Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - III

1…78101213…15

Comments

  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    I guess it's good to know that you don't check older Toyotas. If I ever buy a Toy I'll know where to trade it in.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    What's all this about? Did I ever say either truck to be infallible. No. With proper maintenance any vehicle should last 200K miles w/o major problems. You might have a switch go bad, or some component like an battery die. You'll always have to change brake pads, fluids, tires, and other "wear" items. But, I don't consider those to be major problems. It's only common sense.

    "Toyota advises engaging the 4WD system once a month as well but there are no vacuum hoses to rot on a Tacoma."

    Well, they at least had a lot of sheet metal to rot instead on the older Toyotas. :o)


    As for vaccuum actuated vs. manually actuated systems, it is like power vs. manual windows. Power windows are more convenient and desireable, but they can be more likely to experience problems. It all goes along with the complexity of the system in question.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    OK, enough of the silliness on long term reliability. I think we all know which truck will last longer for more people.

    cthomspon did bring up an intersting topic on Toyota bodies. Prior to 1989, Toyota did not galvanize the beds and they were built in two pieces. The top and bottom part were welded as were the fender flares. They all rust along the welds.

    Beginning in '89, Toyota went to a single piece exterior bed and began using a process called "Excellite 2". Since that point, you will not see body problems like the older models had. Granted that those trucks are only 10 years old now, but I have not witnessed any post '89 trucks with rust problems.

    Now if only Ford could stop those darned rods from knocking at 60,000 we would have parity in the truck world.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "I think we all know which truck willlast longer for more people."

    Yes, we do. It is the truck that is properly maintained.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    All 4x4's should be engaged once a month. I work on high tech tools in the silicon industry, Cylinders, Solenoids, shutters, robotic arms and the like. When a tool sits for a long period of time we know we are going to have problems. And guess what, these tools are both Japanese, German, and U.S. made.
    I am surprised noone visited www.carpoint.msn.com and looked at the reliability ratings for Toyota Tacoma and Toyota trucks and compared them. Could it be the truth hurts??
    Cliffy, your salesman bias is showing its true colors. Now how about that Dateline report on the crash test? Tacoma, worst in its class?? or those doggone headgaskets that just won't go away. A coworker just lost his at about 30K? I thought the problem was "solved"??
  • daniel40daniel40 Member Posts: 34
    Turbodiesels for both trucks. With Chevy coming
    out with a diesel for the S-10 and people start
    figuring out that diesels produce some kick [non-permissible content removed]
    torque and usually last longer then gas engines,
    don't need tune-ups and get great gas mileage
    it won't be hard to figure out what the true
    smart buy will be.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    People stay with gasoline powered engines due to convenience. They like being able to go to any service station and not have to worry if it sells gas. They also like instaneous starts on cold mornings instead of waiting for the glow plugs to warm up. They also prefer a silent gas-powered engine rather than the noisier diesel "clatter."

    I'd be willing to trade these for an efficient, powerful diesel engine in my truck. The direct-injection diesels are only getting more efficient and powerful. Also, the noise level is down substantially. I'd bet that my noisy 4.0L sounds more like a diesel than the TDI diesels in the new VW's.

    Have you also heard that Chevy is introducing an I-6 in their S10 too? One of only two naturally balanced production engines, the other being a V12. They're simple too. A single OHC could be used very effectively, as opposed to 2 cams in an SOHC V6 or 4 cams in a DOHC V6.

    Hmmm... a straight 6 turbo-diesel. That would be something interesting. Now, we're talking semi-truck engine configurations.

    GM does produce some excellent engines, especially given that they still almost exclusively use push-rod designs. Their only problem is with the vehicle surrounding it. They just tend to be so cheeply made. Personally, I don't like their styling (except for Grand Prix's and the offerings from Olds, but styling is subjective).
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Cthompy writes:


    ""I think we all know which truck willlast longer
    for more people."

    Yes, we do. It is the truck that is properly
    maintained."



    And if both trucks are maintained equally? The Tacoma. No question about it. Everything from the gold plated starter on down.
  • sredman1sredman1 Member Posts: 66
    i went to the
    http://carpoint.msn.com/reliability_ratings.asp
    site and was not to suprised to find that the
    ranger definitely held it own against the Tacoma and
    it predecessor in reliability. In fact as far as
    the early nineties go the Ranger seems to be a
    better buy in a used truck..
    compare your self..
    Tacoma:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Toyota/Tacoma/Used.asp

    Toyota truck:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Toyota/Pickup/Used.asp

    Ranger:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/UsedRelOver/Ford/Ranger/Used.asp


    Seems even up as far as reliability goes now.
  • haybhayb Member Posts: 5
    "A SOHC engine will reap the benefits of an OHC design. Who needs to rev a truck up to 6 grand on the tach. These upper reaches are the only areas of improvement for the DOHC over the SOHC"

    I know Ford does not offer the SOHC in a Ranger (yet). I thought we were talking about the SOHC vs DOHC. My mistake.

    Usually higher rpm's translates to better performance. While a flat torque curve is ideal for a work truck, how many people buy a tacoma or ranger for major hauling or towing? (Other than for occasionally pulling the bass boat to the lake of course.) If you did you have a screw loose because neither is really suited for it.

    My point is that 99% of the time most people are unloaded and would prefer a quicker truck for their commute back and forth to work.

    So who wants more rpm's??? I do!
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    So for those that do not go to your URLS, is the summary not the following:

    Toyota P/U 91-95 significant engine problems and brake problems

    Ranger P/U 91-95 moderate engine problems and brake problems?

    Well Cliff, not doubting you but that URL seems to state something other than what you feel.

    Also, the problems I have seen reported on the 4X Ranger center on switches, not vacume lines.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "asp Seems even up as far as reliability goes now"




    HArdly Sredman. Carpoints database is a limited one indeed. Remember the NHSTA link? lol. Do I NEED to post those CURRENT stats again?

    LEt me know and I will.
  • daniel40daniel40 Member Posts: 34
    Inline 6's and Diesels. Well as far as the
    glow plugs warming up, the longest that takes
    is about ten seconds on the coldest mornings.
    The direct injection VW TDI's are pretty much
    silent and are soot-free. And as for the gas
    stations w/o diesel, it really doesn't matter,
    the VW TDI gets 49 m.p.g. highway now I know
    it might be a little less then that in a truck
    but if you fill your gas tank up you would have
    to go to the "diesel station" what? about once
    every oilchange! hahahahaa And for you gassers
    out there an inline six is a great long-lasting
    durable engine. With all these car companies
    putting out SUV's and Trucks with more and more
    H.P. and torque and can't wait to see what the
    future holds.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Sred, I know the stats are good and not only at www.carpoint.msn.com, its all over the net as to how reliable the Ranger truely is. Toyota Tacoma owners just hate to hear it and don't read it either. And once again spoog brings in the NHSTA site but want folks to see a TOTAL number not read each entry for the missing stickers and such and when entries only imply to a certain RAnger build lot.
    I think I am going to put a matching fiberglass top on the back of my Stepside Ranger. After looking at the pictures it looks pretty good.
    We have a pretty good storm going on here in the NW. Dumping lots of snow in the Cascades. Fun time in the Ranger with this stuff.
    One thing nice on the Ranger. When changing oil does the Tacoma have a drip catch beside the oil filter? This is so it doesn't drip all over the exhaust and internals of the truck. Its been a while since I have been in the Supercab vesion Tacoma. Does it have a shield you can pull over in the supercab portion so if you carry stuff you can hide it?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member 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
    longevity:

    (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 Member Posts: 1,102
    Think about the time that your engine is running. Then, compare that to the amount of time your engine spends at high rpm's near redline. You're probably talking less than 1%.

    So, I'll agree that a DOHC design over an SOHC design will be better >1% of the time.



    Now, think about why a manufacturer might put a DOHC engine in a truck.

    Toyota adapted the camry engine to truck use with gearing to save money on R&D and manufacturing costs.

    Ford developed the SOHC V6 for use in trucks and SUV's. The SOHC V6 was not initially made available in the Ranger due to limited production volume.
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    Where did you go? You left the 4Runner vs. Explorer room before I found som really good stuff. You should go back and check it out! (I'll bet you already have and just don't want to post because you know you can't win)
  • daniel40daniel40 Member Posts: 34
    everybody in this board know that the Ranger
    is due for a Redesign in 02' and the Tacoma
    will get redesigned but continue with the
    same engines only to increase output in the
    2.7L. Check it out at Motertrend.com under
    Future Vehicle Forecast.
  • daniel40daniel40 Member Posts: 34
    Motortrend.com
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Thompy writes"

    "Now, think about why a manufacturer might put aDOHC engine in a truck.
    Toyota adapted the camry engine to truck use with
    gearing to save money on R&D and manufacturingcosts."


    NOt true. The 3.4 liter 6 was designed specifically for the early t-100 and Tacoma. WRONG Cthompson. More rumor mongering...how surprising.

    In fact, this is the BIGGEST load of crap I have read YET in this room. Do you just make this stuff up? Take a hike until you can learn to
    seperate fact from fiction.





    "Ford developed the SOHC V6 for use in trucks and
    SUV's. The SOHC V6 was not initially made
    available in the Ranger due to limited productionvolume."



    Well, your HALF right, and HALf wrong. The Ford Explorer V8's are from the mustangs, and vice versa. So actually, FORD uses CAR engines and adjusts the gearing to save money and production costs for trucks.



    lol thompson.

    Even IF the Tacoma 6 was a car engine, it sure is surprising then how it has more max rear wheel torque than the Ranger. Ouch.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Member Posts: 241
    No my Taco does not have a cover to "Hide" stuff in the Xcab. My 94 Ranger did, and it was because the seats were hidden in the side, there for allowing such a configuration.

    Question? Do the 4door Ranger's have that setup? When last looking at one it seems that the rear attached folding seats would be in the way to accomplish this. Also can you use a car seat in the Ranger's Xcab seats?

    Thanks
    -wsn
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    MMC, no I haven't been back to the Explorer vs 4-runner room. All you could keep coming up with is resale and offroad, resale, offroad, resale, offroad. I gave you engine specs, 0-60 times, interior dimensions, available packages, turning radius's, reliabiltiy ratings/repair records and more! I got tired of going round and round in a circle with you. I read what you post or link to but it is obvious you don't read what I refer to. This is the norm for Toyota owners who don't like to hear they actually may have purchased an inferior product for a whole lot of cash.
    New Ranger for 2002! yes, and its going to ensure Ranger keeps its place as the number one compact truck. Outselling Tacoma almost 4 to 1 after 12 years! The 2.7 is a joke, its not HP it needs it torque. When will they learn, torque is what makes a truck not HP.
    And spoog, I would guess Ford did pretty good with the V8 in the Explorer and Mustang. After all 4-runner doesn't even offer a V8 and the Mustang will outrun any Toyota in the same price range! Smart on Fords part.
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    If you read the link I posted (you obviously didn't), you would see that they (4Wheeler) liked the 4Runner better on and off road as well as liking the interior better (I know that's your biggest argument, but it confirms what I've been saying all along-comfort and interiors are subjective). They also said the 4Runner had a BETTER turning radius, was quieter on the highway, better braking, and was within .1 sec 0-60 of the SOHC Ford.

    Oh, yeah. They also praised the 4Runner off-road while they trashed Explorer (vulnerable parts not tucked away, etc)

    Sorry to everyone else here reading this. Vinny won't answer me in the other topic. I know he's lurking, but won't come out.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    I decided a while ago to stop arguing about which truck is better because it is impossible to determine this and even more impossible to change someone else's mind. Hell, I really do like the Ranger in alot of ways but I prefer the Tacoma. To be honest my whole perception of the Ranger is based upon experiences with the 80's Ranger's and Bronco IIs. I know they are not the same vehicles anymore but it is hard to forget my first impression. Well back to the point, in your previous post you claim the Tacoma to be an inferior product. In all of your previous posts you claim your Ranger can do everything a Tacoma can do for less $$. Why compare your Ranger to the Tacoma all this time if in reality it is inferior. It doesn't really make sense.

    P.S. I have driven a v8 Explorer from NC to Colorado and from NC to Boston and am not impressed with the V8, it didn't seem to offer much more then the V6 other then lower gas miledge. I am no fan of the 4-Runner either. I would take a 86 4-Runner over a new one anyday.
    Mustang??? What does that have to do with anything
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Mcbride writes:


    "Oh, yeah. They also praised the 4Runner off-road
    while they trashed Explorer (vulnerable parts nottucked away, etc)"


    This is one of FORDS problems. It is a standard design policy for them to just not care about offroad design philosophy.

    IT is an engineering philosophy all up and down their truck line.


    HEy Mcrbide..what is that 4runner vs explorer link?
  • haybhayb Member Posts: 5
    Sorry, I just disagree. Just because it's a DOHC doesn't mean it's not capable of producing a lot of torque and has no use in a truck. Look at the tundra's 4.7. It stacks up very well against the others (5.3, 5.4, and 360). Truck Trend had a wonderful article if your interested. It shocked me. I believe torque has more to do with engine size and the cam shafts used. But overall, the DOHC is just more efficient. It breathes better. And, if this wasn't important at lower rpm's, why would anyone turbo-charge a diesel??? I simply believe the DOHC has a lot of potential.
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    The link is in the 4Runner vs. Explorer room. If you don't want to go there, look at the 4Wheeler site and look for 4Wheeler of the year '97. It is not perfect, but since neither truck has been mechanically modified (cosmetic only) since, but it is still pretty good.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    I'm sorry for being rude but are you dense? Nobody has said a DOHC design is less at anything especially producing torque. The posts have simply stated that for a truck motor that rarely sees 6000 rpm- much less the 7000 rpm that a DOHC is more capable of -it is a waste of engineering. Any OHC design will have better breathing capabilities than a pushrod design. A DOHC will be able to rev to higher rpm's more efficiently than a SOHC design. When does a truck motor rev to 7000 rpm? I honestly don't mean to slam but that's all that's been said from the beginning. DOHC has no advantage over SOHC in a truck motor.
  • haybhayb Member Posts: 5
    So a more efficient engine that can turn more rpm's and improve performance is a waste of engineering? Gee, what degree do you have??? BBA from the Department of Sanitation? Duh!

    Seems like you regurgitate some magazine ad then translate it to mean whatever is convenient. You can't get your facts straight. Or, you're just to ignorant to get your point across. It gets lost through b/s and technical jargon you obviously don't understand. The argument about rpm's is lame. Give it up.

    The DOHC is a more efficient engine at low rpm's or high rpm's and Toyota has been proving it. Look at the numbers.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    My point is this:

    While a DOHC might be a slightly more powerful engine than a SOHC given everything else equal, the benefits are marginal when it comes to truck applications.

    I believe that a DOHC is the way to go on a high-revving small displacement engine found in a car (especially high output engines), but I wouldn't want this type of engine in a truck. Just give me the simplicity of the SOHC design (2 cams as opposed to 4, less moving parts, less to go wrong with the advantages of an OHC over OHV) and pass on the savings to me in the price of the vehicle. I'd gladly be willing to trade for a few extra horses at 7000rpm. An SOHC I6 would be ideal. It's too bad you can't get one in a truck these days...
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member 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
    longevity:

    (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 Member 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
    versa."

    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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...

    Thanks
    -wsn
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member 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 [non-permissible content removed], 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 Member 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 Member 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 4wheeelr.com 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 4,123
    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 Member Posts: 4,123
    Now,when I mean pushing snow, don't imagine a wall of snow 9ft tall, I mean pushing it at about bumper level.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • chetkongchetkong Member Posts: 1
    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)
  • thesercherthesercher Member Posts: 2
    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.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles