The best specs and rankings do not automatically make a truck best for someone whether it be a Nissan, Ford, Toyota, Dodge, etc... To assume so would be simplistic at best. The strengths/weaknesses of a certain truck will weigh more to some than others. This is why there will NEVER be a "best" truck for everyone. I would believe subjective OPINION to be more than 50% of the purchase decision.
I understand that completely. My previous was a Scenario, not to say it would ever happen. My point is to say to vince who has stated he has bought his truck because of the power offered over others and his experienced reliability is why he bought his truck. He puts down others trucks because they do not have his Torque or HP or whatever. If a vehicle offers more proven power and reliability (which Vince states all true truckers need) for the equivalent price, he would still buy the Ford contradicting his power rule. Vince may well come back and say well I don't like the styling, but with his reasoning true truckers don't care if their truck look pretty, it just has to get the job done. It just seems to me, Vince will buy Ford no matter where they stand, even IF they had bottom of line reliablity, power, etc compared to others. And thats fine, but he shouldn't criticize other trucks because they aren't up to his power reqs. He wouldn't be critisizing others if he had a small low torque engine, he would say my vehicle serves me fine for my needs.
I discussed the symptoms on the Ranger vs. Tacoma board with Loki99 about his truck.
The 1st engine, a 3L, sounded as if clogged oil passages caused the head to burn up. The most likely culprit would be a bad oil filter. I can't say for sure as I didn't fix his truck.
The 2nd engine, a 4L, had the "wrist-pin problem" found in some 4L engines built in the '98 and '99 model years. There have been no problems attributed to this except noise. A reputable service department will swap the engine with a new one.
Until a company can build a 100% reliable truck that fits all of my subjective needs at a reasonable price, I'll stick to my '98 4x4 4.0 (just over 20K 100% problem-free miles).
Reliability seems to be the only card that the import owners have to play. I guess that price, performance (hauling & towing), features, flexible options, dealership availability, parts pricing, rust-resistance, and other variables just don't come into their purchase decision...
Well, just keep bashing the ranger. Maybe you can justify to yourself the extra money that you paid for your truck.
BTW, I'm not getting down on the imports. I like them both. I test drove and priced them all when I was picking a truck.
The Tacoma was a very nice truck but waaaay too expensive.
The Frontier and Dakota fell too low on the price/value ratio. The Dakota's price exploded when adding a few options. The Nissan felt plain and utilitarian, and the 3.3L V6 felt a little weak for my towing needs.
It ended up coming down the the S10 vs. Ranger.
I like the S10s power-train but not its ergonomics and build-quality.
The Ranger had excellent ergonomics, decent build-quality, and could be had for bargain pricing with all of the incentives and special financing offered at the time. The engine could be a little stronger, but I'm currently working on that with a few inexpensive bolt-on mods for around 30hp and 35ft/lbs of torque. Friends and family who have owned a multitude of Rangers over the years have had excellent reliability. The only major repair was a rebuilt tranny at 145K miles on my brother-in-law's '87 Ranger. The rest maybe had a single trip to the dealer for a minor fix (little switch/sensor, something very minor).
As far, I'm extremely pleased with my Ranger. The "noisy" 4L does not have the wrist-pin problem and easily tows my snowmobiles to Wis. There are absolutely no squeaks, rattles, etc... for which I am absolutely amazed as this is a "terrible domestic." Truthfully, I am a bit pleased/surprised. For being not quite 2yrs old, it still looks brand new inside and out, and I'm not too anal about keeping it clean.
Unfortunately, I'll probably have to sell it when I head back to grad school in 2yrs. So far, resale looks excellent. I'd expect to get around 15K for it currently (avg of trade-in and market price in KBB), and I only paid 18.5K 2 years ago. Not too shabby.
Well, everyone enjoy your truck, whatever it should be. I apologize if anyone takes my remarks personally. I am only tiring of the trolling and bashing going on from both sides around here. It's getting a bit old. I'd much rather discuss the merits and short-falls of vehicles in a more civilized matter.
Not true! I bought the Ranger purely based on my last very good experience with one and so far the great reliability/value of my present one. I don't prefer the styling of the Frontier, my opinion, once again. The Frontier doesn't appeal to me as being aggressive looking or have any character to it. The interior is cheap to me, plastics are of low quality, upholstery is the same. Go sit in a Ranger XLT with bucket seats and do the same in a Nissan, there is a difference. I quoted facts about torque/HP and listed all the other manufactures HP/Torque ratings for their 4cyl's and V6's. Facts are fact bud, the Nissan has the lowest torque rating of any compact pickup in its class. And the story about towing 4K pounds with your V6, like you said you never towed with a truck that has more torque. Believe me it makes a difference. It may have done it ok, but a truck that has more torque will do it better, especially up a steep grade. I parked next to a Frontier XE 4x4 at a mall yesterday and my truck seemed to look bigger. Ground clearance was no issue either, both the same as far as I could tell. (I have P265x75R16 all terrains). I believe the supercharger is a bandaid to the lacking of HP/Torque the 3.3 has in its class. I am sure the newer 3.5 Nissan has coming down the line will make its way into the Frontier line-up, it has to in order to compete. As was stated there will never be a "the best truck" Opinions, everyone has one. See you in the Cascades!
By the way, its good to see this room come alive. I thought for sure Edmunds was going to delete it soon. I was wondering where all the Frontier/Nissan owners where?
cthompson; I agree opinion goes well more than half of the decision. That's the main reason why someone would choose a ford over Nissan, if they did not like the feel or styling or what ever. Because if you look at it logically, why would you pay more for a vehicle that has less warranty, less reliability, more maintenance, higher operating costs, worse handling, smaller bed, worse ride, from a company below the industry average in quality. I understand you guys have been happy with your fords and that's great, I wish you nothing but luck, and hope you guys always have great trucks that you are happy with.
Not sure what you meant by the other stuff, but I paid $12,300 for my 98 frontier XE 5spd king cab with A/C, am/fm cass, 15"alloy wheels, fender flares, sliding glass window, tinted windows, intermittant wipers, rear bumper, chrome grill and an aftermarket CD changer. The comparable ranger costs more even before you add things like the towing package, and you can't get 15" wheels unless you buy another set. The parts pricing, I am not sure where that comes from, but that used to be the case several years ago when parts still came exclusively from japan, all frontiers are built in tennessee, and if you look at intellichoice.com, you will see that repair costs on a frontier are less than the ranger. Rust protection, I am not sure here either, Nissan is the only manufacturer that uses DURASTEEL, which is an additional coating of aluminun chromate on inside surfaces. Ranger has galvanized steel with only one coating. So in a civilized manner, which I agree maybe we should do, I chose the frontier because, I needed a basic commuter that was dependable, economical, comfortable affordable and could do alot of work for a four cylinder, the frontier exceeds the ranger the way I see it in every category. I was just thinking as I was rambling on too, I generally trust imports because my family has always had them and they have been great compared to the few domestics we had, maybe it is the same way but reversed with you guys? I imagine if my family had always had fords and had good luck with them and we bought an import and it wasn't good, I would maybe be driving a ford now, besides I have gotten used to the "import feel" VS the domestic feel and where things are located, maybe this is why a domestic owner doesn't like the look and feel of the insides and the placement of controls and the other way around too? I know this is getting long to, but didn't loki say he had the dealer do all of the service on his ranger? Are you saying they put a cheap filter in there? IS that what the TSB is talking about when they mention the oil problems? And even if the 4l with the wrist pins were only making noise and the truck did not die on you, wouldn't it suck to have to have a new engine with only a few thousand miles on it or live with a "diesle" sound?
yea Vince, it's kinda fun to get the topic going again, how are you holding out with the tacoma guys? And stop lying about that lowest torque thing, you know it's the ranger 3.0l and the ranger 2.5l! No go kick some tacoma butt.
"Because if you look at it logically, why would you pay more for a vehicle that has less warranty, less reliability, more maintenance, higher operating costs, worse handling, smaller bed, worse ride, from a company below the industry average in quality."
(1) You can actually get a better warranty with the Mazda B-Series (Ranger clone) at a slightly lower price than a Ranger. I also think it looks a little better than a Ranger. But, your options are limited to packages, so optioning a truck to fit your specific needs may be a little harder. This is why I chose the Ranger as I only wanted to pay for certain options and not others by having them lumped in option packages. The Mazda's warranty still falls short of the Nissan's. But, you can use the cost savings of the Ranger over the Nissan to buy an extended warranty if you so choose and still probably have some cash left over.
(2) Well, less reliability = more maintenance = higher operating costs. It's all pretty much the same thing. I have only ever had problems with a single vehicle that my wife and I have owned other than the junker I bought when I was in high school. It was a GM product, which blew its head gasket and cracked the head. The others which include Chevrolet, Pontiac, Toyota, and Ford have never had any problems except wear and tear items. I believe that routine and preventative maintenance will allow any vehicle (except those with inherent design flaws like my Quad-4 GM) to be reliable for many years and miles.
(3) "worse handling, smaller bed, worse ride" Handling and ride are subjective. We both chose the ones we prefer. There is no "better" or "worse" only personal preference. As for the smaller bed, do you mean the LB or SB Ranger, ext-cab or reg cab Nissan/Ranger, quad-cab Nissan? I haven't had any problems with not having enough room in the bed of my reg-cab LB Ranger. I probably wouldn't in either truck's smallest bed configuration either.
(4) "a company below the industry average in quality" Industry averages have no effect on the performance our trucks. There's always a bit of a gamble with every new vehicle purchase, even an import. That's what they give us those warranties for, remember?
(5) Parts are going to be more expensive for a vehicle that is less numerous. They still import those parts from Japan, right? As for repairs, there are just too many variables there to make any concrete assumptions (dealer vs. independent, import vs. domestic mechanic, type of repair, etc...). I think the cost estimates on intellichoice.com are surveys of only dealer prices too.
(6) From what I see now, the older Nissans and Toyotas driving around are complete rust buckets, and they're not that old. I'm sure the power-train is still great, but I'd almost be embarassed to be seen driving one. The older Rangers seem to be rusting less with age. I can't really determine now how the current rangers, nissans, toyotas, etc... will fare here in the rustbelt. Only time will tell.
My Ranger is loaded with every option available in '98 except the ext-cab and 4.10 LSD. I got it for 18,500. It's a 4x4, 4.0L V6, 5sp auto, power everything, cruise, tilt, A/C, AM/FM/Cass/CD, off-road pkg. I originally wanted just a simple 3.0L 4spd auto 4x4 with a few options, but with all of the value discounts available at the time I only paid about $400 more to option it out. The dealer was an extremely nice guy. No haggling or BS. I bought the truck at dealer invoice (i know this isn't what they paid, but it was my target) with absolutely no haggling, and I got $500 more for my trade-in that I set as a goal. I went back a yr later and bought another vehicle from him too (same process, very pleased) when I got the car.
You must have gotten one hell of a deal on your truck. If you option each truck with A/C, 4-wheel ABS, ext-cab, sliding rear window, but the Ranger with the 3L V6 and the Frontier with the 2.4L I4, you get:
Ranger 15,500 Frontier 14,300
I think the Ranger may have a few more features too besides the V6 vs. I4, such as 4-wheel ABS (which I consider a must-have option). To get a V6 Frontier with a crew-cab (no V6 ext-cab available) optioned as close to our example ranger as possible it comes to:
V6 Frontier 17,100
It's actually pretty difficult to option these trucks in a similar fashion. They tend to "leap-frog" each other a bit in the options. If you can wait until the next model year is started with Ford, you'll always get at least $1000 cash-back on the Ranger (sometimes up to $2500) in addition to special financing. Nissan usually only provides special financing as an incentive. Also, there's a little thing with availability. It's fairly easy to find a ranger optioned exactly as you like on a lot in your area or a quick dealer trade away. Unfortunately, it's just not the same with Nissan.
I can't say for sure what happened to the 3.0 in Loki99's truck. It's just my hypothesis. He had adequate oil pressure but no oil going to one of or both of the heads. A bad oil filter is the most likely culprit. All else being equal, the simplest solution is the most likely one (just watched Contact :oD ). I can't vouch for his dealership either. There are good ones and bad ones. I perform all of my own maintenance as I trust almost noone to touch my truck.
For the 4L, you've got a choice. You can live with it or have it replaced. At least Ford is doing the right thing here. They seem to be assuming at least a little social responsibility in the past few years.
I would never consider the 2.5L I4 in the Ranger as one of my possible engine choices. Spend the extra $336 and get a 3.0L V6!!! Live a little!!!
OK, posting too much now. I'll do some more tomorrow.
cthompson; good and valid points, it is good to find a ford enthusiast that can form an intelligent argument. I am glad you brought up the mazda, I always wondered why if they are the same truck and mazda gives you a better warranty, and I too like the looks better, especially the grill, why is there such a disparity in sales? Don't you think it may be other reasons than available options? On the pricing, if you equip a ranger and a frontier as close as possible in equipment, the MSRP's (which are identical everywhere in the US) the ranger comes out more, Nissan has pretty much been having a steady $1,000 rebate for the last 9 months too. So the only way I see a ranger being less is if the negotiated price is drastically less on the ranger, or maybe in your area, there is only one Nissan dealer and they don't have to be competitive or something. was that the case when you went shopping?
there are ways to objectively rate things like we mentioned before, decible meters, etc. but again you are right preference does play into it. I think it was offroad magazine that had a shootout between the frontier, b4000 and tacoma and they criticized the frontier for it's carlike ride off-road. Not saying that it did not perform well, just that they wanted to feel like they were driving a truck. I don't get it, but oh well. I have never had trouble except for the crewcabs finding what my customers wanted within 3 days at the most, but again, if there aren't many Nissan dealers around you, it would be harder to get. In the houston area where I am at, there are at least 7 or 8 Nissan dealers within 30-45 minutes from downtown. Well, been fun, and have enjoyed having an intelligent volley thanks for keeping me sharp!
Well, with the Mazda it is much more limited in options. I believe each trim level only has an option package and a couple more options. The Ranger has much more flexibility, and almost all options are available on each trim level.
During my truck purchase, I finally decided on a 4L with a reg cab. With the Mazda, you can only get the 4L in an ext-cab, so that nixed it right there.
I think that most of the difference in sales ultimately comes down to brand image. I guess people are willing to shell out the extra cash for a ford than a mazda. It's the same everywhere. People will pay more for a Toyota Corolla over a Chevy Prizm (the exact same car) just to get the Toyota nameplate. There are also some other little things like the aforementioned option packaging, quantity/location of Mazda dealerships, and the availability of the Mazda trucks. But, if you can wait a little longer and are flexible with options, you can save yourself some money and get a better warranty with a Mazda B-series.
When I purchase my next truck down the road, I plan on getting an ext-cab, so a Mazda B4000 is definately on the list. But, this is at least 4 or so years away, and I'm sure that a lot will change in that time.
I live in the SW suburbs of Chicago, and I can only think of a single Nissan dealer within 30mins of my house. There are 3 Ford dealerships within 10mins of my house. The Nissan dealers I went to (also in Champaign-Urbana when I was purchasing a car, liked the Altima) just weren't willing to haggle at all. They knew there was nobody else in the area selling Nissans, so I'd be paying for it if I wanted it.
Nissan has got rebates going now? They don't do that very often as far as I can tell. They seem to sell what they produce without gouging into their prices with incentives.
In my area, at least, you will be able to get a similarly equipped Ranger at least a grand less than the Nissan. Their MSRP's and invoice prices might say different, but that's the way it happens in the marketplace.
What's the talk of a new 3.5L V6? What kind of specs does it have? Will this eventually replace the 3.3L V6 in the Frontier, or will a supercharged 3.3L V6 be the top engine choice?
Why can't Ford offer that really good-looking yellow color on their trucks like on the Frontier and Xterra? I saw a really nice-looking Frontier crew-cab 4x4. Or silver by the way. If only Nissan could spruce up the interior. If I'm spending 20K plus on a vehicle (i'd get a loaded crew-cab 4x4), I want it to look like it on the inside. Maybe if we could combine the exterior of the Frontier crew-cab with the interior of a leather-equipped Sport Trac with Chrysler's new 4.7L V8, then I think we'd have a very fun vehicle.
I agree that it's nice having an intelligent debate. It so often resorts to name-calling and "prove this, prove that" garbage on the Ranger vs. Tacoma board that it gets annoying.
So, is the new Frontier going to look like the truck they showed at the Chicago auto show?
ct; yes, Nissan has almost always had the rebate on the 4 cylinder frontiers, when i bought mine in 98, they had a 4th of july extra $500 rebate which helped too. This is in addition to the VTP package savings of $1100. I couldn't even get a sentra for that price, and our employee deal is $300 over cost including holdback, which good negotiators can get most of the time anyway.
I can see how lack of competition would drive the prices higher, and they probably were trying to scoop the rebate from you when you looked. BTW I used to live in barrington, went to Fremd HS class of '89.
Honestly I don't know for sure, but I doubt the current 3.5l PF engine will make it's way into the trucks. It is basically a maxima engine and I don't see that as cost effective. But I would imagine that about a year after the supercharger option, Nissan will have a version of the current engine around 3.5 or4.0l. I think the 2001's are the same as the auto show one you saw, you can see for sure at freshalloy.com, good site for nissan news and stuff.
I negotiated with 3 dealers before finding the one I bought my truck at. He beat all of them right off the bat, and I got another $500 out of it to boot.
I got a 4x4 value discount pkg savings of around $750 (curious as I never saw it at the other dealers or on the net, but hey that's more $$$ in my pocket). Then, I got a coll grad $400 rebate. I chose the 3.9% APR over 60 months over the available $1500 cash back because my credit at the time was not good enough for better than 9% or so. So, I was pretty happy. Probably my first auto purchase where I didn't feel like I just got hosed. I couldn't get any of the sales guys to touch holdback either through threatening, begging, reasoning, etc... you name it. Oh well, I gave it a shot. The couple of Nissan dealers I talked to on the other hand weren't willing to deal much if any at all.
It looks like Nissan is finally going to give its trucks a more agressive look. About time! The 2001 Ranger looks a lot like a baby F150. I'll probably go give one a test drive when I see it on the lot.
Cncman, you can try and try but fact are facts here we go again. Ford 2.5 119HP/146ft/lbs of torque Ford 3.0 152HP/192ft/lbs of torque Ford 4.0 160HP 225/ft/lbs of torque Soon to arrive SOHC 4.0 204HP and 240ft/lbs of torque.
Nissan 2.4 143HP 152ft/lbs of torque Nissan 3.3 170HP 200ft/lbs of torque
FActs are facts Nissan offers the LOWEST torque ratings in the compact truck class. The 3.0 of Ford is more comparable to the Nissan top of the line 3.3! And with the new 4.0 SOHC coming this summer it will put Nissan even farther behind the competition. Options are nice. This is why the Ranger is so popular. I have already proven to you that the price difference is null and void in my region. The Nissan may have a couple hundred dollar advantage. Does Nissan have standard ABS? 4 doors?
This must be that new math Vince, but the way I was taught, 192 is LOWER than 200 and 146 is lower than 152, but I guess I am the only one who see's it that way, my apologies for my poor mathmatics backgrounds, you also forgot the 210hp 240ft/lbs torque V6 Nissan will have this summer. and yes the frontier does come standard with ABS, keep trying Vince, you'll get something right soon, let's see what do the say about a blind sow and an acorn? And I guess everyone who wants to buy a Ranger should go to Vince's area, they are DRASTICALLY discounting the rangers, but wait a minute, why would they have to discount a popular vehicle so much?
Hey Vince, are you a saleman too? You are really talented at posting how much TORQUE the Ford Engines have. Maybe you can tell all more about TORQUE since you specialize in that area. I think I understood how much TORQUE the ford engines have the first time you posted it.
Given that most compact pickups sold in NA are 4cyl trucks, that's where the real competition is. Top of the line V6 or even V8 performance figures are good for bragging rights, but for most folks it's the I4 that's counts. Toyota and Nissan have an undeniable edge over the domestics in the bread&butter 4-banger performance. Period.
If you ever get a Ranger, spend that whole extra $336 (a few bucks more on the monthly payment) for the upgrade to the 3.0L V6. And, if spending that extra little bit of cash bothers you, you'll end up making it back when you sell/trade the truck and probably more to boot.
The 3L delivers better performance than the I4's offered in either the frontier or tacoma. It's also far better for hauling or towing, should you use your truck in that manner.
Economy isn't bad either. It's about 18-20 mixed driving and 22-25 highway. That's about in the same area as the I4's, right?
Toyota and Nissan definately have better I4's than the Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. But, I'd never seriously consider a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge 4-banger as the power-plant for my truck. The V6 upgrades are so cheap that anybody would be crazy not to pay for them. You'll just make that money back later when you sell/trade the truck.
Cncman, you are using the lowest model engines, your forgot the 4.0 that delivers 160HP/225ft/lbs of torque. You keep trying to scramble the numbers and use Fords lowest models engines, why? The 3.3 which is Nissans highest model engine available right? Why not compare it to the Fords highest model available? Ford offers the 3.0 in ANY Ranger. Can you get the 3.3 in a 2WD regular cab? And as stated in post #174 the 3.0 is about $330 more than the 2.5, most consumers don't know this so they opt for the 2.5, they are also unaware of the 3MPG difference also. The 3.0 is far superior to Nissans 2.4 in both HP/Torque.
No doubt if one is looking at buying a Ranger, the 3.0L V6 is a much better powerplant choice than the 2.5L I4. But why does Ford not offer a better engine for those, like myself, for whom efficiency is of utmost importance. The mpg difference between Ford's 3.0L V6 and my Frontier is about 5mpg. That difference grows to some 8-9mpg compared to the Tacoma I owned before. In this climate of ever increasing fuel prices, those differences are more than enough for me personally to want to steer clear of the V6s.
Even if I could've bought a 3.0L Ranger for the same price, I would not want to get one simply because my light-duty hauling and commuting needs do not warrant paying substantially more for fuel for the next 5 years. A sentiment shared, apparently, by the majority of compact truck buyers.
Clearly, Ford is capable of producing modern OHC truck engines like the SOHC Tritons. It's high time for them to ditch the ancient pushrod 2.5L I4 and offer a 4-banger fit for the 21st Century.
Vince; have you been with us the last few posts? I put up that info because you keep running around saying the Nissan has the lowest torque V6 in a compact truck, when actually it is the ranger, you brought it up, I didn't, Also where are you getting the 225ft/lbs figure, everything I have seen says 223ft/lbs. Not a big difference but 23 ft/lbs is not a huge difference either. As long as we are on torque which you admit is really important, the 3.3l V6 produces 180 of its 200 ft/lbs at 1500 rpm, you need torque at the lower RPM's for pulling, and you need the extra HP for pulling when you get to highway speeds, the ranger 4.0 reaches its peak torque at a higher rpm, which means you need to rev the engine higher when pulling to use that extra 23ft/lbs. And the ranger doesn't have the hp to keep it going as well as the frontier 3.3l
Well, I guess Ford has heard the cry of the 4-bangers. They're actually putting in some new I4 starting in the 2001 Rangers this summer. I haven't heard any details on it as of yet, whether it's completely new, a revised version of the current 2.5L, etc...
I think that the I4 in the Ranger is an OHC engine. The 3L and 4L V6's use are OHV. The upcoming 4L in 2001 is an OHC engine.
On another note, Ford is currently working on an I5 for the Ranger. This engine would probably replace the 3L and might possibly be the base offering replacing the I4 also. It sounds like a good compromise of power and efficiency. An I4 just has nowhere near the hauling/towing ability I need, and you need a MTX just to make performance anything but snail-like even for the imports.
I guess is the bottom is that if you want more power, you're gonna have to pay for it.
Another little thing about fuel prices. When indexed for inflation, the fuel prices of the past few years have been the lowest in history. I'd personally kinda like to see a bit of a price crunch. Maybe it would get some of these idiots driving around in SUV's the size of a small moon off of the road. It would make the world a safer and cleaner place.
Ahh... I stand corrected. Ford's 2.5L I4 is an 8V SOHC. I was thinking of the Dodge OHV 2.5L. Or Chevy's even less inspiring pushrod 2.2L.
I hope you're right about Ford's 4-banger intentions. The I5 you mentioned sounds mighty interesting, even more so if it turns out to be a direct injection Diesel. (BTW, I'm a big fan of the VW VR5 engine - too bad they don't want to bring it state-side) Sooner or later, the manufacturers are gonna have to do something about the dismal gas mileage of the big pickups and SUVs.
I would really like to move up to a full-size truck. In fact, I almost bought an F-150 V6 5sp reg cab before I decided on the Frontier - they were about the same money. But again and again, I get turned off by the poor gas mileage. Why do only the 3/4- and 1-tons trucks get diesel engines? Put a small diesel in an F-150 that gets 35mpg, and I'll trade in my Frontier in a heartbeat. :-)
Not that I'm complaining about fuel prices in the US. We pay a lot less than most other nations. Still, being frugal is a good habit to have, albeit one that us spoiled drivers in America practice very little.
This is spooky!!! You must have some sort of telepathic link with the Ford engineers!!! Read this from Blue Oval News:
New Ford V6 diesel for 2003 F-Series
26 July 99. Updated 03 Oct. 99
In what's likely to be described as another victory for Ford truck and a kick in the teeth for both GM and Dodge, BlueOvalNews has confirmed that Ford Motor Company is planning to release two all new PowerStroke diesel engines for the North American market (U.S., Canada and Mexico) starting in 2002.
Ford is already past the prototype and development stages and into the advanced testing procedures for state and federal certification.
The first new PowerStroke diesel engine to be introduced was co-designed by Ford's partner Navistar and is on target for a JOB1 launch in 2002.
The engine slated for 2002 is dubbed the "baby diesel" by Ford engineers because it's only a 4.5 liter V6, when compared to the 7.3 liter diesel currently being offered in the Super Duty F-Series line.
Co-designed by Ford and Navistar, the "baby diesel" was built to fill a gap in the 6000-8500lb truck line up (F150) where no light-medium duty diesel engine currently exists. The V6 diesel will only be offered in the Expedition and F-Series/Econoline vans with a 6000-8500lb. g.v.w. Ford expects to sell a total of 50,000 vehicles equipped with the V6 diesel annually beginning in 2003. Ford believes that the V6 diesel will be ordered by customers primarily for personal use.
The V6 diesel will initially appear in the 2002 Expedition/U222 (except Navigator) and then will be phased in as an optional engine in the 2003 Econoline and F-Series truck (P221). It is not scheduled or anticipated that it will be made optional for the Ranger series; although, a Ranger diesel engine may also be in development.
The "baby diesel" was conceived with key customer elements such as fuel economy, a performance feel, durability and more than enough torque in mind.
Ford Motor Company documents state that they did not invest too much money in the development of the V6 diesel since it will share a common architecture with a new and upcoming PowerStroke V8 diesel. The torque rating of the V6 PowerStroke is expected to be about 340ft.lbs.
The 4.5 liter V6 diesel will be classified as a LEV (low emissions vehicle) under both federal and California state emission guidelines.
Ford's possibly advertising campaign will note the new engine as a modern diesel with new second generation technology. One of the engine's highlights is a hydraulically actuated, electronically controlled fuel injection system. The new fuel delivery system will aid Ford in their emissions and fuel economy target. As of late July 99, development work still continues with various fuel system suppliers.
For the 2003 F150, the diesel package will be made optional on all regular, SuperCab and SuperCrew models in either 4X2 or 4X4 drive lines. When equipped with a four wheel drive package, it will be available with either a manual on the fly shift system or with an optional electronic shift on the fly system. It will be available with either an ALL NEW automatic transmission or an ALL NEW manual transmission.
The 2003 Expedition will also be available in either a 4x2 or 4x4 version; however, it will only be made available with an ALL NEW automatic transmission using a torque on demand drive system.
Got through all that? To sum up, a 4.5L V6 diesel to be offered in F-Series trucks and a diesel is likely in the works for the Ranger.
Maybe the I5 I've heard about is that diesel engine. Now, THAT would be good. How does 35mpg on the highway sound along with being able to still tow the 5,000lbs of the 4L?
But, not due out until the 2002/2003 or later model year. And, the US does have a love affair with gasoline engines.
They're now using direct-injection engines in either Europe or Japan (or both) for some nice gains. Unfortunately, the gasoline formulation in the US won't work with DI gasoline engines (currently, anyways).
I kinda like the fact that the baby diesel won't be due till 2003 or later. I would hate to trade in my Frontier early and take a big penalty.
I am an engineer, but unfortunately I have to ties to any Ford engineer. None that I am aware of anyway. I've read that GM has just released a diesel OHV V8 with 4V per cylinder - something that up until now I had thought impossible on a pushrod motor. VW has also showcased a TDI Diesel V-10 on its AAC truck in the Detroit Auto Show. But this is the first I've heard about a small diesel. This is great news. Kudos to Ford for taking the initiative.
Maybe the manufacturers are forecasting correctly that the cries for politically-correct trucks and SUVs will be getting louder and louder. I myself don't care much for the environmental chanting. I just want a truck that gets good mileage.
You want a truck with good mileage, and I want a truck with some umph down low for towing and hauling. That little diesel sounds like just the ticket for both of us.
Now, if they could only make one that was a smooth-running, inherently balanced I6, had direct injection, and was around 3-4L. Ooooh, now that sounds nice.
An OHV with 4V per cylinder!? Imagine the complexity! I think I'll pass on that one and head towards the simplicity of an OHC (single or dual) to get my 4V per cylinder. Interesting idea, though. GM does really make some great push-rod engines. I love the 3.8 they put in the Grand Prix's and their clones. They also make some of the best automatic trannies. If only they could improve what they put around their drivetrain, like the styling, suspension, and build materials, they'd have me on board for sure. (jumped overboard last summer, grand am was too narrow, interior too cheap-looking, and handled terribly given the stiff ride, good power though from the 3.1 though)
I saw that diesel VW p/u in one of the car rags. It's pretty neat looking. Do you think VW may soon be adding pick-ups and SUV's to its North American line-up? They'd be crazy not to. They're outnumbering cars in the biggest automotive market in the world.
cncman, it is 225ft/lbs of torque for the Ranger 4.0. You just don't get it do you???? The TOP of the LINE V6 ENGINE offered by Nissan gives the LOWEST torque in its CLASS. Ford offers 2 V6's a 3.0 and a 4.0 152HP/192ft/lbs of torque and 160HP/225ft/lbs of torque. Nissans top of the line V6 has the LOWEST TORQUE of to top end engines in the compact truck class. I don't know how better to get this across?? The 3.0 is not really supposed to compete with the top of the line engine Nissan offers, the 3.3. Where are you getting your torque curves from? The 3.3 has to rev higher in order to reach its torque curve (This also depends on gearing too) And what happens after the 200ftlbs is reached? Nowhere else to go huh? The Ranger has another 25ft/lbs to go. You as a salesperson know that anything more than a 10ft/lbs of torque difference does matter and does make a difference. This is why Nissan is putting the supercharger on their trucks. Many complaints about lack of power/torque when towing/hauling. This will help granted but why not just build a normally aspirated V6 that can compete?
The new 5 cyl. engine is still going to be gas, sorry, no diesel yet. It's a 2.8L, and should arrive in 2003. The new 4 banger to replace the 2.5L is a new 2.3L. It's suppost to have better power and gas milage than the 2.5L.
Any other specs (like hp and torque) on the I5 yet? It would be tough to actually make a 4 cylinder engine with worse performance and economy than the 2.5L engine. Displacement drops and power/milage go up. Nothing wrong with that.
Vince, sorry, but everything I have read has said 223 ft/lbs, like the most recent was MT's truck trend.com. And the factory gives these guys the info right? If you have something different let me know. I think I almost see your logic, (man that's scary, I must be getting sleepy) You are comparing the most powerful, most expensive top of the line engines in the compact trucks right? Don't you think it is important to compare the standard V6's? especially since the 4.0l engine is the one fewest ranger owners choose? You can also look at it this way if you want, the CLASS is the standard V6 in compact trucks, which the ranger is the least. But whatever, the 3.3l Nissan V6 reaches 200 ft/lbs at 2800 rpm, the ranger reaches it's 23 more ft/lns at a higher rpm, let's see if you know what that figure is. So more usable torque where you need it, (low end) and more horses where you need it (high end) And if you say the 3.0l is not suppossed to compete with the 3.3l, then why doesn't ford just make the 4.0l standard, I am not as interested in how much extra money I can spend to get what I need, but what am I already getting?
Fer sure VW will have the AAC or SUV, or whatever they decide to call it, on the market within a couple of years. It's aimed squarely at the personal-use luxury truck market. Supposedly that's where the growth of the SUV market is, since the other segments are all pretty much saturated. Even though VW hinted at a smaller TDI V6 for the "entry level" model, I doubt it'll be anything lower than US$30,000. Kinda makes the Volkswagen a misnomer.
I agree exactly with your accessment of GM products. I like GM's sticking with pushrod motors, even though I dislike OHV as a category. They've refined some of their pushrods to perform, in many areas, better than OHC engines. It's sad to me that the top brass at GM aren't "car people" and seemingly more interested in making alliances with cartoon characters and Internet giants than engineering truly great cars. Good engineers, lousy management - what else is new? ;-)
Hey Ranger Owners - this should make you feel good. The latest 2000 Consumer Reports Reliability Ranking ranks the Ranger (and I quote) "Worse Than Average". In fact, only two trucks ranked in the "Above Average" category for reliability. Tacoma and Frontier!! And before you go spouting off about how it's a biased ranking you'd better think again. The results are taken from surveys by actual owners. That's right - Ranger owners ranked their own trucks "WORSE THAN AVERAGE" LOL! Have a nice day.
If VW's weren't so expensive, I would have most likely bought one when I made my last car purchase. I don't think there's as big of a luxury truck market as they think.
I just can't believe VW hasn't gotten an SUV on the road yet. They've had a good 10+ years to come up with something. They've already got some powerful, torquey engines and a proven AWD (Quattro) system. It should be a no-brainer. What are they waiting for?
I think that GM has about squeezed every little bit out of pushrod technology. It's damn near amazing that they can put a nearly 4L engine in a 3000+lb car, have it produce decent hp and tons of torque, and still get 30mpg. I think that the GM stylists need a shot in the arm too along with management. Get rid of some brands and put out some exciting cars instead of the same old blandmobiles. Chrys
I haven't seen any specifics about the power of the new engines yet, but I would hope they would increase over the ones they replace. That would make sense to me.
Satisfaction: Remains high in spite of owners' complaints about reliability problems.
Also - CR just printed the reliability survey results. They didn't do any actual tests on their own in this particular instance. They just presented the data and Ranger owners ranked the Ranger very low. Just the fact's.
Also....
HANDLING The base Ranger has a soft suspension and undersize tires, while 4WD Rangers have the opposite handicap; its suspension is too hard and tires are too big. In either case, handling leaves much to be desired.
STEERING Much too slow. The wide turning radius really hampers maneuverability.
Well, you could believe either, because carpoint also rates the tacomas and frontiers higher than the ranger in reliability. And Vince, I don't remember you posting any positive reviews on the frontier.
Just trying to point out to Vince the Ford Spokesman that the Ranger ain't all what he cracks it up to be. The Ranger has reliability problems plain and simple. But if Vince's runs fine then that's great.
And for Cthompson21 - FYI, MR. Vince asked for specifics and links so I gave them to him. There's your reason for all the links. And I'm sorry you are all worked up about driving a heap, but had you done your homework before you bought that Ford Ranger maybe you wouldn't be so peeved right now. Boy, the truth about those Rangers hurts, eh? Have a nice day.
Oh yes! I'm so upset! Somebody who has never owned a Ranger and has absolutely no experience with them (or any of the other trucks on the topics that you're trolling) is telling me that they're heaps of junk.
It's just like asking the garbage man for medical advice.
All you can do is type "Ranger Bad" in a search engine and post garbage on message boards. What a reliable source of information!!!!
Isn't spring break over yet? Shouldn't you be running along to Jr. High about now?
Cncman are you spreading false information again about Ford to your customers? The 4.0 reaches its 225ft/lbs of torque at 2750rpms much, much lower than the Nissan 3.3. Better brush up on your numbers. The 3.3 is weak, this is why Nissan is bandaiding the engine with a supercharger.
Cthompson21 - no one is trolling for anything. Just talking about trucks, and yes, I own several of them - just not Fords. Will never own one (or any other Ford product) again due the reliability problems and poor customer service from Ford. And yes, I have plenty of personal experience with the heap known as Ranger. Traded one in just weeks after I bought it because it was back at the dealers more than it was in my driveway. So there's your history lesson - along with numerous links to your heap Ranger. It's all there, you're just looking for reasons to invalidate all links to reliability probelms. But they're still there. Sorry. I can post plenty of links to non-Ford dealrships for you also. That way you can unload that rattletrap ranger. Just lemme know, ok.
My "heap" Ranger? You know nothing about my truck and by your posts knothing about any other truck either.
Trolling is entering a topic about which you have no experience or knowledge and just posting garbage in an attempt to aggravate others. This seems like a textbook case of trolling to me. Your posts are attacking, aggravating, and revert to name-calling (such as "your heap Ranger and that rattletrap Ranger") as you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. This is a sign of inability to debate on an intellectual level with logical arguments and facts to support your opinions.
I'm not invalidating links to credible sources. They should be taken for what they're worth. Posting dribble taken off of message boards? What's that? You seem to fall into the quantity is better than quality school of thought.
Yes, there are terrible Ford dealerships out there. Maybe you got your preverbial "lemon". Maybe you didn't actually bother to test drive the Ranger which you say that you bought. Snap decisions are usually incorrect ones.
So maybe you got hosed by Ford or maybe you hosed yourself. This seems to be your pathetic attempt to get back at them by attacking satisfied Ranger owners.
Well VInce, I am getting my figures from trucktrend.com they rate the 4.0l at 223ft/lbs @ 3000 rpm, if you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with the editor. let's sum up Vince's arguments for the past 12 months or so, the ranger is better, because you can buy 25 more ft/lbs torque and vince doesn't happen to like the looks. What dead horse are you going to kick this summer when the frontier gets more torque and hp than the ranger and a new design? I guess then you will have no arguments left huh? Remember a truck needs torque, torque is good, ranger engine is weak, I can buy more torque than you can and so on and so on. Please tell us also why the "great innovators" at ford still don't have a fully boxed frame, and only put torsion bar suspensions on higher end models instead of on all like the frontier, but no surprise, Ford's been following Nissan's truck innoventions since they invented the compact truck in 1959.
I have to ask vince8,where did you come up with those torque figures? I would like to see those. I checked this site as well as autosite and that is not even close.The Ranger shows a 3.0L V6 with 152hp @4750rpm and 192ft/lbs of torque @3750rpms. Please enlighten us to your references.
Have you heard the specs on Nissan's new SC 3.3L yet? I believe I read somewhere that it was around 210hp and 240ft/lbs. Is that correct?
The new design on the Frontier is a long time coming. Truck buyers seem to prefer a more agressive look. From what few pictures I've seen, it looks like Nissan has finally put some decent styling on the truck. The past few iterations have been sooooooo conservative, pretty bland.
I believe that the Ranger is also due for some styling changes for 2001, or at least some new type of trim called "The Edge" or something like that. Maybe good, maybe gimmick. We'll see in a few months when the 2001s start rolling out. I still think the Mazda's look a bit better. You get a styled bed too without losing the cargo space of a flareside.
Comments
The 1st engine, a 3L, sounded as if clogged oil passages caused the head to burn up. The most likely culprit would be a bad oil filter. I can't say for sure as I didn't fix his truck.
The 2nd engine, a 4L, had the "wrist-pin problem" found in some 4L engines built in the '98 and '99 model years. There have been no problems attributed to this except noise. A reputable service department will swap the engine with a new one.
Until a company can build a 100% reliable truck that fits all of my subjective needs at a reasonable price, I'll stick to my '98 4x4 4.0 (just over 20K 100% problem-free miles).
Reliability seems to be the only card that the import owners have to play. I guess that price, performance (hauling & towing), features, flexible options, dealership availability, parts pricing, rust-resistance, and other variables just don't come into their purchase decision...
Well, just keep bashing the ranger. Maybe you can justify to yourself the extra money that you paid for your truck.
BTW, I'm not getting down on the imports. I like them both. I test drove and priced them all when I was picking a truck.
The Tacoma was a very nice truck but waaaay too expensive.
The Frontier and Dakota fell too low on the price/value ratio. The Dakota's price exploded when adding a few options. The Nissan felt plain and utilitarian, and the 3.3L V6 felt a little weak for my towing needs.
It ended up coming down the the S10 vs. Ranger.
I like the S10s power-train but not its ergonomics and build-quality.
The Ranger had excellent ergonomics, decent build-quality, and could be had for bargain pricing with all of the incentives and special financing offered at the time. The engine could be a little stronger, but I'm currently working on that with a few inexpensive bolt-on mods for around 30hp and 35ft/lbs of torque. Friends and family who have owned a multitude of Rangers over the years have had excellent reliability. The only major repair was a rebuilt tranny at 145K miles on my brother-in-law's '87 Ranger. The rest maybe had a single trip to the dealer for a minor fix (little switch/sensor, something very minor).
As far, I'm extremely pleased with my Ranger. The "noisy" 4L does not have the wrist-pin problem and easily tows my snowmobiles to Wis. There are absolutely no squeaks, rattles, etc... for which I am absolutely amazed as this is a "terrible domestic." Truthfully, I am a bit pleased/surprised. For being not quite 2yrs old, it still looks brand new inside and out, and I'm not too anal about keeping it clean.
Unfortunately, I'll probably have to sell it when I head back to grad school in 2yrs. So far, resale looks excellent. I'd expect to get around 15K for it currently (avg of trade-in and market price in KBB), and I only paid 18.5K 2 years ago. Not too shabby.
Well, everyone enjoy your truck, whatever it should be. I apologize if anyone takes my remarks personally. I am only tiring of the trolling and bashing going on from both sides around here. It's getting a bit old. I'd much rather discuss the merits and short-falls of vehicles in a more civilized matter.
Holy crap! This is a long post!
OK, done now.
-C
I don't prefer the styling of the Frontier, my opinion, once again. The Frontier doesn't appeal to me as being aggressive looking or have any character to it. The interior is cheap to me, plastics are of low quality, upholstery is the same. Go sit in a Ranger XLT with bucket seats and do the same in a Nissan, there is a difference.
I quoted facts about torque/HP and listed all the other manufactures HP/Torque ratings for their 4cyl's and V6's. Facts are fact bud, the Nissan has the lowest torque rating of any compact pickup in its class.
And the story about towing 4K pounds with your V6, like you said you never towed with a truck that has more torque. Believe me it makes a difference. It may have done it ok, but a truck that has more torque will do it better, especially up a steep grade.
I parked next to a Frontier XE 4x4 at a mall yesterday and my truck seemed to look bigger. Ground clearance was no issue either, both the same as far as I could tell. (I have P265x75R16 all terrains).
I believe the supercharger is a bandaid to the lacking of HP/Torque the 3.3 has in its class. I am sure the newer 3.5 Nissan has coming down the line will make its way into the Frontier line-up, it has to in order to compete.
As was stated there will never be a "the best truck" Opinions, everyone has one.
See you in the Cascades!
I agree opinion goes well more than half of the decision. That's the main reason why someone would
choose a ford over Nissan, if they did not like the feel or styling or what ever. Because if you look at it logically, why would you pay more for
a vehicle that has less warranty, less reliability, more maintenance, higher operating costs, worse handling, smaller bed, worse ride, from a company below the industry average in quality. I understand you guys have been happy with your fords and that's great, I wish you nothing but luck, and hope you guys always have
great trucks that you are happy with.
Not sure what you meant by the other stuff, but I paid $12,300 for my 98 frontier XE 5spd king cab with A/C, am/fm cass, 15"alloy wheels, fender flares, sliding glass window, tinted windows, intermittant wipers, rear bumper, chrome grill and an aftermarket CD changer. The comparable ranger
costs more even before you add things like the towing package, and you can't get 15" wheels unless you buy another set. The parts pricing, I am not sure where that comes from, but that used to be the case several years ago when parts still came exclusively from japan, all frontiers are built in tennessee, and if you look at intellichoice.com, you will see that repair costs on a frontier are less than the ranger. Rust protection, I am not sure here either, Nissan is the only manufacturer that uses DURASTEEL, which is an additional coating of aluminun chromate on inside surfaces. Ranger has galvanized steel with only one coating. So in a civilized manner, which I agree maybe we should do, I chose the frontier because, I needed a basic commuter that was dependable, economical, comfortable affordable and could do alot of work for a four cylinder, the frontier exceeds the ranger the way I see it in every category. I was just thinking as I was rambling on too, I generally trust imports because my family has always had them and they have been great compared to the few domestics we had, maybe it is the same way but reversed with you guys? I imagine if my family had always had fords and had good luck with them and we bought an import and it wasn't good, I would maybe be driving a ford now, besides I have gotten used to the "import feel" VS the domestic feel and where things are located, maybe this is why a domestic owner doesn't like the look and feel of the insides and the placement of controls and the other way around too? I know this is getting long to, but didn't loki say he had the dealer do all of the service on his ranger? Are you saying they put a cheap filter in there? IS that what the TSB is talking about when they mention the oil problems? And even if the 4l with the wrist pins were only making noise and the truck did not die on you, wouldn't it suck to have to have a new engine with only a few thousand miles on it or live with a "diesle" sound?
yea Vince,
it's kinda fun to get the topic going again, how are you holding out with the tacoma guys? And stop lying about that lowest torque thing, you know it's the ranger 3.0l and the ranger 2.5l! No go kick some tacoma butt.
(1) You can actually get a better warranty with the Mazda B-Series (Ranger clone) at a slightly lower price than a Ranger. I also think it looks a little better than a Ranger. But, your options are limited to packages, so optioning a truck to fit your specific needs may be a little harder. This is why I chose the Ranger as I only wanted to pay for certain options and not others by having them lumped in option packages. The Mazda's warranty still falls short of the Nissan's. But, you can use the cost savings of the Ranger over the Nissan to buy an extended warranty if you so choose and still probably have some cash left over.
(2) Well, less reliability = more maintenance = higher operating costs. It's all pretty much the same thing. I have only ever had problems with a single vehicle that my wife and I have owned other than the junker I bought when I was in high school. It was a GM product, which blew its head gasket and cracked the head. The others which include Chevrolet, Pontiac, Toyota, and Ford have never had any problems except wear and tear items. I believe that routine and preventative maintenance will allow any vehicle (except those with inherent design flaws like my Quad-4 GM) to be reliable for many years and miles.
(3) "worse handling, smaller bed, worse ride" Handling and ride are subjective. We both chose the ones we prefer. There is no "better" or "worse" only personal preference. As for the smaller bed, do you mean the LB or SB Ranger, ext-cab or reg cab Nissan/Ranger, quad-cab Nissan? I haven't had any problems with not having enough room in the bed of my reg-cab LB Ranger. I probably wouldn't in either truck's smallest bed configuration either.
(4) "a company below the industry average in
quality" Industry averages have no effect on the performance our trucks. There's always a bit of a gamble with every new vehicle purchase, even an import. That's what they give us those warranties for, remember?
(5) Parts are going to be more expensive for a vehicle that is less numerous. They still import those parts from Japan, right? As for repairs, there are just too many variables there to make any concrete assumptions (dealer vs. independent, import vs. domestic mechanic, type of repair, etc...). I think the cost estimates on intellichoice.com are surveys of only dealer prices too.
(6) From what I see now, the older Nissans and Toyotas driving around are complete rust buckets, and they're not that old. I'm sure the power-train is still great, but I'd almost be embarassed to be seen driving one. The older Rangers seem to be rusting less with age. I can't really determine now how the current rangers, nissans, toyotas, etc... will fare here in the rustbelt. Only time will tell.
My Ranger is loaded with every option available in '98 except the ext-cab and 4.10 LSD. I got it for 18,500. It's a 4x4, 4.0L V6, 5sp auto, power everything, cruise, tilt, A/C, AM/FM/Cass/CD, off-road pkg. I originally wanted just a simple 3.0L 4spd auto 4x4 with a few options, but with all of the value discounts available at the time I only paid about $400 more to option it out. The dealer was an extremely nice guy. No haggling or BS. I bought the truck at dealer invoice (i know this isn't what they paid, but it was my target) with absolutely no haggling, and I got $500 more for my trade-in that I set as a goal. I went back a yr later and bought another vehicle from him too (same process, very pleased) when I got the car.
You must have gotten one hell of a deal on your truck. If you option each truck with A/C, 4-wheel ABS, ext-cab, sliding rear window, but the Ranger with the 3L V6 and the Frontier with the 2.4L I4, you get:
Ranger 15,500
Frontier 14,300
I think the Ranger may have a few more features too besides the V6 vs. I4, such as 4-wheel ABS (which I consider a must-have option). To get a V6 Frontier with a crew-cab (no V6 ext-cab available) optioned as close to our example ranger as possible it comes to:
V6 Frontier 17,100
It's actually pretty difficult to option these trucks in a similar fashion. They tend to "leap-frog" each other a bit in the options. If you can wait until the next model year is started with Ford, you'll always get at least $1000 cash-back on the Ranger (sometimes up to $2500) in addition to special financing. Nissan usually only provides special financing as an incentive. Also, there's a little thing with availability. It's fairly easy to find a ranger optioned exactly as you like on a lot in your area or a quick dealer trade away. Unfortunately, it's just not the same with Nissan.
For the 4L, you've got a choice. You can live with it or have it replaced. At least Ford is doing the right thing here. They seem to be assuming at least a little social responsibility in the past few years.
I would never consider the 2.5L I4 in the Ranger as one of my possible engine choices. Spend the extra $336 and get a 3.0L V6!!! Live a little!!!
OK, posting too much now. I'll do some more tomorrow.
good and valid points, it is good to find a ford enthusiast that can form an intelligent argument.
I am glad you brought up the mazda, I always wondered why if they are the same truck and mazda gives you a better warranty, and I too like the looks better, especially the grill, why is there such a disparity in sales? Don't you think it may be other reasons than available options?
On the pricing, if you equip a ranger and a frontier as close as possible in equipment, the MSRP's (which are identical everywhere in the US)
the ranger comes out more, Nissan has pretty much been having a steady $1,000 rebate for the last 9 months too. So the only way I see a ranger being less is if the negotiated price is drastically less on the ranger, or maybe in your area, there is only one Nissan dealer and they don't have to be competitive or something. was that the case when you went shopping?
there are ways to objectively rate things like we mentioned before, decible meters, etc. but again you are right preference does play into it. I think it was offroad magazine that had a shootout between the frontier, b4000 and tacoma and they criticized the frontier for it's carlike ride off-road. Not saying that it did not perform well, just that they wanted to feel like they were driving a truck. I don't get it, but oh well. I have never had trouble except for the crewcabs finding what my customers wanted within 3 days at the most, but again, if there aren't many Nissan dealers around you, it would be harder to get. In the houston area where I am at, there are at least
7 or 8 Nissan dealers within 30-45 minutes from downtown. Well, been fun, and have enjoyed having an intelligent volley thanks for keeping me sharp!
During my truck purchase, I finally decided on a 4L with a reg cab. With the Mazda, you can only get the 4L in an ext-cab, so that nixed it right there.
I think that most of the difference in sales ultimately comes down to brand image. I guess people are willing to shell out the extra cash for a ford than a mazda. It's the same everywhere. People will pay more for a Toyota Corolla over a Chevy Prizm (the exact same car) just to get the Toyota nameplate. There are also some other little things like the aforementioned option packaging, quantity/location of Mazda dealerships, and the availability of the Mazda trucks. But, if you can wait a little longer and are flexible with options, you can save yourself some money and get a better warranty with a Mazda B-series.
When I purchase my next truck down the road, I plan on getting an ext-cab, so a Mazda B4000 is definately on the list. But, this is at least 4 or so years away, and I'm sure that a lot will change in that time.
I live in the SW suburbs of Chicago, and I can only think of a single Nissan dealer within 30mins of my house. There are 3 Ford dealerships within 10mins of my house. The Nissan dealers I went to (also in Champaign-Urbana when I was purchasing a car, liked the Altima) just weren't willing to haggle at all. They knew there was nobody else in the area selling Nissans, so I'd be paying for it if I wanted it.
Nissan has got rebates going now? They don't do that very often as far as I can tell. They seem to sell what they produce without gouging into their prices with incentives.
In my area, at least, you will be able to get a similarly equipped Ranger at least a grand less than the Nissan. Their MSRP's and invoice prices might say different, but that's the way it happens in the marketplace.
What's the talk of a new 3.5L V6? What kind of specs does it have? Will this eventually replace the 3.3L V6 in the Frontier, or will a supercharged 3.3L V6 be the top engine choice?
Why can't Ford offer that really good-looking yellow color on their trucks like on the Frontier and Xterra? I saw a really nice-looking Frontier crew-cab 4x4. Or silver by the way. If only Nissan could spruce up the interior. If I'm spending 20K plus on a vehicle (i'd get a loaded crew-cab 4x4), I want it to look like it on the inside. Maybe if we could combine the exterior of the Frontier crew-cab with the interior of a leather-equipped Sport Trac with Chrysler's new 4.7L V8, then I think we'd have a very fun vehicle.
I agree that it's nice having an intelligent debate. It so often resorts to name-calling and "prove this, prove that" garbage on the Ranger vs. Tacoma board that it gets annoying.
So, is the new Frontier going to look like the truck they showed at the Chicago auto show?
yes, Nissan has almost always had the rebate on the 4 cylinder frontiers, when i bought mine in 98, they had a 4th of july extra $500 rebate which helped too. This is in addition to the VTP package savings of $1100. I couldn't even get a sentra for that price, and our employee deal is $300 over cost including holdback, which good negotiators can get most of the time anyway.
I can see how lack of competition would drive the prices higher, and they probably were trying to scoop the rebate from you when you looked. BTW I used to live in barrington, went to Fremd HS class of '89.
Honestly I don't know for sure, but I doubt the current 3.5l PF engine will make it's way into the trucks. It is basically a maxima engine and I don't see that as cost effective. But I would imagine that about a year after the supercharger option, Nissan will have a version of the current engine around 3.5 or4.0l. I think the 2001's are the same as the auto show one you saw, you can see for sure at freshalloy.com, good site for nissan news and stuff.
I negotiated with 3 dealers before finding the one I bought my truck at. He beat all of them right off the bat, and I got another $500 out of it to boot.
I got a 4x4 value discount pkg savings of around $750 (curious as I never saw it at the other dealers or on the net, but hey that's more $$$ in my pocket). Then, I got a coll grad $400 rebate. I chose the 3.9% APR over 60 months over the available $1500 cash back because my credit at the time was not good enough for better than 9% or so. So, I was pretty happy. Probably my first auto purchase where I didn't feel like I just got hosed. I couldn't get any of the sales guys to touch holdback either through threatening, begging, reasoning, etc... you name it. Oh well, I gave it a shot. The couple of Nissan dealers I talked to on the other hand weren't willing to deal much if any at all.
It looks like Nissan is finally going to give its trucks a more agressive look. About time! The 2001 Ranger looks a lot like a baby F150. I'll probably go give one a test drive when I see it on the lot.
Ford 2.5 119HP/146ft/lbs of torque
Ford 3.0 152HP/192ft/lbs of torque
Ford 4.0 160HP 225/ft/lbs of torque
Soon to arrive SOHC 4.0 204HP and 240ft/lbs of torque.
Nissan 2.4 143HP 152ft/lbs of torque
Nissan 3.3 170HP 200ft/lbs of torque
FActs are facts Nissan offers the LOWEST torque ratings in the compact truck class. The 3.0 of Ford is more comparable to the Nissan top of the line 3.3! And with the new 4.0 SOHC coming this summer it will put Nissan even farther behind the competition.
Options are nice. This is why the Ranger is so popular.
I have already proven to you that the price difference is null and void in my region. The Nissan may have a couple hundred dollar advantage. Does Nissan have standard ABS? 4 doors?
The 3L delivers better performance than the I4's offered in either the frontier or tacoma. It's also far better for hauling or towing, should you use your truck in that manner.
Economy isn't bad either. It's about 18-20 mixed driving and 22-25 highway. That's about in the same area as the I4's, right?
Toyota and Nissan definately have better I4's than the Ford, Chevy, and Dodge. But, I'd never seriously consider a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge 4-banger as the power-plant for my truck. The V6 upgrades are so cheap that anybody would be crazy not to pay for them. You'll just make that money back later when you sell/trade the truck.
And as stated in post #174 the 3.0 is about $330 more than the 2.5, most consumers don't know this so they opt for the 2.5, they are also unaware of the 3MPG difference also. The 3.0 is far superior to Nissans 2.4 in both HP/Torque.
Even if I could've bought a 3.0L Ranger for the same price, I would not want to get one simply because my light-duty hauling and commuting needs do not warrant paying substantially more for fuel for the next 5 years. A sentiment shared, apparently, by the majority of compact truck buyers.
Clearly, Ford is capable of producing modern OHC truck engines like the SOHC Tritons. It's high time for them to ditch the ancient pushrod 2.5L I4 and offer a 4-banger fit for the 21st Century.
have you been with us the last few posts? I put up that info because you keep running around saying the Nissan has the lowest torque V6 in a compact truck, when actually it is the ranger, you brought it up, I didn't, Also where are you getting the 225ft/lbs figure, everything I have seen says 223ft/lbs. Not a big difference but 23 ft/lbs is not a huge difference either. As long as we are on torque which you admit is really important, the 3.3l V6 produces 180 of its 200 ft/lbs at 1500 rpm, you need torque at the lower RPM's for pulling, and you need the extra HP for pulling when you get to highway speeds, the ranger 4.0 reaches its peak torque at a higher rpm, which means you need to rev the engine higher when pulling to use that extra 23ft/lbs. And the ranger doesn't have the hp to keep it going as well as the frontier 3.3l
I think that the I4 in the Ranger is an OHC engine. The 3L and 4L V6's use are OHV. The upcoming 4L in 2001 is an OHC engine.
On another note, Ford is currently working on an I5 for the Ranger. This engine would probably replace the 3L and might possibly be the base offering replacing the I4 also. It sounds like a good compromise of power and efficiency. An I4 just has nowhere near the hauling/towing ability I need, and you need a MTX just to make performance anything but snail-like even for the imports.
I guess is the bottom is that if you want more power, you're gonna have to pay for it.
Another little thing about fuel prices. When indexed for inflation, the fuel prices of the past few years have been the lowest in history. I'd personally kinda like to see a bit of a price crunch. Maybe it would get some of these idiots driving around in SUV's the size of a small moon off of the road. It would make the world a safer and cleaner place.
I hope you're right about Ford's 4-banger intentions. The I5 you mentioned sounds mighty interesting, even more so if it turns out to be a direct injection Diesel. (BTW, I'm a big fan of the VW VR5 engine - too bad they don't want to bring it state-side) Sooner or later, the manufacturers are gonna have to do something about the dismal gas mileage of the big pickups and SUVs.
I would really like to move up to a full-size truck. In fact, I almost bought an F-150 V6 5sp reg cab before I decided on the Frontier - they were about the same money. But again and again, I get turned off by the poor gas mileage. Why do only the 3/4- and 1-tons trucks get diesel engines? Put a small diesel in an F-150 that gets 35mpg, and I'll trade in my Frontier in a heartbeat. :-)
Not that I'm complaining about fuel prices in the US. We pay a lot less than most other nations. Still, being frugal is a good habit to have, albeit one that us spoiled drivers in America practice very little.
Sorry for the off-topic.
New Ford V6 diesel for 2003 F-Series
26 July 99. Updated 03 Oct. 99
In what's likely to be described as another victory for Ford truck and a kick in the teeth for both GM and Dodge, BlueOvalNews has confirmed that Ford Motor Company is planning to release two all new PowerStroke diesel engines for the North American market (U.S., Canada and Mexico) starting in 2002.
Ford is already past the prototype and development stages and into the advanced testing procedures for state and federal certification.
The first new PowerStroke diesel engine to be introduced was co-designed by Ford's partner Navistar and is on target for a JOB1 launch in 2002.
The engine slated for 2002 is dubbed the "baby diesel" by Ford engineers because it's only a 4.5 liter V6, when compared to the 7.3 liter diesel currently being offered in the Super Duty F-Series line.
Co-designed by Ford and Navistar, the "baby diesel" was built to fill a gap in the 6000-8500lb truck line up (F150) where no light-medium duty diesel engine currently exists. The V6 diesel will only be offered in the Expedition and F-Series/Econoline vans with a 6000-8500lb. g.v.w. Ford expects to sell a total of 50,000 vehicles equipped with the V6 diesel annually beginning in 2003. Ford believes that the V6 diesel will be ordered by customers primarily for personal use.
The V6 diesel will initially appear in the 2002 Expedition/U222 (except Navigator) and then will be phased in as an optional engine in the 2003 Econoline and F-Series truck (P221). It is not scheduled or anticipated that it will be made optional for the Ranger series; although, a Ranger diesel engine may also be in development.
The "baby diesel" was conceived with key customer elements such as fuel economy, a performance feel, durability and more than enough torque in mind.
Ford Motor Company documents state that they did not invest too much money in the development of the V6 diesel since it will share a common architecture with a new and upcoming PowerStroke V8 diesel. The torque rating of the V6 PowerStroke is expected to be about 340ft.lbs.
The 4.5 liter V6 diesel will be classified as a LEV (low emissions vehicle) under both federal and California state emission guidelines.
Ford's possibly advertising campaign will note the new engine as a modern diesel with new second generation technology. One of the engine's highlights is a hydraulically actuated, electronically controlled fuel injection system. The new fuel delivery system will aid Ford in their emissions and fuel economy target. As of late July 99, development work still continues with various fuel system suppliers.
For the 2003 F150, the diesel package will be made optional on all regular, SuperCab and SuperCrew models in either 4X2 or 4X4 drive lines. When equipped with a four wheel drive package, it will be available with either a manual on the fly shift system or with an optional electronic shift on the fly system. It will be available with either an ALL NEW automatic transmission or an ALL NEW manual transmission.
The 2003 Expedition will also be available in either a 4x2 or 4x4 version; however, it will only be made available with an ALL NEW automatic transmission using a torque on demand drive system.
Maybe the I5 I've heard about is that diesel engine. Now, THAT would be good. How does 35mpg on the highway sound along with being able to still tow the 5,000lbs of the 4L?
But, not due out until the 2002/2003 or later model year. And, the US does have a love affair with gasoline engines.
They're now using direct-injection engines in either Europe or Japan (or both) for some nice gains. Unfortunately, the gasoline formulation in the US won't work with DI gasoline engines (currently, anyways).
I kinda like the fact that the baby diesel won't be due till 2003 or later. I would hate to trade in my Frontier early and take a big penalty.
I am an engineer, but unfortunately I have to ties to any Ford engineer. None that I am aware of anyway. I've read that GM has just released a diesel OHV V8 with 4V per cylinder - something that up until now I had thought impossible on a pushrod motor. VW has also showcased a TDI Diesel V-10 on its AAC truck in the Detroit Auto Show. But this is the first I've heard about a small diesel. This is great news. Kudos to Ford for taking the initiative.
Maybe the manufacturers are forecasting correctly that the cries for politically-correct trucks and SUVs will be getting louder and louder. I myself don't care much for the environmental chanting. I just want a truck that gets good mileage.
Now, if they could only make one that was a smooth-running, inherently balanced I6, had direct injection, and was around 3-4L. Ooooh, now that sounds nice.
An OHV with 4V per cylinder!? Imagine the complexity! I think I'll pass on that one and head towards the simplicity of an OHC (single or dual) to get my 4V per cylinder. Interesting idea, though. GM does really make some great push-rod engines. I love the 3.8 they put in the Grand Prix's and their clones. They also make some of the best automatic trannies. If only they could improve what they put around their drivetrain, like the styling, suspension, and build materials, they'd have me on board for sure. (jumped overboard last summer, grand am was too narrow, interior too cheap-looking, and handled terribly given the stiff ride, good power though from the 3.1 though)
I saw that diesel VW p/u in one of the car rags. It's pretty neat looking. Do you think VW may soon be adding pick-ups and SUV's to its North American line-up? They'd be crazy not to. They're outnumbering cars in the biggest automotive market in the world.
You just don't get it do you???? The TOP of the LINE V6 ENGINE offered by Nissan gives the LOWEST torque in its CLASS. Ford offers 2 V6's a 3.0 and a 4.0 152HP/192ft/lbs of torque and 160HP/225ft/lbs of torque. Nissans top of the line V6 has the LOWEST TORQUE of to top end engines in the compact truck class. I don't know how better to get this across?? The 3.0 is not really supposed to compete with the top of the line engine Nissan offers, the 3.3.
Where are you getting your torque curves from? The 3.3 has to rev higher in order to reach its torque curve (This also depends on gearing too) And what happens after the 200ftlbs is reached? Nowhere else to go huh? The Ranger has another 25ft/lbs to go. You as a salesperson know that anything more than a 10ft/lbs of torque difference does matter and does make a difference.
This is why Nissan is putting the supercharger on their trucks. Many complaints about lack of power/torque when towing/hauling. This will help granted but why not just build a normally aspirated V6 that can compete?
V6 in compact trucks, which the ranger is the least. But whatever, the 3.3l Nissan V6 reaches 200 ft/lbs at 2800 rpm, the ranger reaches it's 23 more ft/lns at a higher rpm, let's see if you know what that figure is. So more usable torque where you need it, (low end) and more horses where you need it (high end) And if you say the 3.0l is not suppossed to compete with the 3.3l, then why doesn't ford just make the 4.0l standard, I am not as interested in how much extra money I can spend to get what I need, but what am I already getting?
I agree exactly with your accessment of GM products. I like GM's sticking with pushrod motors, even though I dislike OHV as a category. They've refined some of their pushrods to perform, in many areas, better than OHC engines. It's sad to me that the top brass at GM aren't "car people" and seemingly more interested in making alliances with cartoon characters and Internet giants than engineering truly great cars. Good engineers, lousy management - what else is new? ;-)
I just can't believe VW hasn't gotten an SUV on the road yet. They've had a good 10+ years to come up with something. They've already got some powerful, torquey engines and a proven AWD (Quattro) system. It should be a no-brainer. What are they waiting for?
I think that GM has about squeezed every little bit out of pushrod technology. It's damn near amazing that they can put a nearly 4L engine in a 3000+lb car, have it produce decent hp and tons of torque, and still get 30mpg. I think that the GM stylists need a shot in the arm too along with management. Get rid of some brands and put out some exciting cars instead of the same old blandmobiles. Chrys
Satisfaction: Remains high in spite of owners' complaints about reliability problems.
Also - CR just printed the reliability survey results. They didn't do any actual tests on their own in this particular instance. They just presented the data and Ranger owners ranked the Ranger very low. Just the fact's.
Also....
HANDLING The base Ranger has a soft suspension and undersize tires, while 4WD Rangers have the opposite handicap; its suspension is too hard and tires are too big. In either case, handling leaves much to be desired.
STEERING Much too slow. The wide turning radius really hampers maneuverability.
4-WHEEL DRIVE It's rather crude
FUEL CONSUMPTION The V6s burn a lot of gas.
My work here is done.
It's just like asking the garbage man for medical advice.
All you can do is type "Ranger Bad" in a search engine and post garbage on message boards. What a reliable source of information!!!!
Isn't spring break over yet? Shouldn't you be running along to Jr. High about now?
Trolling is entering a topic about which you have no experience or knowledge and just posting garbage in an attempt to aggravate others. This seems like a textbook case of trolling to me. Your posts are attacking, aggravating, and revert to name-calling (such as "your heap Ranger and that rattletrap Ranger") as you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. This is a sign of inability to debate on an intellectual level with logical arguments and facts to support your opinions.
I'm not invalidating links to credible sources. They should be taken for what they're worth. Posting dribble taken off of message boards? What's that? You seem to fall into the quantity is better than quality school of thought.
Yes, there are terrible Ford dealerships out there. Maybe you got your preverbial "lemon". Maybe you didn't actually bother to test drive the Ranger which you say that you bought. Snap decisions are usually incorrect ones.
So maybe you got hosed by Ford or maybe you hosed yourself. This seems to be your pathetic attempt to get back at them by attacking satisfied Ranger owners.
the ranger is better, because you can buy 25 more ft/lbs torque and vince doesn't happen to like the looks. What dead horse are you going to kick this summer when the frontier gets more torque and hp than the ranger and a new design? I guess then you will have no arguments left huh? Remember a truck needs torque, torque is good, ranger engine is weak, I can buy more torque than you can and so on and so on.
Please tell us also why the "great innovators" at ford still don't have a fully boxed frame, and only put torsion bar suspensions on higher end models instead of on all like the frontier, but no surprise, Ford's been following Nissan's truck innoventions since they invented the compact truck in 1959.
160hp @4200rpm
225ft/lbs @2750rpm
For the 2001 model year, Ford will replace the current OHV 4.0 V6 with a SOHC 4.0 V6, which will produce:
205 hp
235 ft/lbs
I haven't heard the specs as to the rpm yet, but I'd guess it to be slightly (about 500rpm) higher than the OHV 4L.
Enlightening complete! :oD
The new design on the Frontier is a long time coming. Truck buyers seem to prefer a more agressive look. From what few pictures I've seen, it looks like Nissan has finally put some decent styling on the truck. The past few iterations have been sooooooo conservative, pretty bland.
I believe that the Ranger is also due for some styling changes for 2001, or at least some new type of trim called "The Edge" or something like that. Maybe good, maybe gimmick. We'll see in a few months when the 2001s start rolling out. I still think the Mazda's look a bit better. You get a styled bed too without losing the cargo space of a flareside.