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
http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/editorial/mostwanted/2001/01.ford.ranger.html
"We've always considered the Ranger a handsome truck - a crisp new face (new grille, headlights and lower fascia) and deeply creased wheel arches make it even more alluring."
Hmmm, how come the 4 door Tacoma did not make this list? Well, think some of the reasons are the Ranger already HAS the 4 door, has for a few years AND 205-horsepower kind of leaves a 190 hp engined vehicle
at the stop light. . .
"For those who need a small, reliable hauler that embraces the demands of urban living (while making itself at home in the wild), the Ranger offers a satisfying package."
Not sure I am to fond of only getting a slushbox tranny with the new engine...
The new Ranger and Mazda with the 4.0 engine has a towing capacity of 5,900 lb.
Hmmm, more hp, more torque, more towing capacity, more configurations, more standard features for a lower price than the Tacoma.
" Lows: Questionable reliability"
However, when you take quote that spoog referes to in context and more complete you get:
"...questionable reliability of of five-speed automatic. . ."
And go over to Tacoma for 2001 and you get, full quote this time:
"Uncomfortable seats, high prices, aging design, no third or fourth door on Xtracabs."
". . .aging design. . ."
"Oh, what a feeling. . ."
Spoog, figured out yet that if you have shift on the fly into 4X4 high, you more than likely are activating a solinoid, NOT engaging a fully manual transfer case on that Tacoma?
I concede that it is an inovation, the first of it's kind. But Ford leads the way with so much in the Ranger. I do not like it for the following reasons:
1. Results in an undesirable crawl ratio for a 4X4, way too low:
2. If you wack a manual with a rock, you can limp off the mountain. Wack a slush box, your done, tow truck time.
3. Adds weight, lowers mpg.
4. Very expensive to repair vs a manual.
(I had to pick myself off the floor before I could hit the post button on this one.)
I have the manual, floor shifting , solid lever that lets me "shift on the fly".
I still say it is a real shame the ranger does not come with an actual , solid, expensive manual t-case with a nuetral position. tsk, tsk.
list? Well, think some of the reasons are the
Ranger already HAS the 4 door, has for a few years
AND 205-horsepower kind of leaves a 190 hp engined
vehicle
at the stop light. . ."
Actually, the 190 HP Tacoma leaves the 205 hp Ford and 210 Hp s/c Nissan behind at the stoplight. Why ? The Tacoma has the best power-ti-weight ratio, which is why it's the fastest of the group, and faster than many v-8 full size trucks.
list? Well, think some of the reasons are the
Ranger already HAS the 4 door, has for a few years
AND 205-horsepower kind of leaves a 190 hp engined
vehicle
at the stop light. . ."
Actually, the 190 HP Tacoma leaves the 205 hp Ford and 210 HP s/c Nissan behind at the stoplight.
Why? Because the Tacoma has the best power-to-weight ratio, which is why it's the fastest of the group, and faster than many V-8 full size trucks.
Manufacturer ratings are useless.
The S/C Frontier and Cammer Ranger haven't been out long enough for a comparo (at least not one that I'm aware of).
This sounds like wellwishing to me.
BTW, I think that racing trucks is pretty stupid (except maybe a Lightning or a Syclone).
Many sub-20K family/economy cars will out-accelerate any of these trucks, even the "mighty" (chortle...) Supercharged Tacoma (which is a non-production aftermarket truck anyways).
also white faced gauges,4 spoke steering wheel,tweeters in the door panel,better cup holders etc....the interior is alot more luxurious looking than the previous models.The trd model gets the tundra wheels and tires also.
Well, the 4.0 Ford in a Ranger/Mazda does 0-60 in 8.1 seconds.
The Tacoma with the 3.4 does 0-60 in 9.0 seconds.
Somehow, unless you are using the math currently taught in school, 9.0-8.1 leaves a .9 second advantage to the Ranger in the 0-60 statistic.
You think that if you shift, on the fly, up to say 50 mph, and engage a transfer case with out benefit of a clutch, that you are not merely engaging a solinoid, correct?
Don't think it works that way spoog.
Most notable for the '01 Ranger is the availability of the Explorer's 205-horsepower, 4.0-liter SOHC V6. In other engine news, the flexible-fuel feature on the 3.0-liter V6 has been dropped and there will also be a new base 2.3-liter four-cylinder coming soon after the model-year introduction. ABS is now standard on all models. A new Edge trim level has a monochromatic appearance, which includes color-keyed bumpers and wheel lip moldings. Exterior changes are numerous. All models get a new grille, bumpers, and headlamps, while the XLT 4x4 and Edge get a new hood and wheel lip moldings. Four colors are new as well as an in-dash, six-disc CD changer.
1. 2 new engines, on modified engine
2. Standard ABS on every vehicle.
3. New grille, bumpers, headlights, hood.
4. In dash 6 disk CD
Sorry, same crappy cup holders. . .
Most notable for the '01 Ranger is the availability of the Explorer's 205-horsepower, 4.0-liter SOHC V6. In other engine news, the flexible-fuel feature on the 3.0-liter V6 has been dropped and there will also be a new base 2.3-liter four-cylinder coming soon after the model-year introduction. ABS is now standard on all models. A new Edge trim level has a monochromatic appearance, which includes color-keyed bumpers and wheel lip moldings. Exterior changes are numerous. All models get a new grille, bumpers, and headlamps, while the XLT 4x4 and Edge get a new hood and wheel lip moldings. Four colors are new as well as an in-dash, six-disc CD changer.
1. 2 new engines, one modified engine
2. Standard ABS on every vehicle.
3. New grille, bumpers, headlights, hood.
4. In dash 6 disk CD
Sorry, same crappy cup holders. . .
many of you will remember this link, as spoog has posted it a million times.
The Ranger STILL has the highway suspension, still has the lower performance to weight ratio, and STILL has the shock mounts lower than he axles.
Give me a break.
YOu can slapp all the gimmicky crap on a house that you want, but if the foundation is creaky, it will be no good.
" The Ford rattled like a Diamondback offroad"
-Edmunds.com
A stock V-6 Aacoma 5 speed will do 0-60 in 7.8, the auto is almost a second slower, around 8.5. It has been tested by magazines and by owners who know how to drive them at far better than the speeds you quoted. With the TRD supercharger, the 3.4 5 speed will do it 6 seconds flat, although some have tested 5.8 on the track by ignoring the Manufacturer claims are worthless, you're right. Power to weight ratio is a fact, however, not a claim. There are no other "mystical" factors other than gearing for acceleration. All the 2001's have been tested on the track by various redline.
magazines, so it's not too soon to make a comparison.
? WHAT KIND OF MORONS WERE DRIVING ?
A stock V-6 Tacoma 5 speed will do 0-60 in 7.8,
and the auto is almost a second slower, around 8.5. It has been on the track tested by magazines and by owners who know how to drive them at far better than the speeds you quoted. With the TRD supercharger, the 3.4 5 speed will do it 6 seconds flat, although some have tested 5.8 on the track by ignoring the redline. tacoma owners with s/c regulary beat Mustangs and other sports cars at the stoplight.
Manufacturer claims are worthless, you're right.
Power to weight ratio is a fact, however, not a
claim. There are no other "mystical" factors other than gearing for acceleration. All the 2001's have been tested on the track by various
magazines, so it's not too soon to make a
comparison.
I read stories on tacoma message boards all the time about Nissan s/c owners being miffed when they get beat at the stoplight by a Tacoma with 20 less horsepower, just because the Tacoma is 500 pounds lighter.
Nissans are great trucks, nothing against them. Just wanted to clear up some confusions about speed comparisons
Tacoma vs Frontier road test:
http://www.trucktrend.com/feb99/nvt/nvt_f.html
Saw a 2001 Tacoma today, YUCK! the grill looks like somthing off an old Lincoln or Caddy... Toyota Tacoma slips as as far as styling goes. Thank goodness most of you Tacoma owners bought pre -01 models....
other than gearing for acceleration."
Quite the contrary. There are pleanty of factors and they are definately not mystical, just scientific.
Most noteworthy is the engine itself. Cam locations, powerbands, hp, torque, long/short stroke, rpm power peaks. The differences are endless. No two motors are alike.
You've also got rolling and wind resistance. No two vehicles are equal.
Ever think about tires? Did you know that they make a big difference too? Why do you think top fuellers use slicks instead of all-terrain tires? It's traction, man.
There's also power loss through the drivetrain. No two are equal in that respect either. A more efficient drivetrain equals more power to the tires.
There's also the actual weight of the rim/tire. Reduction in weight exponentially increases power to the ground.
Don't forget the flywheel weight. A light flywheel lets the engine spool up faster, which also increases acceleration.
I could go on... But, I think you've got the point now.
comparison."
Comparing two different tests is useless. Unless you run the same two trucks back to back on the same track with the same driver, the numbers are close to meaningless.
There are just too many variables involved for anything but a very "rough" estimation.
They're just that... Stories.
A stock V6 Tacoma can just break 9 seconds in a dash to 60mph. A S/C TRD Tacoma (with no other mods than the $4000 aftermarket supercharger) would be around 7 seconds in that run.
is a great story when they actually only cost around 2800 installed by the dealer!By the way my stock v6 5spd x-cab w/31 inch tires went 16.5 at
the track and adding a charger would surelyv get it into the low 15 second range no problem.
Yeah, but the tested the Ranger at 11.55 and the Mazda at 14.62.
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/specs.html
All of those times are bogus, those guys don't know how to drive stick obviously. All those trucks are quicker than that
write me at yourbestman@hotmail.com
I wouldn't bet anything on you because i know what tacoma's can do...this is my second one and believe me ive done my share of street battles!
"About all of these "stories" about Tacomas
beatings Mustangs and Vipers and Ferarris "
never heard any stories about a Tacoma beating a Viper or ferrari, but a V-6 Mustang ? Happens all the time. A s/c tacoma makes very easy work of it.
accelerates the 3.4 hands down!! What the hell are
you guys thinking? Lets see hear.. 190HP/220ft/lbs
of torque to 205HP/240ft/lbs of torque. The new
Ranger does 0-60 in 8.1 seconds the Tacoma in 8.9..
I don't know where the hell your getting 7.9 for aTacoma? "
Vince, if your Ford data is correct, than at 3658 lbs for that model, the Ford has 17.67 horsepower and 15.36 ft-lbs torque per pound of truck. The Tacoma, at 3515 lbs , 190 hp and 220 ft/lbs torque, for the same V-6 4x4 Xcab, has 18.5 hp and 15.977 ft-lbs of torque per pound of truck.
Does that explain it for you ? 18.5 hp/lb is more than 17.67 hp/lb. Tahts why the tacoma is faster
hope this helps!.....
I can only go from the statistics I have read.
195hp Tacoma, 9.0 sec 0-60
205hp Ranger, 8.1 sec 0-60
Now if we must accept as true the data published in the FourWheeler that spoog posted, what a hundred or so times, then we will accept the Tacoma turning at best the 9 sec 0-60, at worst a bit over 10 seconds.
At ANY rate, that is slower than 8 seconds.
y2k...
So I assume you are suggesting that the Tacoma, being lighter, makes it faster?
Did we not see comments made earlier that the weight of the 2 are almost identical.
You toyota boys just want it both ways I guess.
Sorry, stats show the Tacoma slower than the Ranger. Also y2k, I posted the gear ratios of both vehicles a while back. In regard to the final drive ratio, equate that to acceleration, the Tacoma has a better first gear but is worse in second, third, fourth and fifth gears as compared to the Ranger.
Tacoma has a good first gear and thats about it.
Don't try to give us this crap about hp per pound. That is a real lame argument that DOES NOT take into ANY consideration the gear ratios of the vehicles, torque curves or anything.
Your ignorance is showing rather well right now.
Most ignorant quote:
"Vince, if your Ford data is correct, than at 3658
lbs for that model, the Ford has 17.67 horsepower
and 15.36 ft-lbs torque per pound of truck. The
Tacoma, at 3515 lbs , 190 hp and 220 ft/lbs torque,
for the same V-6 4x4 Xcab, has 18.5 hp and 15.977
ft-lbs of torque per pound of truck.
Does that explain it for you ? 18.5 hp/lb is more
than 17.67 hp/lb. Tahts why the tacoma is faster"
You goof balls, That's 17.6 POUNDS for every horsepower and 18.5 POUNDS per every single horsepower.
Using Toyota owners math the Tacoma would have 3515 horsepower. ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!
The Ranger has LESS weight per H.P. Too rich!!!!!
Let's see, it's 90 degrees out minus 60 MPH =30 divided by 6 cylinders=5........Hey my Tacoma does 0-60 in 5 seconds!!!!
Where in the world are you getting that??? The TRD supercharger costs $3000 for parts alone!!! Just check their website at www.trdusa.com
If you get it for under 4 grand, your're one lucky dog.
You can get a 4L (the old school OHV 4L) into the 15s with only $500 in mods.
Mazda at 14.62."
Keep in mind that they decide to test an AUTOMATIC 4L Ranger and a manual 3L Mazda.
If you really want to post relevant info, post all of the facts.
BTW, it was a manual 3.4L V6 Tacoma.
What happend to your "claimed" 5.8s Tacomas??? Did they run out of gas and aren't able to make it to the track???
Like I said... Stories.
than 17.67 hp/lb. Tahts why the tacoma is faster"
Maybe you should go back and reread that post where I explained about these "mystical" factors that you didn't know existed.
I am reading all over the net the new SOHC 4.0 will out accelerate the Tacoma 3.4. The Ranger will be available in a 5spd matched with its 4.0 in about 6-9 months. The Ranger Adrenalin is supposed to have a Supercharged SOHC 4.0, I wonder how Toyota will match that.
$2800 for a supercharger installed, Bull....!! Nice try though..
What changes have they made to the S/C? Both the first and second gen are rated at 256hp and 267ft/lbs, right?
3rd in the Engine department as far as HP/Torque is
concerned.."
Sorry Pal. I have a factory built Tacoma that has around 250 HP and close to 300 torque.
Not only that, but with a manual transmission. This is all warrantied with the rest of the vehicle.
The actual truck was built in a factory. The aftermarket, dealer installed S/C was not. It's an aftermarket part. Or do you consider Saleen S281s and S351s to be "factory built" Mustangs? How about AMG E55s? Are those "factory built" Benz's? And Lingenfelter Vettes? They all come with warranties too.
FYI, a S/C 3.4L V6 has 256hp and 267ft/lbs of torque (per TRD).
If you throw enough money at it, a tuner can make anything quick.