Is the Ranger the Hilux we've been wanting?

[Dalko43]

I think the demographic exists for both in most places. Tacomas get imported into many countries I understand in South America like we do with 25+ year old trucks, for enthusiasts who like the more comfortable highway ride, power, more aggressive looks, etc. Just like here there's still a small number of buyers who would opt for a stripped down utility truck. It's a segment that is filled with poverty spec F150s and Super Duty trucks to some extent and others (like me) just buy a used Tacoma and build it down (steel wheels, taking out OEM stereo, inverters, etc.). I'd have happily bought a new(er) Hilux if it was available but I had to accept the reality that is. Toyota is above all not stupid, they know how to maximize profit so markets get what sells.

I don't think Tacoma's are nearly as coveted overseas as Hilux's are here in the North America.

The difference in ride is marketing drivel on Toyota's part...suspension tuning could easily adjust the ride quality. The Hilux comes with higher (more luxurious trim levels). And Toyota could easily adjust the interior design for the North American market (just like they do for the 4runner and GX).

I think 10 years ago, Toyota may have had a hard time selling a Hilux-like vehicle because consumer expectations for the midsized segment were low....I think nowadays that most midsized buyers want more out of these trucks and the Hilux would sell just fine. If Ford, and a lot of loyalists, thought a 1500lb payload, 7k lb towing midsized Ranger would be a good idea, why would the Hilux be bad idea by comparison? They're both similar enough in terms of capabilities.

 

[LimaMikeMike]

As promised, seen on display at the Papeete airport today - Ford Ranger Raptor and a base model with 5 cylinder diesel and 6 speed manual.View attachment 531680View attachment 531681

I’d be interested in seeing the ranger raptor’s 2.0TT diesel in the NA ranger now that it’s in the transit here.

Or they could bring the whole truck here, lol

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I’d be interested in seeing the ranger raptor’s 2.0TT diesel in the NA ranger now that it’s in the transit here.

Or they could bring the whole truck here, lol

There have been quite a few Raptors spotted in the US, both LH and RH drive.

They are interesting but personally I wouldn't care for one. A plain ol' FX4 would suit me just fine.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Starting to see some Rangers around town that aren't all the top line ones that first came out. The sport ones are pretty slick.

 

[Todd n Natalie]

Starting to see some Rangers around town that aren't all the top line ones that first came out. The sport ones are pretty slick.

I looked at a nice base XLT FX4 crew. Just think it would be too small for me. But, nice truck.

 

[Wallygator]

The big perk? The big perk is that you can manually select your gears for situations like towing and offroading as opposed to letting the computer do that for you...for as good as the computers are, they don't fully replicate a human being's decision making for certain types of driving scenarios.

Toyota understands that owners want manual gear selection, either with the manual or with the auto. Some of the other OEM's seem hell-bent on taking that discretion away from owners by dumbing down the whole driving experience.




That was TFL's opinion. The Tacoma's C-channel frame may very well have more flex than the Ranger's. However the added articulation could also be due to the fact that the Tacoma's suspension and chassis was engineered to be more capable offroad. Either way, the Tacoma had noticeably better articulation compared to the Ranger during that TFL offroad test. That shows you how the design priorities are different between Ford and Toyota.




I already stated those areas, but to reiterate: better approach/departure angles, better ground clearance, shock mounts are tucked away to the sides of the axle, manual gear shifting, 16" wheels for better sidewall clearance.

Yeah it doesn't matter how you feel about the Tacoma's 14 year old frame design, the motor they put in it now is a non starter for me. In fact I feel the Tacoma sucks because of it and I have owned 4 of them (2 first gens and 2 second gens). Toyota needs to put a truck engine back in the Tacoma!

 

[AbleGuy]

I don't really think that's the reason for the small tanks, since by the time the owner gets to the point of filling the tank he's already bought the vehicle (at least I know I wouldn't pay to put gas in a vehicle that wasn't mine yet )

Pretty sure the real reason is (a) weight and (b) space. Smaller tanks weigh less which means better MPG figures for CAFE compliance. They also take up less space which leaves more room for other stuff under truck. And since 99.9% of buyers will live and use the truck within 20 miles of a gas station anyway, it's not an issue to them. It's only us weird "broverlanders" that worry about silly things like "range."

EDITED TO ADD: It's interesting to see how a manufacturer chooses to equip a vehicle and what that says about the manufacturer's assumptions about their intended customers. Clearly Ford must think that most of the customers for the Ranger are people who live in urban or suburban areas where fuel range is not an issue. By contrast, they offer a 36 gallon tank as an option on the F-150 which means they must think the intended buyer of an F-150 WOULD be concerned about fuel range, i.e. a customer who lives and/or uses the vehicle in areas where gas stations are far apart.
One thing that is nice about large fuel capacities is that it gives you an option to optimize fuel costs.....

I’m an old timer and when thinking about truck gas tank capacities, still miss the “good old days” (sigh) when my F-150 had the dual tanks (actually I believe it was called an F-100 way back 50 years ago).

Back then, I never really had to pay much attention to how much fuel I had because I’d fill both tanks before taking off for a back country trip, drive far enough to run the primary tank down to “E” and then switch to the second tank, turn around and start heading home. Can’t remember how much gas they’d held combined.

On another old Ford half ton, I had the huge single tank mounted vertically right behind the bench seat (remember that one guys?). It was a bit nerve wracking having the filler neck right up behind my left shoulder though.

Once while driving that one with a buddy who smoked, my friend flicked the hot ash off of his cigarette out of the half open passenger side window...or so he thought. A short while later we both noticed the getting stronger smell of something burning, then saw dark gray smoke coming up from behind the bench seat. I pulled off the road and we both jumped out and moved the seat back forward, surprised to discover that the cheap burlap lining on the back of the seat had caught on fire! Yup, flames were starting to spread there from his supposedly chucked out cigarette ashes that’d blown back inside the cab.

Geeze-oh....we’d briefly been happily rolling down the highway with a smoldering fire burning pretty much right up against the big, full tank of gasoline setting right immediately behind us!

Yeah, those were the days....

 

[doug720]

As to fuel capacity...

I own 2 Ford PU's - a 1977 F250 4X4 and a 2017 F150 4X4, both V8's.

The 77' has 2 tanks that hold about 32 gallons, and travels about 10-13 miles on a gallon.

The 17' has 1 tank that holds about 36 gallons, and travels about 15-20 miles on gallon.

FYI

 

[DorB]

The current, actually old, Tacoma sucks IMO. Some in other countries think that version of the Ranger is better than the Hilux. I would buy the U.S. Ranger over the Tacoma hands down, it's simply a better truck than the Taco..

Tacoma in not a hilux, to start with, different frame, suspension and lots more.

Regarding comparison to the ranger, there is a “small” difference in payload.

The hilux is rated over 2200lb (full metric ton) payload, 600lb more then the ranger.

I can’t see the ranger even getting close to have an effect on the hilux market where you can find both.

One is a local north American truck, and the other, an international produced icon (one can argue if its rightfully or not, but still an icon).

The modern hilux has all the dated safety and emission features and you still don’t get them in the USA, and Toyota doesn’t seem to be bothered much because of its market in the rest of the world.








Slowly..

 

[DaveInDenver]

Tacoma in not a hilux, to start with, different frame, suspension and lots more.

Regarding comparison to the ranger, there is a “small” difference in payload.

The hilux is rated over 2200lb (full metric ton) payload, 600lb more then the ranger.

I can’t see the ranger even getting close to have an effect on the hilux market where you can find both.

You're comparing apples to squirrels. The global Ranger GVW is generally similar to a competitive Hilux. For example, an Australian 4x4 Double Cab SR5 Hilux has a GVW rating of 2,930 kg with a curb weight of 1,930 kg. An Aussie spec XLT Double Ranger carries a 3,200 kg GVW with a stated curb weight of 2,202 kg.

 

[DorB]

You're comparing apples to squirrels. .

I relate to the apples and squirrels that were competed here..

The Hilux keeps the load rating everywhere it’s sold.

The ranger doesn’t, and you still doesn’t see the crowds standing inline for rangers..

But we’re drifting from the main title of this tread.







Slowly..

 

[Todd n Natalie]

M
What a load of crap ! Aussies use GVM.
Dunno why, maybe their gravity is different down there.

Maybe it's upside down?

 

[DaveInDenver]

M
What a load of crap ! Aussies use GVM.
Dunno why, maybe their gravity is different down there.

They also have kerbs, which I presume are easier for pedestrians to negotiate walking their dingos around parked trucks.

 

[nickw]

Most recent interview with a major Australian outfitter he explained that the Ranger is now the NO 1 ute sold in Australia. Top reasons he listed proven capabilities, modern, better comfort, better power and fuel consumption also more competitive price.

Odd isn’t it all the things being mentioned here and in the F150 / Tundra forum. I’m not brand specific I have Toyota trucks since the 90’s and currently have one. Nothing Toyota currently sells is of any interest to me for all the reasons listed.

+1

In Aus, the holy land, many prefer the Ranger. I saw many of them out in the bush in Taz, probably 1:1 with Toyotas, if not more, pulling big trailers. I was surprised, I expected Hiluxes and Cruisers everywhere with the odd NIssan, VW and Ford....funny how expectation meets reality....perceptions of folks in the US of the Aussies and what they drive may not be what we see on the cover of Overland Mag....

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I relate to the apples and squirrels that were competed here..

The Hilux keeps the load rating everywhere it’s sold.

The ranger doesn’t, and you still doesn’t see the crowds standing inline for rangers..

But we’re drifting from the main title of this tread.

The Ranger got neutered somewhat for NA so it didn't tread too closely to the F-150 market. The rest of the world doesn't have to worry about hurting the F-150's feelings.