Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options

Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - X

1246713

Comments

  • Options
    modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    You're hilarious. You proved me wrong months ago when I said TRD was factory and you said it was aftermarket. I based my argument on the fact if it was offered by the manufacturer it wasn't aftermarket. You said I was wrong and proved it.

    Now you're saying your TRD S/C is factory.

    Other Toy owners rate their Toys by horsepower per pound instead of pounds per horsepower.

    Are you guys all goofy? Does Toy have a hidden subliminal brainwashing sound track in their trucks?
  • Options
    y2ktrdy2ktrd Member Posts: 81
    The second gen charger is black in color and is actually smaller in size for added hood clearance i guess.Also i heard that they had removed a pound of boost from it to premote recent detonation problems but i'm not sure but either way trd still rates them at the same hp level.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    So we have established that spoog in his pre 98 has a first generation charger? And what was that comment? something about. . .

    problems with detonation?

    "Oh what a feeling, thats a backfire"

    BTW, is is EASY to compare a S/C Tacoma against a basic 305 Mustang. I still question if a Tacoma could beet a Stang.

    BUT. . .

    Doubtful that charged Tacoma would beat a charged Mustang. Heck, the 4.6 L puts out 260hp and 305 lb/ft torque non-supercharged.

    You Toyota guys will not compare like vehicles.
    THAT is BS.


    BTW I think 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are perhaps the worst statistic to use for a vehicle.
  • Options
    ranger47ranger47 Member Posts: 32
    This 0 to 60 stuff is fine for sports cars, but the name of the game in trucks is torque and gearing to move that load from point a to point b. My '93 ranger does that very well. With the 4.0 and automatic, it moves my tandem 16' trailer loaded quite easily. After over 170,000 trouble free miles, I'll be looking to purchase a new pickup in the coming year and have looked at all the models available. Truth is no one has came out with a truck that is as good a value as the ford ranger. For us folks that use a truck for a truck, value is the bottom line.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    correct, trucks are for work.
    They need enough speed to get out of the way and the Ranger is quite good in that aspect.

    I so not knock the Tacoma in the aspect of engine power. It is ok to be a higher hp vs torque engine.

    But...

    Torque gets the work done, and Ranger is better in that aspect.

    Super chargers are just toys, good for ego stroking. . .
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    " The (2201 Ranger) off-road package gives you five spoke, 16-inch aluminum wheels, P245/75R-16 outline white letter all-terrain tires, skid plates and a 4x4 Off-Road decal package."

    Wow !! 16 inch wheels for off road with 245/75/6-16 ?? Decals ? Jeepers, thats on off road machine !! ROFL

    What a joke. Thats way too low profile for serious off-roading. My Tacoma came with 15 inch aluminum wheels and 265/75-r15. Toyotas TRD offroad package is a REAL offroad package, with 31" tires , Bilstein shocks and locking rear differential. Motor trend says "Off-road, the Tacoma is nothing less than spectacular"

    And why does it take Ford 4 liters to get 205 hp? Remove the Tacomas snorkel elbow and get an Amsoil air filter and you get the same 205 hp from Tacomas smaller 3.4 engine. Fords 3.0 v-6 puts out 150hp ? Thats the same as Toyotas 2.7 4 cylinder !

    My main concern in buying was quality though. Before I bought the truck I checked maintanence records for all the compacts from data compilation sources like Consumer Reports. I'm not talking testers opinions about the trucks, but service data , based on warranty work and service done on these trucks for problems in the first 5 years of ownership.

    Toyota and Nissan were by far the two best, having the least problems for all major systems. Ford and chevy had significantly more problems in most major systems. If you don't believe it go do some service data research and find out for yourself

    Toyota and Nissan built the most reliable trucks on the market. That fact guys. You can argue and pontificate until you are blue in the face, but it won't change reality.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    " The (2001 Ranger) off-road package gives you five spoke, 16-inch aluminum wheels, P245/75R-16 outline white letter all-terrain tires, skid plates and a 4x4 Off-Road decal package."

    Wow !! 16 inch wheels for off road with 245/75/6-16 ?? Decals ? Jeepers, thats on off road machine !! ROFL

    What a joke. Thats way too low profile for serious off-roading. My Tacoma came with 15 inch aluminum wheels and 265/75-r15. Toyotas TRD offroad package is a REAL offroad package, with 31" tires , Bilstein shocks and locking rear differential. Motor trend says "Off-road, the Tacoma is nothing less than spectacular"

    And why does it take Ford 4 liters to get 205 hp? Remove the Tacomas snorkel elbow and get an Amsoil air filter and you get the same 205 hp from Tacomas smaller 3.4 engine. Fords 3.0 v-6 puts out 150hp ? Thats the same as Toyotas 2.7 4 cylinder !

    My main concern in buying was quality though. Before I bought the truck I checked maintanence records for all the compacts from data compilation sources like Consumer Reports. I'm not talking testers opinions about the trucks, but service data , based on warranty work and service done on these trucks for problems in the first 5 years of ownership.

    Toyota and Nissan were by far the two best, having the least problems for all major systems. Ford and chevy had significantly more problems in most major systems. If you don't believe it go do some service data research and find out for yourself

    Toyota and Nissan built the most reliable trucks on the market. That fact guys. You can argue and pontificate until you are blue in the face, but it won't change reality.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    Summary paragraph

    "It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year (1998) 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 work"
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Typical import owner.

    As soon as his points are verbally trashed and proven wrong, he goes too...

    Reliability.

    Every single time.

    It doesn't really matter that the domestic costs less, costs less to insure, replacement parts cost less, has more options/packages to choose from, and on and on... In short, it provides more bang for the buck.

    Guess what? We don't care. I just can't believe that someone would pay MORE money for LESS product.

    Was that extra $4,000 worth that one less trip to the dealer for a minor warranty repair? For that $4,000 I bought two Ski-Doo's and a trailer for some winter fun.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Maybe you didn't read what actually came in the off-road package.

    - bigger tires
    - skid plates
    - heavy duty shocks
    - 4.10 axle ratio
    - styling goodies (flares, mirrors, etc...)

    All for the paltry price of $336. Quite the bargain. You'd be paying 5X that amount to add that stuff to a truck not so equipped.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    That lame article again? The one where they compare the entry-level 4x4 Ranger to the top of the line 4x4 Tacoma?

    What a joke!

    Maybe try fast-forwarding about 3 years to the present???
  • Options
    xena1axena1a Member Posts: 286
    What was that annoying noise that I just heard?
    Oh, I know. It was Tacomafrank arguing and pontificating until he was blue in the face, again. Would that be the same Tacomafrank who established his undeniable credibility with the infamous "18.5 hp and 15.977 ft-lbs of torque per pound of truck" theory? Yes, I believe it is him.
    Oh well, I'll just consider the source and proceed with a good chuckle. Thanks Tacomafrank, you're good for a laugh in an otherwise lackluster day...
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "And why does it take Ford 4 liters to get 205 hp?
    Remove the Tacomas snorkel elbow and get an Amsoil
    air filter and you get the same 205 hp from Tacomas smaller 3.4 engine."

    You can do that, but you'll still have the same problem. Lack of torque in low rpm. Hence the use of a larger displacement engine for a truck.

    Ya know. It's that stuff that gets the truck started from a stop when you're pulling thousands of pounds (like my sleds and trailer with the money I saved).


    BTW, you're not gonna gain 15hp from an open air element. It's more like 5hp at the peak hp rpm. Aftermarket companies like to rate their products at the biggest gain over stock, which is usually not actually at peak horsepower but somewhere else in the rpm range.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    you need to turn 0-60 in under 5 seconds.

    Mustangs turn 0-60 in 4.5 seconds.

    Tacomas are not even out of second gear after 4.5 seconds
  • Options
    ranger47ranger47 Member Posts: 32
    You fellows pretty much covered my thoughs on what a truck should have to get the job done. I might add, I was looking at a near by toyota dealer web site and noted they had two 2000 tacoma's. Both must have been rather well equipped. The more expensive one was just under 26k and the other 24k something. Hey, one can get a nice full sized 4x4, with a v/8 and everything for less than that. Guess that is where that value comes into play. How could anyone put that much in a mini- truck and think they had gotten real value for their dollar.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    " The 3.0 offers 192ft/lbs
    of torque, the Toyota 2.7 offers 177ft/lbs of
    torque, and once again the HP/Torque curves are
    better on the 3.0 "

    i believe the gear ratio for that 3.0 V-6 Rabger is 3.73:1 stock or 4.10 optional. On the Tacomas with optional 31 inch tires, you would get 4.30 (manual) or 4.56 (auto) gears in the 4 cyl Tacoma. I got 4.30 myself ( axle B07A manual )

    With those ratios, the 4 cyl Taco will probably have more torque at the wheel than the 3.0 v-6 rangers.
  • Options
    spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

    Here is a COMPLETE list of the TSB's, Defect Investigations, and Safety Recalls for the Toyota pickup, Chevy s-10, Ford Ranger, and Dodge Dakota from the years 1989-2000. Enjoy.


    Defect Investigations 1989-2000

    Ford Ranger - 20

    Dodge Dakota- 14

    Chevy S10 - 51

    Toyota Tacoma - 2




    Safety Recalls 1989-2000

    Ford Ranger- 32

    Dodge Dakota - 28

    Chevyy S10 - 47

    Toyota Tacoma - 6



    Technical Service Bulletins 1989-2000


    Ford Ranger -2,279(yes, 2,279)

    Dodge Dakota- 940

    Chevy S10 -448

    Toyota Tacoma - 150

    -------



    So there you have it. All data is factual, and very telling. This is NOT "subjective".

    A trucks reliability and build quality is NOT "subjective".

    Not all trucks are built the same, as you can plainly see.

    Here is the hard link:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • Options
    spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    To get the job done?

    How about heavy duty brake calipers? 6 lug wheels instead of five?


    "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. "


    http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/tech.html



    How about a higher standard payload, and a 3/4 ton rating? How about a standard clutchstart cancel switch, a locking diff, and a suspension that isn't highway tuned?





    " The Ranger rattled like a diamondback offroad"

    Edmunds.com

    " We voted the Ford Expedition most likely to break"

    Edmunds.com


    "we feel Ford should start making tougher trucks aimed at doing one thing well instead of trying to be all things to everyone."


    -Edmunds.com



    " The Trd Tacoma handled the rough stuff better than any vehicle we have driven"

    -4wheeler.com


    " We question why the Ranger doesn't come with a manual floor mounted shifter for the t-case with a neutral position"


    - Petersons


    " Once again, we choose the Tacoma over other compacts because it is built like a truck is supposed to be, and offers tough features that work"


    -Petersons
  • Options
    keith24keith24 Member Posts: 93
    According to post 169:

    0-60 in 4.5 seconds? From a Mustang 4.6L?

    Are you smokin' crack?

    The SVT Cobra R only goes 4.82 0-60. 5.4L, 385 h.p. This car will eat 4.6L mustangs for breakfast! I'm not talking about one that someone has completely rebuilt & added every imaginable speed part to. I'm talking factory. Off the showroom floor.

    You may very well know of a 4.6L Mustang that'll go 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. But, its a sure bet that its nowhere NEAR stock!

    keith24
  • Options
    eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    Tacomafrank, in response to my posting of the fourwheeler.com's tech specs, you said...
    " All of those times are bogus, those guys don't know how to drive stick obviously. All those trucks are quicker than that."

    are you doubting fourwheeler.com?? they're the foremost authority, aren't they...?
  • Options
    allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Your Fourwheeler Magazine post about the actual rear wheel horsepower to the rear wheels was interesting, however, I noticed something else. The braking distance on the Ranger from 55 to zero was terrible compared to the Tacoma (140 ft. for the Ranger Vs. 110 ft. for the Tacoma). That may explain why the ranger has a black mark for excessive accident death rates and the Tacoma doesn't.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Or, maybe it was they used the bottom of the barrel Ranger 4x4, which did not have 4-wheel ABS vs. the top of the line Tacoma which did have 4-wheel ABS.

    Just one of the many examples of that article where comparing dissimilar trucks produces skewed results.


    On a side note: for '01 ALL Rangers (every trim) come with 4-wheel ABS as standard equipment with no increase in purchase price.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "Wrong. Removing the snorkle elbow alone accounts
    for a consistent 8-10 hp increase on the dyno, as
    tested by independent parties and Toyota Racing
    Development. Additional HP is gained thru use of an Amsoil filter which flows better than stock."

    Sounds like you've got a case of "[non-permissible content removed] math"!

    I'll explain again. That 8-10hp increase (which mysteriously dropped from 15hp) does NOT occur at the peak horsepower point. It is somewhere else on the rpm range. That 8-10hp increase could be at idle for all you know.

    Without freer breathing mods on both ends (intake AND exhaust), you won't get up to 205 PEAK horsepower.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "Why ? The 2000 Tacomas and Rangers are the same
    basic trucks as 98, so the same holds true. As for
    the 2001, we'll see if their "refinements" make it
    handle any better off-road compared to a Tacoma."

    Nope. The Ranger had improvements each year (CP is the expert on everything they've done). The '01 Ranger has had major revisions. The Tacoma has been the same since '95? Try fast-forwarding about 3 years.

    If you don't even know this, how can you make any comparisons between the Ranger and Tacoma?
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "One less trip?"

    Since you've made 0, and I've made 1 trip each with my '95 and '98 Rangers, then yes. That would be exactly one less trip.

    1 - 0 = 1

    Appearantly you value your time at about $4,000 per day. What do you do to make so much cash?!?! I want in!

    I guess I'll just take my $4,000 worth of snowmobiles and trailer up to Wisconsin this winter to console myself.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "Guys that own lower performance trucks always fall back to that argument."

    That's kind of an ironic statement considering the Tacoma will be the slowest or 2nd slowest (maybe it can beat the Nissan?) compact truck in the next 6 months or so. Just take a look at its competitors:

    - Ford Ranger 4L SOHC 205hp
    - Dodge Dakota 5.9 R/T (and the 4.7L too)
    - Chevy S10 (new 3.5L I6 with 250hp)
    - S/C Nissan Frontier with 210hp

    If I put a sticker and a K&N filter on my riding mower, does that make it a Sport Mower?
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "With those ratios, the 4 cyl Taco will probably
    have more torque at the wheel than the 3.0 v-6
    rangers."

    Because a Rangers have more available torque, they don't have to compensate with gearing. Therefore, you're running the engine at less rpm at any given speed. This means better economy and less engine wear. It also means shifting less and the ability for the truck to pull in almost any gear, which just equates to a nicer driving experience.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Why is a 245 75X16 tire a joke?

    According to BF Goodrich, the following applies:

    245/75R16 tire are 30.6 inches in diameter
    31X10.5X15 tires are 30.7 inches in diameter

    BUT

    265/70R15 tires are only 29.6 inches in diameter

    Are we establishing that the Ranger provides taller tires than the Tacoma non-TRD configuration?

    I submit the the 16 inch tires that come on the Ranger off-road equipped vehicle are fine and exceed the stock tires on a non-TRD Tacoma. For a price differential of maybe 3,000 you can get the TRD. . .

    It was a Cobra I was refering to that does 0-60 in 4.5.

    What, afraid of a little Mustang?
  • Options
    spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "Nope. The Ranger had improvements each year "


    Except it still uses the same highway suspension, and still has the lowest ground clearance in the calls, and still has it's shocks mounted BELOW the axle.

    "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. "


    http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/tech.html

    As for speed, My charged Taco can take a v6 Mustang any day of the week. I can pull right around 0-60 in 6.0 with it. It is INCREDIBLY fast. Add to this the fact it is DEALER installed,and warrantied right along with the life of my engine!


    Sorry gang, Toyota still offers the most bang in the engine department. And it's dealer installed and warrantied along with your engine as if it were factory.


    The reason the Tacoma brakes better is because it uses high-end, oversized break calipers on 4x4 ,models. Very, very heavy duty stuff:

    http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/tech.html

    "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. "



    Take a look for yourself at this site that has pics of the brakes and rear ends of the Tacomas and Rangers.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    "I'll explain again. That 8-10hp increase (which
    mysteriously dropped from 15hp) does NOT occur at
    the peak horsepower point. It is somewhere else on the rpm range. That 8-10hp increase could be atidle for all you know."

    Nothing to explain, it's data, not theory or manufacturer claims. You didn't look at the dyno tests on that link, did you? Not math, dyno test. And 15 is total for all intake mods, 8-10 is only for snorkel elbow removal only.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    "Why is a 245 75X16 tire a joke?"

    OK, it's not a joke, but it is definately optimized for road performance, not offroading. On a 16 inch wheel that tire has less rubber to flex and cushion between your rim and the ground. It does make a difference, believe me, especially when the tires are aired down for wheeling. You don't need the TRD package to get 31" tires on a tacoma, by the way. It's actually a pretty cheap option with the 15 steel wheels.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    "This means better economy and less enginewear"

    No comparison here, bud. My 150 hp 2.7 4 cyl gets better than 20 mpg. I doubt Fords 3.0 does that that. As for engine wear, it is a none issue with Toyotas. The new 2.7 is a refined variant of one of the most reliable auto engines of ALL TIME, Toyotas 22RE. Even at higher rpms, it outlasts any other engine on the market.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    by the way, the 205 hp results from the Toyota dyno test would BE the new peak HP, regardless of what rpm it occured at
  • Options
    modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    I'll try to go slow because I know that Frank has trouble with numbers.


    Now which is it? Is the Land Cruiser a POS or the Tacoma? It seems the LC has double wish bone front suspension with a TORSION BAR. HMMMMMMM. This is a junk suspension on Fords so it must be on Toyota's legendary LC. Let's see, according to hp per pound Frank 16" wheels on a 4X are not good. Poor Land Cruiser, such an inept 4 wheeler. Wow, ABS standard! But not on Tacoma????

    If Toyota does have an "off road" philosophy, I wish I knew what it was.

    Torsion bar or coil?
    ABS or not?
    15" wheels or 16" wheels?
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    new Land Cruisers are a luxury road SUV for rich soccer moms and yuppies. 90% of owners will never take those things offroad, and Toyota knows it. . I admit they are not what they used to be. They are better than many trucks for offroad, but they are no longer as adept than Tacomas. In Fords defense, the 2001 Tacomas have a 16" wheel option too now on the quad cab, but with 31's. This is also soccer mom influence. Off-roaders would be wise to go with 15" and 31" minimum tires
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "No comparison here, bud. My 150 hp 2.7 4 cyl gets
    better than 20 mpg. I doubt Fords 3.0 does that
    that."

    You're absolutely right. My '95 3L auto got upwards of 25mpg. Damn! Ya got me!

    That's all with better performance and towing than that 2.7L I4.

    As for engine wear, I was comparing the same engine running at a higher vs. that same engine running at a lower rpm. The engine running at the lower rpm will use less fuel and incurr less engine wear.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    Well, if I'm wrong about Ford mileage, then I'll admit it. I'm surprised to here the 3.0 v-6 does that well. My 20 mpg is mostly around town, haven't check highway mileage on a trip yet
  • Options
    modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Good post!!!! Now if we could get spoog to wake up and realize that Toyota, while a very good vehicle, doesn't build EVERYTHING to explore the outback or Arctic circle. LOL!!

    If you went way back I admitted that the Tacoma may be a better stock off roader for a few people. It still would need work to be a SERIOUS off roader.

    The Ranger is a good platform for the 7s class in off road racing and while no where near stock, it's not the weak kneed truck some make it out to be.

    P.S. I still think your Hp per lbs. was funny!!!
  • Options
    allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Unless they purposely locked up the brakes, which I'm sure they didn't, the ABS on the Ranger would not change the stopping distance at all. I'm sure you realize that a experienced driver can stop a non-ABS vehicle in a shorter distance than one that has ABS. ABS increases stopping distance on dry pavement. The benefit of ABS is that the average driver can still steer the vehicle during extreme braking as well as preventing hydroplaning on wet pavement. In this case, if the Fourwheeler article is correct, the Ranger has a real deficiency compared to the Tacoma. Thirty feet of extra stopping distance on the Ranger certainly could be the difference in having a fatal accident vs. a minor accident or no accident at all.
  • Options
    y2ktrdy2ktrd Member Posts: 81
    I thought your 0-60 times for the cobra looked a little funny so i checked the back of motor trend and they tested the cobra's at 5.4 0-60...hmmmm.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    " The Ranger had improvements each year (CP
    is the expert on everything they've done). The '01 Ranger has had major revisions. The Tacoma hasbeen the same since '95? "

    Thats because there is really nothing to improve on the Tacoma. It is nearly perfect as-is for a light sport truck. I wouldn't have them change a thing about mine unless they could make it 300 hp without costing me anything more. That and I prefered the old all steel bumpers over the current tupperware ones. If Ford has been improving the Ranger continuously, it's because it needs to improve to better it's ranking in comparison tests
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    "It still would need work to be a SERIOUS offroader"

    Other than the Tacoma needing a better front bumper to prevent cosmetic damage and improve approach angle, I would have to differ with you on that. These stock trucks kick [non-permissible content removed] in the serious stuff, especially with M/T tires. I did some stuff in mine recently that convinced me that anyting I can't do in that truck isn't worth the risk anyway. UNREAL what my stock truck can do. It's what I would call "serious" offroading, if not Extreme.

    Only rockcrawlers might want gearing mods, but for mountain and mud guys, these trucks are ready for action stock.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Ok, listen carefully. Really try this time.

    When an aftermarket manufacturer claims that such and such part will increase horsepower by 10, this can be at any rpm.

    By and large, this is not at peak horsepower. It is called good advertising.



    Do you really think your example has anything to do with this? You've got a heavily modified and supercharged Tacoma with all of the exhaust restrictions removed and all of the intake restrictions still in place. Here's a description of it:

    "These tests were conducted with my 96 4Runner equipped with, TRD Supercharger with the FMU, Edlebrock Headers, Borla Cat-back exhaust, Kenne-Bell Boost-A-Pump, and the stock AFM unless other wise indicated."

    If you even think this is a remote indicator of those mods to a stock Tacoma, you're off your rocker.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    "That's kind of an ironic statement considering the Tacoma will be the slowest or 2nd slowest (maybe it can beat the Nissan?) compact truck in the next 6 months or so. Just take a look at itscompetitors..."

    yes,a stock Tacoma can beat a s/c Nissan now, and so can a stock 4.0 ranger. if you're comparing top engines for each truck, I would consider Toyotas current top engine to be the TRD supercharged 3.4 with 265 hp, which is still tops on that list. Granted, it's by far the most expensive, and a dealer added Toyota option, but it's still an option, not an aftermarket product. I have a feeling the 2002 tacoma will get a HP boost on the normally aspirated 3.4 engine.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    The 3L does pretty good on mpg. However, the 4L is not so great. I am just able to barely break 20mpg on the highway with my 4L 4x4 auto.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Toyota Tacoma 0-60 7.5 seconds:
    http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/new/reviews/wk9605.html

    Mustang SVT Cobra, 5.4L, 385 hp, 0-60 4.4 seconds:
    http://www.motortrend.com/april00/speedfreaks/speedfreaks_f.html

    Gotta dig for this one by going to 2000 models Ford, then the Mustang GT Convertable:
    Mustang GT Convertable 4.6 L 260 hp 0-60 5.8 sec.:
    http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/new/reviews/

    Conclusion? 4.4 and 5.8 is less than 7.5

    And your URLS for your data that refutes what I just posted would be where?

    Afraid of a little Mustang?
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "I would consider Toyotas current top engine to be the TRD supercharged 3.4 with 265 hp"

    It's 256hp and 267ft/lbs of torque.

    Would you also consider me taking my truck in and having the Ford dealership build up my 4L with Ford Motorsports parts to be an option? It'll be expensive like the S/C Taco and be warrantied too. It'll also be capable of 350hp and 400ft/lbs of torque in N/A form.

    Sorry, I don't consider aftermarket tuner vehicles to be stock. Even if the manufacturer and tuner will warranty the vehicle. Anything you add to the truck after it comes off the assembly line is aftermarket.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "Thats because there is really nothing to improve
    on the Tacoma. It is nearly perfect as-is for a
    light sport truck. I wouldn't have them change a
    thing about mine unless they could make it 300 hp
    without costing me anything more. That and I
    prefered the old all steel bumpers over the current tupperware ones. If Ford has been improving the Ranger continuously, it's because it needs to improve to better it's ranking in comparison tests."

    If you really think that, then Toyota must have some brain-washing gas emitters in the cabs of their trucks. Every single vehicle on the road has room for improvement. Let's just start with the Taco's poor safety ratings for one.

    Ford hasn't been improving the Ranger to make it fare better in some dumb car rag comparos. They're just giving average Joe truck buyer out there a better truck. This is bad? Huh?
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    Wait, someone actually tested a stcok v-6 Tacoma at 7.5 ??? I though it wasn't possible ! I thought it took 9 or 10 seconds ? Actually, it just took someone who knows how to drive stick.
    http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/new/reviews/wk9605.html

    "The 3.4-liter V6 optionally available in the Tacoma is the same powerplant used in the larger, heavier T100. The Tacoma so equipped is a quick little hot rod. It feels like a shrunken V8 muscle truck, with better acceleration than some sports cars. "
This discussion has been closed.