Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

tbunder · March 2002

whats up bud. a little late to be up ain't it (for you)?

btw, no i do not consider a ranger older than '01 "buyable" for my tastes. but you also have to remember that the old 4.0 still had more torque than your 3.4 or whatever engine you have in your toy. the reason i say this is that i have been spoiled by the power of the SOHC 4.0. i had an explorer sport (1997) with this engine and my parents also have a '99 explorer sport with this engine. although the explorer powerplant feels a little more balsy than the ranger version (not by much), the power just can't be compared to anything in a small truck ive driven. my brother in law also had a '93 explorer sport (yep, at one point we had three sports in our family) with the old 4.0 in it, it just made noise and didn't go much of anywhere, but it did go 180K before he sold it. granted in '97, with the addition of the 5-spd. auto. tranny it made the old 4.0 pretty quick, but i would never buy any ford product with the old 4.0 in it. i just love the power of the SOHC. im not calling the older 4.0's junk, just not as powerful. and i doubt anyone who owns an old 4.0 would compare it to the new 4.0 for power. but remember, you still got more stuff standard on older rangers than you get with even new toyotas.

sc0rpi0 · March 2002

So what about Nissan then? How does that fit in your definition of a "nice" truck (considering you wanted to buy one, and was for a while trying to prove that it was also better than Taco).

As for downplaying: Heh, we are all masters of downplaying each others arguements. As for 4x4 sales decline? Hey, stang said himself that 1 month data didnt mean much, so why is he quoting it? Still, Tacoma had a sales growth in 2001, and thats important.

As for prices: 18K for a Ranger, and from what you said, sounds like 21K for Tacoma (I bought my TRD for 21K with everything I wanted (TRD, SR5, power. Don't believe me? Check the invoice price on 2002 4x4 V6 manual Taco with those packages).
With Ranger I'd have to start taking things OUT and selling them to get rid of all the junk I didnt want.

saddaddy · March 2002

"If they wanted to buy a nice truck, they'd buy a Tacoma." By that I meant a truck that is built better, is more reliable, regardless of how many "niceties" come on it. With all honesty, I can think of about a dozen Ranger owners, who bought in the past couple of years, who said that they did recognize how much tighter and more well-made the Tacoma felt when they test drove it. They just didn't want to spend the extra money. So far that is, in fact, what I identify as you Ranger fans' best excuse: Is the extra quality worth the added expense? If it is, you spend the money on a truck that will last. If you just want to save a little money, sure, the Ranger is the truck for you. Just be sure that you'll have to live with lots of squeaks, recalls, and trips to the dealer. I don't. You know what? I'll concede this much: in alot of cases, the Ranger is the better "value." That DOES NOT make it the better truck.

midnight_stang · March 2002

Scorp -"As far as cheap: you are destroying whole tbunders arguement line from before about how overpriced Tacomas are"

I guess you didn't read the part about "Of course if you ever want any options, the Tacoma quickly rises in price. " or the 82 dollar clock. Try pricing any nicely loaded truck, and match up the equipment. Tell me who costs more.

Anyways, this original statement of mine was directed towards Saddaddy's comment that Ranger's sales statistics area greatly boosted from fleet sales, because they are dirt cheap. Not so, when looking at MSRP prices.

One month because I'm showing you what's going on NOW with both respective vehicles. Seems less and less people are buying right now, (especially the pinacle of superiority, the Tacoma 4X4).

I'm just pointing out the innacurate data quoted by scoprio.

Sadpapa--->I don't know about the dealerships in your area, but in North Dallas, Tx, there are MANY more XLT's and Edges on the showroom floor than any XL's. Check out my above statements regarding your cheap or not cheaper statement. Tacoma's are cheaper in barebones. If you want a pickup with 4 wheels and a 2 doors, then you would save on the Tacoma (going off the manufacturers quotes). But if you want a decently optioned, or loaded compact truck, Ranger will have you out the door with less cash.

On paper, the Tacoma has the Toyota reputation for Quality. In real life, Rangers go just as far, and can do exactly the same if not more(and for less money).

Hey I got 100 Hp, but 10 years and 138k miles of service.

You don't know the difference between an impact socket and a rachet, then get a Tacoma. If you know how to maintain a vehicle, and like saving money, The Ranger will be your life long companion. This is true today because you get more of a truck, and a well built one at that.

"Is the extra quality worth the added expense?"
No. Especially considering the cheapo interior, seats, dash instruments, clock, and smaller everything.

I love arguments about trucks that last, when no one here owns a Tacoma as old as mine.

keith24 · March 2002

My question to you would be, "What MAKES a better truck?" Fit & finish? That closing the door "feel"? How many useless options you can get for X dollars?

It seems to me like, what makes a "better" truck is whatever opinion we have about our respective trucks.

I was shopping for a compact, x-cab 4x4 truck about a year ago. I drove both the Taco & the Ranger. Both w/ V-6, 5-spd. manual etc. etc. Here's what I gathered:

The Ranger seemed to be more solid in fit & finish (doors closing, hood, tailgate, etc.) It also had a better highway ride. I drive 80 miles back & forth to work every day, so this matters to me. V-6 power was decent. Seats were comfortable. Visibility was good, and the seating position was comfortable to me for commuting.

The Taco's fit & finish were good, but it didn't seem to have the solid feel the Ranger had. Highway ride was nominal (tolerable), but the V-6's power "seemed" to be a little better through the whole powerband. (it was smoother also) The seats left a little to be deisred, but they wern't enough to discourage a purchase. However, the seats were a little too close to the floor for me. I could live with this as well if I had to.

What this all boils down to is which one I liked better. After all the haggling over price, there was less than $750 difference between the 2 trucks. The trucks were optioned as close to one another as they could get.

I was dead set on the Taco. I thought it looked better, handled better, felt smoother at speed on the interstate, etc. etc.

What did I buy? Well, after all was said & done, I came across a used, low-mileage F/S Silverado 4x4, & made the mistake of looking at it & driving it. I couldn't have bought a truck better suited to my needs. No, the gas mileage isn't as good as a small truck. Its a regular cab, so its easier to park downtown. Its easier to get around in the woods, too. If I had to do it again, I don't think I'd even consider a small truck. I guess its all in how you look at it.

keith

tbunder · March 2002

talk about a tricky ending to a suspenseful story.

)

saddaddy · March 2002

Just wondering.

Keith, I will say this. You obviously care nothing for longevity or quality (which was my main point). I see this from your buying a Chevy. I love em to death but Rangers and Tacos are much better in that arena. To refute me you should have first read some of the Ford guys' points. They seem to hold the award for having the most useless options for X dollars. Tacos' options are fewer and much more necessary than alot of Ranger options. Ask tbunder, mp3 player, disc changer, and other stuff. Granted they are nice, but they are things that, if I bought, would be aftermarket for sure. Who would trust an mp3 player made by any normal car manufacturer? An idiot. I mean these are trucks, what do you want a navigation system?

As for the rest of your claims of solidity, you're truly one in a million.

You were exactly right about "what makes a better truck is what we like in a particular truck." I agree, thats why I try not to argue as aggressively as some. I love my Taco, but still think just about any 3/4 ton truck is "better" just cuz of what it can do. They are TRUCKS.

However, the biggest current debate here has to do with the Ranger being so much cheaper, and I was just trying to give my best excuse for that. I honestly think that Tacos are a little better/solidly made. Old, though the interior may be, it is from what I have hear, the better made of the two as far as quality. I have not had the first squeak, and I spend lots of miles on washboarded gravel roads. Oh well, this is entirely too long and I have wasted lots of time. Take it EZ guys!!!

mjbwrtr · March 2002

you are one of the few people i enjoy reading around here. so many people have such strong "opinions" or they think they have to defend their purchase, or they know inside that their truck ISNT as good and so they try to OVER promote it, despite fact. i am a journalism student and i have written for a couple newspapers and i know what bias is. so what i did in buying my truck was remove the bias and try to buy what was going to serve me best, in reality. well i decided that Tacoma is probably better. but guess what, its not like it goes 100k more than anything else on the road, this is 2002....just about ANY car can go 150k. and who really keeps their vehicles longer than that? i am not going to, in all likelihood. i bought the ranger because i think its better looking, was more comfortable, i got a good price, and it has some good power. my family owns fords and toyotas and i honestly havent seen much difference over the years. the toyotas may have an edge, but its not like they were flawless and we had to fix the fords every day or something. i am proud of my truck but i dont like it so much that i let it distort my reality. i dont kiss it in the morning and i dont defend it against fact. i save my affections for my fiancee.

and my ranger takes me to work every day, just like a tacoma would.

saddaddy · March 2002

I go over board some I think, but I try to keep my head on straight. One question: What's wrong with kissing your truck in the morning? LOL, guess its easy to see that I need a girl, huh? J/k, about the kissing part. I really do need a girl. TRUCKS rule. Have a good one!

mjbwrtr · March 2002

i didnt say there was anything wrong with it, i just said i dont. lol
but i keep an open mind, so one of these days if its looking sexy...well, as trucks go anyway...lol

keith24 · March 2002

"Keith, I will say this. You obviously care nothing for longevity or quality (which was my main
point). I see this from your buying a Chevy."

For starters, I don't see any quality or longevity issues w/ my truck. Sorry you're of this opinion. Granted, my F-I-L's '98 silverado blew a trans @ 62,000 miles for no apparent reason. It didn't pull a trailer, nor did it haul anything heavier than pool cleaning equipment. Go figure...However, his '91 silverado had over 300,000 miles on it when he sold it. Only problem was the A/C compressor locked up right after it rolled over 300,000. THAT WAS IT!! Would that be considered bad? I don't know where you're from, but around here, we'd consider that pretty darn good!

My trucks got 65,000 miles on it, 32,000 of which I put on it. I hunt, and am outdoors a good portion of the time. With my truck. My truck doesn't rattle. It'll squeak every now and then. But when you go where I go, I don't care WHAT it is you drive, it's gonna squeak a little when you get it twisted up just right. Don't believe me? I'd be happy to let you follow me down "3 Sister" getting into Little Grassy to duck hunt. Just be sure you bring your own chain or tow strap. You'll need it. I guarantee it. 100%.

Now, do you have THAT MUCH of an inferiority complex about your truck that you have to berate & belittle others simply for what they bought? Is this a justification thing for you?

Does it make you feel like you've done something when you berate others? I was like that once. IN JUNIOR HIGH!

keith

dunkmydonut · March 2002

I've never owned a Toyota, but many Ford products. Ford through the years has put much more effort into covering up their blunders, from the exploding pinto up to their over easy explorers. Shame on you Ford telling customers to run tires at 26 lbs. The repair staff is just as guilty and inept. If ever a company should be put out of business, it's this one. This is more than a debate about quality. Ford, as always seems to put the profits over customer relations, and safety. I can't admire Ford about much of anything. I wish I could, but I've had enough of the way they do business. The only thing worse than their quality is their attitude. Good luck to all Ford customers, you'll need it, plus a good life ins. policy

saddaddy · March 2002

I would need a tow strap, I've got a Prerunner. However, anyone will tell you that a compact with same tires as a fullsize will out mud the big trucks. Lighter is better. I gotta locker in mine and it helps alot, still can't steer all that well though. You have had good luck with the trucks. If I was gonna get a 1/2 ton truck, I'd be all over the z71s, Ive wanted one forever. My dad has an old sierra, and he's had decent luck with it. They are good trucks. What I base my comment on is just the amounts of recalls, problems I've read about on here, and stuff like that. Chevy just doesn't have a good rep for that. I hate it as much as you. Those engines they use knock like sin, trannies have trouble, and many other things.

Whoa, I just read the last part of your post. Ouch man, sorry I came across as so harsh. I would consider a trade with you right now, honestly. You replied to my comment about quality: Ranger vs. Taco. So I came with a refute. Get used to it if you're gonna hang around here. But to say that Chevy's rep. for quality even holds a candle to Toyota's would be a lie. My dad will tell you the same thing, but he still will never buy anything but Silverados and Sierras. My apologies, man.

On a lighter note. If you invite me duck hunting one more time, I might show up on your doorstep one frigid Dec. morning with my Browning raring to go. I love to hunt more than anything. Never been duck hunting, though, I just love the deer too much. What state are you in? I'm in MS.

tbunder · March 2002

keith, take it easy man. sads an okay dude. he just loves his truck like everyone else does. nothing wrong with that. and you have to admit, gm products aren't the most reliable when compared to fords or toyotas.

sad- only thing ford doesn't offer that toyota does option-wise is a locker. big deal, those are easy to obtain. any other options are just luxuries that one can have with a ford, and not with a toyota. so if toyota offers an in-dash cd changer next year on their all new tacoma, you gonna dismiss it too? what if it has a built in clock, wouldn't that be an advance in toyotas technology? hehe

dunkmydonut- what does "ford or toyota" have to do with what you posted? you sound like a person who is posting currently on here and conjured up a new user name to help support your effort. oh, and i had an explorer with firestone tires, it says right on the door to put 30 lbs in all four. whoever put in 26, didn't read the build tag.

modvptnl · March 2002

test where they compared a '98 toy prerunner, S10, Ranger and Dakota.

What was interesting was the order of finish was Dodge, Ranger, toy then S10.

The old Ranger push rod 4.0 was fastest empty by .2 seconds and second to the toy with 800 pounds by .2 seconds(so much for the torque theory) and the Ranger stopped the best. Guess them toy brakes are WEAK!!! LOL!!!

Funny how this test gets lost by the toy fanatics

tbunder · March 2002

that 5-spd automatic tranny they put in the older 4.0's starting in '97 really helped that engine. and as far as (my) torque theory, the old 4.0 only had 5 lb/ft over the 3.4, but hey, its still more. lots of factors to consider, axle ratios, tires, air pressure, tranny, driver. and i also believe that ford brakes are second to none.

eagle63 · March 2002

I wonder if Toy has upgraded the brakes since '98. I've read 2 different compact pickup reviews in the last 2 years and in each of them the tacoma has the shortest stopping distance.

eagle63 · March 2002

not that Ford is entirely without fault in the whole firestone tire debacle, but.... if you remember GoodYear defended Ford by stating that they also recommend 26psi in their 235/75/15 AT's that were in many explorers. (fyi: the goodyear equipped Explorers had no tread separation problems.)

sc0rpi0 · March 2002

catpoint reviews actually show that Ranger outstops Tacoma by about 5 feet average. Its ok. Mod is still carrying his memories of the Silverado vs. Tundra fight.
And the old Ranger can outrun Prerunner all it wants: Prerunners never came with manual transmissions. Manual tranny beats auto every day.

saddaddy · March 2002

I think I agree with you 100% about the clock, tbunder -- quite possibly the most ridiculous quirk I have ever heard of. Don't use this against us, but Tacos had square cup holders for a couple of years. LOL. Some things leave me feeling rather confused. I thought that it had long been an accepted fact on here that the Ranger was available with a bigger choice of options. That is sort of vague comparison between the two, so I guess the argument of mine was not a very clear one, either.

The racing contest that included the Prerunner -- were the other trucks normal 2xs? I can guarantee that they did not have 31 inch tires. Much less they are lower to the ground. Just to show how insignificant that test was, a 4.3L, low-to-the ground Extreme would smoke any of em. Its not fair to post stuff like that when no one knows how each of the trucks was set up. Lemme race any of em with the same tires, gears, and height in my prerunner and the story will be different, I would think. That DOHC is something special, and I like Toyota for the fact that they went the extra mile and used technology to make a comparable motor out of such a smaller block.

midnight_stang · March 2002

http://www.beaterz.com/one_liners/0201/020118_women.htm

saddaddy · March 2002

Be careful posting stuff like that. LOL

kbtoys · March 2002

I know that we can't use magazines as reliable sources but did anybody check out this years consumer reports automobiles. It showed overall that the Tacoma was the best in compact pickup while the Ranger was in the poor section.

sc0rpi0 · March 2002

about Consumer Report testing. They showed a Taco DoubleCab vs. Ford SportTrac, going up the rock cropping CR has setup for testing. Taco made it up without any problems, SportTrac spinned and smoked tires, and barely got up there.
Two trucks, same course, same driver. Hmm.

kbtoys · March 2002

The sports track was the worst of all the pickups according to CR

tbunder · March 2002

sport trac vs tacoma? are you guys insane? now that's a fair comparison. the funny thing about cr is that one year they'll rank a vehicle in the good or excellent category, like the ford explorer which is considered to be bulletproof by cr, but the next year they'll call the same vehicle poor or to avoid it. and it's the same overall vehicle with no changes at all. its just a magazine that changes its tune each year to sell magazines. nothing like the real world. luckily people don't believe everything they read, if they did, ranger wouldn't outsell everything else year in and year out.

but for the sport-trac to go exactly the same place a tacoma could is pretty awesome, considering that thing is a four-door explorer with a bed. really, it makes the taco look bad when the sport-trac could climb the same section as a taco. sport-trac has crappy tires, no locker, lower ground clearance, lower approach/departure angles, no off-road suspension, and it still went where the taco did. we all know which truck had more power though.

sc0rpi0 · March 2002

SportTrac is the only viable alternative to Taco DC, isn't it? What else would you compare a DoubleCab to?
As for power......yeah right.
Ford SportTrac Curb Weight:
2WD: 4100-4300 lbs (Choice, Premium)
4WD: 4300 lbs (Choice, Premium)

Now compare that to 3700 lbs weight of Tacoma DC. I'd say that 20hp or 20 lbs/ft of torque is far from enough to make up for the weight difference.

midnight_stang · March 2002

Is the Sport Trac the Ranger? No. Is that the closest thing to a "compact" crew cab truck from Ford? Sure. Must be the same power in a Ranger is just too much for ya.

But if you want to argue crew cab in other Ford Vehicles, I'd like to remind you of which vehicle that is on topic with this forum that offers standard air conditioning, ABS brakes and available V6 in a regular cab. How about 4 doors on a non crew cab model? How about the 2-4 extra inches of room in every direction? How about 200 pounds of extra payload? How about edmunds's consumer ratings showing 8.7 for the Sport trac and 8.1 for the Tacoma crew cab?

Also, lest you forget, that's 20 PEAK hp, or torque at a full 600 less RPM(3000 VS 3600). Cubic inches will help you out in RPMS closer to Idle, and these peak numbers only support that. More cubic inches also respond better to upgrades and mods, than smaller engines.

tbunder · March 2002

i never said anything about which is faster. who cares in trucks. i said more power. but you got a point, the sport-trac is heavier, which only provides added protection in a crash. and you already proved that it can go anywhere a taco dc can go, right?

also, those dakota crew cabs with that sweet 4.7 are pretty cool. not to mention the nissan crew cab 4x4 for barely over $20K loaded up. both of these trucks undercut any toyota by thousands.

sc0rpi0 · March 2002

The test that was shown was a simple rock bed, with concrete and rocks. SportTrac failed to take that hill comfortably, so no, it will not go anywhere a Taco DC will.
The added weight may or may not provide additional protection in a crash. Unless that added weight are the safety features, it probably won't. Heavier vehicle carries higher energy than a lighter vehicle at the same speed. Therefore it takes a lot more to stop the heavier one. At a headon impact with a wall, for example, either the wall or the truck have got to give in, and it usually ends up being the truck. On the other hand, if SportTrac runs into some other small vehicle like Honda CRV, you can kiss the Honda goodbye.
Heavier weight only plays part if your truck is heavier than the other one.
Either NHTSA or IIHS have tested the fullsize trucks before, and Tundra came out on top. In the same tests, F150 came in last. That does not give any support to "Heavier is safer" that you are trying to say here.

And who cares about Dakota and Nissan CrewCab? This was about a Ford and Toyota, and you are changing the subject away from that. Dakota may be powerful, but from what I heard they go through engines like peanuts. And Nissan...well, lets just say that "Supercharged 210hp V6" may have sounded great 10 years ago, but now it sounds like a joke.

tclemons · March 2002

tclemons · March 2002

...are you located? I am originally from Hattiesburg, now living in northern VA. Just curious.

issisteelman · March 2002

Why should it surprise anyone that CR rates the Tacoma much higher than the Ranger. We all know that to be true. As for TBunder, he chooses to ignore yet another magazine that rates a Ranger poor and rates Tacoma high. Are we surprised? Nobody will ever convince me that a Ranger is better than a Tacoma. If you really believe that a Ranger is better, I've got a great bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Take care.....Steelman.

midnight_stang · March 2002

NHTSA rates F-150 better than Tundra. I still don't understand why this was brought up, as neither trucks are the Tacoma or Ranger.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2001Pkup.html

F-150 - 29 out of 30 stars or 97% (combined ratings)

Tundra - 6 out of 10 stars or 60%

The IIHS report does favor the Tundra, however this was only one model tested per vehicle, and one crash, (front offset against a solid barrier). So those results only hold up if you crash your respective vehicle into a brick wall. How often do you see that in rush hour?

If you look at the 5 mph crash results, the tables are turned.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/low_speed_lgpkup.htm

But let's get back on topic here...

The IIHS reports the Ranger and Tacoma to be very similair in overall crash result(in their one and only test). However the Ranger does not have any "Poor" ratings while the Tacoma does.

NHTSA is a different story. (2001 models)

Ranger has a combined 17 out of 20 stars showing 85%.

Tacoma has a combined 10 out of 15 starts, showing 66%.

To me, I would tend to trust a .gov over a .org anyday, especially because they don't rely on one instance on one model to define their findings.

sc0rpi0 · March 2002

To make a point that "heavier is not safer" as tbunder said. I still believe that unless all that weight difference are safety features, a heavier vehicle would be subject to higher damage in a collision. Sure, it would go through other, smaller vehicles, like knife through butter, but colliding with something solid would do a lot more damage to it than it would to a lighter vehicle.
Nissan Frontier is 600 lbs or so heavier than Tacoma. The crash tests for it are pretty bad. Heavier does not mean safer.

eagle63 · March 2002

I don't know if I'd trust the government that much...

Keep in mind that the Tacoma was rated best in class of compact pickups by the IIHS. Also, I believe the frontal offset crash is the most common type of vehicle to vehicle accident.

The conclusion I drew from comparing Ranger to Tacoma in terms of safety is that they are both at the top of compact pickup pack. Ranger beats tacoma in some categories and vice-versa in others.

smgilles · March 2002

Consumer reports just published their reliability ratings for all vehicles for model years 1994-2001. Most reliable small truck...Toyota Tacoma. Most reliable full size truck...Toyota Tundra Anyway, the point is all the reliability information published my Consumer Reports comes from just that....the consumer.
Matter of fact, the Japanese vehicles had the best reliability history for all classes of vehicles.

issisteelman · March 2002

Well, imagine that, Consumer Reports indicates the Tacoma as the most reliable small truck. That is what I've been saying for several months now. But, don't expect Ford Fanatics (especially TBunder) to believe it. As some Ranger fanatics would say, CR must be getting paid millions by Toyota to publish such information. Maybe that is why their trucks cost more, because they have to pay so much more to all these magazines so that they'll publish these blatant lies. It has to be a major conspiracy. I hope the media cracks this conspiracy before some more nit wits buy a Tacoma thinking it is better than a Ranger. Take care......Steelman.

rickc5 · March 2002

I closed a deal on a new 2002 Ranger XLT Extra-Cab on Wednesday. Fully loaded (4.0L V6, auto, AC, power, cruise, 4 doors, buckets, limited slip, "off-road", etc.), except I didn't get the 6 CD changer, just the MP3/CD player. Price = $19.4K + $500 in taxes. Seemed like a great deal.

I don't know what Tacomas sell for these days, but that is $2600 less than I paid for my '99 Tacoma three years ago, and I supposedly paid invoice for the Tacoma.

cpousnr: Hey Chief, When the nice weather gets here, lets do some 4-wheeling!

After 2 snowy days here in Colorado, I have no complaints. It runs well and handles great on slick roads.

sc0rpi0 · March 2002

for my Tacoma with SR5, ->TRD<- with alum rims, power, V6 4x4 manual, buckets, clock!!! I also paid invoice on it. Not bad, considering those trucks go for 23K+ MSRP.
Offroad package?

tbunder · March 2002

sounds like you have a new fx4 ranger, am i right? buckets are standard on them, and a 6-disc changer is not available with the fx4, just mp3 (dream on toyota owners) player. you have a truly rare truck. if its a manual, better check your rear axle though, the manual fx4's are recalled cuz of a bad axle design for the torsen lsd. you got a good deal, considering an fx4 stickers loaded up for around 26K.

if they offer a crew-cab this fall, i will snatch one up. ford really pisses me off for not offering this yet. i love those fx4's, especially in silver.

rickc5 · March 2002

The "off-road package" on my XLT includes:

1) Larger body shocks
2) Skid Plates
3) the all-important "4x4 Off-Road" decals on the rear flanks

No Bilsteins, no torsen.

Plus, I have the better-looking 5-spoke 16" alloy wheels, rather than the ugly (IMHO) 15" wheels on the FX4.

The FX4 interior offered with the silver exterior is BLACK, not grey like mine. Why, oh why, would a manufacturer offer a black interior on a vehicle supposedly used for off-road duty? One trip and you will have a beige interior (or red, depending on the color of dirt in your area). Plus, the black interior was just too stark and dark for me.

Bucket seats were a $200 option on my truck.

tbunder · March 2002

sounds like you have an exact copy of the 2001 i use to have. i had the off-road pkg, along with 4.0, step bars which i removed and still have actually, and ford bought me some bfg all-terrain tires since it came with firestones, i had the 6-disc in-dash changer. it was awesome. i got a larger tire size, 265/70/16, which is the same height as stock 245's (30.7), just an inch wider (9.5 vs. 10.7). they look tons better too while offering better off-road bite. my truck stickered for around $23900, and i got it for $18K, while it had a $2000 rebate from ford and i bought it outright. good truck and climbed like a son of a buck. a little stiff on the suspension side. if i would have kept it, i would have put on fx4 bilstein shocks. those 15" wheels you didn't like on the fx4, are actually very trick. they're made by alcoa and are specifically built for baja duty-they're forged aluminum. that fx4 is a pretty trick truck period. it has a revised intake to accept 2 feet water fording capability, and a host of other exclusives. but basically what it boils down to is shocks, tires, and rear lsd, its different than what's in yours. you can also get a totally manual t/c on the fx4's. what color did you get? i had the bright island blue in a regular bed, they don't make that color anymore since last november. i like the silver myself.
i also bought an fx4 front frame crossmember/steering linkage skidplate for $140 from ford. it finishes the front off. regular off-road trucks do not have this, only 2000 off-roads did. it was chrome. the fx4 one is black, but same otherwise. i had 60/40 split bench, i had my 2 year old's toddler seat in the middle. i like the more passenger room capability. later

white250 · March 2002

You can't compair a toyota to a sport trac. My wife drives a sport trac. It is a explorer with a pick up bed. It does'nt have the same capabilities a truck has.
Even said, the sport trac is not bad. I live near detroit, MI & last year near ford headquaters they had an off road challange course set up. You could test all of their suv's & the sport trac was quite impressive.

rickc5 · March 2002

We bought white for two reasons:
1) Lots of white Rangers in the lots around Denver and virtually NO silver ones. I thought maybe a better deal could be had on something the dealers had lots of. Maybe I was right....
2) Silver (or any metallic color) doesn't hold up well in the desert sun. Since we hope to move to New Mexico in the near future, white seemed a better choice.

Just got about 16 mpg on the first tank of gas. I hope that improves as the engine breaks in.

saddaddy · March 2002

Ive been out to CO for a spring break of skiing. I now realize where Ranger's sales numbers get such a boost. I saw lots more 4x4 Rangers there, in a day of driving, than I would see in a year here in MS. I never thought you guys were lying or anything, its just that I finally see some proof for myself. Lots of TRDs too, though. Haha.

I remember a good long time ago when us Taco guys would get assaulted with the "no 3rd door bit" we would reply with the fact that the Ranger was not offered in a 4-door config. That was always quickly dismissed with the statement "The dbl cab taco is more closely related to the Sport trac than the Ranger." Just some food for thought -- anyone remember that?

And TCLEMON, I am from Vicksburg, MS, but I spend most of my time at MSU in Starkville. I can't believe you were able to leave such a perfect place, man. I love it here, but I imagine that I'll have to move somewhere, too, in the next couple of years.

sc0rpi0 · March 2002

Just went to the Ford Ranger Problems thread.....ouch. While in Taco Problems people are discussing which supercharger there is for 2.7L engine (and "my dash is squeaking"), Ranger problems are "check engine light came on", and recommendations on buying a 4x4 98 XLT: drive 50-70mph to check for drivetrain vibrations, and of course, the infamous alldata.com data for 98 recalls. The list of TSBs is 30 items long at least, with 3-4 recalls. How do you Ranger people live with your trucks?

frey44 · March 2002

I just stay close to home !!
;-)

midnight_stang · March 2002

Do you guys just sit at home (or work) and try to come up with something to post that is Anti-ranger?

Does it bother you that much that Ranger costs less, offers more, and does just as much as a Tacoma can?

Guess so, since ya'll are trolling the ranger problems thread and jumping on ONE Check engine light post. You forgot to mention that the same person says the truck still runs great, and it more than likely is a result of a change of octane (he was running 93 octane for a long time, then went lower).

Me? I'd think the LED light was out since I've never seen the check engine dummy light on since I've owned it. Unless you count the times it flashes everytime you start the truck.

And frey, When are you gonna quit belly aching and fix your damn truck?

saddaddy--->Ranger with 4 doors exists, just not 4 full doors. There was a "spy" photograph I saw on a website early in the year showing a small ford truck in a crew cab configuration, so everything may be equal in 2003. I'd say it's a fair argument if anyone here who owns a sport trac wants to step up to the plate...

rickc5--->Plus white stays cooler during the summer sun and heat.

scorpio--->Do you even know what TSB really means?

tbunder · March 2002

can you possibly tell me where to go to see that pic? im interested. thx

Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles