By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Chevy 4.8L V8: 270hp@5200rpm / 285lbs torque@4000rpm
Toyota 4.7L DOHC V8: 245hp@4800rpm / 315lbs torque@3400rpm
We all know torque is what we need when we are talking about trucks. If DOHC is a waste on truck engines, then why is the smaller Toyota engine not only making 30lbs more torque than the Chevy, but also at 600rpms less?
Doesn't this disprove some of your theories that DOHC is a waste on trucks because they can't make torque down low in the RPMs? I think this is a pretty convincing argument on the whole DOHC versus OHC/pushrod engine debate.
The GM/Toy comparo is EXACTLY why the DOHC is not using its full potential in a truck engine. Do you understand what varible valve timing is??? I've never said that 4 valve (which is really more what this discussion is about as opposed to DOHC tecnology)can't make the power down low. I've said that unless you are spinning a motor to the higher RPM's that make the peak HP that the OHC/4 valve set up is not being used to its potential. Do you not think for one moment that GM couldn't re-cam and re-intake that 4.7 and lose 30 HP but gain the torque down low???
The bottom line is that most 4 valve motors need some sort of VVT or intake restriction for lower RPM use to make the same torque as a 2 valve motor that has a smaller total valve area.
Where the 4 valve motors excel, at higher HP/RPM's, the truck motors don't need to run.
The last physics lesson as it regards to engines is that at lower RPM's the larger the port volume and valve area the less efficient a motor is. This is due to lost velocity at lower engine speeds. This is why a VVT will limit the amount of air volume at lower engine speeds as it increases port velocity. Of course at higher RPM the VVT allows full valve lift. But guess what? At 4800 RPM who cares???!!! Now @ 6000-7000 and even the 8000 RPM's the Hondas turn the 4 valve DOHC(or SOHC) starts to show an advantage over a 2 valve set up.
You need TORQUE to accomplish work, ie moving a 4X4 up a hill. Bottom line, the Ranger wins that statistic.
The Tacoma, while a fine motor in the 3.4, cannot compare in the battle of torque. It may be faster, but that is also determined by the gear ratio of the tranny. And in that battle, I have shown before, the only gear that a Tacoma has a better crawl ratio, ie gearing for off-road, is in 1st gear. The Ranger has a better crawl ratio in every other gear, when both vehicles have a 4.10 rear differential.
HP per liter is a real useless statistic. Sorry, your just wrong there. The REAL merit of an off-road vehicle comes in the low RPM torque curve, which the Ranger wins.
As far as which engine is heavier, I'm not about to look up the steel or aluminum alloy composites used to cast or forge each part on both engines. It's just a moot point.
Just to make Pluto think he scored a point, yes at peak statistics, the 3.4l makes more HP per cubic inch than the 4.0l. Yet you still don't seem to comprehend the power curve inherant in 4 valve engines. They peak well, but off-peak they don't suck air well. (Point retracted) I'd love to show you the actual average torque/hp or complete power band. Then you'll have to move back to the pure stock off-road arguments.
Arguing dealerships honoring their warranties is moot as well. Each market is different, and each relationship with the customer is different. Maybe I'm just blessed to be in a high competition market area, or maybe the Ford dealerships here just take that extra step to ensure customer satisfaction. I haven't been to any Toyota service departments, but I have heard many more horror stories. Maybe that reputation for reliability carries over to reluctance to repair.
Chevy 4.8L makes 285lbs torque at 4000rpm
Ford 4.6L makes 293lbs torque at 3500rpm
Toyota DOHC 4.7L makes 315lbs torque at 3400rpm
Sorry, but the numbers speak for themselves. Being that the DOHC is so worthless and a disadvantage in a truck motor, don't you find it odd that this design beat all the others? In comparison reviews, why don't they ever put up Chevy's 4.8L or Ford's 4.6L against Toyota's 4.7L? Nope, can't do that, the competitors need to use a larger engine. No matter what you say about DOHC, Toyota has obviously done something right with their engine.
Oh, and if the Ranger is so superior with low-end torque and crawl ratios, why has it NEVER beaten the Tacoma off-roading?
Stang: "You still don't seem to comprehend the power curve inherent if 4 valve engines. They peak well, but off-peak they don't suck air well." Yeah, and I could say that your 2 valve engine may have a slightly more linear torque curve, but it doesn't peak as high in lbs/ft torque or as low in the rpms as the DOHC 4 valve engines. And let's be honest, anybody who talks trucks wants the highest torque at the lowest RPM.
You know, over the years, you've probably noticed that the truck engines have become smaller yet more powerful. Carburetors were replaced with fuel injection, many pushrod designs were replaced with OHC designs, etc. Now the first DOHC V8 ever offered in a pick-up was introduced by Toyota, and it's stomping anything else in the same displacement range. The DOHC will probably be the next step in the evolution of pick-up engines becoming smaller and more powerful. I can't help to think that if Ford or Chevy made this engine, you guys would think it's the greatest thing in the world.
CP- that is impressive wheel travel in that pic you posted. Also, it doesn't look like the FX4 has that ugly plastic body molding that the "Edge" has. which is nice...
also, you all must remember that the FX4 rear-end's only difference with a regular ranger is its shocks. they will all articulate like that if asked. i know mine will.
pluto- i saw a new '02 camry se, very nice. and i agree they are nicer than a taurus. however, they are still down on power, taurus is available with 200 horse, and the new altima can be had with a 240 horse V6. it's(the altima) also built by robots. all are nice, but the nissan takes the cake imo. although the new camry se is very cool.
as far as american vs. japanese. i dont have anything against japanese, i just dont like it when people claim that their honda's, nissan's, toyota's are "made in USA". its simply not true. they're imports and always will be. my ranger has a build tag of made in usa. and it was. right up above me in the crappy state of MN.
The 4 valve head IS NOT AT A DISADVANTAGE IN A TRUCK APPLICATION, ONLY because of the VVT technology......slow enough?
A 4 valve head is NOT BEING USED FOR THE ADVANTAGES OF HIGH RPM BREATHING IN A TRUCK APPLICATION. Therefore a 4 valve OHC setup is not being utilized to its main advantage. Understand yet????
The 4.6 2 valve SOHC in the Mustang makes 260 HP and over 300pound feet of torque. For whatever reason Ford tuned the truck 4.6 different. It's all in the tuning at these lower RPM's !!! Again I'll state that at the operating levels a truck motor runs at 4 valve technology offers no advantage.
I think you're still confused on the DOHC issue. It's not the # cams that makes the difference.
Toyota pickups are assembled by U.S. citizens with 75% parts contents made in the U.S.A. When my Nissan was built back in June of 1991 it was not quite 75% U.S.A parts but still was at least assembled in the U.S.A. Would you rather have a vehicle made in a foreign country and then sold in the U.S. where the only money that ends up in the U.S. is to the dealer? Or would you rather have a foreign owned corporation that has invested in plant/land and labor with the majority of cost to assemble a vehicle going to citizens of the U.S and the profits from the sale going back to Japan? Give me the latter every time.
I think we (and just about every other thread with domestics compared against imports) have beaten this "made in America" thing to death. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute and suggest something to think about. After the September 11 attacks, I believe everyone of the Big 3 has made multi-million dollar contributions to relief programs. So far not a penny has come from Toyota motor corp, and Toyota has enjoyed some of its best quarterly sales recently. This should be making folks more angry than where parts are assembled. Even that ticks me off.
my buddy bought a '93 Kawasaki Ninja ZX6 back in '93. on the tank was a huge sticker from the factory that read "made in USA". we laughed at it because right on the frame and engine, it said made in japan. if there is one part that came from america, and it was probably assembled in america (in nebraske probably), the japanese will brag about it and say it was made in america. when all along it wasn't even close to being american made. same thing with the toys, nissans, and hondas. do you really think those japanese honda guys over there would really let americans design and build their precious pocket rockets? not gonna happen. we simply use our tools and their parts to create their gems. but its not a bad thing. its fine. even though they do think their products are better and charge you more for them.
The 2 valve 5.4 has more torque and aprox. the same fuel economy as the Toy. the GM 5.3 has more peak power(kinda paradoxical when you look at the technology) and it beats both modern OHC designs in fuel economy. So the 4.7 Toy is in a higher state of tune and actually uses more fuel than the larger more powerful motors. Advantage????
the 4.6 and 4.8 vs the Toy is the same argument. The 2 valve motors use less fuel and one has close to the same torque and the other has more peak power than the Toy. Advantage??? Just depends on your priorities. Ford could easily tune the truck 4.6 in the same state as the Mustang GT 4.6 and out power both. Why don't they? Your guess is as good as mine!!!
BTW, Ford does use DOHC 4 valve heads on the Lincoln trucks. This is to put them over 300 HP which GM still does with pushrods/2 valves on the Escalade. Advantage Ford??? I don't see it there either.
2. How is the Toyota 4.7 in a "higher state of tune" when it is producing 30lbs/ft torque more than the 5.3 at 600rpms less?
3. "the GM 5.3 has more peak power"...wait a minute, I thought we agreed that as far as trucks are concerned, HP isn't important, torque is (and especially at lower rpms).
4. "the 4.6 and the 4.8 vs. the Toy is the same argument. The 2 valve motors use less fuel and one has close to the same torque and the other has more peak power than the Toy." The Ford 4.6 = 231hp@4750rpm / 293lb/ft torque@3500rpm. No torque or hp advantage there (Toy 4.7 = 245hp@4800rpm / 315lb/ft torque@3400rpm). The Chevy 4.8L = 270hp@5200rpm / 285lb/ft torque at 4000rpm. In this case, Chevy does have a HP advantage, but again, lower torque figures at much higher rpms. Which would you rather have? Of course the 2 valve motors are using less fuel than the 4.7 - that's because they're not producing as much power, regardless of the different displacements of these engines. I would like the figures on fuel consumption, however. What's the difference? 1 or 2 mpg? Isn't that what you would expect for the gains in torque and/or HP when comparing ANY engines? Are such figures important to people who buy trucks?
5. I can't believe that now you're entering the 5.4 into the argument. Just how big of an engine do you have to use as a "fair" comparison to the Toyota 4.7?
6. Toyota could probably tune its 4.7 to produce as much power as the Mustang GT as well. Why don't they? Your guess is as good as mine as well!
I see your point that the DOHC design of the 4.7L isn't the ONLY factor making this engine perform well. Still, I wonder why Chevy and Ford aren't making an engine in the 4.7L displacement range that stomps the Toyota, especially considering their experience making V8 truck engines.
-hey, easy there chief. I'm from MN. (my buddy used to live right next to the Ranger plant.) I don't think you want me to pull out the Iowa jokes...
Again what you're not understanding is GM could easily drop the 40 HP and move it down the powerband and have 350# torque. GM likes HP #'s.
The motor still outperforms the 4.7 AND uses less fuel. so much for a 4 valve advantage.
2. You're right. Should of said "different" state of tune.
3. Agreed. See above
4. Agreed again. But where's the advantage??? You gave up economy for performance. How did the 4 valve head help??? If you had this performance advantage PLUS a more efficient higher MPG I'd be sold. The bottom line here is a choice Toy doesn't offer. Besides, I think the 5.3 gets 1-2 MPG more, the 4.8/4.6 are more like 3-4 MPG more.
5 Why not?? The 5.4 has more HP and Torque(260/355) than Toy and gets the same MPG. The HP/Torque to displacement is VERY close, how does the 4 valve technology benefit here???
6 BINGO!!! I think you're finally getting it!!!! I believe the 4.7 DOHC 4 valve Toy motor COULD make more power than all the motors mentioned(except for the 5.4 with the 4 valve Cobra heads)!!! BUT IT'S NOT!!!! This is what I've been saying for MONTHS!!!! Unless you're going to utilize freer breathing/higher RPM capable heads they're really not necessary at these levels of power/RPM.
Ford and GM have always based their marketing on incremental advances. They tend to leap frog each other every year, be it torque or HP. Both the LARGEST available Ford and GM motors do blow away the Toy motor when loaded and they are all within a hair empty.
I stand by the statement that Toy had these motors in the Lexus/car lines and it was more cost effective to utilize them then to start over. Nothing wrong with that as GM/ford do the same thing. The DOHC/4 valve is not being utilized to their potential in this application.
Pluto--->You say, "Yeah, and I could say that your 2 valve engine may have a slightly more linear torque curve, but it doesn't peak as high in lbs/ft torque"
Hmmm... 238lbs/ft@3000 vs your 220@3600
"or as low in the rpms as the DOHC 4 valve engines"
Are you using some form of reverse psychology here? See above.
"And let's be honest, anybody who talks trucks wants the highest torque at the lowest RPM."
Can we say Ford 4.0l. Woo Woo!
Eagle--->I think you're right. On the average the Tacoma is probably about 200-300 pounds lighter than the Ranger. Quicker? Probably really depends on the gearing and drivetrain, or a little friendly competetition. I will say this though. I am dissapointed that for 2002 Ford will not offer the 4.0l with regular cab, only the 3.0l. Seems the 4.0l is restricted to 4x4 supercabs or one XLT Supercab with Appearance group. In 2001 you could get (order) a Edge Plus, a 2WD Regular cab 4.0l with manual. That would rock!
All--->On the built in USA issue. We all know both vehicles are ASSEMBLED in the USA, parts may come from the USA for the majority as well, although I cannot confirm this for the Tacoma. My only concern is where the profit margin is going.
Also, it appears the Dakota no longer has a v8 available? Edmunds has now listing for a 2002 Dakots with anything more than a 3.9l v6.
In comparison tests, the Tacoma has won every performance segment - braking, acceleration, etc. I posted a link earlier on this. So the Tacoma's engine is more than capable. I do realize that now, however, the Ranger's MAX towing has been bumped up a few hundred more pounds than the Tacoma.
Guys, I won't be around the next couple of days. My quest continues for the perfect buck, and maybe this season I'll get lucky...
Anyone interested in where Ford gets their parts can also confirm this with Ford Motor Corp. And just a little help, they don't all come from the U.S.A.
Stang,
Don't be concerned about the small percentage of profits going back to Japan, Germany, Sweden, et al. The real value is in the prodution here in the states. Jobs, taxes generated by foreign corporations operating in the U.S.A. are where it counts.
You forgot to mention the drive shaft and engine plant for Nissan is located in Tennessee just outside of Smyrna, name escapes me at the moment. The other factor in Japan deciding to invest in American automotive production has to do with import tariffs on vehicles. Luxury and pick up truck import duties were particularly high in the '80's. Made perfect sense to avoid the import duties and build right here in the U.S.A. Too bad the U.S. couldn't figure that one out.
There are over 500 suppliers in California for the NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA. The company I work for provides logistical support for parts coming from the mid-west via rail to supply the NUMMI plant.
I know Delphi exports parts to Asia and they are a major supplier of electonic components to all the auto makers. I also know that each auto manufacture has different specifications for their parts. Same goes for tires.
Ispangler wrote:
None of the Japanese companies ship parts here to be assembled (you're living in the dark if you think that's true my man). They may ship a few parts, such as an engine or a transmission but the majority of the parts are from American suppliers.
what? this sentence doesn't make sense. is this a contradiction? how can you not ship parts here, but still build a truck with an engine and tranny that came from japan? the parts that matter on a nissan or toyota are made in japan. maybe the carpet or fuse relays are made in usa, but that's about it. why is it such a bad thing to admit that your truck is foreign? i mean, what's the big deal? that's why you chose it i assume, right? thinking you're getting better quality? and then your new tacoma's dash falls off or it starts leaking water in from a huge gap in the firewall someone forgot to close up. darn american worker anyways.
tblunder, I don't think you understand the automotive world very well. I grew up in it and I work in it everyday and to tell you the truth, I am far from an expert in defining what should be considered amerian made and what is foreign. Though I do know that a Camry has more american content than a Taurus, the Camry was even designed here by Americans in Toyota's tech center.
In the end, you are definetely allowed to have your opinion, but I would do more research before making up your mind. If you'd like, I can try to do some more investigating as to content in Ford and Toyota vehicles. I have access to enough inside information to help you out. I guess the first step would be do define where to draw the line for being American?
A part designed in the US, built in Hungry and assembled into a Ford in Mexico? or a part designed in america, built in america and assembled in america by toyota?
They make stuff for all auto makers
I have 95 Ford Ranger 4x2: so far almost 80,000 miles with few problems, cheap parts, cheap labor. First, I dont really know what's made in America anymore, I know lots of American vehicles are manufactured in Mexico and Canada. So maybe I could buy a certain vehicle just because it's a domestic model, but if it was built in Mexico and sent north then I'm supporting Mexican workers while adding to the manufacturer's bottum line. American workers get nothing.
I will not base car or truck-buying decisions only on where it's built. I will not miss out on great cars just because they're foreign or have garbage in my driveway just to keep someone else in their job. IF the domestics want us to buy American they should make the best vehicles. That is sometimes, but not always the case.
tbunder has got to be vince8.
Long story short, the Ranger rolled 1 1/2 times, hitting the Jeep as it went over.
http://board.rrorc.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=007006
Refilled the power steering fluid, fired up the engine, it kicked over right away after sitting on it's side for 45 min. It blew blue smoke for the firest 10 or so miles but it drove straight and maintained the speed limit on the ride south. He drove it maybe 50 miles, then towed it the additional 100 miles to his home.
Built Ford tough!
(from the message)
The guy who drove the Ford ran into someone else (great driving).
Ford lost all its windows save one.
Now has a f***ed up engine.
Lost most of its power fluid (You are not gonna say that the cap flew off the tank, are you?)
The body now looks...well, like it's been rolled over.
Where does the tough part come in?
You'd think, a Tough Ford would roll over, bounce back, not a scratch on it, and no blue smoke from the exaust. Thats tough.
What happened when it got back home? How much is the mechanic bill? Maybe this should be the new Ford commercial........rolling over in the mountains.
Yep, Pwr streeing cap broke off in the roll, refilled, put the cap on, started right up and he drove it away.
Tough truck, takes a roll, drives away. No did not say anywhere his engine was screwed up, you embelished.
Let me put it in perspective. My sons 94 Toyota p/u was hit by a Honda Civic. Crunched the right tire/suspension. That truck was totalled and was undrivable. The Ranger drove away.
Maybe that was tbunder behind the wheel. He seems to have experience flooding trucks as well..
So your simplistic approach analyzing the Tacoma and Ranger accident and declaring the Tacoma wimpy doesn't really mean anything at all.
I wonder if a Tacoma TRD would have slipped into that same ditch, being that it has a rear locker and all...guess Tbunder's beloved LSD wasn't up to the task, hehe
also, pluto- what makes you think that ranger had a lsd on it? it may have also had a locker on it. who knows. moral of the story is be more careful, and not to take jeeps so seriously anymore. ive always thought they were overrated anyway.
Got himself in trouble backing down into that ditch, had left wheels low, right wheels high on aprox a 20 degree slope. Not a good combination.
Was a 90 with the 7.5 inch 3.73 open differential.
Point was it drove away, could actually have driven the 155 miles to the guys home, just not too much fun with a shattered windshield.
The point was the durability of the truck, not the smarts of the driver or the people that were there.
Dang, I am sorry I posted that now, seems the Toyota boys cannot rationalize my intenet, even though I thought it was crystal clear. Hmmm maybe I should search and see if I still have the picture of the TRD that spun off of a state hwy here when his locker engaged on a curve? It had to be towed away. . .was not driveable.
Understand my main point now? 8^)
Engines are not made to hold contain oil in the heads, piston ring gaps will eventually leak oil into the combustion chamber (Hence the Blue Smoke), Power steering fluid reservoir lids are designed to keep contaminants out, and keep the splashing fluid inside, not hold the entire weight of the fluid like a drain plug.
Would a Tacoma had done better? Maybe in a few years when they start to get old, so their owners take them out of the garage and onto the trails!
Would a Tacoma had done better? Maybe in a few years when they start to get old, so their owners take them out of the garage and onto the trails!
I think that all of Tacoma owners here will at least agree that your Rangers are as good as the aforementioned Tacoma that spun off the road and was towed away. A Tacoma in good condition though.........
Tbunder, funny you said the Ranger MAY have had a locker on it. Now why would he want that, being that your LSD is so superior (though in this case it was an open diff with no locker)? BTW, I see quite a few old Toyotas on the trails, Landcruisers and trucks. Probably more-so than Rangers.
saddaddy- come to iowa and ill show you a built ford tough ranger. the 2001's and 2002's are the best rangers ever. more power than any other compact, and options galore for the price that your base comes with (dont get me wrong, i like tacomas too). 7000 miles and so far no rattles, squeaks, and 20 mpg. heck, i even fired up the a/c today since its around 80 here near des moines. smiley face!
Stang -- I wasn't directing my comment to you, i apologize if it sounded as if I was. Just the other day I was saying that things needed to cool down. My only complaint is that my typed words couldn't convey the tongue in my cheek. Its all in fun and I know you guys feel the same way. None of my posts are in contempt, i appologize for them sounding that way. Take it EZ.
Hard to say if a Tacoma would have done better. When you are leaning already, right front wheel is off the ground, ya should wait until there is more help. The 90 Ranger did not. It was not a smart move. It is built btw with a James Duff lift, good offroad shocks, computer chip + and in all honesty, he was doing fine until it rolled (somewhere I seem to remember a joke somewhat like that "Famous last words: "Hey, watch this"."
BTW, got an post from the guy and he wants to tow the Ranger up for on to the Thanksgiving days to wheel again! Can not drive it legal, but can still wheel off road.
Like I said, Ranger is a tough truck.