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

Actually attractive. I honestly find the Chevy Colorado to be more attractive than the Tacoma and in fact sat at a Chevy dealer for a hot minute but couldn't pull the trigger. It was a much better value (on paper) at least.

The Ranger, not so much. The tail lights look weird and it's just too little, too late for Ford, who abandoned the market completely.

When I do get that Dakota, though, I'm gonna set up my email alerts here so I can come back constantly and tell you guys how wrong you are, and how happy and regret- free with my new wife--err, truck.

 

I owned a Colorado Z71, like the style.. had a transmission problem that they had to keep it for a week to fix (but they new it was an issue so no hassle getting it fixed), however the reason I got rid of it was the seats... I did a 2k round trip in it and could barely walk afterwards... sold it the next day.

 

The cops I watch is a local show I'm always looking to see relatives and friends. One time a neighbor of mine was on there because his wife caught him jacking off in front of his computer so she hit him in the head with a beer can.

 

I would rather Toyota put the 4.6 V8 in the Tacoma.

 

While we're dreaming, I'd like a pony too.

 

A twin-turbo 2.7L would outperform that 4.6 V8.. I am not Noise > Performance, that makes no sense.

 

Didn't say it wouldn't.
But I would still rather have a super reliable V8 that would perform great, sound like an actual truck and be way easier to work on/maintain.

 

If Ford can make a rock solid Twin-Turbo V6 that is super reliable, performs great, gets great gas mileage, and easy to work/maintain I am sure Toyota can do it.... or get Ford's help

Sounding good? I think the current v6 sounds good, my F150 2.7L sounded a lot worse then the Tacoma's but then.. I am driving it not hanging out the window trying to hear it..

 

I would love a v8 or turbo diesel just for off-roading nice having the big power for big tires and off-road. I’d prefer v8 just for reliability of N/A! Oh a boy can dream! But do love watching the videos of our brothers in Australia with the turbo diesels just for fuel economy and instant torque.

 

I do not get why N/A is assumed more reliable then Turbo? Turbo's have been in road vehicles since the 1950's. Cheap older turbo engines in production cars had issues... because cheap.. what do you expect, however the modern turbo engines have been extremely reliable.

Old does not mean better, just means old.

 

I’m not saying turbo isn’t reliable but any mechanic or engineer will say a turbo vs NA engine the NA should outlast the turbo. And I’m not against turbo by any means I have a 200,000km turbo 4 banger and still runs fine no engine issues. But all and all a N/A engine should outlast in the long run. Not to say it always happens like that.

and I do plan to OVT TT my Tacoma eventually!

 

Exactly: all things being equal, a NA engine is less stressed and has fewer parts. That's not to take way from what Ford and Honda are doing with their turbocharged engines--they make them pretty well (though the CRV has had some issues). But if I'm buying an F150, I'm getting the NA V8. And if I'm buying a Honda, I'm getting the NA model (if it's even available, which it increasingly isn't), which might force me to buy an ugly assed Camry.

The turbocharged engine on the Ranger would be the reason it would have been LAST on my list. Behind the Tacoma, behind the Colorado, and even behind the Frontier.

 

Realistically, look how long a turbo will last in a diesel engine. I've seen 12v Dodge Cummins trucks on the original turbo at half a million miles. The turbo in itself doesn't reduce reliability, building the engine to a specific point does. Every manufacturer out there can overbuild an engine to last 400k - the point is that most vehicles can't physically last that long so the added expense isn't remotely worth the investment.

All else equal, yes, a turbo will add stress and kill the engine sooner but this is generally why they specifically build turbo engines differently instead of slapping one on a standard NA engine. The 2.3L Ranger engine isn't the exact same block as the 2.3L that was in the Mazda 3 and Focus - it's specifically engineered for the task.

 

I can't decide if I agree or disagree with you. That Cummins WAS overbuilt and WAS at a premium price point. Thus, you can go that many miles on it. There's no way the average Accord turbo or F150 eco-boost engine is built to the same standard.

I'm not a mechanic or an engineer so maybe I don't know squat. But it seems to me fewer parts is better than more parts, and less stress is better than more stress. These turbos seem to be a response to the EPA/CAFE regulations. I had a TDI and yes I loved the diesel/turbo response--I get it, they are torquey and they are a hoot.

 

But that's really my point. Turbo vs NA isn't really the debate here, it's how properly built the engine is. You can build to a price point and you can build both to last 400K. The turbo is an additional point of failure no doubt but the longevity of the engine, barring turbo failure that chucks an impeller into the intake, is not the defining factor so much as the quality of materials and engineering.

Some vehicles like the LC80/100 were built to last for decades. Typical "quality" vehicles are built to last about 15 years, cheap vehicles about 10 - the Land Cruiser is engineered to last around 25 years according to Toyota. Modern tech is a million times better than it was in the 80's and yet, there's still thousands of 80-series out there on their original engines at 250K+ simply because it's a vehicle that was intentionally overbuilt. We can easily accomplish the same thing, we choose not to because 90% of the market isn't the type to buy something and keep it 20 years.

Dealerships care about initial sale and maybe the 3-5 year resale. Beyond that they are out of the market so why build a vehicle that puts you at a disadvantage where you are selling?

 

This is what I was trying to say... Turbo's have been used in semi trucks since around the 60's and they average 1 million miles on an engine. Yes they are diesel and yes they are expensive, but they are built to last. Any mechanical machine can be made cheap and unreliable or expensive and reliable.. and varying degrees in-between.

 

The midsize truck segment kinda looks like an Ocean's movie right now... getting all the old retired pros back to do the new mission

 

Yes, you can throw money at it and improve the situation.

Put it another way:
Honda's putting NA and Turbocharged engines in the Civic. If you were a betting man, or if you valued longevity above all else--which one would you buy?

 

Personally, nothing Honda.. not even their side-by-side

However I can tell you I did in fact purchase the F150 with the 2.7 Twin Turbo over the V8.... so you know how I feel about the reliability of modern engines with turbo's.

 

The company I work for has a Fleet of F150s with Eco Boosts and 5.0s and so far it's (0) engine failures for the 5.0 and (2) engine failures for the Eco Boost.

The maint schedules are followed to the T on oil change intervals and they still both blew up out of warranty, around 90 and 110k.

I do have a theory that the wrong oil weight was being used in both of them, because both of them had timing chain failures