By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Simply put. There is no comparison. It doesn't matter how high it sits or big its tires are. It seems as if you're looking at ride comfort driving down a gravel road. Any decent 4wd truck can get to places that you'd need to check the helicopter option box for the 2wd truck to meet it there.
A 2wd truck with an open axle is just a car with terrible traction and lots of room for hauling stuff. (no offense to 2wd truck owners, to each his own)
I'm not quite sure where all of this TRD option package stuff came into the discussion.
It seems Ford contaced 7 people who post on the Ford Ranger boards, flew them to Dearborn and sat them down with Ford designers and engineers. They were asked, "What is right, what needs to change."
They also were taken to the Ford proving grounds and I gather were allowed to see and maybe drive the new Rangers and other Fords.
In the very near future for the Ranger:
1. V8, maybe smaller than the Mustang.
2. Full offroad suspension.
3. Full 4 doors like the smaller Dodge PU.
Interesting reading off http://www.fordranger.com
A 2wd truck is also lighter in the rearend, noway, in your dreams will a any 2wd truck, TRD or not ourperform a 4x4 truck.. And as much as you Toyota boys don't like it, the TRD is an OPEN AXLE and is VERY limited in where you can actually use it.
As far as the TRD package, for over 90 percent of buyers its for looks only. For the extra 3-5K, why not take the difference and go on a nice vacation??
AK, you own a stock Ranger, I have expressed over and over again the tires on the Ranger are a joke. The Firejunkers are only a 4ply and the tread pattern is in no way made for offroad. I changed my tires after 1 time in the Cascades. I was slipping and spinning, throwing rock everywhere. Once I changed to a serious all terrain tire it totally changed the way the truck behaved.
I really don't want to get into a Ford bashing session because I like the Ford CT and it's a capable truck. The stock truck could use a little more height and a taller, stiffer suspension for off-road though. I just get annoyed when people act like the TRD doesn't have any advantage over a standard truck and repeat the same false garbage, word for word, over and over again. That's why I made my comments in the first place.
As far as quality, I've had my share of problems with Fords but I think they're the best American built vehicle. My sister owns a 96 Mustang and may change my mind though. She's had a lot of catastrophic failures that are very common, and extremely poorly designed with that vehicle. Last week her intake manifold cracked in the middle of nowhere. Turns out that on the V8's, it's made of plastic and cracking is common after a few years according to the dealer. She had a tortion bar snap a year ago which is also common to the mustang. The list goes on. If Ford starts designing all of their vehicles like this in the future, it will be no wonder that they're cheaper. I really don't know if the Toyota is as high Quality as the reputation holds so we'll see. If it is, it is certainly worth the extra money to me.
do the math that comes out to one Ford truck every
2.25 years. I think it's time I buy a Toyota so I
don't have to keep buying Ford's. Oh, and I forgot
to mention that my transmission failed on my last
Ranger at 50,000 miles, and I've had my F-150
recalled twice. Like I said...decent, good looking
trucks, they just don't last. \\
Great post Glock. Welcome to your new Tacoma.
Now you are a driving a MACHINE....not some couch with wheels on it........
Maybe next time you will have a truck designed for offroad use to back you up. To bad you don't.
Last winter I got around just fine. And no, I wont take my 2WD off road, I'm not into that stuff.
Look, I have gone over this many a time. The locker is very limited in its every day use. What about the 5mph limit Toyota recommends? You must ENGAGE the locker in 4low... Anyone of us knows that most of use use our 4x4's probably 90 percent on pavement and on highways. Maybe some of us 80 percent.. like me.... I would say maybe 20 percent of my time is spent in the mountains with my Ranger... The whole point is you are paying one heck of a lot of dough to use a locker maybe 3% of your driving time?? The Ranger is the best all around vehicle for most people. The LSD is much better than an open axle....
You might actually want to pick an off-road pkg Ranger for an off-road comparison. Duh, 4wheeler. And, Ford has made suspension tweaks each year since '98. Oh yeah, the '01 model is receiving some upgrades too.
I must correct cthompson. My Ranger is about 1/2 inch of the actual clearance of a Tacoma TRD. I have measured both, Tacoma at about 9 3/4, my Ranger at about 9 1/4.
Tell you what, why don't you show up at the east enterance to the Medano pass road off Colo 69 about 25 miles south of Westcliffe, Co over the weekend of the 4th of July or the 8th/9th. Pick the date and time, I will be there. I am organizing a trip for about 4-5 Ranger's, one 94 Toyota and a Mazda (credit to xen1a) for a little jaunt over a 2 10,000 ft 4X4 roads rated 4 and 3 in difficulty. Have had a request from a guy that went up Blanca pass in his Ranger, a road where some of the rocks you cross require you to settle down on the skids and get pulled accross.
See if you can keep up or just sit back and watch my Ranger climb. You may, no, you WILL be surprised.
If you cannot make it, you will see the pictures of the Ranger's on the Ranger Station home page a week or so afterwards.
4X4 Power, July 2000, pages 40-45.
"Ford's compact Ranger pickup...have proven to be hardworking turcks over the years. They lend themselves to many modifications and have the right diminsions to do well on the trail."
The article is a very good history of the Ranger and what you can and what people have done with them.
Also, Four Wheeler has had numerious articles on Ranger and MAzda, all favorable. For an unknown reason on on often cited article they chose to compare a bottom line Ranger against a top of the line Tacoma. They Ranger owners have allready picked that article clean in it's errors regarding Ranger.
When I offroad, it is really not a RACE to the top nor do I care if it takes me 5 min longer than say a Jeep.
It's that fact I have wheels to get me there and it was reasonably inexpensive on the front end.
1998 Ford Pickup Ranger Splash Super Cab 4D
Engine: V6 4.0 Liter
Trans: 5 Speed Manual
Drive: 4 Wheel Drive
Mileage: 35,000
Equipment: Off Road Pkg Air Conditioning Power Steering AM/FM Stereo Dual Air Bags ABS (4-Wheel)
Retail Value $18,130
http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.ur?kbb;821142&;r&40&3;TT;D6
1998 Toyota Tacoma Xtra Cab
Engine: V6 3.4 Liter
Trans: 5 Speed Manual
Drive: 4 Wheel Drive
Mileage: 35,000
Equipment: Air Conditioning Power Steering
AM/FM Stereo Dual Air Bags ABS (4-Wheel)
Retail Value $17,495
Is not $17,495 LESS than $18,130?
Care to comment spoog?
following in the footsteps of its close relative, the '98 Ranger adopted many of the mechanical modifications incorporated into the Explorer two years earlier. Among the biggest changes include an entirely new double A-arm front suspension with light-duty torsion bars. The new IFS, combined with an all-new rack-and-pinion steering setup (which offers its own steering fluid cooler), won high praises from our testers over our 800-mile test. Specifically, the Ranger scor ed well in Highway Performance categories that centered around maneuverability and long-distance cruising. Testers noted the new steering proved especially quick to react in tight-chicane situations. No doubt about it: This new Ranger out-handles, out-ste ers and out-corners any Ranger before. By a mile.
We would characterize the drivetrain, specifically the transmission, as biased for highway performance as well. All 4.0-liter Rangers (and Mazdas, for that matter) ordered without the manual tranny get the first five-speed automatic transmission offer ed for any pickup. Our testers split over the need and/or usefulness of a mileage-biased transmission geared for empty-load flatland running. Those in favor noted the nearly seamless transitions from one gear to the next, and how the transmission itself c ould, if the vehicle was driven right--no jackrabbit leadfoot starts--tack on another 50,000 miles of life to the engine.
On the trail, we found the automatic transmission to be a double-edged sword. The smoothness of the First-to-Second shift, combined with the inherent low-end grunt of the engine, was almost enough to overcome the taller gearing. And in the end, voting followed individual preferences for manuals versus automatics. Two testers noted both the manual transmissions (Mazda and Toyota) felt more "in control" on the twisty low-range trails of Truckhaven, where face-down compression braking was very helpful o n steep-trail crawling. In low-range, our automatic Ranger offered a rather delicate 22.8:1 crawl ratio (First x axle gear x low-range); the Mazda and Toyota offered 34.4:1 and 40.4:1 gearing, respectively.
Likewise, where the stiffened front suspension cleanly handled all paved-road obstacles thrown in its path, the Ford IFS had trouble keeping up with the broken terrain of dry washes, hill climbs, and washboards. Admittedly, it is a rare vehicle that c an manage all the extremes with equal aplomb, but several testers commented that the Ford liked to spring a little bit quicker (and hop higher) off the rolling whoop-de-doos. For the most part, we found the sacrificed off-highway capability to be greater than the gained on-highway performance, and for that reason it didn't score well in the parts of our test that are most heavily-weighted; however, that isn't to say testers weren't squabbling among themselves to get into the Ranger for the highway drives up the mountain.
Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up.
Like any good four wheeler, we found the Ford Ranger could do several things quite well, scoring highly in On-Road Ride and Handling and Interior Comfort. To us, the new Ranger is a nice-looking, comfortable truck that is easy to drive and easy to own . And it's made in plants with a reputation for quality. But the Pickup Truck of the Year has to do it all pretty damn well, and it has to be great off-highway. And so we introduce our 1998 winner.
Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running.
As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/ptoty.html
It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.
Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year.
Ford's 4.0-liter overhead-valve V-6 gave our Regular Cab Ranger plenty of off-the-line motivation with 168 lb.-ft. of rear-wheel torque at 2500 rpm. Mazda's 3.0-liter/five-speed manual transmission gave the Regular Cab B-truck the slowest 0-60 time, but the best fuel economy of the group. Although 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.
The Ford five-lug 8.8-inch rearend comes standard with the 4.0-lite/five-speed auto combo. Leaf springs and 3.73:1 axle gears are rated to carry 1,180 pounds. Mazda's 7.5-inch rearend is standard with the 3.0-liter V-6. Not surprisingly, our ride-quality vastly improved with 12 bags of landscape rock in the compact's bed.
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.
FORD & MAZDA TOYOTA
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.
The new Pulse-Vacuum Hub (PVH) used exclusively on compact Fords and Mazdas allows for true in-cab-controlled shift-on-the-fly capability.
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.
2. Beats Ranger in every single performance category
3. Better breaking
4. Better standard payload
5. Better standar towing
6. BEtter acceleration
7. Better resale value
8. Better reliability, fit and finish
9. Offers features the Ranger's and FORD just don't offer.
10. Better transmission
11. Better engine
12. Better standard tires
Thats a heck of a list. Face it gang, it's the better truck, hands down.
"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. "
Sorry that Toyota options up its vehicles to the tune of $2-3K.
Not the article that spoog cites, again, compares apples to oranges. Ranger owners have pointed that out time and again.
You do notice tha spoog, again, fails to answer direct questions.
He spoog, whatcha doing up at 1:43AM Eastern time doing battle with me on the internet? Nothing better to do? Famrers fields full of cows so you can't take a Tacoma out to the flat field and go "Vooommm, vooomm." dreaming of the Rockies?
Take a look at the photos of these parts of the Tacoma, Ranger and Mazda. lol. Look at the brakes. Looks like the Ford has EScort brakes going there. Notice the 6 lug setup on the Tacoma, verse the 5 on the Ranger......
It's the little things that add up......
Same boring 3 year old stuff. Even when it was just out it didn't compare similar vehicles. It's about as relevant as Seattle grunge bands.
BTW, staking your ENTIRE argument to a SINGLE review is pretty sad. I wouldn't even do it if the Ranger was chosen. It's just some stupid article written by a few guys who drove the trucks around for a coupla days.
Also, it's somebody else's opinion. Can't you think for yourself?
Equal equipped vehicles:
http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.ur?kbb;001855&;r&40&2;FT;G7
1999 Ford Pickup Ranger Super Cab 2D
Engine: V6 4.0 Liter
Trans: 5 Speed Manual
Drive: 4 Wheel Drive
Mileage: 10,000
Equipment Off Road Pkg XLT Air Conditioning Power Steering AM/FM Stereo Dual Air Bags
ABS (4-Wheel)
Retail Value $19,090
http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.ur?kbb;571012&;r&40&2;TT;D6
1999 Toyota Tacoma Xtra Cab
Engine: V6 3.4 Liter
Trans: 5 Speed Manual
Drive: 4 Wheel Drive
Mileage: 10,000
Equipment Air Conditioning Power Steering AM/FM Stereo Dual Air Bags ABS (4-Wheel)
Retail Value $19,210
By your right, there is $120 difference. But was the initial outlay in excess of $2000 more?
I KNOW that to be true as I priced both vehicles when I was shopping.
Oh BTW, Edmunds rates 2 areas on the vehicles, performance and comfort. The ratings are as follows:
Performance Comfort
Tacoma 7.2 7.0
Ranger 7.0 7.8
Slight win for Tacoma in performance, big win for Ranger in comfort.
They are both good vehicles but the OBJECTIVE statistics show that Tacoma is not $2-4K better.
Still notice that spoog fails to answer direct questions?
Vince8 (also applies to spoog): If you've said it a million times before, spare us and dont say it again. We all know exactly what you are going to say as soon as we see your name.
If you have to worry about 1/2 inch, which you cannot see that amount of difference from the cab, you should not be there. . .
Plus my frame is thicker than a Tacoma and according to government tests, I can take more of ha side impact hit.
Bigger, thicker beefier.
A complaint of mine against Ford. Build a 4X4 you should have skid plates. However, as I recall, my 1971 landcruiser did not have factory skids.
Most manufacturers do supply them, some do not.
Why should someone pay for an option they don't want? Maybe this is why the Tacoma is so damn expensive... You have to buy the whole enchilada instead of just the options you want.
KKB is a tool for the general consumer in determining a ballpark figure of trade/retail value of a used vehicle. There are a huge amount of factors to consider too, which is why it's only ballpark.
CQ Convenience Package (All Except Limited)
Includes tachometer, digital clock, lighting package and LCD twin tripmeter. NOT AVAILABLE with TA, TW, OF.
$365 $440
OF TRD Offroad Package (4WD X-Cab Except Limited)encludes Off-Road suspension, aluminum wheels, wheel arch moldings, tires: 31x10.5R15, black overfenders, rear differential lock, tachometer and badging. REQUIRES FD. NOT AVAILABLE with TA, AL, ST, DL, KX, CQ.
$1,337 $1,660
The tach is a very important device in setting your rpm to take advantage of the max torque or hp of the engine.(Hmmm maybe we found the problem area on the headgasket issue on the 3.4 engine, over reving)
Tachometer is standard on ALL 4WD Rangers.