The locker Toyota offers is good, don't get me wrong. But, you have to ask yourself how often will I use it? A locker is only used in EXTREME offroad situations that most trucks don't see. Tell me who is going to take a 23K+ TRD into an area that a locker will get its full use? All in all a locker is not used to tow, haul, pull anything. There is a room now that someone has set up about a Toyota Limited slip. Hmmmm... has the word got out that the locker is really useless? Enjoy the $3K sticker!
I can see an eaton-roots style supercharger being useful on a 4x4. If the TRD charger is E-R, then it's increasing torque at low rpm too. I still haven't seen anything stating whether it's E-R or centrifugal yet. A centrifugal supercharger would be a waste for a 4x4 or tow vehicle.
BTW, the supercharger on the Lightning is an eaton-roots style blower.
The possible head gasket problem on the 3.4 never even occurred to me. I had a Quad-4 blow a head gasket and crack the head. What a mess, not an inexpensive repair. Great engine, fatal flaw.
Lightning. I also optioned a Dakota 5.9 R/T to
compare also. Their MSRP pricing is:
Ford Lightning: 31,300
Dodge Dakota R/T: 25,900"
Too bad the Tacoma I mentioned is a FOUR wheel drive, not 2, like the lightening and Dakota.
"The Dakota looks like the performance truck
bargain here with 250hp & 345ft/lbs of torque for
about a grand less than the supercharged Tacoma."
But with no 4 wheel drive.
"The Lightning is really in a different league here
with 360hp and 440ft/lbs of torque. A truck than
run a 13s quarter in stock form would definately be
worth the extra 4 grand to me. "
But without 4 wheel drive.
See Cthompson, your forgetting a few important things. With the Taco, your getting a legendary offroad setup AND a killer supercharger.
hobby now for about 15 years"
What a joke Vince. If this were the case, you sure wouldn't own a Ford Ranger. Please get real.
NOthing, and I mean NOTHING was designed by Ford for the Ranger with offroading in mind. NOTHING. It's just not a Ford design philosophy.
You need to look at Toyota and Jeep.
For a 4wd Tacoma, you're talking about:
4wd V6 Limited Tacoma: 28,673
TRD Supercharger: 2,999
Installation: 1,500 (estimated)
Total: 33,172
HOLY PRICE TAG, SPOOGEMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course, this is a fully optioned tacoma with all of the bells and whistles. But, so is a Lightning for 31,375. And, a Lightning would merciliously crush a supercharged Tacoma.
If you're after street performance, you don't want a 4wd truck. You've got all of that extra weight on the front of the truck. It only spells bad launches and poor 1/4 mile times.
I could think of a lot better ways to spend 33 grand on a vehicle (or two).
KILLER SUPERCHARGER is right! That's what you'll probably be saying when your head gaskets blow at 75K miles and crack the heads due to all of that extra stress on your engine.
You do know that the 3.4 is notorious for all head gasket failure? If I were you, I'd keep an eye on it. Check your oil often to make sure it's not frothy/foamy. That's the tell-tale sign of head gasket failure. It might also run rough on start-up, smell a bit funny, and emit white exhaust. The head gasket on my Quad-4 went all at once without warning. Cracked the head and big bill.
For some reason, most head gasket failure I've heard of is usually between 70-85K miles. Maybe you could unload your truck on some poor, unsuspecting soul before such time and get a V8 Tundra. They seem pretty nice. Then, you've got ample power w/o bolting on aftermarket supercharging systems.
How is an SC Lightning from ford not the same thing as a SC Tacoma from Toyota? Both SC made by somebody else added on by either Ford or Toyota.
-wsn
Hind, 15 years still qualifies as a newbie, huh? I guess I've got a long way to go.
The Ranger has a higher rate of rolling over without the side impact, and could it be that the Ranger chances of rollover will increase with the side impact? Yes.
The ladder frame is weak in torsional forces and when turning or making abrupt maneuvers the frame will twist. However, if they stiffened the frame with struts it would allow them to tweak the suspension. The frame may have fewer adverse reactions to torsional forces, but the ladder frame is not stronger. The Ranger has seven struts, but does not have diagonal bracing. The Tacoma does have diagonal or cross bracing and is inherently stronger. The strongest geometric shape is the triangle. The strut connection to the main members on the Tacoma is also a strong point. Several of those connections have a built in gusset plate type connection resulting in strength and rigidity.
-wsn
Hind, where did you get this data? Link? or did you just make this up? Tacoma owners don't like it that their trucks finish LAST in crash tests do they. You are trying hard to scramble the truth. Ranger is better in crash results, just live with it.
I just don't see why anyone would want to supercharge a 4x4. It is obvious they don't use it as a truck or 4x4. Spoog doesn't own a Supercharged Tacoma, he can't readily answer the quesion of what type it is@!
-wsn
jtc43 - You're welcome. I do what I can, and I agree, this forum is interesting. Keeps me awake at work.
TRD simply adds the supercharger and makes no other mods. I believe that their SC is detuned. I'm sure it could make more power than the 256hp and 267ft/lbs of torque it currently does. But, the rest of the vehicle couldn't properly handle it without more extensive modifications. The reliability and longevity of a supercharged 3.4L V6 remains to be seen...
BTW, I'd rather have something built at the factory than bolted on at the dealership later on.
The actual body structure of a 4x4 is not different from a 4x2, right? So, I guess it all depends on who hits you. You can't pick those, though.
KILLER SUPERCHARGER is right! That's what you'll
probably be saying when your head gaskets blow at
75K miles and crack the heads due to all of that
extra stress on your engine.
"
Pure speculation. But then again, thats no surprise coming from the Ford crew.
"You do know that the 3.4 is notorious for all head
gasket failure? "
Yes, it was. I havent had any problems with it.
"If I were you, I'd keep an eye on
it. Check your oil often to make sure it's not
frothy/foamy. That's the tell-tale sign of head
gasket failure. It might also run rough on
start-up, smell a bit funny, and emit white
exhaust. The head gasket on my Quad-4 went all at
once without warning. Cracked the head and big
bill.
For some reason, most head gasket failure I've
heard of is usually between 70-85K miles. Maybe
you could unload your truck on some poor,
unsuspecting soul before such time and get a V8
Tundra. They seem pretty nice. Then, you've got
ample power w/o bolting on aftermarket
supercharging systems."
lol. YOu seem to forget that this is a Toyota product, not a Ford. If for some reason my gaskets fail, I am garaunteed a free full repair , and a free rental car for the duration of the repair.
Maybe you should be paying attention to the link I posted on the transmission expert/mechanic. YOur trans should be blowing right at around 75k, where as mine wont blow til 150k or much later.
In the meantime...I got one mean, mean machine.
Yeeeeeeehaaaaawww!!!!!!!
-wsn
"The supercharger is an Eaton M-62, 62 cubic inch, modified roots type positive displacement pump. The positive displacement pump is far better then the more common centrifugal (Vortech type) blowers. The centrifugal blowers only produce their max boost as the engine reaches red line. They do not provide any usable boost at low or mid RPMs. So if you are always at redline these are the blowers to get. The Eaton type positive displacement superchargers are always ready to provide close to full boost, even right off of idle. They are always turning at the ideal RPM in relation to crankshaft speed. So as soon as you mash on the pedal you have instant boost at any engine speed. This is why most of the OEM manufacturers use Eaton superchargers on their cars and trucks. Ford, Mercedes Benz, GM, and Jaguar all use Eaton superchargers. Go to the Bell Engineering web page for more information on why centrifugal blowers are not the best. He does a good job in explaining it, but I disagree with his information on positive displacement superchargers. I think his information is a little dated there. Keep in mind he is in the business of selling turbo systems."
That's what I thought with my Quad-4 until it went BOOM!!! Having a Toyota nameplate doesn't make everything magically better.
What if this should happen when you're out somewhere without help?
Your transmission "expert" huh? LOL. He doesn't know his [non-permissible content removed] from a hole in the ground.
"In the meantime...I got one mean, mean machine."
I wouldn't call 256hp and 267ft/lbs of torque a "mean machine". Well, maybe for a Toyota I would...
I've got a 2000 Limited on order through carOrder.com. The dealer told me Toyota only makes 500/year. I'll let you know when it's delivered (or they cancel my order).
"mean machine". Well, maybe for a Toyota I
would..."
lol Cthomp. Compared to your little "whoopty-do" ranger it is. Lets see....higher ground clearance, TRD supercharger, 31 inch tires, button locking rear diff, clutch start cancel switch, TRD offroad suspension, and a nice quote from 4wheeler:
www.4wheeler.com:
" The Tacoma TRD handled the rough stuff better than any vehicle we have ever driven"
BETTER THAN ANY VEHICLE THEY HAVE EVER DRIVEN!!!!
Does that tell you something Cthomp? It should. It should tell you that a supercharged TRD Tacoma 4x4 is ONE MEAN MACHINE.
And INDEED it is.
No offense Cthompy, but your highway suspension designed Ranger just does not compare with my vehicle in any way, shape or fashion. The Tacoma beats the Ranger in EVERY SINGLE PERFORMANCE RELATED CATEGORY WITHOUT THE SUPERCHARGER!!!
Does that tell you anything? lol. Schools over kiddie.
That's what I thought with my Quad-4 until it went
BOOM!!! Having a Toyota nameplate doesn't make
everything magically better.
What if this should happen when you're out
somewhere without help?"
lol. Need I repost the recalls and defects for the ranger again? lol.
"Your transmission "expert" huh? LOL. He doesn't
know his [non-permissible content removed] from a hole in the ground."
He is an experienced mechanic with a bias for American trucks, yet he reveals the facts he does.
Perhaps you should have read his site better. IT is FACT that Fords Transmission dont last NEARLY as long as Toyotas. Any Transmission mechanic will tell you that. And he posted numbers that are QUITE alarming. Whereas the average Ford truck Trannie lasts till 75,ooo miles, the Toyota trucks usually last to 150,ooo miles or more. Thats TWICE AS MANY MILES. ALso see his amazing revelation on the Land Cruiser.
LEts see, all the reviews gush about toyota reliability.......and mechanic after mechanic backs it up. Is it all a conspiracy? lol.
For spending about 27+ grand on a vehicle, on-road performance seems rather lathargic. The best 0-60 you can muster is just under 8s? If speed is what you were after, you could have had a helluva lot more performance bang for your buck elsewhere. Even my 4-door "family sedan" would make your truck seem like a turtle.
"Lets see....higher ground clearance,
TRD supercharger, 31 inch tires, button locking
rear diff, clutch start cancel switch, TRD offroad
suspension, and a nice quote from 4wheeler"
It true. The Tacoma does have those options. For myself (and 99% of truck purchasers), I would never use them. Why would I pay for them? I have never in my life in our home state of IL seen a place to even use them. Oh, but having a magazine say they like my truck would make me feel all warm inside.
A Tacoma (whether supercharged or not) as a street performance vehicle. LOL That's a good one.
I bought my ranger for light to medium off-road duty, towing, traversing snowstorms, and commuting to work in a comfortable vehicle. It excels in each of those categories.
He's so experienced and knowledgable that he doesn't even know a Honda Passport is a rebadged Isuzu Rodeo. I'll bet he thinks that Mazda B-Series is nothing like a Ranger. Or, the Chevy Prizm and Toyota Corolla have nothing in common (same car really).
Like I said before, he doesn't know his...
They should make a law against claiming to be an "expert", putting up a website, and fooling naive minds.
I agree that any SC compact pickup for racing is a bit much, but a Compact SC truck would be great if you needed something that could tow, haul, and kick [non-permissible content removed] off road. Hence the Tacoma and the SC Tacoma. If you want something with a comfy on road ride that can tow and hall, then the ranger is you ride.
Do you think those assesments are fair. they both haul and tow but one is for comfy road rides and one is for off road ability?
I do think one is about comfort, and the other is about performance
Also for anybody who wants to 4wheel and tow a large boat. A SC small truck is the answer. Your not going to get an F150 in the woods. To wide...
My .02
-wsn
Yes, I agree with you. The ranger is "built for the masses" with on-road comfort/ability in mind. The taco is built more for those in a smaller group with off-road performance in mind over on-road comfort.
I believe that the SC does make up for the lack of torque in the 3.4L, but it is outrageously expensive.
"I do think one is about comfort, and the other is about performance"
I agree if you're talking about off-road performance. Even a SC Tacoma would have trouble keeping up with the lowliest of sports cars, which costs thousands less. A Lightning would too. It has one mean engine, but it's performance handling is lacking. You just can't make something run the cones like a track star when it weighs 4500lbs. The same goes for the Tacoma especially with that much, much higher center of gravity.
I only take offense to some people (not yourself) attempting to trash the ranger by saying it has no off-road ability. It will do the job for 99% of the people who buy one. Hell, even a 2wd taco with the locker or a ranger with the LSD will can easily tackle most people's needs. If I were goint to do any hard-core off-roading, the vehicle wouldn't be stock for any make/model I might purchase.
My comment on the the Tacoma Ranger test.
I feel strongly that if you take a low end Tacoma 4X4 and match it against my Ranger, the outcome would have been the exact opposite of the Four Wheeler test. Period. I KNOW what my Ranger can do, and I assure you a bottem end Tacoma, with less than 6.5 inches of clearance, would hang up on rocks where I have taken my Ranger.
With the exception of knowing that some of the Ranger statistics cited in the article could ONLY have come from a bottom of the line Ranger, and my comment regerding the automatic final ratio on the Ranger, I think it was a fair test.
Really I think it was a test setup to have the newly built, perhaps not selling too well Tacoma, clearly beat a simular vehicle. Why else would they not choose a better equipped Ranger?
By the way, read the current Edmunds report on the 98 Ranger long term test. Very favorable.
So if it is made by SVT its garbage and will fall apart, if its made by TRD its gold right? The same old story over and over again. If it says T O Y O T A its perrrrrrfect! Yeah right LOL!
I right along with CP, I have however gone up against a TRD Tacoma in the Cascades of Oregon. Needless to say, I could go anywhere, climb, trail, anything he could in my Ranger and at a $3-4K cost advantage!
WSN, better hope a full size SUV, SUV or another 4x4 doesn't hit you! Enjoy the Tinodas boys!
newly built, perhaps not selling too well Tacoma,
clearly beat a simular vehicle. Why else would
they not choose a better equipped Ranger"
It s all a big conspiracy eh Cspounser?
Was PEtersons June 99 offroad mag Tacoma verse ranger comparison RIGGED as well? lol.
Oh thats right, your the same person who thinks the government wont let us use the land anymore.
And as for a better equiped ranger, sorry, you cant find one stock that will be as well equiped for the offroad as a tacoma. See, its ALWAYS going to be an UNFAIR Tacoma verse Ranger offroad test, because the Ranger sIMPLY DOES NOT HAVE THE STOCK OFFROAD FEATURES THE TACOMA does!! DOh!!!!!
That was KIND of 4wheeelrs point.
"I feel strongly that if you take a low end Tacoma
4X4 and match it against my Ranger, the outcome
would have been the exact opposite of the Four
Wheeler test. Period. "
What? Are you serious??? hahahhahahahah!!!!!!!
Lets see, the Taco has higher ground clearance than you, has better approach and departure angles, has a better offroad stock suspension ( we all know what the Rangers suspension was designed for, HIGHWAY TRAVEL). Better brakes, and outperforms the Ranger in every single performance category.....hmmmm...
Cspounser....when in the WORLD WILL YOU EVER GET A CLUE!!!!! YOu have to be one of the most " out there" people I have ever met. YOur like a drunken fox who just doesnt get that he will get attacked by the dog when you inch towards the chicken coup. You just come back for more and more and more.
" I KNOW what my Ranger can
do, and I assure you a bottem end Tacoma, with less
than 6.5 inches of clearance, would hang up on
rocks where I have taken my Ranger"
LOL. IT s TOO BAD CSPOUNSER THAT Toyota designs the Tacomas with offroading in mind, and Ford does not do the same with the Ranger. In fact, there is not ONE OUNCE OF THE RANGER THAT WAS DESIGNED WITH OFFROADING IN MIND!!! NOT ONE!!! ITS JUST NOT A DESIGN PHILOSOPHY OF FORDS!! CAPICHE????????
the tests by fourwheeler and petersons CLEARLY demonstrate this. I don't care wha tyou think your ranger can do. The fact is it was designed for highway travel from the bottom up. Until Ford rips out that highway suspension and starts desinging rangers with offroading in mind, they will ALWAYS be far distant second bananas to the Tacomas and Jeeps.
YOU BOUGHT THE WRONG TRUCK CSPOUNSER.