Last post on Oct 02, 2002 at 3:10 PM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger
#1495 of 1840 I'm getting lost in all the "XLT, XL, Edge..." styles, but
Aug 26, 2002 (12:37 pm)
here's what I dug up:
2002 Ford Ranger Compact Extended Cab Truck
4dr SuperCab XLT Appearance 2WD Styleside SB (4.0L 6cyl 5A), weight 3313 lbs.
2002 Toyota Tacoma Compact Extended Cab Truck
2dr Xtracab PreRunner V6 2WD SB (3.4L 6cyl 4A), weight 3355.
Are the above two not comparable? The 2 suicide doors on a Ranger don't add any weight to it.
For a 4WD models:
2003 Ford Ranger Compact Extended Cab Truck
4dr SuperCab XLT FX4 Off-Road 4WD Styleside SB (4.0L 6cyl 5M) at 3584 lbs.
2002 Toyota Tacoma Compact Extended Cab Truck
2dr Xtracab V6 4WD SB (3.4L 6cyl 5M) at 3515 lbs.
So......where exactly am I going wrong?
As for driving a Ranger offroad: we ran into one this weekend. Beater truck, dents everywhere. It seems both trucks are easily damaged when you hit them against rocks.
Aug 26, 2002 (1:37 pm)
Your advice to Scorp- "go drive a Ranger off-road, then you'll see what I mean by "more solidly built". No comment on the flexing doors I see".
I agree with you that the Tacoma has thinner doors etc., however, if Scorp takes your advice he'll pick the Tacoma as it definitely has a much more solid feel off-road. Unless, of course, your opinion of "solidly built" means the truck that sways and squeeks the most.
My Ford is a 98 and I'll concede that the new ones may be a bit better however.
#1497 of 1840 Yes it's hard to compare, but to analyse:
Aug 26, 2002 (1:56 pm)
The weight off edmunds.com quotes, especially since it lists many of the same models as having the same weight, is hard to bring it down to an strict apple vs apple comparison. Unless someone wants to weigh in every variant, we might want to take the simplest versions of the quotes we have available and run with it. The original quote of mine, of the 2 base models on either side, amounts to around 330 lbs difference. Extended cabs/Xtra cabs, 4wd drivetrains and suspension, doors, automatic transmissions, etc, only add to that amount, not subtract.
My best conclusions on the data above is that the underlying vehicles are close, but the Ranger is heavier(~330 lbs).
With all the goodies mentioned above by Scorpio, both vehicles are much more similar in weight, give or take 70-80 pounds depending on how you pick the models.
What does this prove? Mostly that Tacoma's options (4x4 components, xtra cab, etc) are heavier than the Ranger equivalent.
Of course Ford fans can say the Ranger is just stronger to begin with, but the Toyota fans will say the Ranger has "weaker" optional equipment.
Truth is weight has little to do with it. 100 pounds of gold is much weaker than 100 pounds of steel. However how do we compare two steel alloys under 2 different design, manufacturing and building methods?
Shall we look at the crash statistics/ratings?
Aug 26, 2002 (3:18 pm)
Yeah...but from which company? NHTSA or IIHS?
As for weights: base weights are different because of all the standard features of Ranger. Ever try to lift an ABS controller? It's at least 30 lbs. Piece by piece, the extra weight adds up.
The crash ratings don't matter much when there isn't any underlying skeletal structure: Saab puts titanium bars (or at least used to) along the doors and body to reinforce them. Does this influence crash tests? Yes. Does the actual body material make their crash tests 5-star? Not really. It's all about whats' underneath.
#1499 of 1840 It is all about what's underneath
Aug 26, 2002 (8:03 pm)
According to the insurance organizations, (IIHS) Tacoma and Ranger are about equal (even though I see a lot more red under Tacoma.) Overall it is a tie.
NHTSA.gov - No contest. 4 star Ranger all the way across, 3 star Tacoma. Oops Sorry, passenger side frontal impact has 4 stars, but the rest is 3 star.
What is interesting is the Ranger Electric has a 5 star rating.
As for weights, Dead issue. You can not proove anything, either way. But we do have crash statistics. One tie (IIHS) and one point for Ranger (NHTSA) means what? Crashes are practical applications of rigid/stronger structures, are they not?
Aug 26, 2002 (8:30 pm)
that FX4-phase 2 or whatever is a bunch of ford crap.
i see what they are doing, and i cant believe toyota guys didn't see this or at least comment on it. the phase 2 FX4 is just last years FX4, it's just that now they're calling the regular XLT ranger with the off-road pkg. an FX4 now. all the stuff mentioned in the phase 2 is identical to last years FX4 ranger, the original. words like "hardcore" are just marketing ploys to sell. it's just the same as last year. and ive already told you guys that the only real thing the FX4 has over a regular off-road ranger is tires, bilstein shocks, and a rear tow hook. add in the manual t/c if you opt for the stick. why the HECK don't they introduce a darn crew cab and call it a day. so stupid. isn't this convo getting old? jeez, it's been almost a year since ive come on here and it's the same old thing.
#1501 of 1840 I saw that, but didn' wanna comment on it
Aug 27, 2002 (4:36 am)
But it does have bucket seats with extra side bolstering, hehe. Is that sonic blue color the same as you had on your truck tbunder? What is the ebony trim stuff they talk about?
Aug 27, 2002 (6:30 am)
what "KO" stands for on the BFG tires. that was sorta cool....
Aug 27, 2002 (9:04 am)
Cool, so the Phase 2 FX4 is an FX4 that doesn't fall apart in the parking lot. Good for Ford. Now it may be worth buying.