there were maybe 6-8 combinations of 4X4's with different trannys, engines, cabins, beds (times 2 including the splash), bumpers, wheels/tires, skids or no skids. . .on and on.
Ok spoog this is for you. . .
I cannot take my Ranger where a locker is required, I do not have a winch yet. Also, try as I may, I cannot out race a Tacoma in the 1/4 mile.
Cpousnr, thanks. It's true, the Tacoma just plain flies!!! It's a very fast truck (so is the Tundra). While it's true that some of the older Rangers (and even S-10's) have lasted nearly as long as some Toyotas, overall the Toyotas seem to do a better job of reliable longevity. One thing Toyota (and the other Japanese trucks) didn't do correctly years ago was the (anti-rust) treatment of their body panels. I still see people driving their old Toyotas as reliably as ever, but with oxidation that has nearly eaten their body panels off! Ford did a better job with this on the Ranger when it was young in its production. Toyota learned their lesson though, and the newer ones have good rust protection as well as flawless paint and overall finish.
Lets see what 4wheeelr says about that 4wheel system:
"Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up. "
Following in the footsteps of its close relative, the '98 Ranger adopted many of the mechanical modifications incorporated into the Explorer two years earlier. Among the biggest changes include an entirely new double A-arm front suspension with light-duty torsion bars. The new IFS, combined with an all-new rack-and-pinion steering setup (which offers its own steering fluid cooler), won high praises from our testers over our 800-mile test. Specifically, the Ranger scor ed well in Highway Performance categories that centered around maneuverability and long-distance cruising. Testers noted the new steering proved especially quick to react in tight-chicane situations. No doubt about it: This new Ranger out-handles, out-ste ers and out-corners any Ranger before. By a mile.
We would characterize the drivetrain, specifically the transmission, as biased for highway performance as well. All 4.0-liter Rangers (and Mazdas, for that matter) ordered without the manual tranny get the first five-speed automatic transmission offer ed for any pickup. Our testers split over the need and/or usefulness of a mileage-biased transmission geared for empty-load flatland running. Those in favor noted the nearly seamless transitions from one gear to the next, and how the transmission itself c ould, if the vehicle was driven right--no jackrabbit leadfoot starts--tack on another 50,000 miles of life to the engine.
On the trail, we found the automatic transmission to be a double-edged sword. The smoothness of the First-to-Second shift, combined with the inherent low-end grunt of the engine, was almost enough to overcome the taller gearing. And in the end, voting followed individual preferences for manuals versus automatics. Two testers noted both the manual transmissions (Mazda and Toyota) felt more "in control" on the twisty low-range trails of Truckhaven, where face-down compression braking was very helpful o n steep-trail crawling. In low-range, our automatic Ranger offered a rather delicate 22.8:1 crawl ratio (First x axle gear x low-range); the Mazda and Toyota offered 34.4:1 and 40.4:1 gearing, respectively.
Likewise, where the stiffened front suspension cleanly handled all paved-road obstacles thrown in its path, the Ford IFS had trouble keeping up with the broken terrain of dry washes, hill climbs, and washboards. Admittedly, it is a rare vehicle that c an manage all the extremes with equal aplomb, but several testers commented that the Ford liked to spring a little bit quicker (and hop higher) off the rolling whoop-de-doos. For the most part, we found the sacrificed off-highway capability to be greater than the gained on-highway performance, and for that reason it didn't score well in the parts of our test that are most heavily-weighted; however, that isn't to say testers weren't squabbling among themselves to get into the Ranger for the highway drives up the mountain.
Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up.
Like any good four wheeler, we found the Ford Ranger could do several things quite well, scoring highly in On-Road Ride and Handling and Interior Comfort. To us, the new Ranger is a nice-looking, comfortable truck that is easy to drive and easy to own . And it's made in plants with a reputation for quality. But the Pickup Truck of the Year has to do it all pretty damn well, and it has to be great off-highway. And so we introduce our 1998 winner.
Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.
Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running. As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.
It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.
Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year.
Ford's 4.0-liter overhead-valve V-6 gave our Regular Cab Ranger plenty of off-the-line motivation with 168 lb.-ft. of rear-wheel torque at 2500 rpm. Mazda's 3.0-liter/five-speed manual transmission gave the Regular Cab B-truck the slowest 0-60 time, but the best fuel economy of the group. Although the middle-sized V-6 of the group, the Toyota 3.4-liter DOHC 24-valve V-6 pulled all the way through the torque curve like most small-blocks.
The Ford five-lug 8.8-inch rearend comes standard with the 4.0-lite/five-speed auto combo. Leaf springs and 3.73:1 axle gears are rated to carry 1,180 pounds. Mazda's 7.5-inch rearend is standard with the 3.0-liter V-6. Not surprisingly, our ride-quality vastly improved with 12 bags of landscape rock in the compact's bed. Toyota's TRD Tacoma comes with the only factory offered rear locking differential on any (full-size or compact) pickup. We found it a huge asset for trail adventures. FORD & MAZDA TOYOTA
Ford's new compact frontend uses F-150-style short- and long-arm IFS, with torsion bars. The setup offers big gains on pavement--but not without trail sacrifices.
The new Pulse-Vacuum Hub (PVH) used exclusively on compact Fords and Mazdas allows for true in-cab-controlled shift-on-the-fly capability.
Toyota's double A-arm/coilover frontend handles pavement cornering and trail flex with equal skill. We like the six-lug axles and big-caliper front discs.
It's our assumption that pickups are made and bought, at some point, to do work. That's why we run our PTOTY test on the track and trail, with beds loaded and unloaded--and separate from sport-utilities, which we regard as primarily made to carry people and their gear.
After weighing each truck at a commercial scale, we subtract that amount from the factory-rated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) to arrive at an actual maximum payload number. We run track testing with truck beds both empty and with half their calculated payload, this year using 35-pound bags of landscaping rock. In this case, the Ford and Mazda each ran with 16 bags, the Toyota with 18. We think it's valuable to see how each truck performs when carrying a load; that's why they have a bed. For a significant portion of the rest of the test, we run the trucks at half maximum payload. This also allows us to see how mileage is affected, as well as how the engine and chassis react. At each stage of our test, drivers rotated from truck to truck during a variety of terrain changes--recording comments and scoring each truck as they go.
In the end, each tester scores each truck in 38 different categories with "Mechanical" accounting for 25 percent of the book total; "Trail Performance" accounting for 30 percent; "Highway Performance" 20 percent; "Interior" 15 percent; and "Exterior" 10 percent. Each logbook accounts for 80 percent of overall scoring, with the remaining 20 percent centered around our nine "Empirical" tests you'll find in chart form: Ground Clearance, Noise at 55 mph, Payload, and so forth.
Finally, we've printed point totals so readers may weight their own "paper test," awarding points for those aspects of a truck they find most valuable. Some may appreciate interior or highway feel more than we have. Change the percentages around and choose your own winner. Of course, that certainly won't be as much fun (or difficult) as running around the countryside with a group of brand new four-bys. --M. Williams
The 99 and 2000 reports from KBB.com (Kelly Blue Book for the Darwin Award recipients) were very favorable to Tacoma, stopping short of saying that the higher price was totally worth it. But very favorable.
Bottom line, if you look up the posts a bit spoog, I conceded that I cannot beat a Tacoma from the light in a race and I cannot go where a Tacoma goes that requires a locker as I do not have a winch.
However, I do not have the 2001 Ranger, 205hp, 245ft/lb of torque Ranger either.
If you check out putc the Tacoma was #8 and the Tundra #10 in sales year to date,The Ranger was #4 only the Big 3 fullsize beat it The Tundra was #10 and is fading fast.The majority think the Ranger is a better truck, Sorry Spoge.
As we all know that the TACOMA TRD has a better resale value than the ranger. I serious think that the ranger 4.0 will not be as powerful as the 3.4 v6 on the tacoma. The price may be higher but you get the best of everything with the tacoma. I think the MAJORITY will definitely say that they would rather have the TACOMA!!!!
Nice Cthomp. Already dismissing this years Ranger for the new fall one eh? Well, we shall see. The New ranger does have some serious juice under the hood in it's new design. But as for the rest of the vehicle, the suspension and payload stay the same. This is not good in terms of offroad use.
"Bottom line, if you look up the posts a bit spoog, I conceded that I cannot beat a Tacoma from the light in a race and I cannot go where a Tacoma goes that requires a locker as I do not have a winch."
What!!!!! Cspounser admits it!!!! Wow. Thanks Cspounser. It kind of makes me feel like all the time spent here was worth it.
Glad you finally came through. I already have admitted the Ranger is the better value and is safer in side impact crashes.
It's the year 2050 and as spoog is rocking away at the rest home the doctors just shake their heads and tell his relatives "he just keeps mumbling something about a fourwheeler mag and that damn Ranger".
It looks like the Tacoma 3.4 liter 6 will stay. I think thats a good thing. MOst reviewers feel this is a seamless combination of drivetrain and engine. It works incredibly well.
Remember, its not always how much you can put under the hood, but how what you have works with the other parts. The 3.4 liter and the Tacoma tranny work FLAWLESSLY, an "atheletic, seamless unit perfectly designed to match" ( PEtersons).
One thing is for sure, I will be taking both new trucks out for a spin. But I can already tell I wont be buying either as the grills look like they are from a 94 Pontiac. Ugh.
Trust me, you're only fooling yourself if you think toyota's 3.4 is more powerful than ford's 4.0 SOHC V-6. The 3.4 is mediocre engine that probably belongs in a car, not a truck. GO drive an Explorer and you'll see what I mean. (and bear in mind that the Explorer is MUCH heavier than the tacoma) While you're at it, drive a ZR2 with chevy's 4.3 V-6. you'll quickly realize that toyota's 3.4, while not a bad engine, just can't keep up to the other 2. Let's see, the Tacoma has a higher resale value, yet it costs more... hmmm. give me a minute to do the math on that one.
Well, I sure hope that you'd get a higher price for a truck that you initially paid more for. It'd be pretty sad if you didn't.
Why is it that Toyota guys are so concerned with resale value? According to them, they last a billion miles and will keep them for the rest of their lives...
BTW, the 2001 Ranger with the Cammer 4L will easily out-muscle the 3.4L V6 Tacoma in hauling stuff and hauling [non-permissible content removed]. :oD
Also, I'm not condoning racing trucks, as I believe it to be somewhat ridiculous (well, except for the Lightning). The average V6 family sedan can outrun the fastest naturally-aspirated iteration of either truck. Some of the quicker family sedans like the Max, SVTour, and the like can put a TRD-Supercharged Tacoma in their rear view mirror with not that much of a fuss (for thousands less too).
The 3.4L V6 is derived from the 3.0L V6 first found in the Camry. If I remember correctly, Toyota stroked it out to 3.4L for the Tacoma (and T100 too).
About all I'd get is more power and higher payments.
I'm around 185hp and 250ft/lbs of torque with my current mods ($300 by the way). My final mod will be a Superchip for $175 to get me close to 200hp and 270ft/lbs of torque. How much more do I need? The stock 160/225 was pleanty, but I just LOVE to tinker with stuff.
I'm waiting for something really substantial to come out (a.k.a. SVT Ranger Adrenalin) before I move into something else. If it doesn't, I'll just have to "settle" for a Cammer 4L Ranger or maybe a Lightning in a few years.
Why doesn't Toyota show up in this years JD powers initial quality awards? I thought the Tacoma was supposed to be the god of all compact trucks? Just read the Ranger for 2001 with the new 4.0 should arrive in showrooms sometime in September. Wonder what spoog and all these Toyota boys are going to have to say then about this racing truck garbage!@. It proves to me Toyota owners don't buy trucks to haul, tow or 4x4, just for a pretty Toy! I was at Browns Camp this last weekend. Anyone who is from the Oregon or Southern Washington area knows what and where browns camp is. Located in the Oregon Coast Range, and a huge 4x4 area. Guess what, Not ONE, I mean ONE Tacoma seen. I did see older Toyotas, but NOT ONE Tacoma in 2 days!! LOL. As I keep saying over and over again, the consumer makes the choice, the choice is Ranger. Has been for the last 14 years now. Imagine that, even after all these years the Ranger still is the chosen truck by consumers.
You must be thinking of the OHV 4.0 V-6. I'm talking about the SOHC V-6 that Ford is putting in the '01 Rangers. That engine will beat the Tacoma's 3.4 in every performance category. as for Chevy's 4.3, it matches the Toy in horsepower, and smokes it in torque. 250 lb-feet vs. 220 lb-feet. What does Peterson's issue #438, page 52, article 6 have to say about that?
That's a good engine spoog providing that it turns out to be the same configuration as the one in the Explorer. Ford is having problems with the timing chain though according to the Explorer forums.
More than likely the hp was lost in exhaust or intake differences.
Well, since Four Wheeler ONLY, I repeat ONLY tests new design trucks in it's "Four Wheeler of the Year" tests, wonder what the new SOHC 4.0 engine, new transmissioned, new suspension systemed and out the door nicely equipped for $20K 2001 Ranger will go up against? Will not be the Tacoma since Taco is basically the same setup as the 1996 (5 year old design) model. A nice design it is but its OLD!
I don't know. What other 4wd vehicles will have significant changes for 2001? What exactly does a significant change entail, anyways? Will the Frontier with a new supercharged 3.3L V6 make the cut just because of a new engine choice?
I never quite get those awards. They say one thing and do another. Consistency seems to be quite low. And, it seems that it all boils down to subjective tastes. Yes, certain car rags do have their preferences.
Then, for tests like the MT Truck of the Year, they compare a Tundra vs. a Lightning vs. a Dakota Quad Cab vs. a Frontier. Talk about different worlds here...
I think that cpousnr is right about the intake and exhaust if the HP is less in the Ranger. That's why the Camaro has had less HP than the Vette when they both had the same engine in the past. Seems that I read somewhere though that the 4.0 in the Ranger would have 5 less HP but more torque than the Explorer version.
Was at ground zero in the Denver hail storm yesterday. Hailed straight for 45-50 minutes. 5 inches of hail on the truck. Pockmarked hood as it is aluminum.
I get something from my uncle's body shop called VLR. I've got no idea what it stands for or where else to get it. It cleans everything plastic/rubber and leaves a nice looking gloss. It's 10X better than Armorall or STP, and it doesn't leave smudges and stuff on other surfaces like Arm & STP.
It also smells kind of like grape bubble gum. I use a soft bristled brush and some VLR on the wheels for a long-lasting (almost a week) wet look too.
I use somthing called "Black Chrome". It can be found at all the automotive stores in my area. This stuff works great on black trim and plastics. It also takes the wax off that you may get on your black trim areas. I'm sure it would work great on black fender flares.
I'm not sure. My uncle just gives the stuff to me in gallons (in old windshield washer fluid bottles). I haven't got a clue as to who makes it. That does sound like the stuff, tho.
I especially like how it isn't greasy and doesn't leave a film like armorall and the like.
I guess we were just lucky. I live out by Arapahoe Road and Parker Road and we got very little hail. I feel for you, though. All the body shops are going to be packed for a while, too.
i live right off lucent in Highlands ranch.(storm central)... just got a couple very little pot marks on the hood, can barely se them. Im not going to fix it but might try to get some money out of the insurance company.
Comments
Ok spoog this is for you. . .
I cannot take my Ranger where a locker is required, I do not have a winch yet. Also, try as I may, I cannot out race a Tacoma in the 1/4 mile.
"Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up. "
We would characterize the drivetrain, specifically the transmission, as biased for highway performance as well. All 4.0-liter Rangers (and Mazdas, for that matter) ordered without the manual tranny get the first five-speed automatic transmission offer ed for any pickup. Our testers split over the need and/or usefulness of a mileage-biased transmission geared for empty-load flatland running. Those in favor noted the nearly seamless transitions from one gear to the next, and how the transmission itself c ould, if the vehicle was driven right--no jackrabbit leadfoot starts--tack on another 50,000 miles of life to the engine.
On the trail, we found the automatic transmission to be a double-edged sword. The smoothness of the First-to-Second shift, combined with the inherent low-end grunt of the engine, was almost enough to overcome the taller gearing. And in the end, voting followed individual preferences for manuals versus automatics. Two testers noted both the manual transmissions (Mazda and Toyota) felt more "in control" on the twisty low-range trails of Truckhaven, where face-down compression braking was very helpful o n steep-trail crawling. In low-range, our automatic Ranger offered a rather delicate 22.8:1 crawl ratio (First x axle gear x low-range); the Mazda and Toyota offered 34.4:1 and 40.4:1 gearing, respectively.
Likewise, where the stiffened front suspension cleanly handled all paved-road obstacles thrown in its path, the Ford IFS had trouble keeping up with the broken terrain of dry washes, hill climbs, and washboards. Admittedly, it is a rare vehicle that c an manage all the extremes with equal aplomb, but several testers commented that the Ford liked to spring a little bit quicker (and hop higher) off the rolling whoop-de-doos. For the most part, we found the sacrificed off-highway capability to be greater than the gained on-highway performance, and for that reason it didn't score well in the parts of our test that are most heavily-weighted; however, that isn't to say testers weren't squabbling among themselves to get into the Ranger for the highway drives up the mountain.
Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up.
Like any good four wheeler, we found the Ford Ranger could do several things quite well, scoring highly in On-Road Ride and Handling and Interior Comfort. To us, the new Ranger is a nice-looking, comfortable truck that is easy to drive and easy to own . And it's made in plants with a reputation for quality. But the Pickup Truck of the Year has to do it all pretty damn well, and it has to be great off-highway. And so we introduce our 1998 winner.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/ptoty1.html
WINNER: TOYOTA TACOMA TRD
Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.
Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running.
As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.
It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.
Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year.
Copyright © 1999 Petersen Publishing L.L.C. All rights reserved
Ford's 4.0-liter overhead-valve V-6 gave our Regular Cab Ranger plenty of off-the-line motivation with 168 lb.-ft. of rear-wheel torque at 2500 rpm. Mazda's 3.0-liter/five-speed manual transmission gave the Regular Cab B-truck the slowest 0-60 time, but the best fuel economy of the group. Although the middle-sized V-6 of the group, the Toyota 3.4-liter DOHC 24-valve V-6 pulled all the way through the torque curve like most small-blocks.
The Ford five-lug 8.8-inch rearend comes standard with the 4.0-lite/five-speed auto combo. Leaf springs and 3.73:1 axle gears are rated to carry 1,180 pounds. Mazda's 7.5-inch rearend is standard with the 3.0-liter V-6. Not surprisingly, our ride-quality vastly improved with 12 bags of landscape rock in the compact's bed.
Toyota's TRD Tacoma comes with the only factory offered rear locking differential on any (full-size or compact) pickup. We found it a huge asset for trail adventures.
FORD & MAZDA TOYOTA
Ford's new compact frontend uses F-150-style short- and long-arm IFS, with torsion bars. The setup offers big gains on pavement--but not without trail sacrifices.
The new Pulse-Vacuum Hub (PVH) used exclusively on compact Fords and Mazdas allows for true in-cab-controlled shift-on-the-fly capability.
Toyota's double A-arm/coilover frontend handles pavement cornering and trail flex with equal skill. We like the six-lug axles and big-caliper front discs.
" The Ranger carried 16 bags, the Tacoma 18"
It's our assumption that pickups are made and bought, at some point, to do work. That's why we run our PTOTY test on the track and trail, with beds loaded and unloaded--and separate from sport-utilities, which we regard as primarily made to carry people and their gear.
After weighing each truck at a commercial scale, we subtract that amount from the factory-rated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) to arrive at an actual maximum payload number. We run track testing with truck beds both empty and with half their calculated payload, this year using 35-pound bags of landscaping rock. In this case, the Ford and Mazda each ran with 16 bags, the Toyota with 18. We think it's valuable to see how each truck performs when carrying a load; that's why they have a bed. For a significant portion of the rest of the test, we run the trucks at half maximum payload. This also allows us to see how mileage is affected, as well as how the engine and chassis react.
At each stage of our test, drivers rotated from truck to truck during a variety of terrain changes--recording comments and scoring each truck as they go.
In the end, each tester scores each truck in 38 different categories with "Mechanical" accounting for 25 percent of the book total;
"Trail Performance" accounting for 30 percent; "Highway Performance" 20 percent; "Interior" 15 percent; and "Exterior" 10 percent. Each logbook accounts for 80 percent of overall scoring, with the remaining 20 percent centered around our nine "Empirical" tests you'll find in chart form: Ground Clearance, Noise at 55 mph, Payload, and so forth.
Finally, we've printed point totals so readers may weight their own "paper test," awarding points for those aspects of a truck they find most valuable. Some may appreciate interior or highway feel more than we have. Change the percentages around and choose your own winner. Of course, that certainly won't be as much fun (or difficult) as running around the countryside with a group of brand new four-bys.
--M. Williams
The 99 and 2000 reports from KBB.com (Kelly Blue Book for the Darwin Award recipients) were very favorable to Tacoma, stopping short of saying that the higher price was totally worth it. But very favorable.
Bottom line, if you look up the posts a bit spoog, I conceded that I cannot beat a Tacoma from the light in a race and I cannot go where a Tacoma goes that requires a locker as I do not have a winch.
However, I do not have the 2001 Ranger, 205hp, 245ft/lb of torque Ranger either.
So can we establish, that a 2001 Ranger, with the same differential as a Tacoma, and simular tranny gearing would...
beat
a Tacoma by statistics at least?
15 more hp, 25 more ft/lb torque = FORD
First On Race Day.
I conceded that I cannot beat a Tacoma from the
light in a race and I cannot go where a Tacoma goes
that requires a locker as I do not have a winch."
What!!!!! Cspounser admits it!!!! Wow. Thanks Cspounser. It kind of makes me feel like all the time spent here was worth it.
Glad you finally came through. I already have admitted the Ranger is the better value and is safer in side impact crashes.
It looks like the Tacoma 3.4 liter 6 will stay. I think thats a good thing. MOst reviewers feel this is a seamless combination of drivetrain and engine. It works incredibly well.
Remember, its not always how much you can put under the hood, but how what you have works with the other parts. The 3.4 liter and the Tacoma tranny work FLAWLESSLY, an "atheletic, seamless unit perfectly designed to match" ( PEtersons).
One thing is for sure, I will be taking both new trucks out for a spin. But I can already tell I wont be buying either as the grills look like they are from a 94 Pontiac. Ugh.
Let's see, the Tacoma has a higher resale value, yet it costs more... hmmm. give me a minute to do the math on that one.
Why is it that Toyota guys are so concerned with resale value? According to them, they last a billion miles and will keep them for the rest of their lives...
BTW, the 2001 Ranger with the Cammer 4L will easily out-muscle the 3.4L V6 Tacoma in hauling stuff and hauling [non-permissible content removed]. :oD
Also, I'm not condoning racing trucks, as I believe it to be somewhat ridiculous (well, except for the Lightning). The average V6 family sedan can outrun the fastest naturally-aspirated iteration of either truck. Some of the quicker family sedans like the Max, SVTour, and the like can put a TRD-Supercharged Tacoma in their rear view mirror with not that much of a fuss (for thousands less too).
Just kidding, Spoog. That was pretty funny Trent.
About all I'd get is more power and higher payments.
I'm around 185hp and 250ft/lbs of torque with my current mods ($300 by the way). My final mod will be a Superchip for $175 to get me close to 200hp and 270ft/lbs of torque. How much more do I need? The stock 160/225 was pleanty, but I just LOVE to tinker with stuff.
I'm waiting for something really substantial to come out (a.k.a. SVT Ranger Adrenalin) before I move into something else. If it doesn't, I'll just have to "settle" for a Cammer 4L Ranger or maybe a Lightning in a few years.
Just read the Ranger for 2001 with the new 4.0 should arrive in showrooms sometime in September. Wonder what spoog and all these Toyota boys are going to have to say then about this racing truck garbage!@. It proves to me Toyota owners don't buy trucks to haul, tow or 4x4, just for a pretty Toy!
I was at Browns Camp this last weekend. Anyone who is from the Oregon or Southern Washington area knows what and where browns camp is. Located in the Oregon Coast Range, and a huge 4x4 area. Guess what, Not ONE, I mean ONE Tacoma seen. I did see older Toyotas, but NOT ONE Tacoma in 2 days!! LOL.
As I keep saying over and over again, the consumer makes the choice, the choice is Ranger. Has been for the last 14 years now. Imagine that, even after all these years the Ranger still is the chosen truck by consumers.
lol.
THe 3.4 on the Tacoma beats the Ranger 4.0 in every single performance category.
Scroll up a few to the 4wheeler comparison. Here is an exact quote:
" The Tacoma beats the Ranger in every single performance category".
And dont forget, that is with weieght in the bed ( more for the Tacoma, because it has a higher payload).
as for Chevy's 4.3, it matches the Toy in horsepower, and smokes it in torque. 250 lb-feet vs. 220 lb-feet. What does Peterson's issue #438, page 52, article 6 have to say about that?
Explorer 210hp 240ft/lbs
Ranger 205hp 235ft/lbs
I'm not quite sure where those 5hp and 5ft/lbs ran off to. Maybe Ford accidentally dropped them when carrying the engine over for transplant...
BTW, my father has a SOHC 4L Explorer Sport. It is very quick for a non-V8 powered SUV.
HEy Eagle, what issue of PEtersons are you referring to? The one where the Tacoma was picked over the Ranger and s-10 in the comparison/offroad test?
More than likely the hp was lost in exhaust or intake differences.
Well, since Four Wheeler ONLY, I repeat ONLY tests new design trucks in it's "Four Wheeler of the Year" tests, wonder what the new SOHC 4.0 engine, new transmissioned, new suspension systemed and out the door nicely equipped for $20K 2001 Ranger will go up against?
Will not be the Tacoma since Taco is basically the same setup as the 1996 (5 year old design) model. A nice design it is but its OLD!
He, he, he!
And places a locker would be used
ONLY because
I do not have a winch or for that matter a locker of my own.
http://www.fordranger.com/offroad/45397.html
http://www.fordranger.com/offroad/45398.html
Or rock crawl. . .
http://www.fordranger.com/offroad/45048.html
I assume we can find a Tacoma doing this?
Oh spoog, thought you said Rangers are good for going to the store and gravel roads?
I never quite get those awards. They say one thing and do another. Consistency seems to be quite low. And, it seems that it all boils down to subjective tastes. Yes, certain car rags do have their preferences.
Then, for tests like the MT Truck of the Year, they compare a Tundra vs. a Lightning vs. a Dakota Quad Cab vs. a Frontier. Talk about different worlds here...
That was before Ford started putting highway suspensions on the Rangers. And that last pic was not a stock ranger .It had some work done.
As for the new 01 Ranger, the suspension is the same.
Hail.
Was at ground zero in the Denver hail storm yesterday. Hailed straight for 45-50 minutes. 5 inches of hail on the truck. Pockmarked hood as it is aluminum.
Ouch!
It also smells kind of like grape bubble gum. I use a soft bristled brush and some VLR on the wheels for a long-lasting (almost a week) wet look too.
I'll try to pick some up this weekend.
I especially like how it isn't greasy and doesn't leave a film like armorall and the like.
Well my hood did not do too well. Due to my deductable going to see if Dent Doctor can help.
Check your hood REAL CLOSE from down at the hood level. Put a flashlight down on it and take a look.
You and I need to get together some time as you are so close.
It hailed for 40-50 min., straignt down. Size maybe to marble. I had 4 inches of hail on the hood and in the bed.
I have never seen that before here, at least that duration in one small maybe 5 mile by 5 mile area.
I gather Courtesy Ford got nailed real bad. They have such a huge inventory. "Dent sale" this weekend I suspect