Clutch’s deep thoughts thread...

[Dalko43]

No reason to "hate to say it", the Ford is simply better. The taco is the same frame for 15 years now and it still has drum brakes. The new "changes" are just lipstick on a pig. The taco needs a redo badly.

Drum brakes, c-channel frame, cramped quarters....yeah the Tacoma hasn't changed a whole lot, but I could honestly live with those "drawbacks," and honestly its debatable how much some of those really qualify as "drawbacks."

Even the payload, as neutered as it is compared to some of the other midsized pickups, I could live with.

Why? Because that design and platform is just so damn reliable and proven at this point.

For me, the real kicker is the engine. Toyota should not have put a sedan engine in that truck.

The Ranger certainly has the potential to outshine the Tacoma based on its paper stats, but we all know that paper stats do not always translate to real world performance and durability. I'll reserve judgement on the Ranger until I've seen a few after 4-5 years of ownership. For a lot of owners, who constantly trade in their vehicles, a vehicle that only has an 8-10 year expected service life might not be a big deal...for me, it matters.

People tried to make the same argument about the Tundra when the new ecoboost F-150's came out. Granted, the F-150's have always outsold the Tundra's, but Tundra sales certainly haven't suffered because of Ford's newer design. And if you look at some of the ways Ford saved weight on the F-150 and optimized it for fuel efficiency, you quickly realize that one company stayed focused on long term reliability/durability while the other made more compromises.

 

[Clutch]

The taco needs a redo badly.

Needs an undo is more like it...


Shrink it back to the 1st Gen size, fully box the frame, toss back in the 4.0 with a 5 speed manny. Done. Only upgrade is some rear discs.

Bonus would be a linked rear out of the 4Runner.

 

[Clutch]

Drum brakes, c-channel frame, cramped quarters....yeah the Tacoma hasn't changed a whole lot, but I could honestly live with those "drawbacks," and honestly its debatable how much some of those really qualify as "drawbacks."

Even the payload, as neutered as it is compared to some of the other midsized pickups, I could live with.

Even if the Taco is getting long in the tooth, but is it really...ya know? They are all about the same...just kinda splitting hairs. Nothing too Earth shattering about any of them.

Think the ultimate would be the body features of the Ridgeline, on a boxed frame, with a diesel hybrid drivetrain...discs and coils all the way around.

Cover all the **********' bases...

Better toss a manual trans in thar too to keep curmudgeons like myself happy. Honda had a hybrid car with a manual, so it can be done.

 

[redthies]

As much as I liked the look of the Ranger, both in and out I agree 100% with Dalko that I would wait a few years and see how they stand up. But that’s true of any vehicle. There are always first year bugs to work out.

 

[battleaxe]

I'm not quoting real numbers, just rough figures. But the Ranger came in fully loaded, near $10,000 (CAD) cheaper than a TRD Pro Taco, and ZR2 (non diesel) Colorado. It still wouldn't make me buy one over a Tacoma, but 10k is a fair bit of coin.

I just sold my 2011 DCLB Taco. And I daily a 2016 DCLB for work. The 3.5 sucks, and the transmission is worse. We also just bought an '18 SR5 4Runner, and that thing is MILES ahead of the Tacoma, despite being more "basic". (Mostly just talking about the lack of the newer digital display in the cluster, climate control, sub-par heated seats)

Deep down I've always been a 4Runner guy, so this really shouldn't be a surprise to me. The first Toyota "truck" I owned was my 2011. Everything before that was 60/70 series, and 1st gen 4runners.

As for the Gladiator? I heard that thing starts at 65k CAD. It also will likely have the same 1 star safety rating as the other ones. In my opinion, they're overpriced, overhyped pieces of garbage. And the diesel is a POS too.

 

[Todd n Natalie]

Think the ultimate would be the body features of the Ridgeline, on a boxed frame, with a diesel hybrid drivetrain...discs and coils all the way around.

Cover all the **********' bases...

Better toss a manual trans in thar too to keep curmudgeons like myself happy. Honda had a hybrid car with a manual, so it can be done.

And a hose down interior with vinyl seats, manual windows, locks, vent windows, ... Victrola for playing music when AM is out of range, hand crank start....

 

[Clutch]

And a hose down interior with vinyl seats, manual windows, locks, vent windows, ... Victrola for playing music when AM is out of range, hand crank start....

Hells to the yeahs!

 

[bkg]

Drum brakes, c-channel frame, cramped quarters....yeah the Tacoma hasn't changed a whole lot, but I could honestly live with those "drawbacks," and honestly its debatable how much some of those really qualify as "drawbacks."

Even the payload, as neutered as it is compared to some of the other midsized pickups, I could live with.

Why? Because that design and platform is just so damn reliable and proven at this point.

For me, the real kicker is the engine. Toyota should not have put a sedan engine in that truck.

The Ranger certainly has the potential to outshine the Tacoma based on its paper stats, but we all know that paper stats do not always translate to real world performance and durability. I'll reserve judgement on the Ranger until I've seen a few after 4-5 years of ownership. For a lot of owners, who constantly trade in their vehicles, a vehicle that only has an 8-10 year expected service life might not be a big deal...for me, it matters.

People tried to make the same argument about the Tundra when the new ecoboost F-150's came out. Granted, the F-150's have always outsold the Tundra's, but Tundra sales certainly haven't suffered because of Ford's newer design. And if you look at some of the ways Ford saved weight on the F-150 and optimized it for fuel efficiency, you quickly realize that one company stayed focused on long term reliability/durability while the other made more compromises.

I challenge your last statement as a gross mis characterization of both Toyota and Ford.

 

[battleaxe]

Let's see if Ford can manage to keep the Ranger in production longer than 5 years...

As for the sedan engine in a truck... I can agree. But look at what Chev/GM did. Their gas engine is from a Terrain, and their diesel is made by FIAT. They aren't doing any better.

 

[Clutch]

Let's see if Ford can manage to keep the Ranger in production longer than 5 years...

As for the sedan engine in a truck... I can agree. But look at what Chev/GM did. Their gas engine is from a Terrain, and their diesel is made by FIAT. They aren't doing any better.

Same with the Ranger, that engine is out of the Mustang...and used in a couple CUV's. Only thing that saves it, is the turbo.

Would like to see the 3.3 N/A V6 out of the F150 find its' way into it.

 

[bkg]

Same with the Ranger, that engine is out of the Mustang...and used in a couple CUV's. Only thing that saves it, is the turbo.

Would like to see the 3.5 ecoboost out of the F150 Raptor find its' way into it.

Fixed

 

[Clutch]

Fixed

Ha ha, that would work too!

Wonder if anyone is building a new Ranger for Baja this year.

 

[battleaxe]

Ha ha, that would work too!

Wonder if anyone is building a new Ranger for Baja this year.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a ton of them at SEMA this year. A buddy said that the number of JL's at last years was just stupid.

 

[Clutch]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a ton of them at SEMA this year. A buddy said that the number of JL's at last years was just stupid.

Last years, seemed like a bunch of Rangers sitting on bracket lifts, but no mid/long travel.

 

[Dalko43]

As for the Gladiator? I heard that thing starts at 65k CAD. It also will likely have the same 1 star safety rating as the other ones. In my opinion, they're overpriced, overhyped pieces of garbage. And the diesel is a POS too.

Based on what I've seen so far of the new JL platform, I don't have high expectations for the Gladiator. FCA's quality control just isn't where it needs to be with some of their vehicles. But of course until their sales #'s start to suffer, that's not going to change.

As for the sedan engine in a truck... I can agree. But look at what Chev/GM did. Their gas engine is from a Terrain, and their diesel is made by FIAT. They aren't doing any better.

GM's gasoline engine has actually gotten some criticism as being rough-running, especially on 87 octane....whether that is an indicator of the engine's longevity/reliability or just an inconsequential quirk is anyone's guess and will be proven over time. The 2.8l diesel isn't GM's design (despite what the Duramax crowd likes to claim), though it actually has a bit of a track record in overseas vehicles, to include the Jeep. So long as the emissions are fine-tuned, i don't see any potential pitfalls with that design.

Ford's introduction of a turbo-gasoline may in fact shake up the midsized market, and motivate other OEM's (Toyota) to put out more torque-friendly designs....we'll have to wait and see.

I challenge your last statement as a gross mis characterization of both Toyota and Ford.

I've looked at the chassis' that the two OEM's (Ford and Toyota); Toyota seems to over-engineer their 1/2 ton in a number of measurable ways....I therefore draw the conclusion that Toyota's truck is more robustly built, but I definitely acknowledge that conclusion is totally subjective. The differences in brake size, gearing, frame, drivetrain specs aren't subjective however, and are well worth a look.