Tacoma -vs Ranger 2019 sales figures...it aint pretty

When you say Taco 3.5 is about 0.95 and the 4.0 is 1.4, what exactly is a "0.95" or "1.4"? Is this your own personal rating system or is this some sort of common knowledge about these engines that I don't follow or understand?

 

Ratio of torque to HP.

 

I looked at the Ranger before I chose the Tacoma. The Ranger didn't make sense. A "hyped up" 4cyl trying to compete with a medium performance 6cyl doesn't make sense to me. Ford has made good v6's for how many years?? Why not offer that as an option? To ridiculous for me.

 

When I went to check out rangers they didnt have anything on the lots. The ones they did have were listed with insane prices $40k+. This doesn't surprise me at all.

I'd go back and take a look but I got all sorts of other life shit going on so I dont really have the time atm.

The one I test drove was nice. The engine and transmission were as they should be. The steering felt a little "numb".

 

Cool story bro...







JK, lol

 

He is doing it wrong. Explorer w/4.0 0-60 is 11.1 seconds. Bigger engine making less power doesn't equate to a more lively driving experience

Tacoma is 7.1 seconds.

 

My 95 was good as well. I was rough on it too.

 

So how does the torque to HP ratio determine drivability? Which is more driveable the 3.5L Taco at 0.95 or the 4L at 1.4?

 

I wasn't the person to make the comment on drive-ability, but the general consensus is the broader the power band (engines with lots of torque), the higher the drive-ability. It isn't all encompassing though because a 3rd gen taco drives a hell of a lot better than an old ranger.

 

I owned a small turbocharged 4 banger for awhile (1.4L Hyundai) , factory maintenance called for 5k oil changes. The dealer mechanic told me this was due to the turbo, the engine runs very rich with fuel before warming up which reduces the engine oil's longevity so more frequent oil changes were necessary.

https://www.designnews.com/electron...bo-engines-reliable-long-term/210258542158513

This article states:

“And the jury is still out on how these small-displacement turbos will do at 150,000 or 200,000 miles.”

"Fisher said Toyota hasn’t adopted small-displacement turbocharged engines on its high-volume products for good reason. “Whenever you add complexity, you add potential areas of failure,” he told us. “And a turbocharged engine is more complex. It has more stuff going on than you’d have with a normally-aspirated engine.”

"Toyota, long known for its caution in adopting new technology, has been slow to pick up on small-displacement turbos, as well as nine-and ten-speed transmissions and Apple CarPlay infotainment systems."

"Cole noted that he knows of no durability issues with small-displacement turbos but he added that Toyota is “smart” to take the conservative route to reliability. “At higher speeds, your smaller engine is working harder than a bigger engine would work,” he said, referring to the small-displacement turbo."


I will take Toyota's V6s or 4 cylinders over the Ranger's turbo'd 4 cylinder every time. I agree with Toyota's stance on such subject.

 

I would think the weight of the trucks and the gear ratios would also have to somehow be factored in to make any sense of that.

 

I am not sure what the ratio of torque to hp has to do with anything. My Trans Am is ~.94 (395/419, both at the rear wheels) and I promise it drives NOTHING like my Tacoma.

 

yeah its not an accurate way to measure anything. if anything dividing weight/max hp will net you a better idea of how a car/truck can feel.

 

I drove the new Ranger, honestly it was very comfortable and the power train was excellent. They both have their pros and cons, but I think it’s a very nice truck. Also I have been around alot of Ford work trucks. Most were very durable. No hate from me on the new Ranger.

 

Here in central Arkansas, loads of Tacoma’s and Frontiers. Fair number of Colorado’s, and I don’t know that I’ve ever seen the GMC mid size or a new Ranger.

Arkansas is a popular state with retirees, they seem to come in two types. Extreme tightwads who buy 4 cylinder Frontiers with crank windows, because they are the cheapest pickup available. On the other end of the Spectrum, high end Ridgelines are common, and LOTs of TRD Tacomas. King Rach Fords, Texas Edition, and other high dollar full size trucks are very common too. All this is my assumption of them being retired by the gray/white hair (like mine) and where they live.

 

I’m with you on no turbos. Have you looked at available engines on the F-150? They have the 3.5 liter Eco Boost, people like the motor, especially for towing, but I know of at least two friends who bought them and have already replaced turbos.

And the engine that Ford is really pushing for the F-150 is a 2.7 liter Eco Boost turbo. Sorry but turbo or not, a 2.7L is not enough motor for a full size pickup.

 

Hyundai..... that was your first mistake

 

I love competition, the consumer always wins. It’s why Toyota made improvements to the 2020 Tacoma.

The new Ranger is a rare bird in my neck of the woods. I like the looks except the stink bug stance in the rear.

 

The ranger doing good can only force Toyota to up their game.

 

They had their share of issues, especially in the early 4.6's as well. The ranger is fine, go ask anyone on the ranger forum.