How does the current generation Tacoma compare to the previous generation Tundra?

Quote from: ifcar on May 13, 2008, 08:51:22 PM
Tacoma reg/ext cab: 72.2 inches
Tacoma crew cab: 74.6 inches
F-150 (all): 78.9 inches

I assume that is physical width and not width at the wheels?  I guess I really didn't specify either way in the first place.

So at most about 6.7in or half a foot roughly...so even if the F100 were the same width as the F150 it would still be just a bit wider than the current "small" Toyota which is more or less the benchmark in its class.

The small Toyota is way too big.

Quote from: Tave on May 13, 2008, 11:28:31 AM
Do you have complete pickup YTD data for 2008? The only list I have is for January, and it's incomplete.

I like the Ranger, and I would buy it over any other compact/midsize truck on the market, but sales are falling. If Ford wants to boost them, it need to do something. Marketing and discounts will only go so far.

"For those of you scoring at home, the Ford Ranger notched another monthly sales increase in April ? though not by much.

Ford Motor Co. said 7,585 of the St. Paul-made small pickup trucks were sold in April, up 86 trucks, or 1.1 percent, from the same period a year ago. Through the first four months of the year, Ranger sales are running 12.3 percent ahead of their 2007 pace."

It's true that a lot of sales seem to be fleet sales. But a lot of companies simply want a small delivery vehicle that's tough, and are repeat buyers of Rangers. A couple of the places I've worked for in the past used Ranger delivery trucks and they were quite robust and cheap to operate. Those are two key areas that a small truck needs to be, and larger/more luxurious/more carlike are not really great selling points. Trucks need to be simple and tough. And there should be a category of small trucks that is not constantly trying to to be full size trucks.

Quote from: ifcar on May 13, 2008, 08:51:22 PM
Tacoma reg/ext cab: 72.2 inches
Tacoma crew cab: 74.6 inches
F-150 (all): 78.9 inches

Ranger is just 69" so the Tacoma falls roughly right in the middle.

i'd like to find a 4 banger manual tranny 4WD ranger one day for a decent price... nice winter beater and hauler

I would rather have the auto.  The manual was never a "slick" tranny.  I want to buy one in a couple years for dump runs, landscaping my yard, towing the boat down to the lake (gotta buy a boat I guess), and for going hunting.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 14, 2008, 05:48:44 PM
I would rather have the auto.  The manual was never a "slick" tranny.  I want to buy one in a couple years for dump runs, landscaping my yard, towing the boat down to the lake (gotta buy a boat I guess), and for going hunting.

I don't know what you're talking about.

I owned an '86 and I drove an '05 and they were both slick as shit. The throws are not short and it's not precise like an S2000, but neither of them were clunky like the AX-15 in my dad's Dakota.

My only complaint is that Ranger clutches are stiff, but that's not a big deal.

I'd want to find a regular cab too... which is next to impossible to find anymore

Quote from: ifcar on May 13, 2008, 09:27:57 AM
They should keep the regular cab Ranger around after they introduce the F-100. Gear them for gas mileage over performance for CAFE benefits and sell them primarily to fleets. Though profit margins must be slim, development costs must have long been paid off.

Ford expects the Transit Connect to fill the commerical void left behind when Ranger production ends.

Quote from: JWC on May 15, 2008, 06:00:25 PM


Ford expects the Transit Connect to fill the commerical void left behind when Ranger production ends.

That's great, unless you want a pickup. In that case, you head right over to your Chevrolet or GMC dealer to pick up a Colorado or Canyon.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 12, 2008, 11:09:08 AM
I think it's a mistake.  The F-100 won't be anywhere near as narrow as the Ranger, and small pickups will be all the rage again because of soaring gas prices.

the rage? i doubt it, unless the new generation of smaller trucks get far better mpg, as they vary little now from their larger brothers. also, most large pick-up truck owners purchase them because of need. payload is a priority. who knows, they may think up a better way of packaging these forthcoming small and midsize truck replacements.

a few friends, family members and a co-worker drive honda ridgelines as an alternative to a car, suv or crossover. they would never have purchased a pick-up otherwise; thus, smaller trucks are not particularly useful or of interest to the traditional full size pick-up owner. my buddies in farmer, construction and landscaping have assured me of this.

if not for soaring gasoline prices, i may have bought a 2008 ridgeline.

Quote from: Atomic on May 15, 2008, 06:29:33 PM
the rage? i doubt it, unless the new generation of smaller trucks get far better mpg, as they vary little now from their larger brothers. also, most large pick-up truck owners purchase them because of need. payload is a priority. who knows, they may think up a better way of packaging these forthcoming small and midsize truck replacements.

Most large pickup owners don't haul anything...ever.  Small pickups will once again become all the rage because trends are set by people with no priorities.

Quotea few friends, family members and a co-worker drive honda ridgelines as an alternative to a car, suv or crossover. they would never have purchased a pick-up otherwise; thus, smaller trucks are not particularly useful or of interest to the traditional full size pick-up owner. my buddies in farmer, construction and landscaping have assured me of this.

I never stated people who use their trucks as the manufacturer intended would buy them, because those guys will always need them.  I'm talking about those who don't have any payload requirements but still want a pickup.

Quoteif not for soaring gasoline prices, i may have bought a 2008 ridgeline.

There you go.  You have no taste.

Small trucks definately DO cost less to run. Here's a little comparison I ran between an F-150 5.4L 2WD and a Ranger 2.3L 2WD. The Ranger is on the left, the F-150 is on the right.

EPA MPG                    21/26            13/17
Cost to drive 25 Miles     $4.04            $6.64   
Fuel to Drive 25 Miles     1.09 gal         1.79 gal 
Cost of a Fill-up          $56.92-$66.96    $87.05-$119.52   
Miles on a Tank            352-414 miles    328-450 miles 
Tank Size                  17.0-20.0 gal    26.0-35.7 gal 
Annual Fuel Cost*          $2427            $3984

That's a difference of $1557 a year IF gas stays at $3.72 and you drive 15,000 miles a year.

I think it would be great if Ford kept selling the Ranger with a 4 cylinder to cover fleet sales and people looking for better fuel economy + a low MSRP and let this F-100 replace the fully loaded 4WD 6 cylinder Rangers.

Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 16, 2008, 12:14:04 AM
Small trucks definately DO cost less to run. Here's a little comparison I ran between an F-150 5.4L 2WD and a Ranger 2.3L 2WD. The Ranger is on the left, the F-150 is on the right.

EPA MPG                    21/26            13/17
Cost to drive 25 Miles     $4.04            $6.64   
Fuel to Drive 25 Miles     1.09 gal         1.79 gal 
Cost of a Fill-up          $56.92-$66.96    $87.05-$119.52   
Miles on a Tank            352-414 miles    328-450 miles 
Tank Size                  17.0-20.0 gal    26.0-35.7 gal 
Annual Fuel Cost*          $2427            $3984

That's a difference of $1557 a year IF gas stays at $3.72 and you drive 15,000 miles a year.

I think the point people were making is that there is not much difference between full-size trucks and trucks like the Tacoma and Frontier which are closer in size to what the new F100 will be.  A Tacoma 2.7L 4x2 regular cab 5 speed manual gets 20/25mpg but a 4.0L 4x2 access cab 6 speed manual gets 15/19.  The interesting thing is that the Tacoma access cab 4.0L 4x4 5 speed auto gets 16/20.  Those numbers for the 4.0L are pretty close to the 4.2L and 4.6L 4x2 F150 numbers of 14/20 and 14/19 respectively.

Quote from: RomanChariot on May 16, 2008, 08:31:14 AM
I think the point people were making is that there is not much difference between full-size trucks and trucks like the Tacoma and Frontier which are closer in size to what the new F100 will be.  A Tacoma 2.7L 4x2 regular cab 5 speed manual gets 20/25mpg but a 4.0L 4x2 access cab 6 speed manual gets 15/19.  The interesting thing is that the Tacoma access cab 4.0L 4x4 5 speed auto gets 16/20.  Those numbers for the 4.0L are pretty close to the 4.2L and 4.6L 4x2 F150 numbers of 14/20 and 14/19 respectively.

Actually Atomic was speaking about the Ranger because it was in response to me saying that small trucks like the Ranger will be all the rage with high fuel prices.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 16, 2008, 08:52:42 AM
Actually Atomic was speaking about the Ranger because it was in response to me saying that small trucks like the Ranger will be all the rage with high fuel prices.

If I were in the market for a smallish pickup truck I would want to buy something along the lines of a 70's Ford Courier.

Quote from: Byteme on May 16, 2008, 09:31:58 AM
If I were in the market for a smallish pickup truck I would want to buy something along the lines of a 70's Ford Courier.

Not much difference there.

Except for size and gas mileage, I'm sure.

I've always wanted a Ranger with a 4" lift kit and 31"x10.5" off road tires.  My buddy had one in high school and it was an absolute blast. 

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 16, 2008, 10:48:45 AM
I've always wanted a Ranger with a 4" lift kit and 31"x10.5" off road tires.  My buddy had one in high school and it was an absolute blast. 

I would love to own that.

Quote from: HEMI666 on May 16, 2008, 09:39:07 AM




Not much difference there.

With a SPORT sticker on the side

Quote from: ifcar on May 16, 2008, 10:29:50 AM
Except for size and gas mileage, I'm sure.

An 82 Courier for example, was about 2500-2600 lbs with a payload of 1400 lbs box was 74" X 62", length was 177.9", all on a 106.9" wheelbase. 1982 mileage estimates were 27 city, 38 highway.  It carried 14.8 gallons of fuel and could tow 2000 lbs with the optional 2.3 L engine.

An 08 ranger gets 21-26, is 189" long weighs 3030 lbs has a payload of 1260 lbs and tows 2600 lbs

Quote from: Byteme on May 16, 2008, 11:11:35 AM
An 82 Courier for example, was about 2500-2600 lbs with a payload of 1400 lbs box was 74" X 62", length was 177.9", all on a 106.9" wheelbase. 1982 mileage estimates were 27 city, 38 highway.  It carried 14.8 gallons of fuel and could tow 2000 lbs with the optional 2.3 L engine.

An 08 ranger gets 21-26, is 189" long weighs 3030 lbs has a payload of 1260 lbs and tows 2600 lbs

I learned to drive stick on a '81 Courier with the 2.0L engine.  My brother and I put a lot of miles and good memories into that truck.  We beat that truck hard.  It was nearly indestructible except for the clutch, but my brother rode the clutch so that was to be expected.  I later had '78(I could be off on the year)Courier with the 2.3L engine.  They were both great trucks.

Quote from: ifcar on May 15, 2008, 06:12:20 PM
That's great, unless you want a pickup. In that case, you head right over to your Chevrolet or GMC dealer to pick up a Colorado or Canyon.

--and get laughed at by the rest of the truck world.

Quote from: R-inge on May 16, 2008, 10:55:54 PM
--and get laughed at by the rest of the truck world.

Don't knock `em.  The Colorado and Canyon are the best cars ever designed in Thailand.

Quote from: Byteme on May 16, 2008, 11:11:35 AM
An 82 Courier for example, was about 2500-2600 lbs with a payload of 1400 lbs box was 74" X 62", length was 177.9", all on a 106.9" wheelbase. 1982 mileage estimates were 27 city, 38 highway.  It carried 14.8 gallons of fuel and could tow 2000 lbs with the optional 2.3 L engine.

An 08 ranger gets 21-26, is 189" long weighs 3030 lbs has a payload of 1260 lbs and tows 2600 lbs

Okay, first of all, fuel mileage ratings back them were supposedly inflated compared to even pre 2008 estimates. If I use the mathmatical conversion to 2008 standards it's 23/34.

Secondly, that truck would be a real bummer on the freeway. It would be noisy and vibrate, if it could even maintain those speeds. My '86 Ranger felt like it was going to shake apart at 73 mph.

Thirdly, a Courier is horribly unsafe by todays standards and emits quite a bit more NOx/CO/etc.

Also, the 2008 Ranger CAN be ordered with a 7' box.

Just get a first gen Ranger if you want a lightweight truck. The '86 longbox 2WD was just over 2600 lbs according to Ford's factory literature.

Quote from: R-inge on May 16, 2008, 10:55:54 PM
--and get laughed at by the rest of the truck world.

Right, because a Transit Connect has lots of trucking cred.

Quote from: ifcar on May 17, 2008, 05:35:40 AM
Right, because a Transit Connect has lots of trucking cred.

If marketed and priced correctly, I think the Transit Connect could be the next Scion xB.  I fully plan on tst-driving one when they become available to the public