Talk me out of getting a Ranger!

You can't turn around without having tacoma reliability shoved in your face. I'm not saying the tundra isn't reliable, but its reliability isn't shoved in my face in every Tundra conversation. At least not anywhere than isn't a tacoma forum.

The toyota oil consumption issue is every bit as serious as the ford dual clutch issue. I'm not deflecting with that, I was asked for examples.

For every off road characteristic the tacoma has that benefits it over the ranger, the ranger has a different off road trait that benefits it over the tacoma. Also, a two piece drive shaft does NOT help with articulation. It trades suspension flexibility and driveline strength for ground clearance and cost (they can use a cheaper steel without worrying about weight. A cheap one piece steel shaft is heavy). A one piece is much more reliable, as well. Of course carrier bearing vibration is just as normal as extreme oil consumption, right? Also, do you actually know what the approach/breakover/departure angles are on both trucks? I suspect you don't.

But......

You're right. Ford is trash. I concede. I'm lucky my fusion made it to 30k before I turned it in. Now that i think about it, i probably misread all the problems about Toyota. The 3.5 is the exact same engine with all the exact same hardware as its implementation in a transverse mounted FWD car, just like how the 2.3 in the ranger is the exact same in every regard as the 2.3 in the Focus. Silly me. It's always better to stick with the mindset "if it ain't broke, dont fix it." I'm really disappointed my house even has indoor plumbing and electricity. Good old shittin in the dark forest was much less likely to cause a flooded basement or a house fire.

Dont buy a ranger. It'll probably explode and kill your family if you drive on gravel because it's not made for that. K? Good. Glad I got myself straightened out there.

 

No one is shoving anything in your face...according to any number of 3rd-party reviews and surveys, both the Tacoma and Tundra are consistently ranked at the top in terms of reliability for their respective segments. Toyota, as a brand, is consistently near the top. This isn't fanboyism, but rather an accurate assessment.

Perhaps that reliability advantage offers no tangible advantage for the average owner who likes to trade in for a new vehicle every 40k-60k miles, but for those who hold onto their vehicles for the longterm, that added a reliability is an important factor.

A few Tacoma's have been shown to consume oil on steep inclines. Is it a widespread issue and are there engines left and right failing because of it? No.

Whereas you can find plenty of examples of F-150 ecoboost engines gunking up their intake valves due to direct injection or having intercooler issues...both of which can lead to degraded engine performance or outright failure. Sure, the current crop of ecboost and F-150's are doing fine, but Ford has a reputation of rushing things into the market and making their customers suffer through reliability issues....cough...6.0l Powerstroke.

2 piece drive shaft does in fact allow for better articulation of the driveline, which in turn allows for better articulation of the overall chassis. Toyota could, and in fact does, use 1 piece drive shafts (4runner and LC have them). But on a longer wheelbase vehicle like the Tacoma or Tundra, the 2 piece makes sense. Moreover, I've yet to hear of any reliability trends concerning Toyota's 2 piece drive shafts, whereas I've heard plenty of complaints from Ram, GM and even Ford owners about drive line vibrations.

The approach angles for the Tacoma are better (look them up for yourself if you don't believe me), as is ground clearance (partly due to the better shock placement on the rear axles), the Tacoma is the only midsized pickup with optional 16" wheels, it has an optional ATRAC (which basically replicates the performance of a front locker), and it uses an 8.8" rear ring gear (the biggest in the midsized segment and even comparable to what some lower trim F-150's use)...it's an overbuilt midsized truck which is designed first and foremost for offroad use.

I'm not saying the Ranger is a bad truck for offroad use, but at least in stock form it doesn't handle rough terrain as well. Maybe the Raptor will be different, but it's interesting how Ford (and GM) have to do a total revamp of their base design in order to make an 'offroad' variant whereas Toyota simply changes up the shocks and springs and call its good....different design philosophies.

 

This thread is insane. I’m out!

 

The Ford Ranger grille is pretty sad. That alone means I wouldn’t buy one.

 

This is a very true statement.

 

I chuckle whenever I read a post where someone claims they know why "most people" do one thing or another mixing in poorly diguised insults in the process. Stick to what you know to be true for yourself and quit assuming you know fuck all about anyone else. Or at the very least qualify the bald ass claim with "in my opinion most people" and leave out the insults altogether, all they do is rob the post of any semblance of rationality.

 

I'm not sure what makes you think you know what people say to me in my personal life...

I said "toyota," not "tacoma." Google it. Its real.

This is a very common issue for owners that use low quality oil. The original ecoboost engines, as well as many many other turbocharged direct injection engines require high quality oil with a low evaporation rate (noack volatility) or they gum up the valves and in some cases lead to intercooler fowling. The fault lies with the owners in this example for not maintaining their engines properly.

Can't argue this one. The 6.0 was junk.

I have no idea how you can possibly think that's true. Shorter driveshaft means less travel. Its physics. I'm not pulling that out of my ass. There's a reason hard core off roaders swap to a one piece when they start lifting.

From a manufacturing and clearance standpoint, yes. From a strength and future modding standpoint, less so.

Have you seen these forums? Would you like me to google "tacoma driveline vibration" for you as well?

Ok, fine. I'll post the numbers since you dont seem to actually know them. All numbers are for short bed, big cab, 4x4 trucks in all trims unless noted otherwise.

Approach:
Ranger- 28.7
SR5- 29
TRD OR- 32

Breakover:
Ranger- 21.5
Tacoma- 21

Departure:
Ranger- 25.4
Tacoma-23.5

Ground clearance:
Ranger: 8.9
Tacoma: 9.4

Rear diff:
Ranger- Dana 44/M220 8.6in 32 spline (same as off road trim Jeep Rubicon?)
Tacoma- 8in or 8.75, 30 or 32 spline, 3.90 or 4.30 gears Depends on trim and transmission. 8.75 is similar to dana 44, and only available on OR, Pro, and manual tacos from what I can find.

Diff lock:
Ranger- elocker optional on all trims. Can be used in any drive mode.
Tacoma- elocker on OR and Pro. Can only be used in 4lo.

Brake lock front diff:
Ranger- Terrain Management and crawl control included with FX4 package available to all trims. Can be used in any drive mode.
Tacoma- MultiTerrain Select/Atrac and crawl control available on OR and Pro trims. Can only be used in 4lo.

Skid plates:
Ranger: Full skids with optional FX4 on all trims
TRD OR- front skid
TRD Pro- full skids

Wheels:
Ranger- 16-18in (I dont think you can get 16in on any but the lowest, most basic trim?)
Tacoma- 16-18in

Tires:
Both have crappy tires. The taco has slightly better tires, but only on the more expensive off road trims.

Off road shocks:
Ranger- (Bilstein?) with FX4 package available on all trims
TRD OR- Bilstein
TRD Pro- Fox

Crawl ratio:
Ranger- 47.6
Taco MT- 43.98
Taco AT- 36.17

Actually, the $1200 FX4 package is available on any trim, whereas you have to buy a dedicated off road trim to get the off road goodies on a taco. The Raptor trim is a totally different animal for a totally different kind of off road.

So, not only did you post incorrect info, the bits you did get correct are negligible, and mostly only available on the much more expensive OR and Pro trims.

Long story short: while the Taco certainly looks the part, it is no more a primarily off road rig than the Ranger. I'm not looking up stats on the Frontier or colorado, and you'd have to be crazy to say the jeep is more of a street rig than any other.

 

It's a common issue because Ford chose to only use Direct Injection in its early ecboost engines...they switched to Direct + Port Injection for the later versions to mitigate that very issue...it has nothing to do with owner maintenance or lack thereof. Intercooler issue is unrelated to the Direct Injection issue as far as what I've read.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Why/how is the Tacoma's driveshaft shorter? And why does a 2 piece drive shaft limit articulation?

Thank you for proving my point: the Tacoma has better approach angles, better ground clearance, better tire sidewall clearance (16" tires are not standard for the higher FX4 trims), better articulation (TFL's offroad video demonstrated that).

I'm not sure why you think the Tacoma lacks "full" skid plate coverage; it has the same amount skid plate coverage as the FX4.

ATRAC, Crawl Control and E-locker can only be used in 4 low, but then again there really is no need to use them in 4 high. ATRAC is a unique feature that replicates a front locker, and I'm not sure the Ranger has anything that is comparable. Moreover does the Ranger even have manual gear selection?

Paper stat evaluation only gets you so far...go check out TFL's or Edmunds' offroad comparison videos or go drive the 2 vehicles back-to-back...its quite obvious that the Tacoma is more biased towards offroad use.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Ford has to conduct a significant redesign for its offroad and Baja oriented trucks (F-150 Raptor and Ranger Raptor): different frames, different chassis components. Toyota simply takes the base design and upgrades the shocks and wheels. That demonstrates that Toyota has a lot more faith in its underlying design...there's no need to switch out the frame and chassis bits, the base components are already over-engineered for the tasks at hand.

Very different design philosophies between the two companies.

 

Right. I'm sure you know better than I do. I mean, I've only be waiting for Ford to do a turbo again since before the ecoboost was conceived, have been an active member of the ecoboost performance forum, and a supermoderator on the 2.7L ecoboost Fusion Sport forum. I helped in creating one of the first tunes for the Sport, even. We, as an ecoboost community, have figured out EXACTLY what causes those issues, and how to mitigate them. I never said the intercooler issue was a result of direct injection. I said both problems are a result of low quality oil. A high oil evaporation rate leads to more oil vapor in the PCV system which is blown into the intake. That oil vapor then condenses in the intercooler under certain conditions. That oil vapor ALSO builds up on the intake valves. The dual injection washes the valves IN THE CASE OF LOW QUALITY OIL. The dual injection is not nearly as important if you use high quality oil. There is a reason I am far more particular regarding what oil went into my ecoboost than I am my Mustang or Tacoma. The oil Penzoil labels as "designed for modern turbocharged engines" has a low noack volatility for this very reason. I've done a shitload more research on this issue than you have, 100% guaranteed, and I'm done debating it. Believe me or dont. IDGAF. Would it be nice if ALL ecoboost engines had dual injection so the unwitting masses dont have to convert to being oil snobs to avoid long term issues and get the most out of their engines? Well, duh. However, if people just used the recommended oil, they'd be fine for several hundred thousand miles.

The one piece shaft has a pivot point at the t-case. The two piece has a pivot point between the t-case and diff. That makes the 2nd shaft shorter, and limits how far it can travel before binding due to greater angles applied to the joints. It's not a problem at stock height, but it certainly doesn't help with articulation like you claim. I'm not going to tutor you on math and physics. If you dont understand how it applies, I'm done debating it. There is a reason heavily modified trucks run one piece shafts. There is no need to take my word on it.

If your point relies on the belief that the only factors that determine if a truck is off road worthy is those three stats, then sure, I guess I proved your point. However, if you have any interest in the overall picture, the tacoma has:

-Better approach angle by .3 degrees. (marginal) or 2.1 degrees (significant on more expensive trims) but the ranger also has a steel front bumper.
-Better ground clearance by .5 inch (marginal)
-Worse breakover by .5 degrees (marginal)
-Worse departure by 1.9 degrees (significant) fyi, departure is just as important as approach. The ranger has a departure much closer to its approach, which means much less ass dragging in the ranger.
-Better tire sidewall by 1 inch (trivial)
-Worse crawl ratio by 11.5 (Very significant) or 3.5 (still significant when combined with low end power of the ecoboost)
-I assume better articulation based on the same video, but have no numbers to quantify. Personally I prefer to have my frame stay rigid when I'm wheeling, but am not implying that it's "better." That's a personal preference. One is not better than the other. They are just different. If you prefer more flex, that is fine, but when neither truck has an old school open diff, hanging a tire is not a limiting factor like it once was. Even the base trucks without the improved traction control will eventually use the brakes to stop spinning.

The Pro has a better front plate, but inferior t-case and tank plates. The OR has inferior coverage altogether. I just went out and looked at my own personal TRD OR. While I was incorrect about how much coverage it has (i thought it had the front only. Crazy how grown ups can admit to being wrong) it is still inferior to the FX4 plates (much thicker front and better t-case plate/fuel tank plates). Regardless, I wouldn't trust any of the factory plates of either truck with anything more than light impacts from fallen branches. None of them have plates made for being dropped on rocks.

Atrac on the MT Tacoma and MultiTerrain Select on the AT Tacoma functions the same as the FX4 Terrain Management System. Both of the trucks also have a basic version in the non off road trims, but the FX4, TRD OR, and TRD Pro have more sensitive systems. I will admit that I think the Tacoma might do it slightly better because the Ranger doesn't have "rock" mode, and I'm building rollers to test it because I dont know for sure (as well as many other trucks. Stand by for my youtube series on that in the future). However, the ranger system does works on the same principal. I've gotten into great debates on youtube about the fact that the Taco and Ranger have these systems when people claim the front locker on the ZR2 is far superior. Also, having it available in 4hi (or even 2wd for the locker) has its perks. I often find myself wishing I could just hit the button in 4hi rather than having to struggle to get it into low gear. Not all scenarios require, or even benefit from low gear. The elocker in particular would be nice to have in hi gear. These factors are a huge advantage in the Ranger's favor, as it makes it that much more versatile in what options you have. It may not make a difference in rock crawling where you need to always be in low gear, but there are many other types of off road driving that it does help to have a higher wheel speed, or simply dont require low speeds.

Yes, the Ranger has manual gear selection just like the AT Tacoma.

TFL and Edmund's? Are you for real? Those videos are nice to have, but if you can't see that those reviewers are a long long way from being off roaders, you have no place to talk about what makes an off road truck. I've seen those guys forget to put the truck in 4x4, completely neglect the terrain management in both the tacoma and Ranger while they tout the ZR2 as being the winner. Is that where we're going with this? Are we declaring the Colorado as the real off roader because of Edmunds' incompetence? I know I'm not.

I understand what you're saying. I'm just telling you that your understanding is skewed. The FX4 package is not a significant redesign, and it puts the Ranger somewhere in between the TRD OR and Pro in terms of overall capability and fearures. There is nowhere/nothing a Pro can go/do that a $32k FX4 Ranger can't. Each one will be better in some areas than the other, but in the grand scheme of off roading, they are on even footing. The Raptor is not even in this race, though. It has nothing to do with "faith in its underlying design." The work done on the Raptor is not because the base truck can't do the job. It's to make the Raptor the BEST at doing that specific job, to which it is the best. That's not to say even the base SR Tacoma or Non FX4 XL Ranger can't play in the sand at high speeds. The Raptor is just tailor made for it. The TRD Pro with a desert intake and Fox shocks is Toyota's way of making the Tacoma better at playing in that arena, but it's still not in the same league. If Toyota wanted to take that title away from Ford, there is no doubt that they could. It would take a lot more than just shocks and an intake, though, and I dont think toyota has any interest in starting that war. That type of wheeling leads to broken trucks, as is evident by the idiots that jump their Raptors of dirt bike ramps. That kind of publicity leads to a diminished reputation. Toyota can't afford to have people jumping trucks off dirt bike ramps because that reputation is the main thing keeping the Tacoma alive.

Btw, I've driven my Tacoma to the Ford dealer several times, so 4 out of 5 times (ish) it has been back to back drives. The Ranger feels (to me) just as much an off road machine as the Taco. It may not to you, but that is purely subjective. The Tacoma undoubtedly has more aesthetic off road design cues, but as far as actual functionality goes, it's no more a dedicated wheeling machine than the Ranger is. Toyota would never shoot themselves in the foot by making one of their best sellers less friendly where most people are driving it.

 

Here we go again. You still never showed me one case of 3.5 Ecoboost with gummed up valves. There's only people, like you, saying it will be an issue or others with bs pics that are selling catch cans. Find one consumer with this issue since it's so common.

 

I love how people with internet authority pretend that they have the same credibility as automotive engineers....you're "super-moderator" you say? Well then I defer to your "expertise" of all things ecoboost.

I guess the switch of Ford's ecoboost from DI only to DI + Port injection coinciding with the drop-off in gunked up intake valves was purely coincidental.

It amazes me the lengths that some people will go to defend and apologize for known design issues.

Google is your friend...seriously its not hard to do. And if I recall correctly, I did provide you with some examples during our last discussion.

 

Nah, you didn't. I did a ton of research because I owned one and was originally set on getting a catch can setup to avoid this issue. After hours and hours of research and never finding one credible case when there are 100s of thousands on the road I determined it a non-issue. But keep using it if it makes you feel better.

 

Resale value

 

Holy hell....

I love it when people use some little tidbit that is completely unrelated to the topic in order to try to discredit everything else in the post, then ignore the rest of the actual debate.

Ad hominem (latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I never said that I was an expert just because I'm a mod. The fact that I'm a supermod is an indication that I am one of the original members of said forum, and have been a very active member with civilized forum etiquette that has been entrusted with enforcing forum rules. My involvement in those particular forums has led to having a great understanding of most things ecoboost, and there certainly are worse people to whom you could defer judgement regarding that engine family. Similarly, my brief time in this forum has already tought me a good deal. Through the course of this debate, I have learned a great deal about both trucks in question. Historically, and I dont expect you to know this; if in my pursuit of knowledge to make a fair and thorough comparison I learn that my stance is wrong, I have no problem admitting it. However, you have not offered any tangible, meaningful information that might sway my opinion that the Ranger is as capable off road as the Tacoma.

As for the one on topic bit of my post you did decide to refute: I explained in no uncertain terms why the switch to dual injection coincided with the drop in gunked up valves. Did you not read my post, or were you already too busy planning how to best attack my character to see that I very clearly explained the relationship between low quality oil and gunked up valves?

 

Here we go again...

 

Mr. Rocket, if this thread is going to be the dissertation to your TW brofessorship — and holy shit I would love that — ya gotta cite your sources when ya quote. Also, we are patiently waiting for chapters four, five, and six.

But seriously, look at us all — a rogues’ gallery of shitposters, hasty generalizers, shade tree mechanics, perky and raging enthusiasts, retired people that own Rangers but just can’t let this place go, MESOJDM; and then the pearl-clutchers, the poorly endowed, the loaners, the bored workforce stuck at horrid 8-5s but active here because of cell phones, etc., etc. No one here is producing peer-reviewed documents that are vetted by specialists in the field.

I heart your desire for true discourse, though, and I do hope you find it here, and I’m still waiting for a proper response to my previous assertion that the Tacoma’s cup holders are superior to the Ranger’s.

 

My bad. I figured it goes without saying; my source is almost entirely Google's initial search result page; Wikipedia if I feel like digging real deep.

As for your cup holders comment: I'm not convinced. While the cupholders in the Taco may be more numerous and diverse, the Ranger's are in a Ford, which automatically makes them better because reasons. It's a fact. -Book of obvious facts, volume 19

Edited to site source.


Also, brofessorship... pure gold.

 

Boom. It's over.

Close the thread down.

 

We had six 3.5 ecoboosts in our fleet - I think they were 2013s....maybe 2012s. Anyway, we put upwards of 200K miles on all six.

The only issue were head gasket leaks that occurred on all six trucks. The issue hit at relatively high mileage (140K to 175K) but all our F150s suffered from it. Mileage wasn't as great as advertised but the motors were generally solid. No deposit issues. We had no deposit issues on the smaller ecoboost engines as well.

What we did have issues with were the brakes and the trannies. The brake issue was big - master cylinder leak that Ford issued. recall for, but literally could not perform said recall for about 7 months. They performed the recall and then the problem resurfaced again within a few months. It was an ongoing headache.

As for the trannies -oof. I think all ten had rebuilds by the time they hit 100K miles - I'd have to check but it was bad. We went to the aftermarket for rebuild kits when the new Ford trannies started failing again. We also had two trucks with the 2.7 and two with the 5.0. Both had the same issues with the transmissions. Honestly, one constant we've always had with Ford products are their crumbly and fragile transmissions.

Some other problems:

- Throttle body issues. The joke was that we should order a stockpile of them because they were crapping out fairly regularly and there was national backorder on them. Again, our mechanic went to the aftermarket.
- I think the radio interface is called Sync or MySync. Issues with these hanging up.....

 

I’d no sooner trust homies talking about their fleet vehicle experience with any brand vehicle than dangling my dong in front of a rattlesnake