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

13567…10

Comments

  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Why don't you give us the years you're talking about on these interchangeable brakes?

    You just lost whatever credibility you had....again.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Hind, about payload,... I notice you failed to mention the optional payload package from Ford for the RAnger? Why? or its cost when comparing the cost of a TRD? Why? Tell the WHOLE truth please next time.....
    I have 26K original miles on my brakes.. I will check them this weekend...
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    It was taken directly from Edmunds a source that you like to quote. Hope you enjoy those seats. Check out the long term Ranger road test.

    BTW Since you have a Ranger I guess it would be in your interest to check them out.
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    In one of the magazines when comparing several compact pickup trucks (4x4) it was noted that the brakes on the Ranger would lock up prematurely when offroading. I guess that would wear the brakes down a bit especially when your foot is on the gas. Is that a form of a locker?
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "I guess that would wear the brakes
    down a bit especially when your foot is on the gas.
    Is that a form of a locker"



    lol!!!!!!
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    You do not have the crash rating. . .
    http://www.msnbc.com/local/king/650.asp

    Built Ford Tough. . .since Mazda is a rebadged Ford. . .
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well, a large amount of the test of that Ranger is in LA where brakes are used a lot. . .also explains the low mpg.

    On the seats, well, differing opinions, however, you may remember that Consumer Reports and Edmunds rates the Tacoma seats worse than Ranger's. But depends on what your use to. If you drive a BMW, yep the Ranger seats would seem hard.

    Man, hit by a train doing 79 mph and you walk away from it. . .

    That is one tough truck. . .
  • mpruittmpruitt Member Posts: 18
    I have a 2000 B3000, 2wd, manual, Cab+4 with 2700 miles. I have owned a Toyota truck, a Camry and two 4Runners.

    The niggling little problems I've had already with the Mazda/Ford are causing me to think again. I hope this is not an expensive "oops" for me. I can't afford lessons like this. I didn't have any thoughts like this with less than 3000 miles on any of my Toyota products.

    All I'm really wanting is a wish for good luck from the group...
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    As much as the Ranger owners hate to admit it, the Toyota maintains a considerable quality advantage. On the other hand, as much as the Toyota owners hate to admit it, you pay for it up front with the Toyota so it may not be worth it to some. I own both and though the Toyota (which is only six months old so hard to really judge) seems to be less problem prone so far, I've had fairly good luck with the Ford so far (about 2.5 years old).
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I finally got to see a supercharged Tacoma and it was pretty impressive. I see why you're jazzed Spoog. Considering the fact that it's an aftermarket device with a full factory warranty, and that the supercharger will not increase your insurance rates as a result, it's pretty appealing. What you'd save in insurance cost over buying a vehicle with a factory installed blower or turbo i.e., the Ford Lightning, is noteworthy if you're looking for balls out power in a truck. The Ford 4.0 in a Ranger will be impressive too but I wonder if the insurance rates will be adjusted accordingly like cars are with performance engines.
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    Payload is an option? So is the 4x4 option with skid plates. Those are all standard in the Taco.
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    That long term Ranger was not in LA for a majority of the time. In fact the brakes were done in Detroit unless that is a part of LA I have never heard about.

    There is no proof that the Taco 4x4 with do any worse than the Ranger in the side impact test. Can you provide a link that directly indicates that the 4x4 Taco and not the 2wd Taco is not crash worthy? Talk is cheap . . . now lets see the proof.
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    Good luck with your truck. Realistically I never had good luck and any Ford product.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Cspounser writes:



    "Well, a large amount of the test of that Ranger is
    in LA where brakes are used a lot. . .also
    explains the low mpg."



    lol!!!

    As opposed to Chicago, where the breaks aren't used! lol!
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I don't hear the warranty mentioned much but I wonder how many Ranger buyers purchase the extended warranty for $1,200 or so. The Tacoma has two more years of powertrain warranty than Ranger which makes up some of that cost differential. That brings the Tacoma to only about $1,500 more than a similar Ranger here in So. California.
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    I had a 99 ford lightning, insurance costs are no different than a regular F150 the only part of insurance that is more expensive is fire and theft,for the record 99 lightnings were going for $30205. resale with 15000 miles is close to $36000.Don't think you can do that with a supercharged toyota.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    That's interesting but perhaps the insurance companies don't have a category for the truck yet. I saw that happen with the Taurus SHO for the first year but most insurance companies began charging more and rating it a performance vehicle after that. The truck may be holding resale value well because they're in demand and rare but I doubt that you can get a new one for less than a used one. If there's an extremely long waiting list then I may buy that. That happened with the Miata and the new Beetle but changed quickly when the supply increased.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I was just reading some reviews of the Lightning and although it is very fast for a truck, the people claiming that it is the fastest, and best handling vehicle they've ever experienced are pure boneheads. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an impressive truck and has amazing skid pad numbers for a truck, but there are many cars in the same price range that will eat it alive on a track. Let's agree that it's an amazing truck, however, let's not forget that it's a truck trying to emulate a car for street performance. I wouldn't mind owning one but I wouldn't expect to out perform most performance cars.
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    It is a great truck and you can get a new one for less than some used 99's.Maybe because it was a 1st year 2nd generation lightning.I was able to exit the highway at speeds over 80 miles an hour I wouldn't recommend it but it was fun on occasion.The 2001.5 lightning will have 375 HP and 460lbs tourque,the current has 360 with 440.If you look at what your getting for the price it is a steal.The engine and supecharger alone are probably worth over $10,000.If you go on to F150 online there is a lightning topic and there is an owner in Germany who outperforms all sorts of vehicles on the autobahn.It is an extremely great truck and well worth $30,000.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "Payload is an option? So is the 4x4 option with
    skid plates. Those are all standard in the Taco."

    Why pay for something you don't want/need?

    I still don't understand the "this or that comes standard" argument. It seems quite the opposite to me.

    I'd rather be able to pick and choose each individual option to customize the truck that best fits my needs. Throwing everything together in a bundle is not better. You're still paying for each option. This is the reason I didn't buy the Mazda B-Series truck, as its option choices are limited to packages. I wasn't able to configure one to my exact preferences.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "Why pay for something you don't want/need?

    I still don't understand the "this or that comes
    standard" argument. It seems quite the opposite to
    me.

    I'd rather be able to pick and choose each
    individual option to customize the truck that best
    fits my needs. Throwing everything together in a
    bundle is not better. You're still paying for each
    option. This is the reason I didn't buy the Mazda
    B-Series truck, as its option choices are limited
    to packages. I wasn't able to configure one to my
    exact preferences. "



    This says alot about the design philosophy of the company. Toyota won't sell a 4x4 without standard skid plates and a good payload.

    It speaks volumes.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    c'mon spoog! Is a supercharger the only way you can outperform other trucks?? and when it's a factory supercharger, it's probably a band-aid. tell you what spoog, I'll go throw a supercharger on my engine and then we'll compare apples to apples.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    As coincidence would have it, I saw a new Lightning at a Mustang show today. It's a nice looking vehicle and I have to admit I was tempted to trade in my TRD for one. The Fit and finish was very good. When I started thinking about the practicality of the truck, however, I calmed myself down. It is really almost a car with the wide, Corvette like tires and lowered suspension. You have a truck bed but I doubt that many would use the Lightning as a work truck and it would do terrible off the highway. It would be a cool extra vehicle for weekend drives but impractical as a truck. Too bad Ford doesn't have the confidence to give it more than a three year warranty too.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Thing is you can throw a supercharger on yours but Chevy won't stand behind it with a five year warranty like Toyota does. You still own a vehicle produced by a company rated one of the lowest in quality. I'll give you that the JD Powers initial quality ratings on the S-10 are improving but the jury's still out on the overall long term quality. Personally I doubt if it will be good from past experience but we'll have to see.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "It speaks volumes."


    Exactly. It says:

    Pay us! You don't want it? We don't care! Pay us anyways!



    Of course, reasoning is useless with someone who paid 27K for a "performance" truck that can't even outrun many "family" vehicles costing thousands less.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I test drove a Lightning a few weeks back. The performance was incredible. Handling was decent [for a truck].

    But, you're right. It just isn't quite practical.

    It's almost there for me. It would easily tow my sleds. Winter driving wouldn't be too bad with some snows and a few hundred lbs in the bed (it's already got the traction-lok LSD). It's just the mpg and jump in insurance that would get me. Plus, no matter how good a 2wd truck is, it's just never gonna be better in snow and the like than a 4wd truck.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    It would be a nice extra vehicle though wouldn't it. If you had one where you live you'd have to ace the tires though as they didn't look like they'd have any snow traction.
  • drakondrakon Member Posts: 1
    The Ford Lighting is a fast truck with average handling. There is a little too much body roll because of the trucks high center of gravity. Another problem people have with the Lightning is a loud cracking noise in the suspension when the steering wheel is fully turned, possibly due to the steering stabilizers. Also, good luck driving this truck with slightly worn tires. It's disgusting. You can keep the wheels on the ground, and may God help you in the rain.
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    The lightning is very impracticle and that is why I don't have one anymore,but If I was ever to buy a second vehicle like a sports car the lightning would be my choice.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Once again, you insert foot into mouth.


    "Of course, reasoning is useless with someone who
    paid 27K for a "performance" truck that can't even
    outrun many "family" vehicles costing thousands
    less."

    I paid 24 for my truck, and it IS a performance truck that will take any other stock pickup OFFROAD.

    It is a serious, serious, performance MACHINE.
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    I don't know what you are talking about,but think about this,any vehicle foreign or domestic is nothing but a destructive asset depreciating in value on a daily basis,you'll never get what you invest back unless your an investor and buy collecter's or rare vehicles.A good full size truck can make money but an offroad supercharged does nothing but cost money,that same payment you are making on your truck could probably cover a mortgage on a 2 or 3 family in some parts of this country.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    The fact that Toyota supports the supercharger is a nice perk, I'll definitely agree. -but why don't they just make a more powerful engine to begin with...? my biggest beef with most toyotas is that they are underpowered. offering a factory supported and warrantied supercharger is a nice, but expensive band-aid to an engine that needs to be retired. The 4-runner is another fine truck that is losing the engine war to its competition, especially with the Pathfinder's new V-6 that puts out 240 hp.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    Just curious, what do you guys think of the new Chevy Avalanche??



    --Spoog, you won't take a ZR2 offroad. It too is a serious performance machine.
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    All I hear about Toyotas is that they are underpowered. What about the Ranger? The current Tacoma is more powerful than the Ranger and the SOHC, while a very good engine, is not head and shoulders above the Toyota V6, as you all would like us to think. I own a '98 4Runner SR5 and extensively drove the '00 Explorer with the SOHC (almost bought it for my wife, but that's a different story). Yes, the SOHC is faster (not by that much, but by a bit) in a drag race, but in everyday driving, they are remarkably similar in all respects (highway passing, acceleration from a stop, etc.).

    If Toyota V6's are underpowered, so are Ford's. Period.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Sorry, but that S/C ain't gonna help you a damn bit off-road. It's just gonna be 50lbs of dead weight.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I believe the bulk of the complaints of the Taco's lack of power comes from a low amount of torque at low engine rpm. However, it does have plenty of horsepower at high rpm.

    The current OHV 4L has pleanty of torque at very low rpm. However, it lacks upper end horsepower. The SOHC engine has the low end and adds the high end.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    So. Calif right?

    Just been reading how a large number of current 4X4 trails will be closed soon with this roadless initiative.

    23 % of the existing 4X4 roads in the Rio Grande National Forest in Colo will close including most in the La Gratia area. Hayden pass is not now maintained with the goal to put it back to nature. Too bad, a great, challenging 10,700 ft pass, used by Indians and settlers on the western expansion. Wonder how many 4 wheelers will have accidents, get injured or worse until then.

    I took the Ranger over Hayden twice this weekend, and twice over Medano. Very loose shale on the west approach, about a 35-45 degree climb, going around boulders. On the east, very uneven loose rocks, water damage not being repaired. An ATV flipped in front of me when it got sideways coming up towards me. Me and the other drivers of Ranges behind me pulled it off him.

    Hayden is going to claim a life in this un-needed effort to reclaim a trail that has been used for hundreds of years.

    Medano will not close, but the sand area, 8 miles from the bottom of the pass to the Sand Dunes park will be closed. So effectively, you travel the pass, then you have to go back over it.

    Didn't someone on here say no existing roads would be closed?

    That is not true.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    One 95 3.0 coming up Hayden, and the other off the side of Colo Hwy 96, on it's side, a brand new TRD.

    Police were saying its locker may have engaged at 40-50 mph and spun it off the road.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    ORV's will still be permitted in the roadless areas. Better get your facts straight hillbilly.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Oh.....that Charger is useful for many things. I have the increedible torque and punch to get me out of mud slicks and other rough spots.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    I will post the URL's that state that certain areas will be totally closed to off-road vehicles, chain saws, and mountain bikes.

    If you happen to be on US 85 through Villa Grove Colo, stop at the sandwich shop near the Amoco gas station, talk to the outfitter that is being put out of business due to the closure of Hayden pass and the La Gratia area. I talked to him before I traversed Hayden.
    Also, due to the fact that the Forest Service is NOT, I repeat NOT maintaining Hayden, and WILL NOT, I repeat WILL NOT allow ANYONE to maintain it, TRY and negotiate that pass. It is very bad and getting worse. Eroded road where water water is cutting it. The map you posted befor if you click on the area of Hayden, VERY CLEARLY states it is part of the 23% of the Rio Grande NF that will become unroaded.

    Read the fine print of a cause before you champion it. You are loosing 60 million acres of land currently open to off-road vehicles, be it a TRD or a Ranger. The current roads WILL NOT BE MAINTAINED and are intended to be RETURNED TO NATURE.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    you are only loosing 2% of that forest down in So Ill. But an additional 2%, and all esisting roads in the designated 2%, will become unroaded.

    Again, read all the fine print before you champion a cause.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Better take the trails in the San Juans this year in your Tacoma, many of the popular trails may be closed next year due to the unroaded law that it appears will become an executive order vs being voted upon by elected officials.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    Lets hear your argument for the ZR2. You have yet to give anything to back your claims about the ZR2. Is it the body lift? That is the only thing it has.
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    Yeah, but the SOHC is a lot like the current Toyota engine. The Toy has 220 ft lb of torque at 3600 rpm. That's pretty good. I don't know that much about torque curves, etc., but my seat of the pants feel tells me that the vast majority of that is available around 2k-2500 rpm's. How is it any different than Ford's SOHC? Remember, the Fords (both Explorer and Ranger) are heavier than the Toyotas, negating much of the increase in hp and torque.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Sorry pal, no roads are being closed. The Roadless Initiative is protecting ROADLESS areas. No roads are being shut down.

    And ORV's WILL be permitted in the roadless areas, plain and simple. The USFS Roadless Deiss clarifies that.

    And for what it's worth, Roadless areas and intact, pristine ecosystems bring in far more dollars than logging or other extractive activities. NOt to mention they can be SUSTAINED.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    NO one is "losing forests". We are GAINING forests. WE have been LOSING forests for years under the corporate welfare logging system in the NAtional Forests. IT's about time to protect what is left. Again, ORV's such as quads and snow machines WILL be permitted in protected areas.

    LEts look at i t realistically Cspousner, instead of reading the "facts" from the logging-mining backed Blue Ribbon Coalition(if you like, I will provide you a link FOMR THEIR SITE showing exactly what their goals are).


    How can we "lose access" in an area that never had roads in it to began with? lol.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    of the existing roads in Nat. forests will be decommissioned or placed in a non-maintained state, that means not maintained by Govt or private off-road groups.

    In excess of 300,000 miles of current roads in National forests will be
    CLOSED.

    You said no roads would be closed.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    forest would be lost.

    I said access will be denined unless, like Hayden pass, you are willing to walk 5 miles accross sage fields, then 8 miles up, with a 3000+ft elev change to 10,700 ft high, over paths falling off the mountain due to erosion and over the boulders blocking your path.

    For hundreds of years these trails were maitained and used by our great-great grandfathers, Indians and current hunters/outdoorsmen.

    The animals will suffer due to no regulation by hunting, trees will spread pine beetles and die out and thousands will be put out of a livelyhood.

    All gone, over 70% of the access roads closed. With rare exception, the only roads open will be to low level campsites, the class 1 no challenge dirt roads.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Do you not read the data you post beyond the intro headlines?

    Read the data, overlay the maps you provided with your favorite 4X4 trails and SEE they will be closed.

    I did, and they will be closed.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles