Ranger vs Tacoma - Ike Gauntlet

That oil change business is very odd for Ford; my 2003 6.0L was very easy to service as is my 2012 F150 work truck.

Travlingman wrote:

ksss wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ksss wrote:
I am not sure what the turbo in the Ranger really bought. The time up the hill was about even. I agreed with the Russian, I would have expected more from the 10 speed and more from the turbocharged engine at that elevation. Maybe there is some programing enhancements that need to be made, but with that kind output it is not going to hold up well at all to the GM twins. While I don't find the Taco masculine I just find it ugly, but the looks of the Ranger is "weak". Call it refined if it makes you feel better, but its weak. Especially when the 150 and SD trucks look so good, someone punted on the exterior design of Ranger. I was looking for this truck to honestly set the bar higher in the segment. It clearly doesn't do that. These guys give the win to the Ranger by the narrowest of margins, but the Taco is what about 7-8 model years old? I would say Ford aimed a little low with the Ranger. Ford guys will buy it, but anyone cross-shopping the others in the segment are not likely to be blown away by the new Ranger in comparison.

In my opinion Ford knocked it out of the park and is the best looking mid size bar none.

As for the 4 cylinder turbo. It's gas powered torque is second to none and it's gas fuel economy is better than the Taco.

Having said this the Taco is a great performing truck and it has a relatively new engine so Ford did a good job edging out on performance and fuel economy.

I will say anyone who's shopping for a midsize; excluding brand loyal buyers, will give the Ranger a serious look.

It won the mpg by a tenth and that is assuming the DIC is correct, and a couple seconds on the tow up the hill, which could have been due to traffic. I wouldn't brag about that. It may have power on paper, but it clearly cant put it to the ground, assuming it really makes what it claims. There is no reason a turbo charged engine shouldn't own a race up to 11K feet against a lesser powered NA engine that makes its max hp at 6 grand, and it doesn't appear it ever got to 6 grand. Looks are subjective so we will see what the masses say when they vote with their checkbooks. Clearly though the performance is not there.

It couldn't have went up any faster as the test limits them to the 60 MPH speed limit which it held up the mountain.

LOL... Performance is there as it made basically a perfect pull at 8:02.

twodownzero wrote:
I'd much rather remove the inner fender than deal with what I had to do to change the filter on my 3.0L Vulcan in my Ranger. You'd either burn your hands from the top or spill oil all over everything from the bottom. Either way it was a mess. And the oil filter was sideways so you had to dry start the engine every time.

It sounds like the filter on the new Ranger will be sideways so you won't be able to pre fill it either.

I'd much rather remove the inner fender than deal with what I had to do to change the filter on my 3.0L Vulcan in my Ranger. You'd either burn your hands from the top or spill oil all over everything from the bottom. Either way it was a mess. And the oil filter was sideways so you had to dry start the engine every time.

ksss wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ksss wrote:
I am not sure what the turbo in the Ranger really bought. The time up the hill was about even. I agreed with the Russian, I would have expected more from the 10 speed and more from the turbocharged engine at that elevation. Maybe there is some programing enhancements that need to be made, but with that kind output it is not going to hold up well at all to the GM twins. While I don't find the Taco masculine I just find it ugly, but the looks of the Ranger is "weak". Call it refined if it makes you feel better, but its weak. Especially when the 150 and SD trucks look so good, someone punted on the exterior design of Ranger. I was looking for this truck to honestly set the bar higher in the segment. It clearly doesn't do that. These guys give the win to the Ranger by the narrowest of margins, but the Taco is what about 7-8 model years old? I would say Ford aimed a little low with the Ranger. Ford guys will buy it, but anyone cross-shopping the others in the segment are not likely to be blown away by the new Ranger in comparison.

In my opinion Ford knocked it out of the park and is the best looking mid size bar none.

As for the 4 cylinder turbo. It's gas powered torque is second to none and it's gas fuel economy is better than the Taco.

Having said this the Taco is a great performing truck and it has a relatively new engine so Ford did a good job edging out on performance and fuel economy.

I will say anyone who's shopping for a midsize; excluding brand loyal buyers, will give the Ranger a serious look.

It won the mpg by a tenth and that is assuming the DIC is correct, and a couple seconds on the tow up the hill, which could have been due to traffic. I wouldn't brag about that. It may have power on paper, but it clearly cant put it to the ground, assuming it really makes what it claims. There is no reason a turbo charged engine shouldn't own a race up to 11K feet against a lesser powered NA engine that makes its max hp at 6 grand, and it doesn't appear it ever got to 6 grand. Looks are subjective so we will see what the masses say when they vote with their checkbooks. Clearly though the performance is not there.

It couldn't have went up any faster as the test limits them to the 60 MPH speed limit which it held up the mountain.

FishOnOne wrote:

ksss wrote:
I am not sure what the turbo in the Ranger really bought. The time up the hill was about even. I agreed with the Russian, I would have expected more from the 10 speed and more from the turbocharged engine at that elevation. Maybe there is some programing enhancements that need to be made, but with that kind output it is not going to hold up well at all to the GM twins. While I don't find the Taco masculine I just find it ugly, but the looks of the Ranger is "weak". Call it refined if it makes you feel better, but its weak. Especially when the 150 and SD trucks look so good, someone punted on the exterior design of Ranger. I was looking for this truck to honestly set the bar higher in the segment. It clearly doesn't do that. These guys give the win to the Ranger by the narrowest of margins, but the Taco is what about 7-8 model years old? I would say Ford aimed a little low with the Ranger. Ford guys will buy it, but anyone cross-shopping the others in the segment are not likely to be blown away by the new Ranger in comparison.

In my opinion Ford knocked it out of the park and is the best looking mid size bar none.

As for the 4 cylinder turbo. It's gas powered torque is second to none and it's gas fuel economy is better than the Taco.

Having said this the Taco is a great performing truck and it has a relatively new engine so Ford did a good job edging out on performance and fuel economy.

I will say anyone who's shopping for a midsize; excluding brand loyal buyers, will give the Ranger a serious look.

It won the mpg by a tenth and that is assuming the DIC is correct, and a couple seconds on the tow up the hill, which could have been due to traffic. I wouldn't brag about that. It may have power on paper, but it clearly cant put it to the ground, assuming it really makes what it claims. There is no reason a turbo charged engine shouldn't own a race up to 11K feet against a lesser powered NA engine that makes its max hp at 6 grand, and it doesn't appear it ever got to 6 grand. Looks are subjective so we will see what the masses say when they vote with their checkbooks. Clearly though the performance is not there.

I like the look, but it looks a lot like the Honda Ridgeline to me. I am glad to see Ford get back in the small pickup arena in the US. More choices are always as good thing for autos.

FishOnOne wrote:

ib516 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ib516 wrote:
I wonder how people will react when they learn the front wheel and inner fender liner needs to be removed just to do an oil change on the Ranger? What a dumb design.

Cool little truck otherwise.

Can you provide a source to your comment?

From the links provided:

"A service procedure obtained by TTAC states that, after removing the left front wheel, a technician or owner must then remove an access panel secured by nine push-pin retainers. From there, one removes the filter with an end cap tool. To actually drain the oil, which of course you’ll accomplish before attacking that filter, you’ll first need to unbolt the power steering control module under body shield. Four bolts hold that on."

The link Chris supplied says to gain access to the drain plug requires removing a protective shield (4 bolts).

Again nothing I would consider a major pain to change the oil every 7,500-10,000 miles. I would say to change this oil would be easier than just about any car new car especially ones with the oil filter access from the bottom side.

I don't think it will prevent Ford loyalists from buying it, but that doesn't mean it's not a stupid design. That said, Ford isn't alone on dumb designs! They all have their share.

ib516 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ib516 wrote:
I wonder how people will react when they learn the front wheel and inner fender liner needs to be removed just to do an oil change on the Ranger? What a dumb design.

Cool little truck otherwise.

Can you provide a source to your comment?

From the links provided:

"A service procedure obtained by TTAC states that, after removing the left front wheel, a technician or owner must then remove an access panel secured by nine push-pin retainers. From there, one removes the filter with an end cap tool. To actually drain the oil, which of course you’ll accomplish before attacking that filter, you’ll first need to unbolt the power steering control module under body shield. Four bolts hold that on."

The link Chris supplied says to gain access to the drain plug requires removing a protective shield (4 bolts).

Again nothing I would consider a major pain to change the oil every 7,500-10,000 miles. I would say to change this oil would be easier than just about any car new car especially ones with the oil filter access from the bottom side.

ksss wrote:
I am not sure what the turbo in the Ranger really bought. The time up the hill was about even. I agreed with the Russian, I would have expected more from the 10 speed and more from the turbocharged engine at that elevation. Maybe there is some programing enhancements that need to be made, but with that kind output it is not going to hold up well at all to the GM twins. While I don't find the Taco masculine I just find it ugly, but the looks of the Ranger is "weak". Call it refined if it makes you feel better, but its weak. Especially when the 150 and SD trucks look so good, someone punted on the exterior design of Ranger. I was looking for this truck to honestly set the bar higher in the segment. It clearly doesn't do that. These guys give the win to the Ranger by the narrowest of margins, but the Taco is what about 7-8 model years old? I would say Ford aimed a little low with the Ranger. Ford guys will buy it, but anyone cross-shopping the others in the segment are not likely to be blown away by the new Ranger in comparison.

In my opinion Ford knocked it out of the park and is the best looking mid size bar none.

As for the 4 cylinder turbo. It's gas powered torque is second to none and it's gas fuel economy is better than the Taco.

Having said this the Taco is a great performing truck and it has a relatively new engine so Ford did a good job edging out on performance and fuel economy.

I will say anyone who's shopping for a midsize; excluding brand loyal buyers, will give the Ranger a serious look.