New Tacoma vs Colorado vs Ranger

[gwittman]

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.


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

It is interesting you mentioning Ranger vs Raptor capability. I lead a group of Landcruisers into the Maze section of Canyonlands a few years ago with my 02 Ranger. There are a couple pretty rough sections on the way to Doll House. We made it through just fine but on the way back out we had to wait about 45 minutes at that rough area because a group were stacking rocks to help the Raptor get though. Raptors are good at flying across the desert at high speed but don't seem to do so good at rock crawling, at least not in stock form.

A couple years ago I went on the Continental Divide Trail with a group. One of the vehicles was an AWD Sprinter. I was surprised at how well it did. It bypassed some of the roughest trails we took but did make it through other fairly rough stuff. He ended up wanting to have something more capable and bought a 5G Ranger. I warned him about losing space, but he was not concerned about it. I have not communicated with him recently, but he seemed to be happy with it, at least initially.

 

[Err]

It is interesting you mentioning Ranger vs Raptor capability. I lead a group of Landcruisers into the Maze section of Canyonlands a few years ago with my 02 Ranger. There are a couple pretty rough sections on the way to Doll House. We made it through just fine but on the way back out we had to wait about 45 minutes at that rough area because a group were stacking rocks to help the Raptor get though. Raptors are good at flying across the desert at high speed but don't seem to do so good at rock crawling, at least not in stock form.

A couple years ago I went on the Continental Divide Trail with a group. One of the vehicles was an AWD Sprinter. I was surprised at how well it did. It bypassed some of the roughest trails we took but did make it through other fairly rough stuff. He ended up wanting to have something more capable and bought a 5G Ranger. I warned him about losing space, but he was not concerned about it. I have not communicated with him recently, but he seemed to be happy with it, at least initially.

Your observations mirror mine. There 100% area some situations where a full size is a bit more cumbersome. Trade offs…

Regarding the Sprinter, from mild Moab trails, to rutted, steep and muddy Canadian logging trails, the Sprinter has impressed me. Mine is well armored, on 33’s with sway bar QDs. It’s no rock crawler but it’ll surprise many. Mine has a nice pin-stripe patina from years of getting me to places you might not expect a house on wheels to go.

 

[skrypj]

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?

I have a feeling that the 2.3L under constant high load probably falls out of its efficiency zone. The engine is not built to be efficient at high load, but at low load. I bet with all that stuff hanging on his truck he got similar MPG's as he would driving a 7.3L Superduty. Just like towing a 6000 lb camper with a 3.5L Ecoboost results in the same MPG as a big V8.

 

[Err]

I have a feeling that the 2.3L under constant high load probably falls out of its efficiency zone. The engine is not built to be efficient at high load, but at low load. I bet with all that stuff hanging on his truck he got similar MPG's as he would driving a 7.3L Superduty. Just like towing a 6000 lb camper with a 3.5L Ecoboost results in the same MPG as a big V8.

Yes.

The little 2.3 is a party to drive. Unloaded and with a few mild performance mods it’s surprisingly fun and quick. But, load it up and MPG plummets. Same with the Taco, 3 x 4Runners, Landcruiser, and every other small rig I’ve overloaded. Haha!

It’s unmistakably true that there are folks perfectly happy with and well served by their mid-size build. You just gotta travel really light.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

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.

One thing to keep in mind and why I keep pumping the brakes to come try to defend the Ranger... our older Ranger's that we know and love don't really have anything in common with the 19+ Ranger.

Going from my '85 to a new Ranger... I think I would sound similar to those going from an F-150 new Ranger.

I have gotten a taste of it with our Bronco. Instead of everything going into the cavernous cargo hold in the back (a 7' bed with a topper can casually eat a lot of gear) you gotta stuff what you can in the little bit of room Ford gave you behind the back seat and then you fill up the back seat the best you can and that is all you have to work with. Without measuring or looking it up a 5' Ranger bed probably only has a little over another foot of actual room without the built in topper.

We run two rigs a lot of the time anymore. My Ranger doesn't have enough seats and the Bronco doesn't have enough cargo room to be comfortable. My F-150 (crew cab long bed) literally combines the best of both worlds (and a little more) but while it is a great truck a great offroader it isn't and it is nowhere close to as nimble or capable offroad as either of the smaller two. To be honest I am more comfortable in my Ranger than my wife's new Bronco which I after almost two years I am still trying to figure out.

If I want to trim brush I can just stay home, I have plenty of that never ending story to do here. Dragging my truck thru the wilderness doesn't sound like a ton of fun either. I know without a ton of tire/upgrades there is no way my '150 will hang with the other two doing what we do... and all those mods will kill it for doing its primary objective of being a farm truck and hauling/towing things for real.

Its a pretty low bar but the 10R80 in the newer Rangers is easily the best slushbox Ford has graced the Ranger with.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I have a feeling that the 2.3L under constant high load probably falls out of its efficiency zone. The engine is not built to be efficient at high load, but at low load. I bet with all that stuff hanging on his truck he got similar MPG's as he would driving a 7.3L Superduty. Just like towing a 6000 lb camper with a 3.5L Ecoboost results in the same MPG as a big V8.

You can have eco and you can have boost. You don't get both at the same time. If you need 3-400hp you are going to feed 3-400hp, there is no way around that.

However if you don't need 3-400hp you don't have to feed 3-400hp and that is where the 7.3 will come up short.

 

[Dougnuts]

I have a feeling that the 2.3L under constant high load probably falls out of its efficiency zone. The engine is not built to be efficient at high load, but at low load. I bet with all that stuff hanging on his truck he got similar MPG's as he would driving a 7.3L Superduty. Just like towing a 6000 lb camper with a 3.5L Ecoboost results in the same MPG as a big V8.

A turbocharged engine at 15psi will essentially double the displacement, while under full boost. Everyone talks about ecoboost mileage under boost, but rarely do people wax on about that 7+L equivalent torque that is available.

Modern controls also allow for mixtures much closer to stoichiometric than they would have been in days gone by. So, your boosted V6 makes 7L torque and gets 7L fuel economy under load, but your daily commute rarely sees boost and gets 18mpg. That was my experience.

 

[skrypj]

A turbocharged engine at 15psi will essentially double the displacement, while under full boost. Everyone talks about ecoboost mileage under boost, but rarely do people wax on about that 7+L equivalent torque that is available.

Modern controls also allow for mixtures much closer to stoichiometric than they would have been in days gone by. So, your boosted V6 makes 7L torque and gets 7L fuel economy under load, but your daily commute rarely sees boost and gets 18mpg. That was my experience.

Yeah, same here. Im just pointing out that an Ecoboost that is going to be under continuous high load all the time will not be efficient. The whole small displacement turbo thing is to minimize pumping losses at low load that you would get in a V8. Same with GM’s AFM/DFM.

Once you are no longer at low load that advantage goes away. And even might actually get slightly worse depending on how much load. I know my 2014 F150 3.5L will start to richen above continuous 325 ft-lbs towing. Above 350 ft-lbs, it happens within seconds. 400 ft-lbs it’s instantaneous.

Also, im sure the turbos are optimized for lower loads too. I bet if you really wanted these trucks to operate better at high load you would need a larger turbine.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Also, im sure the turbos are optimized for lower loads too. I bet if you really wanted these trucks to operate better at high load you would need a larger turbine.

You would need a lot of things, a pickup engine (don't care which one) isn't made to run at high load continuously. They are not made with anything near that in mind.

Like an ag engine, they are designed to run at rated RPM making rated hp for their whole life. They have a lot more beef, a lot more cooling, more conservative tuning etc to stay alive with that duty cycle.

A 300hp John Deere engine is 9 liters for a reason...

 

[D45]

What exactly does the ZR2 package consist of?

LT285/70R17 tires

21.40 gallon gas tank

A 3.1-inch-longer wheelbase, most of it coming from moving the front axle forward 2.95 inches

ZR2 gets a 3-inch lift

Front and rear lockers

The ZR2 track width has been increased by 3 inches, thanks to the use of ZR2-only knuckles, upper control arms, and cast-iron lower control arms.

Unique to the ZR2 amongst Colorado variants, the rear shocks have been located outboard of framerails for better control.

Variable drive modes, accessed by a knob in the center console of the Colorado. The ZR2 is equipped with all of them, including the following:

Normal - A balanced baseline mode for everyday driving
Tow/Haul - Shift points are optimized for towing and hauling
Off-Road - Your basic all-around mode for off-pavement driving
Terrain - Think rock crawling and other technical, low-speed driving
Baja - The go-fast mode for exploring the limits of the chassis

------------------------

Do the 2023 Canyon and Colorado trucks have that annoying start/stop design?

 

[D45]

I'm surprised they didn't change the axle gearing

3.42 on all trucks?

 

[D45]

https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/01/gmc-sierra-canyon-recalled-for-2-7l-engine-fuel-injector-issue/

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Do the 2023 Canyon and Colorado trucks have that annoying start/stop design?

Dunno about them but it is borderline mandatory nowadays.

 

[Todd780]

Dunno about them but it is borderline mandatory nowadays.

My 2022 F150 doesn't have it. It was removed from the build due to chip shortages. Works for me!

 

[D45]

Are the ZR2 packaged trucks the only available truck with front and rear lockers? Colorado or Canyon platform