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

1235713

Comments

  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "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."

    What?!?!

    Everything I have ever seen where non-ABS vehicles are compared to ABS vehicles, show a significant decrease in stopping distances in all but a very, very few instances. The only situation where ABS does not greatly reduce stopping distance is where a wedge (possibly gravel or snow) will build up in a non-ABS vehicle stopping it in a shorter distance. The trade-off to this shorter stopping distance is loss of vehicle control (no steering, just straight forward).

    I've seen a comparo where a test driver (the experienced driver you attest to) will make runs with ABS and no ABS. The ABS is always significantly shorter.

    I wish I could find a link, but it was in some old Motor Trend or Car & Driver that I've probably thrown away long ago. It was a few years back when ABS was becoming a major option on all cars. It instilled the belief in me that equipping your vehicle with 4-wheel ABS was as important as seatbelts.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    What sports car can't turn a 7.5s 0-60 run?

    Even my stock family car can run the dash to 60mph in under 7s, to say absolutely nothing about a real sports car.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    "Every single vehicle on the road has
    room for improvement. Let's just start with the
    Taco's poor safety ratings for one."

    Well yes, they could all get 100 mpg and be bulletproof, etc. No, I wouldn't want to get T-boned in a tacoma or any other light truck. What I mean is in the performance and reliability department, the Tacoma is not "lacking" in any regard compared to competitors, at least not in the opinions of most owners or mag writers.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    "What sports car can't turn a 7.5s 0-60 run?"

    Mustang : 4-speed automatic
    Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec.
    Mustang : 5-speed manual
    0-60 mph in 7.8 sec.

    So at 7-5 0-60, a stock tacoma is faster than stock V6 Mustang.

    http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Heraud/Ford/Mustang/2000S.asp
  • Options
    barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    I owned a 99 lightning that had 360 supercharged horses along with 440 lbs tourque.The year I bought it,it was rated the 13th quickest production vehicle made.The Viper being #1.The lightnings times were in the 5.6 area.You are saying the your Tacoma would give a lightning a run for its money.Hold on while a take another hit of crack hopefully its the same good stuff you have.Gimme a break.
    Tacomafrank you can add the same air setup on a Ranger and increase its hp and tourque.Plus add a superchip and open up the exhaust and you can easily bump up a new Ranger to 240,250 Hp for under $600.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    C'mon, a superchip? I have yet to see one that comes anywhere close to it's claims when you put it on a dyno. Most of them are total BS.
  • Options
    y2ktrdy2ktrd Member Posts: 81
    Well i was wrong,my local dealer is installing the first gen charger for 2750.00 (i checked)
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I couldn't care less what some mag writer has to say about any vehicle. Opinions are like... you know the rest.

    In my own opinion, the Tacoma is lacking. It's interior is terrible. It's crash ratings are atrocious. It lacks low rpm torque that I need to pull my trailer. It's price is astronomical. It's option packages are limited, so I can't pick and choose only what I want/need. It costs more to insure and more to fix. Its aftermarket following is much smaller than a Ranger (not Taco's fault but still a factor in my mind). I wouldn't like to drive another potential head gasket time bomb like my H.O. Quad-4 (past problems, maybe fixed, maybe not).

    I don't really care about the nameplate on a vehicle. I'm gonna go for whatever vehicle fits my needs and gives me the most bang for my dollar. Who knows where I'll stand when I trade my truck in (whenever that may be).
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Do you really consider a V6 Mustang to be a sports car? Please...

    And, do you really think a sports car would have a slushbox for a tranny?

    BTW, you might also want to use either actual test data or manufacturer's ratings. Ford rates my car at 7.9s when it's really about 6.9s.

    But, I guess that doesn't really work either because you're running back to back on the same track with the same driver, results will vary.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Is that the one with all of the detonation problems? Yikes! I think I'd pay somebody not to put it on my truck than having to deal with those frigging problems.

    Try higher flow fuel pump, higher flow fuel injectors, air/fuel guage, and a custom burned computer chip, which sure as hell isn't gonna come cheap!

    What are they charging for the 2nd gen charger?
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Superchips use [non-permissible content removed] math, like I've explained before. They do put out the claimed horsepower and torque gains. It's just not at peak horsepower/torque. Your biggest gain is the reprogramming of your tranny (should it be a slushbox). Also, you can have them custom burned to work with existing mods. And, don't try running a Supercharger without a chip (unless it's DIO and they reprogram the computer).
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    builds up ONLY the Ford 4.0 L engines.

    They could build a Ranger to take on any Tacoma on the street.

    I will look for the web address and post it later.

    And Frank, I am not an expert on every thing on the Ranger. In fact my Ranger is rather un optioned, just tires, and KKM filter and a few other minor odds and ends.

    But it works fine for me.
  • Options
    allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I see that you don't understand ABS systems so here is the first of many links that may help you.
    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/equipment/ABSBRAKES.html

    Particularly notice: "Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without? ABS is designed to help the driver maintain control of the vehicle during
    emergency braking situations, not make the car stop more quickly. ABS may shorten stopping distances on wet or slippery roads and many
    systems will shorten stopping distances on dry roads. On very soft surfaces, such as loose gravel or unpacked snow, an ABS system may
    actually lengthen stopping distances. In wet or slippery conditions, you should still make sure you drive carefully, always keep a safe distance
    behind the vehicle in front of you, and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions".

    I really doubt that you have seen any data that suggests that an ABS vehicle has a lower stopping distance than a non-ABS vehicle because it's simply not true. If you read that in a magazine I'd suggest trashing your subscription. An experienced driver can pump the brakes and beat an ABS system easily. The problem is that most people simply slam on the brakes and lock the wheels which keeps them from steering and controlling the vehicle. That's why they make a big deal about installing the system on new cars. No driving skill is required.

    Every link I find says the same so I don't know where you've been. Here's a link geared towards women if you're not man enough to accept the facts:
    http://www.womanmotorist.com/glossary/abs.shtml

    Notice this line on the page: "ABS does NOT
    stop the car faster".

    Please don't take offense as I'm just being sarcastic but let's face the facts.

    All that being said, even if the system slightly improved the baking for the driver in Fourwheeler magazine, it didn't make 30 feet of difference. The braking system on the Ranger is obviously much poorer than the system on the Tacoma.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    As I recall ABS will give you a more stable braking, correct?

    Designed to keep the tires from locking up by pulsing the brakes.

    As you stated, works best on wet/slippery road.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    I think I proved that the 245 R75 16 tires are basically equal to the 31X10.5X15's
    AND
    that the stock, non-31 inch tires on Tacoma is smaller in diameter than the stock Ranger off-road package 16 inchers.

    Man do those 16 inch tires cost though!

    If reqursted will be glad to post the URL for BFG's where you can see the charts for your self.

    Advantage Ranger for a stock vehicle? Just one of the 20+ configurations of the Ranger, ready to hit the trail. . .
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Ran accross these, some very interesting Ranger pics done in Ohio a few weeks ago.

    Shows the capability of Rangers/BroncoII's
    http://www.rrorc.com/Anniversary2000.html
  • Options
    eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    beating a v-6 mustang is nothing to brag about. most family sedans can accomplish that.

    also, it seems to me that bragging about your supercharged engine being more powerful than normally aspirated engines is pretty lame. maybe it's just me....
  • Options
    eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    according to your favorite site, the ranger (stock, BTW) has better approach/departure angles than a TRD tacoma. what's going on? I thought the tacoma was the ultimate off-road vehicle?

    http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/specs.html
  • Options
    dmoulddmould Member Posts: 76
    Motor Trend did a sport truck test recently, pitting the Dakota R/T against the Tacoma 3.4L auto, Ranger 4.0L OHV auto and Sonoma 4.3L 5-speed. The 0-60 times were:
    Dakota R/T - 7.0 seconds.
    Tacoma - 8.0 seconds.
    Ranger - 8.9 seconds.
    Sonoma - 8.9 seconds.
    Now I currently drive a Ranger, but I am shopping for a new 2wd extended cab truck. I do some hauling, so I want the biggest motor. The new Tacoma S-Runner is VERY appealing, but not available here in Canada (sucks). I have test driven the Dakota 4.7L 5-speed, and it is sweet, but very expensive. Also tested the Sonoma with the ZQ8 sport suspension, 4.3 5-speed, and was NOT impressed. Slower than expected. The S/C 2wd Frontier is not available her in Canada either. That narrows it down to the 2001 Ranger XLT S/C, which IS AVAILABLE here in Canada with the 4.0L SOHC Manual Tranny in 2wd. I have verified this through the dealer ordering guide, as well as the Ranger brochure. Hope to place my order soon.
    In my opinion, based on extensive reading of automotive publications for the last 15 years, the V6 Tacoma, 2001 4.0 Ranger and the V8 Dakota would all be very close in 0-60mph times with manual transmissions. Car and Driver tested a manual 4.7L Dakota Quad at 7.7s 0-60. I will post the month/year of the Motor Trend issue I have used.
  • Options
    spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "If Toyota does have an "off road" philosophy, I
    wish I knew what it was. "


    What a foolish thing to say. YOu know as well as I do that Toyota 4x4's are engineered quite differently from most others.


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

    -FourWheeler


    Also, be sure to check out the Edmunds full-size SUV comparison test. Enjoy reading on how the LAndcruiser absolutely DEMOLISHED the competition in all categores, especially offroading.
    The Ford Expedition iwas called" weak and vulnerable", along with being voted "most likely to break".

    Don't thinbk Toyota has an offroad design philosphy? You better read that Edmunds full size SUV comparison test.

    There are two tests. ONe Luxury test with the lx 450 and the other with the regular landcruiser.
  • Options
    jray18jray18 Member Posts: 18
    Have there been any test on 2001 ford ranger V6 V.S. Toyota Tacoma V6
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Hello? Are you actually reading what I'm posting? I answered your question and told you exactly why the Ranger had longer stopping distances.

    They tested the trucks on dry pavement.

    From your own post:

    "ABS may shorten stopping distances on wet or slippery roads and many systems will shorten stopping distances on dry roads."

    You just proved my point. Thanks.



    Do you truly actually believe that you would be able to modulate your brakes and keep the tires closer to the limits of adhesion that a sophisticated computer system pulsing the brakes at something like 300 times per minute?

    If you do, remind me never to follow within 500ft of your vehicles.

    Just a question, did you get your trucks with 4-wheel ABS?
  • Options
    allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I don't know if more stable braking is the best way to describe it but you're correct. If have to make an emergency stop you want to ideally put enough pressure on the pedal that puts the brakes just before the lock up point, so that you can still steer the vehicle. I've done a lot of amateur racing in the past and I was taught to pump the brakes similar to what the ABS systems do to achieve that. From experience I can tell you that the fast pulsing of the ABS is not quite as good as an experienced driver can achieve. The ABS system is, however, much better than the the typical driver that mashes the pedal in an emergency, locks up the brakes and loses control of the vehicle. It's a good feature because, even though I know how to stop properly, I can't say that I always do the right thing in an emergency situation. It's best to get rid of human error for boneheads like me.
    By the way, those were good Ranger pics. Even though I like the Tacoma better, it hows that the Ranger can do the rough stuff.
  • Options
    modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    What is the philosophy? Torsion bars or coils? ABS or not? 15" or 16" wheels. Dana axles that Ford has had for years? Blown head gaskets? Rusted out sheet metal?
    It seems Toy is very good at tuning for one end of the spectrum. Nothing that ANY truck owner couldn't do with the thousands saved from not buying a "philosophy".

    "Foolish" seems to be your middle name. Explain the 4 lug Escort brakes on the 5 lug F150. Explain how Dana on Toys is the greatest thing since sliced bread when the big 3 have used Dana forever. Explain how IFS torsion bar on a Toy is 'da shtz but on a Ford it's a "highway design".

    I agree the big 3 bias their vehicles toward the highway where most people spend their time. Give me the $12,000 difference between a LC and an Expedition and I'll build a pre-runner that will destroy your Toys. Your stupid foundation analogy does not apply.
  • Options
    jray18jray18 Member Posts: 18
    What are the comparisons between the 2001 tacoma and ranger motor wise???
  • Options
    allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I typically respect your opinions CT and you notice that I don't argue with you on points like truck suspension mods. etc. because I'm not experienced in that area. In this case, however, I have some performance car driving experience which taught me a lot of driving skills, and I fully understand what an ABS system does which you don't. The only point I've proved for you is that you need to read more on what an ABS system can achieve. It wasn't designed to stop the car faster which is a common misconception.
    No I didn't get my Tacoma with ABS because I couldn't find one that had it but I wanted it. That's not because I didn't think that I could brake better, but because I don't know if I'd do the right thing in an emergency where I would be more focused when I race.
  • Options
    allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Also CT, If you believe that the Ranger's ABS system will make the Ranger stop 30 feet shorter from 55 to zero you'll believe anything.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I respect your opinions and where you're coming from, but I disagree.

    ABS and stability systems have improved greatly over the past 10 years. They help take the human variable out of the equation in an emergency situtation. In all but a few rare situations, a vehicle with 4-wheel ABS will stop in a shorter distance than a non-ABS vehicle, and will maintain control.


    Also, I never said that 4-wheel ABS would make the Ranger stop 30ft shorter. Don't put words in my mouth.

    A couple of other factors in stopping distance are tire/wheel size and vehicle weight. Both of these can be changed with the simple check of an option box.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Agree with mod's assessment on differentials etc

    For spoog, if you had READ the http://www.fourwheeler.com section on differentials you would have KNOWN that Toyota does not use the Dana but \

    FORD DOES use the Dana systems.

    Glad you liked the pics. That was done near the Ohio/Penn state line, Wellsville. A large goup met to celebrate the 1st year of the Rough Rangers Off-Road Club, a nation wide internet group. People came from Utah, Texas and a lot from the east coast. Many were built Rangers, like lifts, a few v8 conversions, but fun was had by all. Thanks go to Jim Oakes who founded the RRORC and got this together. Wish I could have gone.

    Hitcher:
    If you look at the pics, Rangers deep enough in the water/mud?
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Tacoma 3.4 DOHC v6, 190 hp 220lb/ft torque

    Ranger 4.0 SOHC v6, 205hp 245 lb/ft touque(automatic only at this time, manual in 3+ months)
    Look for a small v8 in 2003 (Such that you would need one, heck with 70% of you weight on the front would result in traction issues(spinning the tires)
  • Options
    modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    spoog was spouting some article(what else is new?)
    that Toy recently signed a contract with Dana to
    supply diffs and axles and how great they are. I
    guess Toy is finally catching up! LOL!!
  • Options
    allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    OK, if you really believe that ABS with shorten stopping distance, give me some data as to why. Like I said, if you understand what it's doing, you'll see why that isn't the case.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    You post data that proves my point and now you want me to explain why?

    I don't think I'm the one who doesn't understand ABS...
  • Options
    allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I don't mean to be overly harsh, but this is the reason I don't post that much anymore. This forum is full of people imagining to know what they are talking about but are simply ignorant. I'll try one more time and then give up on you. Have you ever had any basic physics in school? Think in those terms. You're essentially stopping as a result of friction by the tires and the pavement as well as the rotor or drum and the brake pads. If you lock up the brakes, the vehicle will begin to slide, lose friction, and in this case, ABS will stop the vehicle in less distance. If the vehicle's brakes don't lock, however, pulsing the brakes will produce less friction between the pads and rotor than a constant pressure between the pads and rotor or even a much slower pumping by the driver. If a driver can keep constant pressure between the pads and rotor, without locking the brakes, the vehicle will stop in less space than the ABS scan achieve. As I said earlier, there is driving skill involved to do that which most people don't possess. That should be simple to understand with not much of a science background required. If you don't want to accept that I guess I can't help you. Ignorance is bliss!!
  • Options
    barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    I've got a superchip in my F250 LD right now along with the K&N fipk and a gibson catback dual exhaust,trust me it works I can chirp from 1st to 2nd if I'd like to thats at close to 50 mph at WOT.Keep in mind my truck is supercab 4x4 4door with the 5.4 and auto trans its a heavy truck,there is a significant difference with the chip and it works all throughout the powerband not just above certain rpms.The best things the mods have done for me is give me around 23 mpg on highway I'm sure thats better than your tacoma.I'm really interested in driving a new Ranger I'm sure they'll be a great truck that can easily be modified for performance and offroad capabilities which is what I plan on doing.As for my F250 I've been offered $27,000.I only paid $26,000 for it.For anybody interested in a chip go to www.f150online.com and go to message board and look up chips.They may even make one for a Toyota.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    This is Tacoma Territory....

    http://home.gci.net/~tacomaworld/temp031.jpg
  • Options
    jray18jray18 Member Posts: 18
    Any 0-60 times on the new clunker i mean the ranger
  • Options
    allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I shouldn't be talking down to you as I did in my last post and I apologize. You're still very wrong and you should try to understand what I tried to explain to you but I shouldn't get ticked off that easy and use insulting lingo.
  • Options
    scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Tacomafrank, You don't seem to know me. I have a 1998 4x4 RAnger XLT supercab stepside with a 4.0 5spd 3.73 limited slip rearend, offroad pkg, tow pkg, loaded. The only mods are a chip, K$N air charger kit and some P265x75R16 all terrains. I live in the Northwest just below MT Hood. I see this stuff all the time. I don't snorkle my truck, nor will I ever. It plays havok on electrical/suspension and so on. My playground is the Cascade range and parts of Eastern Oregon from Pendleton to Bend, sisters area. My Ranger will go anywhere your Tacoma will go I will bet my title on it@! I have already gone up against one of your TRD's and went EVERYWHERE the TRD went. I paid 4K less to do it too!!
  • Options
    jray18jray18 Member Posts: 18
    I looked back at a old artice toyota tacoma VS chevrolet z71 and why is it u were in there vince since u have " awsome ranger"
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    "Tacomafrank, You don't seem to know me"

    You're right. "your Ranger" as just an expression directed at the board.

    " I live in the Northwest just below MT Hood. I see this stuff all the time. "

    I've been there, beautiful Area. I live in SouthCentral Alaska, where that photo was taken.

    "I don't snorkle my truck,nor will I ever. It plays havok on electrical/suspension and so on"

    Doesn't seem to cause problems with Tacomas, which was kinda the point of my post.

    ". My Ranger will go anywhere your Tacoma will go I will bet my titleon it@!"

    How about thru that river ? heh heh

    Don't take offense to my post, vance8. just having some fun with you ford guys.
  • Options
    y2ktrdy2ktrd Member Posts: 81
    It was just a few people having detonation problems,not all in fact i asked the service manager and he had never heard of any problems with the ones they had installed.I'm not sure on the price of the newer ones.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I'd reconsider it if you were thinking of having one installed. It might open a can of worms real damn expensive to fix.

    I'm not trying to be argumentative, just cautious. Unless you knew that service manager, I'd take his words with a grain of salt considering what you've heard elsewhere. Maybe they're just swapping the pulley on the 1st gen charger to run at lower boost and solve the possible detonation problem?

    I think that detonation problems are the reason for the continual delay of BBK's Instacharger for the '98 and up Rangers.

    I think that Paxton and Vortech both make kits for all years of OHV 4L Rangers. But, they are centrifugal chargers and not roots-type like the BBK, so there's probably some difference there with constant vs. variable boost rate.
  • Options
    cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    No offense taken. Just to let you know, I've taken more science classes than I'd care to admit. I've also worked for a couple of years in in an engine test facility at a research laboratory.

    The reason I believe ABS to be superior in most instances is this:

    A computer can apply the maximum amount of braking force on the pads/rotor without breaking the tires limits of adhesion better than a human.

    Well, it will actually break the limits of adhesion (for a few microseconds), but it will recover much more quicly than any human reflexes could muster.

    So, the ABS vehicle will spend more time at maximum breaking pressure than a non-ABS vehicle with the human pumping the brakes.



    And, as on-board computers, sensors, programs, etc... progress, braking will only get better.


    Just for the record, the Ranger's brakes could use improvement, especially on the heavier trucks. Braking is actually pretty good on my comparatively light reg-cab Ranger. But, I've found it to be like night and day when compared to my father's ext-cab with 200lbs worth of cap Ranger. If it were my truck, I'd opt for some high performance pads and the Ford Motorsports rear drum to disc conversion kit. But, I guess he's okay as that truck rarely sees the far side of 40mph.
  • Options
    spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    GREAT PHOTO!!!!

    I posted some insane photos earlier as well that had Tacoma's buried in mud. Cspounser posts pictures of little puddles.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    You know quite well I posted a picture of coloranger's 87 Ranger, up to it's hood in water.

    The DIFFERENCE between the one Tacomafrank posted and the one I posted is you can

    CLEARLY

    see the wave of the water as the Ranger is MOVING in the water. And I PERSONNALY know the owner of that vehicle and can post a picture of our vehicles together.(psst, he is over talking to the guy in the black Ranger)
    http://members.aol.com/Cpousnr/cc4.jpg

    While franks pic is nice, other than the waves from wind, I see

    NO

    frontal wave movement of that vehicle.
  • Options
    cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well, interesting post. . .I do not accept cookies so cannot see it, but assume it is the ignition module issue. . .

    Perhaps you would care to state that such a recall does not apply to the Ranger?

    You know, those subcontracted parts will get you every time. . .
  • Options
    lariat1lariat1 Member Posts: 461
    Looking at your picture and I was wondering if that was out at Black Rapids. I also live in AK and I am just curious as to where that picture was taken.
    By the way cpousnr those waves are not from wind they are from rocks on the bottom of the river.
  • Options
    tacomafranktacomafrank Member Posts: 61
    yeah, that was whitewater in the photo, the river was moving very fast. The bottom was very rocky, not smooth, so I wasn't blasting thru it. It was taken at Knik glacier. Not a drop of water got in the cab and the air filter stayed bone dry, by the way.
  • Options
    obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    The recall affects 29 models including the Ranger. If Ford having a bad hair day again. First firestone now ignition modules. Do these things come in threes? I just can't wait for the next one... ;)
This discussion has been closed.