New Tacoma vs Colorado vs Ranger

[calicamper]

Look at the Explorer STs that have 500+ whp on a internally stock 3.0 that are daily drivers. At ~20% drivetrain loss, that puts them at 600HP at the crank, which is a pretty sizeable jump from stock, and they handle it with out issue.

The 3.0 is built to run higher RPMs than the 2.7. For work use the 2.7 is the better engine. For light duty racing use the 3.0 is the Faster of the two. The Ranger Raptor is tuned to be a sport truck not a work truck.

If your discussing payloads the 3.0 is the wrong engine. If your discussing lap times the 3.0 is the right engine. Make sense?

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Just seems to have low rpm and low speed operating issues

I just hit 100,000 miles and it acts up now and then. I'm just concerned about long term reliability

Alot of the tranx shops in my area say the 8 speed is not solid and reliable

Two friends just had major issues, one a complete and unexpected rebuild at 125,000 and the other is in the stop every 3-4 months for shudder and torque converter issues

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a43398900/gm-will-face-class-action-suit-over-8-speed-gearbox-issues/

Well the Chevy 4 speeds in the full-size express vans would almost need a rebuild like clockwork at 140k miles. I think I had 4 of them replaced.

 

[D45]

According to the specs they have the same size rear legroom.

The full size 2016 Silverado does have the same rear legroom as the 2023 Colorado/Canyon!!!

 

[calicamper]

The full size 2016 Silverado does have the same rear legroom as the 2023 Colorado/Canyon!!!

Those silverados and Suburbans had a strange narrow 2nd row door also. When all the other fresh design 2nd row trucks moved to as large as possible 2nd row doors. Never understood that GM logic

 

[skrypj]

The manual for the Tacoma got released.

https://assets.sia.toyota.com/publications/en/om-s/OM04041U/pdf/OM04041U.pdf?_gl=1*uhwrb8*_tmna_ga*MjI1NTYyOTM4LjE3MDI0MTc3MDE.*_tmna_ga_EP43E5EFVZ*MTcwMjQxNzcwMS4xLjEuMTcwMjQxNzc0NC4xNy4wLjA.

A basic TRD offroad has 1200 payload. That’s without any off road goodies and without any package.

The fact that the TRD off road has 1200 payload and yet they charge you 55K is absurd. this eliminates the off road for me. If the TH doesn’t cut it I am getting a ZR2. And don’t forget that 1200 is a base offroad! Add the premium package with moonroof and all the tech and enjoy your 1000lbs payload! Absurd.
The Ranger Raptor gets 1450 and the ZR2 gets a poor 1250, but at least it has dual lockers, rock sliders and that’s fully loaded. With the same equipment you would be below 1000lbs on the Trd off road

The 3rd Gen Tundra manual shows low payloads too. I dont know exactly what they did, but people who actually weighed their trucks over on the Tundra forum consistently had 200-300 lb of additional payload over what the manual and their door stickers said. I think they just take the heaviest possible truck for each configuration and post that number. Also, the door stickers match one of the 10 or so numbers in the manual regardless of what specific options the truck has.

so best I can tell they don't actually assign a specific payload to each individual truck like Ford/GM/Ram do. They just pick one number and slap it on there.

8L90 yes. What issue are you having? At least there is less torque to handle in the midsize

My understanding was that the 8 speed in the Colorado was heavily updated.

Out of those 3, I'd go with the Ranger Raptor. The 3.0 Nano is a beast of an engine and very over built. I'd imagine it's going to be like all the other Ecoboost motors where aftermarket tuning results in a nice jump in HP TQ. If you run a custom E85 tune it will be a pretty dramatic increase in power.

Yeah the turbos on the 3.0 are very big and I think with E85 and bolt ons they can approach 600whp. It has a lower compression ratio than the other ecoboosts too.

What makes you say it's overbuilt? It's a bored and stroked 2.7L with a cast aluminum block replacing the compacted-graphite iron block.

This isnt true. That was a false statement by some magazine or something that spread around the internet. The Ford website shows both the 2.7 and 3.0 in the Bronco as CGI and same for the various Explorer trims that have the 3.0.

 

[D45]

The Colorado bed is 61.2 inches

The Silverado has a 69.6-inch short bed

ZR2 trim with 3-in. factory lift or Trail Boss trim with wider stance and 2-in. factory lift

 

[Moyshe Kapoyer]

Yeah the turbos on the 3.0 are very big and I think with E85 and bolt ons they can approach 600whp. It has a lower compression ratio than the other ecoboosts too.

That would make the Ranger Raptor an absolute blast to drive.

 

[D45]

3.42 gears seem to be the only factory ratio, with no options

265/65R18SL is the stock size tire for the Z71 package? 31.6x10.4/18

 

[Err]

While I realize the Ranger option being discussed is in reference to the new version, I have a built ‘21 that I setup for overland then tore down.

My thoughts…

Owned quite a few Toyotas and still have a 1st gen Taco that I absolutely love. Newer Tacos lack payload, engine and reliability to make putting up with the aforementioned limitations worth working with. The Colorado is pretty sweet but the only motor that would pull me along at elevation was the diesel and I wasn’t interested in having another modern diesel.

Went with the Ranger for the payload, killer 2.3 turbo and lots of aftermarket support. including the fully warrantied tune Ford offers. I’m under no illusion that this will be a highly reliable vehicle but it’s such a pleasure to drive loaded at elevation compared to the other two options that I’m willing to accept that limitation.

My build has me sitting on 35’s, King suspension, long-travel up front. I’m re-geared to 4:70’s via Bronco Sasquatch front diff swap. I’m triple locked. The requisite bumpers, lights, winch, and compressor are all present. Fenders and bedsides are carbon fiber and the bumpers are aluminum keeping my weight low and stock payload mostly in tact.

I threw a GFC on it and spared no expense in keeping the interior build super light and highly organized. I did eventually add a portly Kinsman awning but otherwise, she was built to be lean, mean and fairly unstoppable.

I used it maybe 6 times and despite all the $$$ and sweat equity, I concluded as many others have before me that the mid-size platform sucks for overlanding. Relative to a full size (owned a few), there are so many compromises in space, utility, payload, fuel economy, etc. The truck was ruined with all that weight and no fun to drive.

The GFC and interior build are gone now, RSI SmartCap in It’s place and I just use it as a super fun toy now. Back to camping and traveling in a full size and wishing I hadn’t waisted so much time and money on a mid-size.

 

[rruff]

Back to camping and traveling in a full size and wishing I hadn’t waisted so much time and money on a mid-size.

What is your fullsize setup?

When considering the Ranger, the F150 with 2.7 is hard to pass up. Used to have a payload package available too, but I think they've quit that for 2024.

Can you describe more how your Ranger was "ruined by all that weight and no fun to drive" relative to your full size?

 

[gwittman]

While I realize the Ranger option being discussed is in reference to the new version, I have a built ‘21 that I setup for overland then tore down.

My thoughts…

Owned quite a few Toyotas and still have a 1st gen Taco that I absolutely love. Newer Tacos lack payload, engine and reliability to make putting up with the aforementioned limitations worth working with. The Colorado is pretty sweet but the only motor that would pull me along at elevation was the diesel and I wasn’t interested in having another modern diesel.

Went with the Ranger for the payload, killer 2.3 turbo and lots of aftermarket support. including the fully warrantied tune Ford offers. I’m under no illusion that this will be a highly reliable vehicle but it’s such a pleasure to drive loaded at elevation compared to the other two options that I’m willing to accept that limitation.

My build has me sitting on 35’s, King suspension, long-travel up front. I’m re-geared to 4:70’s via Bronco Sasquatch front diff swap. I’m triple locked. The requisite bumpers, lights, winch, and compressor are all present. Fenders and bedsides are carbon fiber and the bumpers are aluminum keeping my weight low and stock payload mostly in tact.

I threw a GFC on it and spared no expense in keeping the interior build super light and highly organized. I did eventually add a portly Kinsman awning but otherwise, she was built to be lean, mean and fairly unstoppable.

I used it maybe 6 times and despite all the $$$ and sweat equity, I concluded as many others have before me that the mid-size platform sucks for overlanding. Relative to a full size (owned a few), there are so many compromises in space, utility, payload, fuel economy, etc. The truck was ruined with all that weight and no fun to drive.

The GFC and interior build are gone now, RSI SmartCap in It’s place and I just use it as a super fun toy now. Back to camping and traveling in a full size and wishing I hadn’t waisted so much time and money on a mid-size.

I must be very easy to please space wise. I now run a 2002 FX4 Ranger which makes the latest Rangers look large. My current Ranger is pretty close to stock with 33" tires and helper air spring on the rear to keep it from sagging with the more than 800 lbs of gear (including the Wildernest camper) when I am overlanding. I just have a 1.5" torsion bar lift on the front. That has worked out very well for me. The 4.0 SOHC engine gives me plenty of power for what I do and it puts out considerably less power than the new Rangers.

Of course, I don't go jumping over ramps but do some light to moderate rock crawling when I encounter them. I have scraped the skid plates a few times but only have a few light scratches on them.

I plan to buy a Tremor Ranger in 2025 if they make them then. I am approaching 300K miles with my current Ranger and am not sure how much farther I can push it. One of my concerns with the midsized newer Rangers is the width. Some of the tails I take are tight for my current Ranger and I end up with a lot of desert pin stripes. The wider Ranger will have more of an issue with narrow trails.

Another thing I am concerned about is the transmission. Automatics these days don't seem to be very durable long term. I sure would like to see the Ranger come out with a manual transmission. I also want the 2.7L Ecoboost V6.

 

[rruff]

Some of the tails I take are tight for my current Ranger and I end up with a lot of desert pin stripes. The wider Ranger will have more of an issue with narrow trails.

Just gotta suck it up, or do a bit of trimming. The next guy along will thank you... maybe... if they notice...

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I must be very easy to please space wise. I now run a 2002 FX4 Ranger which makes the latest Rangers look large. My current Ranger is pretty close to stock with 33" tires and helper air spring on the rear to keep it from sagging with the more than 800 lbs of gear (including the Wildernest camper) when I am overlanding. I just have a 1.5" torsion bar lift on the front. That has worked out very well for me. The 4.0 SOHC engine gives me plenty of power for what I do and it puts out considerably less power than the new Rangers.

Of course, I don't go jumping over ramps but do some light to moderate rock crawling when I encounter them. I have scraped the skid plates a few times but only have a few light scratches on them.

I plan to buy a Tremor Ranger in 2025 if they make them then. I am approaching 300K miles with my current Ranger and am not sure how much farther I can push it. One of my concerns with the midsized newer Rangers is the width. Some of the tails I take are tight for my current Ranger and I end up with a lot of desert pin stripes. The wider Ranger will have more of an issue with narrow trails.

Another thing I am concerned about is the transmission. Automatics these days don't seem to be very durable long term. I sure would like to see the Ranger come out with a manual transmission. I also want the 2.7L Ecoboost V6.

A tremor with the 2.7 will be a sweet setup.
I wouldn’t worry about the transmission- that motor is on the low end of power for what it’s rated for.

 

[Err]

What is your fullsize setup?

When considering the Ranger, the F150 with 2.7 is hard to pass up. Used to have a payload package available too, but I think they've quit that for 2024.

Can you describe more how your Ranger was "ruined by all that weight and no fun to drive" relative to your full size?

The lure of the Ranger for me was a quicker, nimbler driving experience in a truck that’s easier to fit in tight spaces but still be able to cover highway miles efficiently and comfortably. I convinced myself that with enough organization, the smaller chassis would still be adequate. Before I had it built out, the truck performed well in every regard. The thing about a midsize is that as soon as you start adding weight, you really feel it. I had a 2012 F350:a few years back, and by comparison, it barely noticed the weight of build. Driving dynamics stayed in tact with a few thousand pounds loaded up. Just adding the weight of an empty GFC to the Ranger totally changed its nimble character to a lumbering beast. Fuel economy in a head wind dropped from 17 - 19 MPG to 9 - 12 MPG resulting in very little range. As I incrementally added to my build, it just kept getting worse. Further, compared to a full size, the space available to organize gear and maintain even a minimally useful habitat is super tight. Succinctly, operating a small truck at the limit of payload, even with custom suspension just isn’t a great experience.

FWIW, a close friend of mine did a similar build on a much smaller budget but started with a clean used 1st gen Raptor. Despite also having a small box, the overall space available and capacity to build on is staggeringly better. In person, side by side, there is simply no comparison. In my head the Ranger would go places his full size wouldn’t. In the real world, that is rarely the case.

IF your idea of overlanding is truly minimalist, more like weekend car camping, then maybe go for it. If you’re thinking things like 10 gal of water, an extra battery & solar, fridge, drawers, etc then skip to a full size.

As for my “full size“, I’ll somewhat sheepishly admit to also owning a built Sprinter 4x4. I’ve had it quite a while and was looking for a new experience when I started down the Ranger path. Back to using the Sprinter while I decide on my next new full size platform.

HTH, YMMV

 

[gwittman]

Just gotta suck it up, or do a bit of trimming. The next guy along will thank you... maybe... if they notice...

Suck it up is what I do with brush. Trimming is not in the works because it just grows back. Unfortunately, sometimes the narrow trail is due to large rocks. That is when I am glad I have a narrow vehicle. Those scrapes are hard to rub out.