Debating going from Ford to Toyota

I'm a Ford guy, but I'm seriously considering a Tacoma. I currently have two trucks: a 2005 F150 FX4 5.4L flare side supercab and a 2003 Ranger XL 2.3L 4x2 regular cab with a glass topper. I like both trucks and have had to do little other than normal maintenance on either. I have been thinking perhaps I could save some money by going to one truck. Iowa winters and steep trails on my acreage mean 4x4. Since I can no longer get a Ranger with a 4 banger and 4x4. I have been leaning Tacoma. I had a Ranger 4x4 with a 4.0 and the gas mileage sucked. I only averaged about 1 mpg better than I do with the F150. I liked the size of the Ranger and it had plenty of power, but 17 mpg average was about it. I get 30 mpg summer and 26 mpg winter with the Ranger, but no 4x4. I used to have a camper that I pulled with the F150, but sold that, so now most of my towing is my 18' aluminum bass boat and a small utility trailer. The Ranger pretty much sucks for towing anything. I can get 18-19 highway with the FX4, but probably average 15-16 all around. Towing is obviously another story, particularly in wind, but it's not something I do all that often.

I had hoped I could pare down to one truck that would average 20 mpg or better, tow my boat once in a while, and have 4x4 when I need it in the winter, launching the boat, or climbing the trail to my food plots.

After reading a lot of mileage threads and checking out fuelly.com, I'm not sure the Taco would really save me any money, just some garage space. I'm usually pretty good at squeezing mileage out of whatever I drive. Is 20+ mpg realistic with a 1st gen 4x4 Taco? Which engine/transmission combo would most likely do what I need to do and still be economical to drive? I'm probably looking at the extended cab. I don't know that I could like the short box on a double cab, though I do like the looks of the inside of the cab. I like the looks of the 1st gen, but would a 2nd be more likely to do what I need?

I'll post this in the 1st gen forum as well.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

For the reasons of snow storms, the 4x4 was priority #1

I dont haul sheets of plywood, so the short bed is fine.

seven feet long with tailgate down, so 2x4 , etc no problem.

The bigger interior of double cab is much better than access. Have had both.

That leaves MPG. Its not the greatest,

but the above reasons are worth a couple more dollars during fill ups.

 

I guess I can touch on MPG a bit.

If you are looking for better MPG, people definitely report better fuel economy on a stock 2nd gen 4 cyl, versus the V6. I drive mostly highway around 75 mph and end up at 18 mpg usually. I haven't babied it in a long time but I sure I could get the advertised 21, as I have done it before going 60-65 mph on highway on flatland. But I would still only expect 18 on average.

Fuel economy between the 3.4L V6 on the 1st gen versus the 2nd gen's 4.0L doesn't really get any different. I have a 4x4 2nd gen V6 and my dad has a 04 Double-cab PreRunner (2WD) 1st gen V6 and we get around the same fuel economy (similar driving styles as well).

As I recall, fuel economy between the 1st gen 4 cyl and V6 wasn't as different as what you see people talking about for the 2nd gen 4cyl vs. V6, so if I ever bought a 1st gen I'd just stick with the V6, especially towing a boat.

 

I am a former owner of a 2008 Ford Ranger Sport, 4x4, extended cab. Like you mentioned, it was awful at towing and gas mileage was bad. After my warranty expired, I had to change breaks, front end, rear end, and a bunch of other minor things. I am not hard on vehicles, so the way I looked at it, on a Ford, you pay little up front, but then keep on paying all the time for inferior components. Once payments stopped, new ones started, almost immediately.

Now I have a 2016 double cab Taco, which is almost twice the price of my old Ranger, but more than twice the vehicle. It is bigger inside, has far better towing ability, and so far this winter is about comparable with the Ranger in terms of fuel economy. Component quality, at least initially, is better in the Taco, and the ride quality is far superior, both on the highway and in the snowy bush roads. The difference in ride quality between the Ranger and Taco is probably the most satisfying change.

One drawback for the Taco is the short box - since I wanted a MT, my only option was a short box, about 12 inches less than the Ranger, which will force me to use my trailer more. Another thing, is that Taco is electronics heavy, but I guess you can't really buy a simple vehicle with just mechanical components these days.

In my opinion, a 2016 Taco is well worth the cost of upgrading from a Ranger.

 

This thread is 3 years old and it looks like OP has a 1st gen taco now.