We Pit the 2019 Ford Ranger Against the 2018 Toyota Tacoma in a Real-World Test


By Brian Wong and Mark Williams

We gave the newly reborn 2019 Ford Ranger a positive early review, but you know that's not good enough for Pickuptrucks.com — we wanted to see how the Ranger measures up to the most popular mid-size pickup trucks. We already broke down how the Ranger and Toyota Tacoma's specs/trims measure up, so now it was time to test these two in the real world.

That meant a head-to-head comparison with the reigning mid-size sales king, the 2018 Toyota Tacoma, a formidable opponent with a reputation that sets a high bar for the 2019 Ford Ranger to surpass. We tested these two trucks on a long on-road drive to test fuel economy, at an off-road park and did a quick jaunt with both trucks filled to their maximum payload capacity all in the Los Angeles area.

Our Ranger was a 4x4 SuperCrew Lariat and the Tacoma was a 4x4 TRD Sport Double Cab, giving both trucks some common ground right out of the gate. Both had 5-foot beds and four-door cabs with wheelbases that were only 0.6-inch apart. And both these trucks run ahead of the pack on safety features as they had forward collision warning with automatic emergency braking, lane keep assist and adaptive cruise control among other safety technologies. Despite these congruencies however, the two pickups quickly distinguished themselves in both philosophy and execution — especially under the hood.

The Toyota is powered by a 278-horsepower, 3.5-liter V-6 that makes 265 pounds-feet of torque and is mated to a six-speed automatic transmission. The Ranger is only offered with a 270-hp, turbocharged 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine, but at 310 pounds-feet of torque it has a significant torque advantage and comes with a 10-speed automatic transmission. Also found on the Ranger was a more robust off-road setup, thanks to the FX4 Off-Road Package that added a locking rear differential and Ford's Trail Control system — neither of these features are offered on the TRD Sport we tested.

There were also some interior differences in both features and technology that ended up making a big difference in our scoring.

Judges were PickupTrucks.com Editor Mark Williams and Cars.com Los Angeles Bureau Chief Brian Wong; we scored the trucks on a scale of 1-10 across 10 categories, giving each truck a potential total of 200 points.


Winner: Ranger (18 points; Tacoma 14 — all scores out of 20)


Mark Williams: The more I drive the Ranger, the more I'm surprised at how powerful the four-cylinder feels, especially when you knock the shift lever down into Sport mode; the revs stay up, throttle response gets more sensitive, and when you want to jump into or out of traffic, you practically just think and it happens. Of course, transmission mapping is the key here and obviously the Ford engineers understood this mid-size class is suffering, with no one providing a real sport player. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the new Ranger is pretty light. I also like that it offers a separate Sport mode and Tow/Haul setting. As much as I like the Tacoma electronically controlled transmission power button mapping for the transmission (which makes the shifting feel stronger) and the knock-up/knock-down shifter, the Ranger makes better use of all the power and torque.

Brian Wong: The Ranger's powertrain makes it a legitimately fun truck to drive around, even in town. Whether it's in Drive or Sport, the engine is eager to rev and quick to get into the power, and that's in stark contrast to the Toyota's V-6, which needs to be poked and prodded. The Toyota's Atkinson cycle might be good for efficiency, but it also comes with throttle delays that I couldn't get over. I much prefer the Ranger's ability to feel lively in all of its drive modes.

On-Road Drivability

Winner: Ranger (16 points; Tacoma 14)


BW: The Ranger's powertrain quickness teams with solid road manners. The Ranger we tested had the FX-4 Off-Road Package with the off-road tuned suspension. Though it's set up for off-road, I found it to be pretty good on pavement as well; its tuning isn't so soft that you get too much body roll.

The Tacoma was by no means a poor-driving truck, but it seemed to struggle on inclines, not because it lacked power but because the engine just takes longer to get into the power, and it feels like your foot is in the floormat all the time. I was also perplexed by the Tacoma's steering, which seems to have its priorities reversed — it's too heavy at low speeds and too light at high speeds, and that led to a bit of vagueness I didn't like on the mountain roads.

MW: This felt pretty close to me because you really have a lot of flexibility with how you choose to drive the Tacoma. It feels readier to rumble, with the tap-up/tap-down shifter knocked over to Sport, if that's what you want. I'm not crazy about the little thumb shifter on the Ranger's gear selector but it's hard to argue when you feel the quickness of the throttle when you want to merge into a small gap on the freeway. Add to that the firmness and flatness of the front-end handling and this was the favorite for me running up and down the mountain roads outside Los Angeles.

Off-Road Capability

Winner: Ranger (16 points; Tacoma 12)


MW: I can't really say the Ranger sets a new standard in this area, but it does offer some impressive features that matched up pretty well with the standard four-wheel-drive system in the Tacoma TRD Sport. When in low range, the extra gearing advantages of the Ranger's 10-speed really helped on the rocky hill climbs with the better low-range gear (2.72:1 versus 2.57:1). Trail Control is pretty interesting technology designed to turn over throttle and braking duties to the computer, but we did find it had some trouble keeping engine revs up and modulating braking. In fact, there were a few situations where we rolled backward during some challenging climbs, which was not fun. Still, it's technology and capability the TRD Sport couldn't match — it will be interesting to see the Tacoma TRD Off-Road or TRD Pro compared against the Ranger's Trail Control later. The Tacoma did well but with its seemingly street-biased 265/65R17 Firestone Destination tires, it had some gripping issues. The Ranger was equipped with 265/60R18 Hankook DynaPros.

BW: I agree wholeheartedly; both of these trucks could have used a more aggressive tire though it's interesting that the Tacoma offers two models with good all-terrains, but the FX4 package is it for the Ranger. The Ranger's 10-speed transmission turned out to be quite good off-road after its impressive on-road showing, and for a turbocharged engine, the torque curve wasn't as peaky as I feared. It's got good dexterity for crawling and good power output for running faster in the dry riverbeds we found.

Though the Tacoma's tires didn't fare well, I thought the rest of it did quite nicely. There's some great articulation in the rear axle; low range helps keep the engine in a spot where the power output is a little more predictable.


Winner: Ranger (18 points; Tacoma 14)


BW: We weighed both trucks with full tanks of gas and they were remarkably close with only a 20-pound difference. The Tacoma tipped the scales at 4,540 pounds and Ranger at 4,560. To get a true payload rating, we subtracted those numbers from the factory gross vehicle weight rating and the Ranger crushed the Tacoma, 1,490 pounds to 1,060 pounds. That's a large difference when it comes to hauling, and I would have offered a bigger gap in the scoring to reflect this, but I thought the Toyota drove a bit better with a load in the back. This is due in part to the Ranger's brakes; they are a bit soft at the top end of the brake pedal. Usually that doesn't bother me too much, however, with almost 1,500 pounds in the back that vagueness was unwelcome. While we didn't get a chance to tow, it's worth noting that the Ranger's maximum tow capacity of 7,500 pounds outpoints the Tacoma's maximum of 6,400 pounds (in the configurations we tested).

MW: This was probably one of the easier categories to score for me. It's astonishing, to say the least, that Ford built the Ranger to be just as light as the other players in the class (with the help of aluminum doors, hood and tailgate), yet it's able to carry more than any other mid-size pickup (Ford rates it at 1,860 pounds max). Here, specifically, the Ranger is rated to carry over 40 percent more weight than the Tacoma. We found the four-cylinder Ranger did pretty well with the progressive bump-stops carrying some of the load. The V-6 Tacoma, on the other hand, felt the least taxed at max payload, as though it could handle more weight if it needed to. Scale weights being close, we vote for the pickup with the bigger GVWR: The Ranger is rated at 6,050 pounds and the Tacoma at 5,600.


Winner: Tacoma (20 points; Ranger 18)


BW: The expectation was the Ranger would win this, given its recently released EPA ratings of 20/24/22 mpg are the highest for a gas-powered 4x4 in the class. Our Tacoma came with the 3.5-liter V-6, and one would think its EPA ratings of 18/22/20 mpg would put it at a disadvantage to the Ranger's turbocharged four-cylinder.

However, the Ranger missed its fuel-economy targets and finished slightly behind the Tacoma. The Tacoma checked in at the end of our loop with a 21.4 mpg average, edging out the Ranger's 21.3 mpg.

Our 250-mile loop around Southern California covered a variety of driving styles, from city driving to mountain roads with big elevation changes and desert highways. With an average speed of 42 mph, we had hoped to see both trucks edge up near their estimated highway mpg figure, but only one truck did that: the Tacoma. Both trucks were filled at the same pump prior to and after the drive for accuracy.

MW: I have to say this was a bit of a surprise — definitely something we'll have to revisit in upcoming fuel-economy tests. Our measured efficiency of the Tacoma's Atkinson cycle V-6 engine is impressive compared to the Ranger's stronger and more powerful inline-four-cylinder with almost twice as many transmission gears. The problem is that to have any fun with the V-6 Tacoma you have to do your own shifting and make sure you have the ECT Power button engaged — and that can really cut into your fuel-economy numbers. Of course, that's not how we drove during our fuel economy loop.

Bed Technology

Winner: Tacoma (17 points; Ranger 15)


MW: The Ranger has a standard deep steel bed with three strong mounting tie-down points near the floor, while the Tacoma uses a composite bed to save weight and prevent scratches from showing, but it also offers two lockable storage spaces tucked into the walls and ours came with the 400-watt three-prong outlet for outdoor electrical jobs (we should note the Ranger also has a three-prong 110-volt outlet, but it is inside the cab at the feet of the rear passengers). I like having the outlet in the bed and a place to hold my gloves, a strap and some small tools.

BW: The Tacoma's lower load-in height to get things over the tailgate gets a nod here. It also offered dampers when lowering the tailgate so it doesn't bang down when you open it. One positive note about the Ranger is that the tailgate is aluminum and very light, so it's super easy to close, and you can easily lift it even with only a few fingers.

Interior Quality

Winner: Ranger (15 points; Tacoma 11)


BW: Though the seat materials were close in quality, the front seats of the Ranger were much more comfortable. The Tacoma lacks a height adjustment for its front seats (across all trim levels), which made finding a good driving position more difficult — having it would help mitigate some of its headroom issues. I kept bumping my head against the fabric near the side window while driving, which got annoying.

Both trucks had excellent side visibility, but the Ranger's larger windshield and copious headroom made it feel more spacious. It's also a more modern cabin, while the Tacoma opts for a rugged look that felt like it needed updating.

MW: This category is a big separator. This is where the Tacoma is showing its age — the Ranger Lariat has plenty of soft padding in the center console, door arm rests and wrapped along the entire dash. It also offers a large touchscreen, plenty of cubby storage, along with two USB ports in front and two in back. Tacoma TRD Sport has hard plastic everywhere, the space feels more cramped, and vents and charging ports are nonexistent in the backseats.


Winner: Ranger (16 points; Tacoma 12)


MW: Our Ranger's multicolored information screen in the instrument cluster shows all the engine, fuel-economy and four-wheel-drive data you could want, much of it selectable with a button on the steering wheel. After that, the center dashboard touchscreen and updated Sync 3 setup makes controlling music, street info and climate quick and intuitive. Toyota has done well adding technologies to the Tacoma during the last few years, but the smaller display screen and low button location, not to mention the small info screen between the large tachometer and speedometer, make hunting for info or buttons more difficult.

BW: When it comes to connectivity options, the Ranger pulls away from the Tacoma again, offering Android Auto/Apple CarPlay with a screen that responds faster and is simpler to use. The angle of the screen in the Ranger is a bit weird at first — it's tilted back slightly, but I got used to it during our three days with the truck. Four USB ports, two 12-volt ports and a household outlet in the cabin give the Ranger copious charging options. The Tacoma? It has one lonely USB port and a 12-volt outlet up front, though the Tacoma did have a nicely sized wireless charging pad, which was its only interior technological advantage.

Safety Features

Winner: Ranger (20 points; Tacoma 18)


BW: Both trucks came with an impressive array of safety features, which is not surprising given that Ford has offered these technologies in the F-150 and Toyota remains committed to making them standard on the majority of its vehicles. Adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, forward collision warning with automatic emergency braking and blind spot warning systems were offered on both trucks, along with parking sensors (the Ranger had front and rear, while the Tacoma had only rear).

MW: The top-of-the-line Ranger Lariat we tested came with a bevy of advanced safety features and given all the traffic issues (and unpredictable drivers) we had around Los Angeles, I experienced the collision warning and auto braking a few times. That'll wake you up. The Ranger's softer brake pedal feel took me a while to get used to but did eventually get me to do some earlier, harder braking. Radar cruise control settings are pretty easy to set up as well. Comparable equipment in the Tacoma did not feel as well integrated, nor were these features easily visible for adjustments or turning off (where possible).


Winner: Tacoma (17 points; Ranger 14)


MW: The value category long has been controversial because there are those who believe the least expensive should always win. Others argue that bang-for-the-buck is the priority, while still others defend whichever player best checks the most boxes for their specific needs, no matter what the cost. In some ways I fall into all three categories, giving the nod to the Tacoma TRD Sport that costs almost $4,000 less than the Ranger Lariat yet is still fun to drive and returns decent power and fuel economy for a V-6. And I choose to believe the Toyota engineers have built a sizable cushion into their max payload number.

BW: I look at the Ranger's $44,855 price tag and the Tacoma's $40,670 and try to figure if you get $4,000 more truck with the Ranger. I do think mid-size pickups have a tendency to be slightly overpriced, but these both offered a good amount of features (especially on the safety front) and capability. I think the Ranger comes close to offering enough in terms of better on-road and off-road drivability, technology and interior quality to make up some of that difference in price, but not all the way. An interesting comparison would be to redo this test against a Tacoma TRD Off-Road, which has a more aggressive tire setup to give the Tacoma more off-road edge.

Overall Winner: Ford Ranger (166 points; Tacoma 149)


The Ford's powertrain advantages and interior quality and technology really carried the day for it here. At the end of our test, both trucks handled all aspects of the testing quite well, but the ease at which the Ranger went about it stuck out to us. It has the advantage of being the newer truck, and the Tacoma's issues will likely be addressed when it gets a redesign, but for the time being, we are comfortable saying that the Ranger was the clear winner of this competition. It looks like Ford's time away from the mid-size class in the U.S. didn't prevent it from making a high-quality entrant in its return.

Cars.com photos by Evan Sears

2019-PUTC-H2H-Ranger-v-Tacoma_wyg F









Surprising to me that PUTC chose the outdated Tacoma (just because of sales totals) over the more contemporary GM midsize trucks.

GM offers manual and auto (as does Taco); GM has 3 different engine choices, different chassis choices; wider price spread. All that said, the Ranger easily outpaces the Toyota.

It's sad that "corporate" is letting the Tacoma go dead on the vine. Maybe Ford and GM will provide Toyota management with the impetus to get their product development in gear and compete.

Has any of the EcoBoost's ever gotten the advertised mileage?

Almost $45K for a loaded Ranger?
You've got to be kidding. I'd take an XLT F150 2.7 3.55 Scab any day over that toy truck. More comfortable and better MPG's as well. Haul more, tow more and probably quieter inside.

And the Taco will still reign supreme in mid-size truck sales

Well that's all nice for Ranger. Being totally new it would embarrassing for it to lose a head to contest even with this segments long running champion.

I seem to recall similar instances where a newly reintroduced Colorado defeated aging Tacos in similar fashion. Yet to this day cannot wrestle it out of its top spot in this segment.

The Taco will remain atop this little heap for the forseeable future even when up against "better", more modern competitors.

The real question in this segment is who will be in the #2 spot in 2 years time? Can the Chevy with its established market share hang onto it? Or will it be displaced by Ranger, traditionally a much bigger selling little truck (in NA and the world) than any little truck Chevy has ever fielded so far?

And all this at the time Fiat is closing the gap between its 3rd place position and Chevy's 2nd. And with the new Silvo tanking in head to head 1/2 ton competitions even with its as magical and common as a unicorn 6.2 V8. Sorry Chevy fans the new truck is not testing well or getting good press. Its being outclassed by the all new Fiat, and middle of its life Ford. Add to that Chevy has decided to ugly up the fronts of the 3/4 and up trucks and its apparent that someone is F ing up there. I wasn't expecting Chevy to screw up at all and especially not so badly. The good news is they could rush a midcycle refresh and get a good interior and grill going and learn how to tune the 10spd properly. Still leaves them hurting in the modern engine dept with the 4 cyl appearing to be outclassed by Ford's 2.7, both fielding small diesels (looking forward to that contest), and still lacking anything as modern, powerful and good as 3.5, 3.5HO or 5.0. Sorry the 6.2 cant hang with the 3.5HO. Come on Chevy get it together or youll be stealing more tax money. Not that your fans care.

i think the ranger will be very great in a few years when ford offers more options/choices!

I think this Ranger will follow the earlier one and be a classic. You will see used dealers that buy, stock, and sell ONLY Rangers...just like yo do now in the PA mountains...

Good job Ford.

The Tacoma is less expensive than the Ranger. That will help Tacoma keep their Number 1 position along with all those loyal Toyota buyers, and a higher resale value. Also many would rather have the natural aspired non-turbo motor for longevity over the turbo. Tacoma is outdated but for the money I might take it over the Ranger especially since both trucks are close in this test. Both are good.

The Tacoma is less expensive than the Ranger. That will help Tacoma keep their Number 1 position...


Where do you get that? What does it have to do with the choices that customers at their Ford or Toyota (or GM) dealers might make? Are you only referring to the pickups in this comparison?

This was a Granny Smith Apple to a red delicious Apple comparassion in models. Had you used the TRD Off-Road model, I suspect they would’ve come out almost neck and neck with the ranger having a slight edge. Toyota needs to update the technology and interior fit and finish in the Tacoma and it’ll continue its sales lead. One thing Toyota should fix is the flawed exhaust setup running it under the frame.

You would think that with being the last to market with a midsize that Ford would have been able to open up a significant points advantage over the sales leader in the segment. Those tabulations is basically a tie, and we all know that the Tacoma scores less than the GM twins. Too little too late for the Ranger.

Has any of the EcoBoost's ever gotten the advertised mileage?

Posted by: pupmo | Dec 27, 2018 10:45:05 AM

I think the current gen of F-150 does well at achieving advertised mpg, at least as good as any other manufacturer does. The gen 1 was a disappointment to a lot of people, but those trucks were substantially heavier. That has been my concern with the 2.3L. You have a fairly big and heavy truck relatively speaking and it's common sense that the more the turbo(s) have to spool up, the more power/fuel you're going to use. Not that the 21.3 is bad, it's just not the advertised 24. I would imagine if you hook up a 6,500lb trailer this thing will pull it well, but really use the gas. Ford is quick to tell you about the fuel efficiency of the 2.3 coupled with the 10spd, but a bigger engine would have probably achieved better real world mpg than the small 2.3L. I have read that many of the EB engines get substantially better after they get some mileage on them? Not sure who accurate or how much better. Neat truck, I hope it does well.

@papajim--Option up both and the Tacoma comes out a little less. The base Tacoma comes out at $25,550 which is only about $550 more. For those who are loyal to a particular brand price would not matter. A Ford fan would pay much more to buy a Ford and the same thing with a Toyota fan for a Toyota. The difference in this test might be enough for those who are not as brand loyal but there are other things as well that factor into a decision to buy a truck. The Ranger and Tacoma are the 2 most expensive midsize trucks on the market when you compare them to the Frontier and Colorado/Canyon before you factor in discounts. A bigger difference to many would be those who don't want a turbo charged engine which there still many who still question the long-term reliability. Also a turbo charged engine gives a quick boost the power when the turbo kicks in which tends to be less efficient. Great to have the boost but every time the turbo kicks in it sucks more gas. Also many turbos require higher grade octane making them more expensive to operate. For me that would not make as big a difference but the longevity of the engine would be a factor in purchasing a non turbo over a turbo. Eventually all the manufacturers will go to turbo engines but for now I would still take a naturally aspired over a turbo engine. Others would prefer a turbo over a non-turbo.

Option up both and the Tacoma comes out a little less. The base Tacoma comes out at $25,550 which is only about $550 more.

@Jeff S

You must be talking MSRP here. Irrelevant. Real prices will be dickered in the sales manager's office (not MSRP)

Why did they compare the FX4 to a TRD sport? It should have been the TRD offroad sr5! Lame biased comparisons

I have yet to see a review of an eco boost getting its " supposed" EPA milelage. Now the newer ones are a bit better but ill stick with a good ild fashion V8 or V6 instead of the turbos. In long run less maintenance.

Good review. Ranger should have won. Its had many years of research against Tacoma while it eas being produced. Hopefully this pushes Toyota to up their game and bring a really solid midsizer back

Now lets see how well it does against the twins? Colorado has V6 and canyon should have diesel. Make it happen PUTC

I have yet to see a review of an eco boost getting its " supposed" EPA milelage. Now the newer ones are a bit better but ill stick with a good ild fashion V8 or V6 instead of the turbos. In long run less maintenance.

Good review. Ranger should have won. Its had many years of research against Tacoma while it eas being produced. Hopefully this pushes Toyota to up their game and bring a really solid midsizer back

Now lets see how well it does against the twins? Colorado has V6 and canyon should have diesel. Make it happen PUTC

Come on Chevy get it together or youll be stealing more tax money. Not that your fans care.
Posted by: Clint | Dec 27, 2018 11:36:47 AM

These days, Ford is the only one in danger of getting another taxpayer bailout. The stock value slipped below $8 this week. Their 52-week low is $7.41, the lowest stock value since 2009. Despite all the bragging you guys do about best selling "truck" for xx years and how many trucks Ford sells, their profits and stock value just keep dropping. Since Ford transformed the F-150 into a truck-shaped Kia made from pop cans, Ford's stock value has plummeted nearly 55%. They're preparing to lay off up to 25,000 workers in 2019, they're hemorrhaging money in Europe and China, they are years behind the rest of the automotive industry in the EV market, the F-150 has been transformed into a weak and cheaply made little pickup, the Super Duty no longer comes with a tough bed and the death wobble issues are the worst they've ever been, they're rushing engines out so fast that they didn't even fix the problems with the 2.7 Ecoboost before they rushed a new version out with all kinds of new problems on top of the original issues, they're ending production of every car aside from the Mustang and forgettable little made-in-India car, etc

Somehow despite Ford Motor Company seemingly burning the company to the ground right now, you're still trying to suggest that Ford is somehow getting things right??? This truck is 4 years late to the midsize party and somehow you think this truck is going to be a game changer? You're so detached from reality it's sad. Really, really sad.

I'm not saying anything until I see some long term reliability and durability testing but definitely not a game changer. Plus not even really a matched comparison since they didnt test the tacoma with the trd off road package. Put one of each of these trucks in the Australian outback and Alaska for 24 months. That would be a sweet test.


It does not look for your taco. We heard your neighbor is buying the Ranger so he could drive up and down your block.

Happy new year

Here we go again, first it was the Colorado as the best since sliced bread and now the Ranger and yet the Tacoma continues to defy all odds and more humans continue to buy the Tacoma over and over again!

A TRD Sport, c'mon...

My Tacoma SR 4x4 can do more off-road than this Ranger, who is driving these trucks off-road?

Payload? My SR gets over 1,300 lbs, not bad for a TRUE 4-cylinder and not some turbo car engine.

Listen, a turbo engine will not last long and cost more to fix, along with a 10-speed tranny, so kudos to Toyota for keeping it simple and more of a truck and not some techno street queen.

I have two Tacoma's and plan on keeping it that way!

@ David Robertson,

Let them buy the Ranger because when they need a ride when it breaks down, I will smile all the way down the road!

Turbo engines and 10-speed tranny will not last long bud!

you would have to be drunk to not see the bias in the comparison LOL.....

seriously you knock the off road system on the ranger and in the same sentence act like you dont know the Trd Off Road and Trd Pro have the best system for that known to man proven 1000 times over.

the Ranger cant even beat the Tacoma in MPG LOL.... but you claim its better even though The ranger doesnt have system to match Toyota Safety sense with Pedestrian detection.....

Your drunk, end of story.

Good grief it costs as much for a mid size as it does for a 1/2 ton. LOL

So from what the testers are saying, the Ranger seems to struggle when loaded, compared to the Tacoma , which they say feels less taxed when loaded. So when real truck duties are called upon the Ranger will be at full boost and sucking back fuel. If you compare that to the GM mid size with the V6 , which has more power than the Taco, the Ranger will lack in towing and truck hauling duties. Up against the Diesel in the Canyon, the Ranger will be severely out gunned in towing, or hauling heavy. Jeez the Diesel gets better fuel economy loaded, as the Ranger gets empty.
So the Ranger is already running on the bump stops with a light load, that I really don't care for.
In the end, the GM beat out the Tacoma by a good margins, now the Ranger does the same, Tacoma will still sell well.

Omg is oxi ok ?

20 points to Tacoma for the sunroof.
Tacoma wins.

Glad to see the all new Ranger did better overall than the Taco. But to have a hi tech 4 cylinder turbo engine get this poor of fuel economy is an embarrassment. I like the looks of the Ranger interior on this top line model with nice soft touch stitched dash ect. I hope when they test the Ranger against the GM they choose to use the GMC Canyon SLT to compare interiors, as the Colorado does not get the soft touch stitched dash the Canyon comes with, or the leather inserts in the doors like the Canyon. I have no idea why the Colorado gets so much plastic inside compared to the Canyon I rode in yesterday.
If the Ranger came with a Diesel and a long box I would be all over it, but with a gaspot 4 banger getting 21 mpg, on a fuel economy loop, that is just wrong. Come on Ford I was looking forward to a Ranger, but you left me out with a tiny box, poor fuel economy, and a single leaf rear suspension that rides on its bump stops with a light load, come on I am waiting.

Turbo engines and 10-speed tranny will not last long bud!
Posted by: oxi | Dec 27, 2018

Sorry Oxi, but over-the-road rigs with turbos and multi-gear transmissions rack up millions of miles pretty regularly.

Before you condemn the Ranger for its engine/trans combo why don't we give it a year or two to sort out. You could be right, but there's nothing intrinsically evil about turbo engines, gas or diesel.

Ford and their inflated numbers again. There's a reason capacity and capability are spelled differently.

Last place..

2019 Silverado

C&D nailed it!

It’s a game changer...for T Ball

I've owned Taco's, it would not be hard to build a truck better in all ways, Ranger should have made it lighter and not have as large of a payload. That way it could hit the epa ratings and be a better truck overall..

The 2.3EB in the Ranger only has 400 miles on it. It’s not even broken in yet. Give it a few more miles, then it’ll get better mpg - I used this excuse for both the GM 1/2 tones getting horrible mileage in the PUTC 1/2 tone comparo, and I’m using it here.

@ papajim

I agree with you lets put the money where the mouth is and let these two trucks battle it out on the surface streets and real world use after a few years....but lets not compare a 10 speed slush box and a 4 banger aluminum engine to an 855 cummins or a 3406b cat with a 10 or 13 speed fuller trans. Those rigs are built to last and actually go a million miles.

I was making a point, and used some exaggeration to do it.

I've driven some big rigs and I've owned some trucks of various sizes. The 10 speed Ford trans may end up being the saving grace of this Ranger truck.

Giving a 2.3 turbo engine a close-ratio 10 speed trans to optimize its torque will propel this Ranger very effectively as long as the drivetrain is properly designed and put together.

Last place..

2019 Silverado

C&D nailed it!

It’s a game changer...for T Ball
Posted by: TNTGMC | Dec 27, 2018 8:46:45 PM

Because CAR and Driver knows what makes a truck good at being a truck? They're a bunch of LA journalists that almost certainly judged these trucks from the viewpoint of CAR enthusiasts. Congratulations to the Ram... the most car-like truck. Which isn't surprising because Ram has definitely slowly morphed the Ram 1500 from a truck to a truck-shaped car over the last 15 years. First they replaced the SFA, then they replace the tough leaf spring suspension with mattress springs and the squeakiest bushings they could find, then they replace the aluminum front suspension parts with molded plastic parts (lol). And had C&D tested how the Ford held up to hauling stuff in that fragile bed it would have taken last place. Not to mention if they spent more than a day or two in the truck they probably would have noticed that all the cheap plastic Ford uses these inside the cabin was starting to warp in the sun. Gotta love those wavy F-150 dashes and distorted gloveboxes after sitting in the sun for a few months. Same with those distorted plastic oil pans Ford just loves using these days, leaking oil like the Exxon Valdez. They're nearly as wavy and misaligned as all those aluminum body panels. The body panels are so inconsistent and wavy that I can't help but notice it every time I see one. Ford can't even get the doors aligned right before it rolls off the plant floor.

@Chuck T


I had the same impression regarding C&D's review. And not just Car & Driver. Ditto for Motor Trend and all the other car magazine reviews.

Anytime the author starts going on about pickups being too big, I know I won't like their perspective.

@ papajim,

Again, you are confused.

I do not see these over the road highway rigs doing street driving on a daily basis, so your comparison and analysis is flawed once again, try again!

Significant black marks for the Tacoma: No locking rear diff, no keyless entry, a SINGLE (???) USB port and ---- drum roll please---drum brakes rear. The legendary (not in a good way) seating position being another black mark.

At a price of $40K these should be addressed pronto if Toyota still wants to be taken seriously in this competitive segment. It ain't 2013 no more.

My only black marks for the Ranger would be: No engine upgrade option, no manual trans option, wimpy 18 gallon fuel capacity


Of course they do! You don't think Amazon levitates all that freight do you?

Ask any city official in a town bigger than 50k people and they'll tell you how much they wish their streets did NOT have noisy 18 wheelers trashing the pavement and taking up space.

GM not in this game since they will soon be bankcrupt. They just dont have a truck that compares to the new Ford.....


please go somewhere else and play. If anybody is in dire straits it's Ford. Last week Ford stock hit a 10 year low.

Ford's institutional investors---the big Wall Street bankers and pension funds---have been running for the exits ever since Ford closed below 9 bucks a few months ago. Today Ford's institutional shareholders account for less than 60 percent of Ford's non-class B shares.

Not good.

GM and RAM are each still above 75 percent institutional shareholders.

I think what sets a rig and the average pickup truck apart is that the rig is running for hours at a time versus 15-30 minutes at a time. Sometimes even less depending on how close you are to work or town. It's not uncommon for diesel pickups to get over a million miles on them when running in a fleet where they're running for long hours at a time but the same diesel pickup when used just to drive to work and back(especially if it's only 15-20 minute drive) will be plagued with issues(usually emissions) in the 150-250k mile range.

Why did they compare the FX4 to a TRD sport?


because PUTC wanted to get the story finished and these trucks were available in time.

Chuck Taylor...

A butthurt GM Shill.

even less depending on how close you are to work or town. It's not uncommon for diesel pickups to get over a million miles on them when running in a fleet where they're running for long hours at a time...
Posted by: HD|ER|NOTHIN | Dec 28, 2018

Don't confuse miles driven with HOURS driven. Big difference, but I take your point.

An engine running at its proper temperature is going to live a long life. Today's passenger car engines spend most of their life cooling off or warming up. Not good.

Hey Mark, this next month you need to fly into Denver, pick up a Ranger Lariat 4x4and drive it to St. Louis. Speed limit is 70-75, set the cruise at 75 and let us now how it goes. If you go from St. Louis to Denver, you will get worse gas mileage then the other way due to it is all up hill, plus usually against the wind. This would be real world, "highway mileage" not something "averaging 42mph" that is a school zone around here....lol

@Mark @Dave

Better idea. Fly into Memphis. Obtain Ranger from local livery. The "test track" to be the miles stretching from West Memphis on the Arkansas side, north to Cape Girardeau Missouri on I-55

From West Memphis to Cape G there is no change in elevation that's more than two or three FEET. It's flat as a table top for hundreds of kilometers.

Mild weather prevails for most of the year. Nowhere near as windy or as hilly as the St Louis/Denver ride. Best of all gasoline is dirt cheap up and down that whole stretch of I-55

@ fake tntgmc imposter

Seriously get your own name clown. Move along. Gm will sell thousands of their new trucks.

The Tacoma needs updated and the Ranger/GM twins comparison needs to happen

The comments to this entry are closed.