Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I guess I'm fuzzy on the LSD/Locker debate myself. If you drive in the sticks, it's good. If all you have to deal with is snow on pavement and light trail useage, they're as useless as a huntin' dog in heat (to coin my GrandDad).
TRD is for driving in the sticks. So you may ask whether to get it or not? See the above rule, otherwise you're just getting a pretty sticker for you truck IMHO.
John
"Interesting thought. I've been a fan of Ivan for many years. However I also understand that the Toyota trucks he races are as similar to the Tacoma as Jeff Gordons NASCAR race car is to the Taurus.. "
Did this slip by everyone or was this on purpose? Jeff Gordon drives a "Chevrolet Monte Carlo" so it had better not have anything in common with a Taurus! I realize NASCAR's are purpose built racing machines with no stock parts, but lets at least get what they are pretending to drive correct. Since I pointed this out my truck (Ranger) is best! Nyah nyah!!!!!!
Your right, Jeff is a chevy dude.. I can't believe the edmunds spell checker didn't catch that mistake
Now that I think about it.. I bet the NASCAR Taurus and Monte Carllo have more in common than Ivans truck to the Tacoma..
I'm suprised Socrates didn't catch this sooner..
The Socrates one-liner is my vote of best quote of the whole thread thus far..
Hey gang - the gig is up. The Tacoma TRD beat a HUMMER, JEEP, and RANGE ROVER offroad!
Get it yet? IS it sinking in yet? I don't think it would sink in if you folks were in quicksand.
" The toyota Tacoma is the uiltimate 4x4, PERIOD"
- fourwheeler magazine, may issue, 2001
Check out the behind the scenes video of the comparison as well. Man this is great stuff.
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.
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.
( sung to the melody of "Take It Easy". by the Eagles.
Well i'm a running down the road trying to loosen my load
Got a hood blocking my sight
Looking for the shoulder, trying to pull over, but I can't see no light
Take it iiiiiiiiinnnnn
Take it iiinnnnnnnnnn
Take that Ranger to the dealer once again....
You can run and you can drive, but the ranger starter is now fried
So just hand over the keys to the service worker, and
take it iiiinnnnnnn
take it innnnnnn
take that ranger to the dealer once again
Unfortunately, for my country, the "best", in terms of transmission reliability goes to the Toyota pickup, fourrunner, and minivan (Although the Cienna has not been out long, it is based on the Camry, which has proven to be quite a reliable drivetrain). Again, the Toyotas seem to go, often in excess of 150,000 miles, without automatic transmission failure. In addition, when considering a sport utility vehicle, the Honda Passport can be a wise choice.
If I had to choose an American minitruck, or sport utility, or minivan, I would choose GM. The S10/S15 trucks and blazers, and the Astro Van, come with the 4L60E transmission, which is not designed for towing, but is adequate for what these trucks are designed for. These transmissions can be expected to last to around the 100k mile mark, if not used severely.
Ford's AeroStar Van, Ranger pickup, and Bronco II, hold up reasonably well, with many of their transmissions failing at, or around the 80,000 mile mark.
Chrysler's minivan line uses the same transmission as the Chrysler cars... My mother always taught me that "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all...", so I will not say anything about these vehicles. The "mid-sized" Dodge Dakota comes with the 500, or 518 transmission, which has more than it's share of problems, with failures often seen, in our shop, at, or around 60,000 miles.
Summary
It is my opinion that, in terms of automatic transmission reliability, the Toyota minitruck and fourrunner line is the way to go, with the Honda Passport also being a good choice. Again, as in the "car section", I would avoid the more obscure vehicles, like Izusu, Mazda, Nissan, etc. because, although they seem to have a better reliability record than the U.S. made minitrucks, minivans, and sport utility vehicles, they suffer from a low resale value, as compared to the Toyotas, and Hondas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3: Full-sized trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles
In terms of sport utility vehicles, I believe, hands down, that the Toyota Landcruiser (and it's Lexus equivelant) would be my first choice; these vehicles seem to consistantly last over 150,000 miles before requiring transmission service. The Chevy Tahoe/Suburban is reasonable, in terms of transmission reliability, offering around 100k of trouble-free miles.
As full-sized trucks, and vans, are concerned, the GM truck line seems to be, by far, more reliable, in the automatic transmission department. The 1/2 ton trucks are equipped with the 4L60E, which is not really designed for towing, but, then again, either is a 1/2 ton truck; expect these transmissions to offer around 100k of trouble free miles, unless you use your truck for towing. The 3/4 ton GM trucks use the 4L80E, which seems to be, by far, more reliable, for towing, than the 4L60E; I would not be afraid to tow with a 4L80E transmission. Although the Toyota T100 is considered "full-sized", you may want to sit in it, before assuming it is "full-sized"; if you can put up with the size, and the lack of "real towing capacity", the T100 is quite reliable, and would be my first choice for a mid-sized delivery truck.
If you plan on buying a Ford, or a Chrysler full-sized truck, van, or full-sized sport utility, get to know a good transmission technician....The Fords have been having more than their fair share of problems with their 4R70W transmission (electronic version of the AOD, which did not hold up well, either), with many torque converter shudder problems being reported as early as 20,000 miles, but more typically, at 40,000-50,000 miles. The same service bulletin applies, as mentioned in the "cars" section above. The E40D transmission, although being better, in many ways, than the 4R70W, also has it's share of problems, and although Ford has improved the E40D tremendously, I do not believe it is perfected, with many, many, many E40D's, failing at, or around the 75,000 mile mark. The Chrysler full-sized trucks, and vans happen to be the most overrated trucks on the market, again, in my opinion. The 518/618 transmission has been a real money-maker for transmission shops, with many, many, of these transmissions failing more than once, through the life of the manufacture's warrantee. It is not, at all, uncommon for us to see many 1997 Chrysler trucks, with very low mileage, in a given month, all getting rebuilt transmissions. Between you and me, I would not want to pay $30,000+ dollars for a truck, knowing that I would be battling transmission problems, for the lifetime of the vehicle. Transmission failures vary, with Chrysler full-sized trucks (We have one now, that failed at 4200 miles.... Not 42,000, mind you....), but typically, we see transmission failure around 40,000-60,000 miles.
Summary
Again, if I needed a full-sized sport utitlity vehicle, I would choose the LandCruiser/Lexus, over the Chevy Blazer, Tahoe, or Suburban, although they can be reasonably reliable too. I would choose a GM full-sized truck, before a Ford or a Chrysler, and would choose a 3/4 ton GM truck if I were planning on towing, at all. I believe that the engineers may have a good sense of humor when they set "towing capacities" on their 1/2 ton trucks, and would not consider towing any trailer over 1000 lbs. with any 1/2 ton GM truck, because I do not believe that the 4L60E is designed for it; this is not a heat problem, but rather a "hard part" problem when the 4L60E fails, so I do not believe that a cooler will help in this case. If you are set on buying a Ford, or Chrysler full-sized truck, I suggest buying a used one, because with all of the transmission problems they have had, you should be able to find plenty of people willing to give you a "good deal" on a relatively new truck, because of the problems they have already experienced.
- Dana Carvey as Johnny Carson
'Written by Ken Bachellerie. Copyright © 1997. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form, without permission from the author.'
It would appear that the article is 4 years old.. Not that it makes Ken's opinion invalid, just stale.
I guess it is good that I prefer manual trannys. (like the folks of the 4x4 mags you posted earlier where they compared the Ranger automatic with low rear end gear ratio to the Tundra manual tranny with high rear end gear ratio).
On the articles from 97-98, might be a good indication of that time period only. (but I don't think you have permission from the author?)
Anybody have some type of logical comparison to show? Or maybe the real answer here is to amass all the ranger guys and all the tacoma guys for a big destruction derby... last truck moving is the pronounced victor.
What do you do, just copy and paste every post?
I think the whole NASCAR thing is a big crock! I think they should race STOCK CARS (that is what the "SC" stands for. I saw some old footage of 60's STOCK CAR racing, and it was pretty neat. I bet you'd see the manufacturers doing something different if they had to race STOCK CARS. I am sure there would be power, safety, mileage, and numerous mechanical improvements. Also, this would address the area of them going so fast, and maybe they could reduce or eliminate restrictors. Then again, they would be fuel injected, so that becomes a non-issue. They should be able to remove the muffler (keep stock piping) and put on safety nets, fire extinguishers, and better tires (stock size) and that is it. I am sure the leaders would be different than they are now. What do you all think? Write NASCAR and tell them the same.
To keep this on subject, they could do the same with the NASCAR truck series. Maybe do a mini truck series including Ranger and Tacoma. I wonder who would win that one?
:-)
On the other hand, my truck (with my wannabe NASCAR driver wife) knocked a 3" diameter tree out of the ground before spinning it into a road sign. All it did was crack the foglight valance.
At least this incident and a couple of spills off of her snowmobile this winter seem to have calmed down her driving habits a bit.
Those guys should be racing factory cars at Daytona too!!! Tell me you wouldn't see a whole new rejuvination in the industry as the manufacturer wars renew!!!
I think racing should go back to its roots. This would also have the side effect of letting the "average Joe" (and Joesephine!!!) get in on the action with their showroom vehicles. May the best driver (and vehicle, and company) win, not a battle of technology, engineers, and pit crews!!!!!
Write NASCAR and tell them!!! http://www.nascar.com/ (I think)
And this is good because.......
This reminds me of some of the consumer mentality stuff I learned back in my marketing classes.
I do have to say that Toyota is 10X the advertiser that Ford is. There are probably Taco owners who think they can break the 10 minute mark on the Pikes Peak Climb driving their truck backwards. But, let's not forget that there are probably 4cyl Ranger owners out there who think their trucks can tow 15,000lbs worth of cattle trailer.
I've gotta say that the best auto ad on TV these days is for the Scooby WRX. Everytime I see that commercial, I wanna jump thru the screen and steal that car!
Without a major shake-up somewhere, we're stuck with the current "stock" cars.
http://www.consumerreports.org/Categories/CarsTrucks/Reports/0104rei0.html
V8 + small truck===go fast.
And I agree with the Not A Stock Car, A Racer argument, get a production vehicle, put in a roll cage and race. Then I would watch.
But for their overall ratings this what they siad: The Ranger and similar Mazda B-Series are our top-rated compact pickups overall. But this category has few winners to choose from. And even these two never let you forget you're in a truck. Handling is fairly good, though the ride is stiff. The 3.0-liter V6 is competent; a more-powerful overhead-camshaft V6 has replaced the 4.0-liter pushrod engine for 2001. The front seats are too low. Extended-cab models offer four doors, but the rear seat is fit for cargo only. For a crew-cab version, look at the Explorer Sport Trac. A new 2.3-liter, 140-hp Four is also available.
This unimpressive compact pickup sticks out among Toyota's excellent offerings. Strengths include an optional 3.4-liter, 190-hp V6 that's responsive, along with excellent displays and typical Toyota reliabilty. But handling is clumsy, and the ride is choppy. The front seats are also uncomfortable, and the forward-facing rear seats in extended-cab models are useless for adults. For 2001, the Tacoma got a minor facelift and a new crew-cab version, which has a short bed and four full-sized doors. Antilock brakes may be hard to find.
Do you guys get the hint that the people at consumer reports just don't like compact pick-ups. If it handles like a truck then it is not good to own! what???? Even though the Tacoma had "typical Toyota Reliability" it rides like a truck. What sense does this make? The Ranger was their overall pick, but it reminds you that you are in a truck? What kind of [non-permissible content removed] test drive these things?
If a truck doesn't ride like a truck, then it's not a truck. Duh.
-smgilles-
Consumer Reports doesn't like anything that gets less than 40 mpg. I trust their opinions on toasters and microwaves, but definitely not vehicles.
As far as their reviews, I was under the impression that most of their material comes from consumer feedback (hence their name).
I agree that they need to evaluate a truck as a truck, however. It would be like saying:
"We were disappointed that the Ferrari 360 Modena didn't come with a trailering option package. It also seems to lack the capability to haul cargo and/or pull large trailers. In retrospect we think that an additional 4x4 system and beefier tires would have been a plus."
It's fantastic.
Go to the site, click on "ultimate 4x4 test", then click on the film. Fantastic!
Nice arguement "Tacoma is just better than Ranger" "You cannot afford a Tacoma so had to settle for a Ranger" LOL!! How about Ranger owners are just smarter and spend or invest their money on other items, and we don't need "image" or the sticker stating "TRD".
I notice noone has commented on checking under a Ranger and Tacoma side by side. One big hint, you can see why the TAcoma folds in a crash test! LOL!! Enjoy the Tinoda! Enjoy your pretty sticker
"I notice noone has commented on checking under a Ranger and Tacoma side by side. One big hint, you can see why the TAcoma folds in a crash test! LOL!! Enjoy the Tinoda! Enjoy your pretty sticker."
1. How do you check under a Ranger and a Taco, "side by side"?
2. If I did, how would that help determine why the Rangers do better in crash tests.
3. I don't think the Taco is made out of tin.
4. I hate the sticker actually.
Also, I'm not sure if anyone else has looked but apparently the crash test ratings were for the most part done with a 4X2 model. The 4X4, thanks to a beefier suspension, puts the frame (the strongest part of the car) at impact level with most cars. Unless you run into a train, you will live.
1. Ranger has 8 cross members on it's ladder frame, Tacoma has 5. Implied is strength.
2. The Tacoma frame rails are about 1/2 smaller top to bottem than the Ranger frame rails.
3. The door on a Ranger appears thicker and I know, from people that remove them, they weigh a ton. This would support why the side impact rating of a Ranger is much higher than Tacoma.
4. The Ranger out-weighs a Tacoma by 100-150 lb. There is more mass to the vehicle.
5. The front bumper on a Tacoma appear lighter duty as compared to a Ranger. I can give first hand knowledge of hitting a Stratus at 3mpg in a parking lot, taking out the fender, light, hood, bumper of it, only denting my hitch cover and a slight bend upward of my bumper. $2K+ on the Stratus, nothing on mine.
6. While I have seen, but not measured, the axle assembly seems larger on a Ranger. In line with this, the ring gear on the rear differential of a Ranger 4 liter is 8.8 inches, the Tacoma is either a 7.5 or 8 inch. The additional size of a Ranger ring gear adds about 30% more strength.
We were talking about performance, and he mentioned that the new engine would have more horsepower than the '94. He then mentioned that the Tacoma would weigh 500 pounds less than an equivalent '94, also improving performance.
However, he neglected to mention what had been removed to achieve that 500 pound savings, although we did discuss de-contenting and its effect on weight.
Given the Tacoma's poor side impact ratings, I think we know where SOME of that 500 pounds was removed, don't we?
Quit your whining, everybody, you've never had it better!
-so, put it in 4-lo and engage the locker. you'll pull that boat right out. depending on the size of the boat, you should probably be using 4-lo anyway.
1. I was not aware of this and assume you are correct.
2. Same. I'll assume you are correct.
3. The doors from a 84 Olds are huge and weigh a ton. That doesn't mean that they are adequate for an impact. To my knowledge, the weight and/or thickness of the door is very insignificant compared the grade strenght of the aluminum rebar in the door.
4. 100 - 150lbs in weight could mean the Ranger has a heavier transmission or any of a number of things. An Acura Integra is 2/3 the weight of either truck and has better crash test ratings.
5. I was re-ended while in my Toyota. The other car was totaled. My bumper had a dent.
6. I'll assume you are correct again.
Also, regarding the "very potent" 4.0 power plant in the Ranger. I don't understand what the big hype is about. And the comments about it leaving the Tacoma's V6 in the dust, yeah right. Has anyone looked into the power-to-weight ratio for both trucks? Apparently not, because the Tacoma's numbers are better than the Ranger's power-to weight ratio.
Thanks CP, took the words right out of my mouth, I was going to type the same thing about cross members and door strengths. And, once again I guess if you own a Toyota Tacoma 4x4 you get to choose what hits you! LOL! The argument that its a 4x2 or 4x4 doesn't hold up..
Round and round we go. LSD is much more useful than a locker. As much as you want to argue a mute point. Once again, the locker can only be engaged in 4low, Can you go up to 40MPH in 4low? Why would you want to tow in 4x4 mode? Try going around a sharp corner or turning sharp with your locker engaged.. Just face it Toyota boys, you have a 1 wheel drive truck!
Go there and search on the word
sand.
I thought this said it was a prerunner with a TRD package.
ebbgreatdane:
Good points, lots more metal in them thar 84 Olds 98's
The 98 and up Ranger 4X4 supercabs do indeed have 3 more frame rails than a Tacoma extracab. A bit better strength.
rmacias:
Good points. But if you look at the difference in the physical size/thickness of the Tacoma vs Ranger door, there is quite a difference.
As said before, both are good vehicles. It is just that Ranger worked for my needs better than a Tacoma.
When you are reading about the 4x2 Tacoma, read about the 2002 "new" Explorer Sport, sounds like 'built Ford tough' just like everything else they build, bulletproof! Yeah Right!
To my knowledge, a properly equipped Tacoma will haul 5000 lbs. behind it, or 3/4 ton in it.
How about the Ranger?
Best ranger for hauling/towing:
4door supercab xlt 4x4 4.0L:
can haul 1580lbs and tow 5620.
Best tacoma for hauling/towing:
2door xtracab prerunner 4x2 3.4L
can haul 1749 and tow 5000. (more haul, less tow than the ranger listed above)
Best comparable tacoma to the ranger above(4x4)
2door xtracab v6 4wd 3.4l
can haul 1589 and tow 5000 (9lbs more haul, 620lbs less tow than the ranger listed above)
Seems like they are very similar..
If you want a 4x4, Ranger seems to have a slight advantage (trading 9lbs hauling for 620lbs towing)
If you prefer a 4x2, the Tacoma prerunner seems to have the advantage using the stats here on Edmunds, although here on edmunds the Ranger Edge 4x2 lists towing capacities with the 3.0L.. I'd bet with the 4.0L the capacity would go up some and be comparable to the prerunner.
Well no [non-permissible content removed]. It is a semi afterall, not for the quarter mile, it's for the long haul (with tons of cargo)
Also if you're counting posts, you probably should only count the posts that are problems, not people chit-chatting or offering solutions to previous problems.
macias said "Also, regarding the "very potent" 4.0 power plant in the Ranger. I don't understand what the big hype is about. And the comments about it leaving the Tacoma's V6 in the dust, yeah right."
Test drive two regular cab's, V6's, with 5 speed manual. See which one has more grunt. The ranger 4.0l outperforms the 3.4l. Vince says it best. Can you even find a regular cab with a v6, toyota fans?
Steelman--->Rangers are too good for you. Better stick with your costly imports. Just make sure to let those new rangers pass you on the freeway...
It's my opinion that the Tacoma is a better truck. I was going to list the reasons why but it's less important than the fact that my perception sku'd. And you know why? My '85 Toyota has lasted me 16 years and I like the way the damn Tacoma looks.
Has anyone had their Ranger since '85 or earlier? If you have, you probably feel same way I do and it would be the hardest sell any salesman made to change my mind otherwise.