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 - VII
This topic is a continuation of Topic 1813....
Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER -VI. Please continue
these discussions here. Thanks!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER -VI. Please continue
these discussions here. Thanks!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
BTW The Ford Ranger 4x4 in my neck of the woods are higher than in your area by several thousand of dollars. Living in an affluent area I guess the Ford dealers are bring what the market will bear. Rangers are definitely not in vogue over here.
My truck came with some 4x4 value discount of $500 or so. I hadn't seen the discount anywhere, not when doing my research on the net or when talking to either dealer I worked with. Even my salesman was a bit surprised to see it. But, I'm not gonna complain about it. That's an extra $500 in my pocket.
Those prices on the Rangers sounds right about on target providing they don't have every possible option. That price probably includes the $500 college grad discount and the $1500 rebate. You might not get either should you not be a college grad and choose the great financing available.
In the Chicago area Toyota dealers don't deal much at all. It's most likely due to dealer proximity. You'd have to drive 30 minutes to get to the next Toyota dealer. I could probably reach 10 Ford dealerships from my house in 30 minutes. I actually don't see many Tacomas or Tundras around here. Maybe just a couple a week.
Oh, I'm sorry, can't run that in a Tacoma, only the Ranger Flex Fuel vehicle. . .
Sorry Tacoma, must add meaning to the phrase
"Oh what a feeling. . .my wallets light."
By I sure have determined that Tacoma owners have real fancy ATV trailers they park next to the base of the really difficult 4X4 trails. But it is ok, those ATV's they drive can run a bit faster than a Ranger on that difficult trail. No conflict.
Sure would like to see a Tacoma doing something other than holding up an ATV trailer. . .
Also, JD awarded the Toyota plant in Fremont its Gold award.
Not that is balanced commenting!
Forget the Consumer Reports comment about the cheap bed on Tacoma?
I can stand on my bed rails and I weigh around 275
You won't stomp me pal in my Ranger XLT 4x4 4.0 3.73 limited slip diff, offroad pkg, P265x75R16 all terrains and more!@ I have already gone up against one of your beloved, godly Toyota's and the guy thought he would "kick my butt", nope didn't happen.... Loving the Cascade range in my Ranger, see you in the mountains (and deserts of eastern Oregon!
Also what kind of rearend do you have in your Tacoma? can you say OPEN AXLE? That tough Tacoma does pretty piss poor too in crash tests! LOL.....
I bought the Tacoma Prerunner TRD. I go offroad more now than ever before and I've been consistantly suprised by what this truck, with a factory locker can do.
I like Chevy's and Fords, I just personally wouldn't buy one or recommend one.
Just because a web site, Edmunds or Consumer Reports calls a vehile reliable doesn't make it so, across the board. SO all we really have to go by is word of mouth, and what we've seen in the past...
There is a whole 181 lbs of difference between the two trucks, by your logic if you, at 275 lbs were sitting in my truck during this duel my Tacoma would win. I dont think it is that simple. Throw in the locker and it even becomes more complicated.
Yes agree that the shocks hang down a bit on Ranger but they are not below the differential. Personally I do like the Toyota design but your point would be?
Mine has about 10 inches clearance at the shock bottom. That not enough for you?
Well the Tacoma has 9 1/2 inches at the differential, placing the Ranger rear shocks a bit higher than your differential.
"ranger torsion bars--old and weak not to
mention they hng on the lower a -arm and can be
broken by rocks my friends has problems with this"
Oh? As I recall the torsion bars were added in 1998, not old as you say. Also they are around 10 inches above ground level on my truck. Perhaps your friend either has a truck with stock 235 tires or he does not know how to drive to avoid rocks. Mine have never been hit, except the bottom of one torsion bar skid cover.
"tacoma uses 1 peice axel not on a ranger they use three peice.
First, "1 before e except after c"...
I have no idea what your thought is here. Axels usually have 2 pieces, on right, one left with a whole bunch of gears in between. Perhaps you were thinking of the two piece drive shaft? A one piece axel is called a straight axel and I do not think the Tacoma offers one. Not too sure about it's front axel but I think it is a safe bet it has a 2 piece. Any Tacoma owners want to clarify if I am wrong on that point?
"my freind has bought a 99 ranger with the offroad
and it didnt even come with the bigger engine it is so weak and sluggish every time we off road i
stomp his [non-permissible content removed] so hard."
Well the 3.0 engine is not as good a match against the 3.4 as the hp and torque curves are not as good. But it is not that bad an engine. Your friend had the choice to spend an extra 600 bucks for the 4.0 but chose not to. And the alternate choice of a V6 in the Tacoma would be. . .?
As for stomping, did you read that post by mviglianco1 that "...slower is better..." when 4 wheeling? He is a Tacoma owner and is quite correct.
Skid plates, very similar in thickness to the Tacoma, are standard on the off-road models, and can be purchased for about 150 bucks from Ford and are easy to install. The Tacoma plates offer a bit more plate as they curve up about an inch on the fuel tank, a nice touch to slightly protect against cross sliding into a rock.
He has the typical Toyota mentality of "Toyota rules, no questions asked"...
I asked if he knew about the severe limits of his locker only being engaged in 4-low and the 5mph speed limit with the locker. along with the locker only being used in straight away angles and direction.. Hope he enjoys that open axle of that Tacoma, along with the cheap interior and poor crashtest.... Enjoy the sticker!
Checked out alot of cool sites....saw alot of broken down s-10's and Ford Rangers on the highways and byways of this great country.
Also had the privelege of pulling out an Ford Explorer from Wayyyy too much mud.
Was also up in northern Wisconsin. Came across the governors asistant near a remote trout lake. He had a 98 "4wd"Ranger, but the road coninued to the lake. He said his truck wouldnt make it, so I offered him a ride. He threw his belly boat and fly rod in the back, and off we went to the lake.
Came across a fisher(know what that is Cspounser?)
, several loons, a moose, a dozen bald eagles, a dozen osprey, the northern lights, and all kinds of great sites and sounds.
You know, it's funny. Alot of the locals in the the Upper Peninsula drive the old 80's Toyotas with no bed and a wood box for a bed in the back.
I will agree that those earlier models had rust issues. It was just funny to see folks preferring to drive around in a bedless toyota than a Ford Ranger.
Saw alot of Jeeps and Toyotas in the back trails, along with a few full size Chevies. Most of the Fords and Dodge's just cant handle the rougher trails.
Unfortunately, I lost a MONSTER walleye, easily the biggest oneI have ever seen. It hit a musjy spinnerbait! The thing had to be close to 15 pounds.
Got a grand slam in one day.
Caught a brook trout from a local stream, drove ten minutes, caught a northern pike, walleye, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, perch, crappie,(sorry, no musky), then drove to another trout stream and caught a rainbow trout.
Needless to say, it was a great trip. Im looking forward to my trip to S.W. Colorado in August......
Hey Cspounser...give me a mail. Maybe I will swing by and let you "keep up" with me on the trails.......lol.
notice the Tacoma outweights the ranger in every
situation.... ranger shocks hang below axel NOT on
tcoma, ranger torsion bars--old and weak not to
mention they hng on the lower a -arm and can be
broken by rocks my friends has problems with this
NOT on tacoma they use coil overs tacoma uses 1
peice axel not on a ranger they use three peice."
And NOW the folks start to see the reasons for :
A. Higher price
B. Legendary toughness and reliability
and, you know see what happens.
Then we will see if it is HP or TORQUE that
equates to power.
My money is the Ranger which outweighs the Tacoma
will drag that pretty little truck all over the
place."
lol. Here is what may happen:
A. The Ranger's plastic bumper will be ripped off.
B. The Rangers axles will come loose
C. That little Ranger will be dragged around like a rodeo junkie caught on a stirrup.
Seriously Cspounser, get your head out of the clouds. With my locker engaged, and my supercharger, your economy-car/pickup hybrid Ranger will be ripped to shreds and tossed about.
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
WINNER: TOYOTA TACOMA TRD
Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.
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.
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.
After weighing each truck at a commercial scale, we subtract that amount from the factory-rated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) to arrive at an actual maximum payload number. We run track testing with truck beds both empty and with half their calculated payload, this year using 35-pound bags of landscaping rock. In this case, the Ford and Mazda each ran with 16 bags, the Toyota with 18. We think it's valuable to see how each truck performs when carrying a load; that's why they have a bed. For a significant portion of the rest of the test, we run the trucks at half maximum payload. This also allows us to see how mileage is affected, as well as how the engine and chassis react.
At each stage of our test, drivers rotated from truck to truck during a variety of terrain changes--recording comments and scoring each truck as they go.
In the end, each tester scores each truck in 38 different categories with "Mechanical" accounting for 25 percent of the book total;
"Trail Performance" accounting for 30 percent; "Highway Performance" 20 percent; "Interior" 15 percent; and "Exterior" 10 percent. Each logbook accounts for 80 percent of overall scoring, with the remaining 20 percent centered around our nine "Empirical" tests you'll find in chart form: Ground Clearance, Noise at 55 mph, Payload, and so forth.
Finally, we've printed point totals so readers may weight their own "paper test," awarding points for those aspects of a truck they find most valuable. Some may appreciate interior or highway feel more than we have. Change the percentages around and choose your own winner. Of course, that certainly won't be as much fun (or difficult) as running around the countryside with a group of brand new four-bys.
--M. Williams
Copyright © 1999 Petersen Publishing L.L.C. All rights rese
after scanning the article for a while, I found the kicker: "To qualify for Four Wheeler's Pickup Truck of the Year, a truck must be all-new or substantially revised from a previous year." what a crock. how can I possibly believe all the good things this article said about the TRD when the only real reason it won the contest is because it's new? interestingly, here's a list of previous winners:
ALUMNI ROLL CALL: PAST PICKUP TRUCKS OF THE YEAR
1989: Toyota SR5
1990: Mitsubishi Mighty Max
1991: GMC Truck K-2500HD
1992: Dodge Dakota Club Cab
1993: Ford Ranger SuperCab
1994: Chevrolet ZR2
1995: Ford F-250 SC PowerStroke
1996: Toyota Tacoma XtraCab
1997: Dodge Dakota
So Spoog, should I pull out the 1994 article when the ZR2 won pickup truck of the year and rant and rave like a fool about how great the ZR2 is? -and continuously post the article in this forum like you do? If this article is the basis for all your tacoma arguments, then you have ZERO credibility in my opinion. BTW, if the TRD is such a great off-roader, then how come the ranger has better approach/departure angles?
The best thing to do is just ignore and scroll past. The rest of the Toyota guys (excluding spoog's new alter-ego: vinceevildouble or whatever) are reasonable, knowledgeable folk. You can actually converse and debate with them without it turning into some stupid, name-calling flame war.
Just my .02
-C
What the hell is it anyways?
:oD
Spoog didnt our host tell you that you are NOT allowed to cut and paste the whole article.. I believe she told you to LINK it .
I like the post about pulling out all the Fords, nice story... He has yet to post any pics of his so called TRD supercharged... Even after almost a year!!
This article was picked apart 3 rooms ago. It is so flawed its pathetic....
The weather has been a scorcher here in the NW so far about 4 days above 95 degrees. This is warm for these parts... Taking a trip up to MT ST Helens area this weekend and find some trails, lakes and streams to enjoy... I'm sure I'll find a broken down Toyota to tow or see all those pretty Tacoma's parked on the side of the road too afraid to get scratched or dented.... LOL!....
a couple of months ago with 32,000 miles on it.
It now has close to 35,000 and I have been looking
for a truck with a little more power (especially in acceleration!). I am considering (however, one
year older and more miles) a 1995 Tacoma 4WD V6 Ext cab with a Lift kit, larger tires, with 50,000. This model has the power d/l and windows, and sunroof, with 50,000 miles.
I feel that by trading/purchasing this vehicle
over the one I have currently I would be getting a
better deal because I would eventually end up with
a 3.5" suspension lift kit on it, including the
larger tires. What do you think? And also (VERY
IMPORTANT) when I did the 'Appraise This Vehicle'
on Edmunds on MY car, Power Steering was an option. But when I Appraised the vehicle at the dealership, I found no option of the sort. Does the 95 come with the power steering?
The Tacoma I have now is really standard. The one
I am looking into and the one I have now are both
EXTENDED CABS, but the one I have now has no power
d/l, w, mirrors, etc. Please HELP!
One final note; with the supercharger installed,
does the gas mileage decrease? And does it make
that much of a difference in acceleration? What is the price of those usually with installation?
Thanks so much guys.
Time and time again I have provided the sources, facts, and solid data to bury this debate.
The Nhsta stats, the 4wheeler comparison, the Petersons comparison, and on and on and on.
What has Cspounser and Cthompson offered?
They have offered "stories" of Tacomas parked by ORV's.
In fact, Cthompson has not offered one bit of useful information to this debate. He seems to enjoy playing the role the yes-man to Cspounser and Vince.
"yeah, yu' tell em' boss'.....yeah...."
Does the truth hurt that much, spoog?
Personally, I have always thought it to be a bad idea to trade for an older vehicle with more miles.
Have you considered some performance mods to your current truck. An open air filter element and a cat-back exhaust make quite a difference. If you've got an auto-tranny, a Superchip would be a worthwhile investment too. Do you know what your gearing is? If it's really tall, swapping in some lower gearing would make a big difference too.
For a S/C, it's probably around $4000 installed. Your mpg will decrease slightly. It'll bump up hp and torque considerably. The head gasket would be a definite issue before installing a S/C.
Thanks.
The whole point of the 4wheeler OFfroad 98 of the year Comparison is that it puts the Ranger and Tacoma HEAD TO HEAD, hence the SUBJECT of this forum.
The models now are still effectively the same thing as 98, so the test is completely relevant.
As for the Chevy z71, it is probably the best offroading full size pickup. Although Chevy has problems making reliable, durable pickups, they do make better offroaders than the competition in the full size market.
About 15-20 articles that favor the Ranger over the Tacoma, including 2-3 from Edmunds...
eagle63
You hit the nail on the head. Notice the flaws in the article spoog posted such as SAYING the Ranger is offroad equipped but when you read the stats, it could ONLY have been a 3.73 rearend Ranger, that is not the top of the line.
About 15-20 articles that favor the Ranger over the Tacoma, including 2-3 from Edmunds...
eagle63
You hit the nail on the head. Notice the flaws in the article spoog posted such as SAYING the Ranger is offroad equipped but when you read the stats, it could ONLY have been a 3.73 rearend Ranger, that is not the top of the line.
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/wildlife/division/roselake/
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/wildlife/division/roselake/Publications/Species_Diseases/Mammals/fisher.htm
furry little thing
Tent trash, get it right.
I usually take pics of the Tacomas with ATV trailers, un-able/willing to go off road.
But then again, you have never backed up your claims with pictures, not once...
I have.
Going to finish the roll and by next week will have some nice pics or Rangers at play.