Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - III



  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    You STILL won't answer my question! Would this be because you KNOW that you are wrong and just won't admit it?

    Spoog posts about newer engines and high rpm's:

    "The newer engines CAN and DO excell under these
    conditions, with minimum wear and tear."

    So, tell me this. While engine will have the most
    adverse affects on it in terms of wear and

    (1) An engine running at or slightly above idle
    (2) An engine running at or slightly below redline

    Well, which is it? Please answer this question.
    You've ignored 90% of the questions I've posted to
    you. The other 10% that you answered, you
    completely misunderstood the question.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    Spoog writes:

    "Not true. The 3.4 liter 6 was designed
    specifically for the early t-100 and Tacoma."

    This was the bulk of his argument that the V6 in the Tacoma is not derived from a car engine but was built from scratch specifically for the T100 and Tacoma. Well, let's just see about that.

    1993: Toyota introduces the T100. Powering the truck is a 3.0L DOHC V6 from the Toyota Camry (initially introduced in the car in the late '80s or early '90s) producing 150hp and 180ft-lbs of torque (just like the Camry albeit geared quite differently).

    1995: Toyota introduces the 3.4L DOHC V6 in the T100. This is the same engine used currently in the Tacoma. The bore & stroke of the two V6's are:

    3.0L 3.44 x 3.23
    3.4L 3.68 x 3.23

    Holy Cow! So, the 3.4L is a bored 3.0L DOHC V6 from the Toyota Camry. The Taco's engine is derived from a passenger car engine.

    This is how I back up my statements with fact. Spoog you back up your statements with "In fact, this is the BIGGEST load of crap I have
    read YET in this room." Wow, that's some pretty interesting research you've come up with. Now, you're calling me misinformed?

    Oh wait! This one is good too!

    I write that the 4.0L SOHC V6 was developed for the Explorer and Ranger.

    Spoog writes:

    "Well, your HALF right, and HALf wrong. The Ford
    Explorer V8's are from the mustangs, and vice

    When exactly did I ever say anything about the Explorer V8?

    Its initial use was in the form of a 265 V8 in the earliest Mustangs. It was bored to the venerable 289 V8 used in the late Sixties Mustangs. It was then stroked to the 302 V8 that we find in the '80s and '90s Mustangs. Ford puts the 4.9L V8 in the Explorer because it generates a lot of TORQUE of which you have no understanding.

    Oh, but I sure love this one:

    "it sure is surprising then how it has more max rear wheel torque than the Ranger."

    Spoog, you still have no clue as to what exactly torque is. And, you haven't the faintest when it comes to assessing the factors in real wheel torque. Don't you understand this? I would suggest buying a book or asking a friend to explain it to you. Why do you think manufacturers quote torque at the flywheel?

    For your own sake, maybe you should not post things of which you obviously have no clue. You are only embarrassing yourself.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    You're right I am too ignorant to get my point across. So please explain to me how a DOHC engine breathes better than a SOHC motor at lower revs or how it breathes better at any RPM. After I'm done making my trash pickups for the day I'll get back to you.

    Now for fact. Port design and location will dictate how an engine breathes. OHC design frees up needed space to design more efficient port design. Am I going to fast for you? A SOHC will use some sort of rocker arrangement to activate both the intake and exhaust valves. The DOHC design will usually act on a bucket with a shim directly on the valve. Even though I have seen DOHC designs that use rocker arms anyway. The DOHC design HAS NO ADVANTAGE FOR PORT LOCATION OR BREATHING CAPABILITIES OVER A SOHC. The only advantage for the umpteenth time is the ability to spin at higher (7000 rpms and up) without the fear of floating a valve or losing a rocker arm. The only reason for the DOHC design in the Toyotas is for ease of manufacturing ie; most of the parts were already there.
    If you can explain it better with your BS degree(pun intended) I'm willing to read and learn.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    I believe the 4.0 is a direct relative of the Cologne 2.8L motor from Germany. It's a very stout motor that's getting a little long in tooth. It's impressive that a 25 year old motor can still hold its own against so much high tech. Alas, with ever tightening emission regs the motor will die an uncerimonious(sp?) death.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    You claim you would rather have a Single vs a Dual overhead cam based on the "Less Moving" part stance. Is it fair to say you would rather have manual hubs or a manual lever vs. the Ranger's elctric hubs, on a 4x4, for the same reason?

    Just a question...

  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    Actually, yes. I would rather have the manual lever as opposed to the electronic switch. But, I would rather have the convenience of auto-locking hubs. Manual hubs can sometimes be a pain in the a$$, like when you're in a snow drift or a mud pit.

    With less chance of systems failing, your odds are that much more in your favor when you need those systems.

    I will say that I'm pleased with the system on the Ranger. I has performed flawlessly over the last 2yrs.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    Well, yesterday was the first day we've gotten some snow on the ground here (Chicago area). My wife had just dropped me off, and she was headed on her way to work. I reminded her to be careful, slow down, and leave some extra braking distance.

    So, I get a call on my phone an hour later. Not 5mins after she dropped me off had she gotten into an accident.

    She was going around a curve, spun out, jumped the curb, ran over a tree, and spun out into a sign-post. She had the truck in 4wd and thought she could drive anyways she wanted regardless of the weather. She was obviously going too fast for conditions.

    Well, $1,600 in damage later, she has just learned an expensive lesson. A 4x4 truck is not invincible. All of the laws of physics still apply, and you must drive sensibly.

    I just wanted to get this message out to all of you truck guys for a little wake-up call about winter driving. Hopefully, all of you can benefit from our little incident.

    I learned my own lesson back a few years back when I flipped my Blazer over a couple of times on Christmas Eve.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Thanks for the "warning", but most of us aren't newbie-wannabe-truck owners. We all know that 4x4 does not = sandpaper traction and braking in winter.

    As for the max rear wheele torque, I pulled that
    from the site. Tacoma v6 =180
    Ranger 4.0 6 = 160 at the same RPMS. So what was it you were sayig about high reving engines with weak torque?
    I still have NOT seen any proof that the 3.4 liter is the same engine as the 3.0 camry v6. Please provide a link.

    Run along now little Jimmy....the lesson is over.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    You sure seem to have your panties in a wad. Is this because I constantly prove you wrong with facts and show everyone how ignorant you are about everything automotive? :o)

    "Please provide a link."

    Why can't you do your own research? Maybe you'll learn something. While you're at, do some research on torque. You are completely clueless about it, and I'm sick of explaining it to you. I tried to use real small words and everything, but you just don't get it.

    "newbie-wannabe-truck owners"

    Take a look in the mirror, my little friend. If you can actually read, you'll notice that I wasn't even driving.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Spoog likes to drive OVER objects rather than use his tires to climb over them. He has constantly been wrong and hates to admit it. Even some Tacoma owners have told him he should research before he leaps, kind of like the 155 HP 2.7, LOL.
    Too bad about the truck, glad the wife was ok. Did you have some weight in the back? also, chains all the way around will make any 4x4 a go anywhere vehicle in the snow. I have been buried, pushing snow with chains on all 4's in my Ranger, what a stunt that was!
    And spoog always forgets to mention the HP/torque curves of the 3.4 vs the 4.0, Hmmm, wonder why? The 3.4 and all its high tech gizzmos still outputs 5ft/lbs less than the Ranger and the torque/HP curve is also worse in the lower end where most REAL truck owners need it. I am looking forward to the 4.0 SOHC V6 204HP/240ft/lbs of torque in the Ranger!
    Are you telling me Toyota's don't have push button 4x4 High/Low? If so how does this work in the Toyota? If I remember right, there is a switch in the Toyota not a lever. I know the Ranger works with vacuum, I have never had any probs with mine, use it all the time, maybe thats why?
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Now,when I mean pushing snow, don't imagine a wall of snow 9ft tall, I mean pushing it at about bumper level.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    Yes, she's okay, just a little shaken. Most of the damage is from the plastic parts. I need a new foglight valance and a new fender flare/mudflap assembly. The rear quarter is also dented quite a bit.

    Today, I went out and put 240lbs of sand over the rear axle. If I lived a little farther north, I'd probably invest in snow tires.

    The truck has handled extremely well in the snow (at least when I'm driving). I was about the only person out during the blizzard last year. It handled 2ft of snow easily while towing about 1500-2000lbs worth of snowmobiles and gear. I think she spun out due to the layer of ice under the 1" of snow. She was going too fast, and she broke the rear end loose going around the curve.

    Hopefully, the extra weight and wake-up call should improve her winter driving.

    The SOHC 4.0L in the Ranger will be a nice upgrade in power. Ford will probably eventually fade the OHV 4.0 out and replace it with the SOHC 4.0 when they get the production capacity and work out a few of the technical details (the only tranny currently available with the SOHC 4.0 is the 5-speed auto, so they've got to get a manual ready). I'm also interested in the engine in Ford's upcoming Ranger Adrenalin. It's rumored to be a supercharged 4.0 with 280hp and 300+ft/lbs of torque. They had just better put it in a 4x4, though...
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    Are all of you aware that there are almost no truly new engines ever developed? Chevy has not had a new block design for over 30 years. Ford, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan and the rest are not that far behind. Whenever you hear of a "new" engine, it is usually an old block with a new head or cam design. The engineering associated with building an engine from scratch is astronomical and there is no reason for it.

    What is wrong with a truck and a car sharing a basic block design anyway?

    As to DOHC versus SOHC, why would two valves be better than four? I realize that some companies (Honda) uses SOHC and 4 valves per cylinder but Ford is only using 2 which is what Toyota stopped doing in '95. And have you driven the 3.4 engine? Most of the power is usable at low RPM. Sure, it peaks at 3600 but you've got plenty of power in the low range.

    This is a silly argument.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    I'm too lazy to try and find it but I think it was you who may have started the whole thing by saying how superior the Toy motor was and how Ford "only" was going to use a SOHC. If I'm mistaken please accept my apology in advance.

    For the record I've never disputed the Toys performance. In many posts I've stated cam placement has nothing to do with torque production. I hope this will be the last time I state this; A DOHC 4valve motor has no advantage over a SOHC motor in real world truck applications. Now, you want to take your motors to 9000 rpm like the new Honda sports car or make 600 horsepower give me DOHC and 4-5 valves. For a truck that has no reason to rev that high SOHC does just fine thank-you. Toyota is just smart by using existing combinations for cost reasons.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    The LS1 based motor shares nothing with the venerable chevy small block of old. And Ford modular motors are aprox. seven years old. And Dodge has a new 4.7L OHC that shares nothing with the previous motors.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    Ford has many 4 valve engines in vehicles that warrant them. Except for the Navigator which has a 5.4l with Cobra 4valve heads. This is obviously a marketing gimmick for an upscale vehicle. Does it need it? No. Does any one else have it? Just your very upscale competition.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    Yes, I am the guilty party in starting this thread. Could you possibly provide some form of evidence that DOHC is a waste in a truck? The Taco red lines at 5500 and achieves peak torque at 3800. I can't find supporting documentation, but I read a few years ago that 90% of the torque was available at 2000. Personal impressions make me believe this. This is all done with a DOHC.

    The previous generation truck had 12% less displacement yet 20% less torque with an SOHC design. We went from 150 hp to 190 and 180 # to 220 torque. Tell me again why DOHC is a waste on a truck. While you are at it, explain again why the Ranger still doesn't have the SOHC but the Explorer does.

    Better yet, don't bother. It is obvious that everybody has made up their minds and all that is left is platitudes that change no opinions.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    My engine facts came from the GM district rep I had during my short stint as a GSM at a Toyota/Chevy store. He even mentioned the LS1 engine as being built on a block which was essentially cast from the same mold as everything else. Nothing else was the same, but the block didn't need changed. It worked.

    As to the information on the other products, I took him at his word. I apologize if I have spoken out of turn.
  • My 1999 Toyota shifted from Park to Reverse by
    itself after it was running on idle for 5 minutes
    or so. Did anyone ever encounter this kind of
    problem ? I reported this incident to Toyota and
    they said they would send someone over to inspect
    for mechanical malfunction.
    Please respond if you can.

    Thanks (Chet.Kong@Occ.Treas.Gov)
  • well i love this verbal war that is going on about the ford and the toyota. i have looked at a few things and though they r not related to the previous discussion i feel the bear mentioning.
    1. hp = ability to do work. which is important for obvious reasons.
    2. the toy has the most.
    3. torque=pulling power. this will get arguments but that is what it is basicly.
    4. the toy has the most.
    5. with the gas prices as the are in ca. that is an important issue and the toy wins again.
    6. truck of the year!

    need i say more? i am looking at getting a toy and I FEEL that is better than the ford & chevy. any facts or opinions r welcome. if the toy has a down side it is price. but u always pay more for the best.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Sorry, but you better check your facts again. The Ranger has more torque than the Tacoma 225 vs 220. And check the torque/HP curve you may be surprised. And the Tacoma has the WORST crash test rating in its class also. And the locker, well don't go over 5mph, it disengages after that into an OPEN axle! OPEN AXLE. I can tell what you are going to use your truck for a commuter not a REAL truck. The MPG is only a 2 MPG better than the Ranger. Also, no 4 doors, no limited slip,. You will pay substantialy more for a perceived quality/reliability advantage. visit and look under both Tacoma and Toyota trucks you may be surprised. These trucks are more equal than you think. Your caught up in the HP psycho babble. And as far as Four Wheeler mag, This test was picked apart in earlier posts and MANY inconsistancies were found, the Ranger used was not as well optioned as the Toyota. And once again spoog fails to let everyone know the price of 24K for the TRD. I don't even think a 24K Ranger exists. Test drive, Test drive, Test drive.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    DONT buy Vinces BS. I have all the facts right here. I suggest you examine the 4wheeler link above, and also this link :

    This is the link to the OFFICIAL reliability and defect site, run by the government. This is ALSO the site that did the testing for the Tacoma and Ranger in which the Tacoma scored low.

    93-99 Tacoma 30 Defect Investigations

    93-99 Ranger 650 Defect investiagations

    Check out safety recalls

    89-99 Ranger 300 saftey recalls

    89-99 Tacoma 60 saftey recalls

    check out tecnical Repair bulletin Recalls:

    89-99 ranger- 450 repair bulletins

    89-99 Tacoma 60 Repair bulletins

    This is THE site for this kind of information. MS carpoints resource database is by calling people on the phone, very limited. As we know, people can be biased. THE NHSTA site is NOT biased. This is the place where MANy consumer magazines get their info from. It is the real deal.

    Also check out the JUNE issue of Petersons offroad.

    They TOO picked the Tacoma YET AGAIN over the Ranger in a compact truck shoot out, head to head.
    Tacoma wins again.

    Also The SERCHER, be sure to check out the stats and technical specifications on that 4wheeler pickup of the year link. It gives you pictures of the brakes and other components, plus thje rear wheel max torque and other great stats:

    click on this link and click on technical info and specifications.

    Please NOTE this comment on the technical page:

    "Ford's new compact frontend uses F-150-style short- and long-arm IFS, with torsion bars. The setup offers big gains on pavement--but not without trail sacrifices.

    Toyota's double A-arm/coilover frontend handles pavement cornering and trail flex with equal skill. We like the six-lug axles and big-caliper front discs. "

    A"lthough the middle-sized V-6 of the group, the Toyota 3.4-liter DOHC 24-valve V-6 pulled all the way through the torque curve like most small-blocks. "

    " Toyota's TRD Tacoma comes with the only factory offered rear locking differential on any (full-size or compact) pickup. We found it a huge asset for trail adventures. "

    Even Four wheeler isnt happy with the Rangers suspension. It is made for street driving.
    This is what is used on the f150 too. tsk tsk. Again we get back to Fords design philosophy.
    Right down the line.

    also THESERCHER if you have any doubt how tough a truck the Tacoma is, click on this link, then click onthe Offraod Adventures section to the left. Let ALL the pictures load, and watch the tAcoma go through some SERIOUS mudholes and water, and watch it tow out a super modified, lifted ford f150 with huge tires TWICE!!!!!!!!

    Good stuff I tell ya! :

    The Sercher : This information in this post should help you GREATLY in choosing your vehicle. YOu may want to save this and bookmark the links for later use.

  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Vince writes:

    "And the locker, welldon't go over 5mph, it disengages after that into
    an OPEN axle! OPEN AXLE. I can tell what you are
    going to use your truck for a commuter not a REALtruck. "

    lol. Vince, what did all those land cruisers, Jeep Cj'7s, and Range Rovers EVER do with their open axles???? lol. These are real trucks.

    Limited slip is for 2wd trucks and cars.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    "The previous generation truck had 12% less
    displacement yet 20% less torque with an SOHC
    design. We went from 150 hp to 190 and 180 # to
    220 torque."

    Well, that should happen. When you go from 3.0 to 3.4 liters, you had better have some sort of performance gains. In general, the old addage of "there's no replacement for displacement" is true. This is pretty much what happended when the 3.0 was bored out to 3.4.

    You were also asking why the SOHC V6 isn't yet available in the Ranger. When the engine was first available, there wasn't enough production capacity to support even the Explorer demands. The Explorer is more profitable, so it got the engine. Also, the engine only mates with the 5-speed auto. Ford has to modify the manual tranny to work with the new engine. Ford probably isn't in any rush either. The Ranger is and has been the best-selling compact truck for the past 12 or so years, and it doesn't look like this will change any time soon. Unfortunately for us Ford Ranger guys, Ford has no immediate motivation to put the new engine into the ranger. However, it looks like it may be available in next year's model rangers. I'm not holding my breath, though. In the meantime, the OHV 4.0 is very capable. It also takes well to mods for those of us out there who like to tinker with our vehicles.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    Horsepower is a completely made up measurement. It is derived from torque, which is an actual measurement in ft/lbs or newtons. I can't remember exactly now, but the formula is something like:

    horsepower = engine rpm/(5280 x torque)

    I'm not saying it's useless, but automotive companies have people thinking "If it's got the most horsepower, it's the best." This is now always the case.

    On another note, the absolutely dumbest measurement I've ever heard is hp/L. Whoever came up with this one? It is completely useless, and it gives no point of comparability between engines.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    Spoog posts about newer engines and high rpm's:

    "The newer engines CAN and DO excell under these
    conditions, with minimum wear and tear."

    So, tell me this. While engine will have the most
    adverse affects on it in terms of wear and

    (1) An engine running at or slightly above idle
    (2) An engine running at or slightly below redline

    Well, which is it? Please answer this question.
    You've ignored 90% of the questions I've posted to
    you. The other 10% that you answered, you
    completely misunderstood the question.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    I would also suggest looking closely at spooge's "sources." He's a rather simple fellow and doesn't understand the factors behind the so-called big numbers.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Posts: 3,581
    You missed the point. Toyota increased displacement by 12% but got a 20% increase in HP. The 4.0 ford has less HP than the 3.4 Toyota. Tell me again how number and placement of valves has no bearing on HP.

    Also, tell me what that clicking sound I hear is on every OHV Ford engine I see with over 60K miles. The SOHC engine has been available for a few years now and you are telling me they still can't figure out how to build enough. What a crock.

    I will concede the 4 door issue for now. That will be corrected in 8 months. Ford has the same arrogance about technology updates that they did back in the 70s.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Spoog quotes the same sites over and over again. Please read the NHSTA site, I mean READ. He wants you to see the total numbers not the repeats, the ones for stickers missing, or the ones that only pertain to certain build lots of Rangers.
    Ranger hasn't retained its number 1 spot and be able to continue to outsell the Tacoma for nothing. It still outsells the Tacoma almost 4 to 1. And we can go the route of "finiancing" or "fleet sales". Toyota fleet sales also, and offers the same finance rates as Toyota in my region. It comes down to the best all around truck for a FAIR price. I like how he constantly dismisses any of my resources. go see and even right here at Edmunds long term Ranger test. The Ranger is the best all around compact truck on the road today.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Posts: 1,102
    Your thinking may be a little simplified if you think that the increase in horsepower or torque should directly correlate with the increase in displacement. And, I never said anything about the number and placement of valves having no bearing on horsepower or torque. I don't know where you're getting this from.

    I said that any gains of a DOHC over a SOHC would be at an rpm that typically a truck never sees. I think you were the one who brought up the argument of "the more cams the better."

    I thought I had explained the availability of the SOHC 4.0 to you earlier. Initially, there was not enough capacity for even the Explorer. I have no idea what it is now. I also know that the SOHC 4.0 cannot mate to the current manual tranny offered in the ranger, so they probably have to modify it.

    Tell me this. If you were Ford, would you be rushing to offer new engines in the top-selling compact truck, which currently and in the near future has no serious threats to its market share?

    I don't know exactly what ticking sound you're talking about, but every 4.0 I've heard is noisy. Personally, I haven't heard any problems due to the engine's inherent noisiness.
This discussion has been closed.