Ranger vs Tacoma - Ike Gauntlet

[FishOnOne]

Enjoy...

Link

[parker_rowe]

ksss wrote:


I do agree with this point. These trucks are not substantially cheaper, and the mpg is not significantly better than the fullsize gas trucks (diesel not withstanding). You have to want one because the smaller dimensions fits your lifestyle and the price and mpg advantages (as small as they are) is just icing.

Back to the point of the Ranger performance up the Ike, the Toyota essential performed equally as well without being turbo charged. Either the Toyota is just an overperformer or the weight wasn't enough to challenge either of these trucks, but the way older Toyota was just as capable as the newly released Ranger. Not just in engine performance, but overall performance. I don't consider that to be a significant win for the Ranger. Will the Ranger be enough to grab significant marketshare from Toyota? I don't think so, they will grab some for sure, but I think they needed to set the bar higher to have significant impact on this segment.

I think this is the case. Both trucks are light enough with excess power to easily pull the 5K weight up the hill. The chassis in either can't handle enough weight to show wether or not the turbo engine has any advantage. Can't say wether it does or doesn't, but they both basically scored "perfect" runs maintaining the speed limit for the run.

That doesn't mean the ford is make less power than advertised, or that the toyota makes more.

It just means they both had enough power to maintain the speed limit up with hill the whole way.

[Humpty]

I'll stick with my Canyon.

[FishOnOne]

RobertRyan 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."

Ford has said this is not correct. TTAC a blog that has a history of factual mistakes and some very strange articles. admitted they got it wrong

I'm not surprised...

[FishOnOne]

ksss wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

mich800 wrote:

rjstractor wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:
Useless as a tow vehicle or pickup?

FLT had two large men, and a 5000 pound trailer, and stated they were within the payload specifications.

My point exactly. They had two guys and a 5K trailer with only 10% tongue weight, and they were absolutely maxed out on payload. Nothing left for another passenger or any cargo. Put two more big dudes in the back seat and you can't pull a trailer at all or put anything in the bed. Useless. Granted, I'm sure the truck can easily handle an overload of a few hundred pounds without issue, but if Toyota just did what little they would need to do to up the payload to the 1300-1400 lb range that would make the truck much more useful for its marketed purpose.

"that would make the truck much more useful for its marketed purpose" Which is towing heavy trailers around? I am not sure any of the mid/small trucks are being marketed to those wanting to haul around a heavier trailer.

The vast majority of these midsize trucks I see on the road and not pulling, but are used for commuters and some utility companies run these as meter reader trucks.

The biggest problem with these midsize trucks is keeping the cost's much lower than the full size trucks in order to generate sales while making a respectable profit.

I do agree with this point. These trucks are not substantially cheaper, and the mpg is not significantly better than the fullsize gas trucks (diesel not withstanding). You have to want one because the smaller dimensions fits your lifestyle and the price and mpg advantages (as small as they are) is just icing.

Back to the point of the Ranger performance up the Ike, the Toyota essential performed equally as well without being turbo charged. Either the Toyota is just an overperformer or the weight wasn't enough to challenge either of these trucks, but the way older Toyota was just as capable as the newly released Ranger. Not just in engine performance, but overall performance. I don't consider that to be a significant win for the Ranger. Will the Ranger be enough to grab significant marketshare from Toyota? I don't think so, they will grab some for sure, but I think they needed to set the bar higher to have significant impact on this segment.

Again for the mid size market to be successful it has to meet a specific price point or people will simply purchase a full size truck. The strengths for the Ranger is it's larger cab size, load capacity, serious low end torque, while having best EPA fuel economy rating and a Ford dealer in just about every small town in the US. Based on these two trucks performance, one could connect the dots and conclude that Toyota was the baseline in which Ford engineers targeted.

[FishOnOne]

Groover 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."

Apparently the oil change issue was somewhat exaggerated.
https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/01/no-need-remove-wheel-2019-ford-ranger-oil-change/

Interesting link Groover.

Link

[RobertRyan]

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."

Ford has said this is not correct. TTAC a blog that has a history of factual mistakes and some very strange articles. admitted they got it wrong

[mich800]

ksss wrote:


I do agree with this point. These trucks are not substantially cheaper, and the mpg is not significantly better than the fullsize gas trucks (diesel not withstanding). You have to want one because the smaller dimensions fits your lifestyle and the price and mpg advantages (as small as they are) is just icing.

Back to the point of the Ranger performance up the Ike, the Toyota essential performed equally as well without being turbo charged. Either the Toyota is just an overperformer or the weight wasn't enough to challenge either of these trucks, but the way older Toyota was just as capable as the newly released Ranger. Not just in engine performance, but overall performance. I don't consider that to be a significant win for the Ranger. Will the Ranger be enough to grab significant marketshare from Toyota? I don't think so, they will grab some for sure, but I think they needed to set the bar higher to have significant impact on this segment.

I agree there is not a lot of difference between the two in these tests. But as you pointed out. When they both can maintain the speed limit with the tested load there is not a lot to be gained looking at that specific test. So it looks like it comes down to what styling do you like and which has better ergonomics for your body.

[ksss]

FishOnOne wrote:

mich800 wrote:

rjstractor wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:
Useless as a tow vehicle or pickup?

FLT had two large men, and a 5000 pound trailer, and stated they were within the payload specifications.

My point exactly. They had two guys and a 5K trailer with only 10% tongue weight, and they were absolutely maxed out on payload. Nothing left for another passenger or any cargo. Put two more big dudes in the back seat and you can't pull a trailer at all or put anything in the bed. Useless. Granted, I'm sure the truck can easily handle an overload of a few hundred pounds without issue, but if Toyota just did what little they would need to do to up the payload to the 1300-1400 lb range that would make the truck much more useful for its marketed purpose.

"that would make the truck much more useful for its marketed purpose" Which is towing heavy trailers around? I am not sure any of the mid/small trucks are being marketed to those wanting to haul around a heavier trailer.

The vast majority of these midsize trucks I see on the road and not pulling, but are used for commuters and some utility companies run these as meter reader trucks.

The biggest problem with these midsize trucks is keeping the cost's much lower than the full size trucks in order to generate sales while making a respectable profit.

I do agree with this point. These trucks are not substantially cheaper, and the mpg is not significantly better than the fullsize gas trucks (diesel not withstanding). You have to want one because the smaller dimensions fits your lifestyle and the price and mpg advantages (as small as they are) is just icing.

Back to the point of the Ranger performance up the Ike, the Toyota essential performed equally as well without being turbo charged. Either the Toyota is just an overperformer or the weight wasn't enough to challenge either of these trucks, but the way older Toyota was just as capable as the newly released Ranger. Not just in engine performance, but overall performance. I don't consider that to be a significant win for the Ranger. Will the Ranger be enough to grab significant marketshare from Toyota? I don't think so, they will grab some for sure, but I think they needed to set the bar higher to have significant impact on this segment.

[Groover]

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."

Apparently the oil change issue was somewhat exaggerated.
https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/01/no-need-remove-wheel-2019-ford-ranger-oil-change/

[FishOnOne]

mich800 wrote:

rjstractor wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:
Useless as a tow vehicle or pickup?

FLT had two large men, and a 5000 pound trailer, and stated they were within the payload specifications.

My point exactly. They had two guys and a 5K trailer with only 10% tongue weight, and they were absolutely maxed out on payload. Nothing left for another passenger or any cargo. Put two more big dudes in the back seat and you can't pull a trailer at all or put anything in the bed. Useless. Granted, I'm sure the truck can easily handle an overload of a few hundred pounds without issue, but if Toyota just did what little they would need to do to up the payload to the 1300-1400 lb range that would make the truck much more useful for its marketed purpose.

"that would make the truck much more useful for its marketed purpose" Which is towing heavy trailers around? I am not sure any of the mid/small trucks are being marketed to those wanting to haul around a heavier trailer.

The vast majority of these midsize trucks I see on the road and not pulling, but are used for commuters and some utility companies run these as meter reader trucks.

The biggest problem with these midsize trucks is keeping the cost's much lower than the full size trucks in order to generate sales while making a respectable profit.

[mich800]

rjstractor wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:
Useless as a tow vehicle or pickup?

FLT had two large men, and a 5000 pound trailer, and stated they were within the payload specifications.

My point exactly. They had two guys and a 5K trailer with only 10% tongue weight, and they were absolutely maxed out on payload. Nothing left for another passenger or any cargo. Put two more big dudes in the back seat and you can't pull a trailer at all or put anything in the bed. Useless. Granted, I'm sure the truck can easily handle an overload of a few hundred pounds without issue, but if Toyota just did what little they would need to do to up the payload to the 1300-1400 lb range that would make the truck much more useful for its marketed purpose.

"that would make the truck much more useful for its marketed purpose" Which is towing heavy trailers around? I am not sure any of the mid/small trucks are being marketed to those wanting to haul around a heavier trailer.

[rjstractor]

Bionic Man wrote:
Useless as a tow vehicle or pickup?

FLT had two large men, and a 5000 pound trailer, and stated they were within the payload specifications.

My point exactly. They had two guys and a 5K trailer with only 10% tongue weight, and they were absolutely maxed out on payload. Nothing left for another passenger or any cargo. Put two more big dudes in the back seat and you can't pull a trailer at all or put anything in the bed. Useless. Granted, I'm sure the truck can easily handle an overload of a few hundred pounds without issue, but if Toyota just did what little they would need to do to up the payload to the 1300-1400 lb range that would make the truck much more useful for its marketed purpose.

[colliehauler]

You mean the intelligent kids who will be rich and successful drive Fords? LOL

[Flashman]

Bionic Man wrote:

rjstractor wrote:
It seems like both trucks easily handled 5000 lb trailers up and down the hill with no drama. But the 1000 lb payload makes the Tacoma pretty useless as a tow vehicle or a pickup. My VW Golf wagon has more payload. (although I would never tow with it) And Ford, you really need not pipe fake engine noise through the speakers in any of your vehicles. Just stop it. It's dumb. Really dumb.

Useless as a tow vehicle or pickup?

FLT had two large men, and a 5000 pound trailer, and stated they were within the payload specifications.

Not sure why these threads always go this way. These trucks aren't aimed at the HD market. They are after the urban buyer, who likely doesn't even own a trailer. If they do, it is a small boat or motorcycle/atv. Or they use it to run to Home Depot a couple times a year.

These trucks are perfect for those uses.

The Ford styling isn't my cup of tea, but that is subjective. I don't like the Taco either. The Ford interior looked decent, and the powertrain performed well. I am sure that with it and the new Jeep truck coming to market, they will expand the mid size market.

Not sure if the Ranger will be able to knock off the Taco as the marketshare leader, but it will likely outsell both Jeep and GM, making Ford a nice profit.

All the cool kids will be in Tacos and Gladiators - the nerds will be in Fords - same as it ever was.