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

04-2018-tacoma-2019-ranger-group

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.

Powertrain

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

06-toyota-tacoma-trd-sport-2018

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)

06-ford-ranger-lariat-2019

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)

05-ford-ranger-lariat-2019

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.

Payload

Winner: Ranger (18 points; Tacoma 14)

15-ford-ranger-lariat-2019

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.

MPG

Winner: Tacoma (20 points; Ranger 18)

02-2018-tacoma-2019-ranger-group

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)

08-toyota-tacoma-trd-sport-2018

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)

07-ford-ranger-lariat-2019

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.

Technology

Winner: Ranger (16 points; Tacoma 12)

08-ford-ranger-lariat-2019

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)

09-ford-ranger-lariat-2019

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).

Value

Winner: Tacoma (17 points; Ranger 14)

11-toyota-tacoma-trd-sport-2018

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)

01-2018-tacoma-2019-ranger-group

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

01-toyota-tacoma-trd-sport-2018

04-toyota-tacoma-trd-sport-2018

07-toyota-tacoma-trd-sport-2018

14-ford-ranger-lariat-2019

07-ford-ranger-lariat-2019

10-ford-ranger-lariat-2019

 

Comments

Bickering over the Ford price, but yet you can get an XLT that is very nicely equipped. Atleast my F-150 XLT is.

Funny people want to say "I can get an F-150 Supercab XLT...." Yeah buddy, the Ranger is built in XLT as well. You don't have to get a Lariat.

As for mileage, once again the more offroad and wider tire made the Ford get less mileage. The Firestone AT tires are good, but Dyno-Pro ATM are a lot more tire.

Now if Ford would just match the size of beds the Colorado has available, it would be more of possibility. Toyota has a bigger bed as well but as we all seen here, their payload with it would barely break 1,000 pounds. That doesn't compare to 1400 plus GM and Ford midsized trucks do. Heck, Toyota is beat by the Ridgeline there.

C'mon Toyota, make a 6,000 pound GVWR. Atleast.

Nissan is in the same boat, but more antiquated.

Nissan is in the same boat, but more antiquated.
Posted by: FX4 Tom | Dec 28, 2018

@Tom

The Nissan and the Toyota are basically 12 year old trucks. Minor refinements, and in the case of Tacoma's smaller V6 and step backwards. Toyota should have continued offering its previous six for customers who did NOT want the Atkinson V6 option.

The GM trucks and the new Ford are much nicer trucks and the availability of three engine choices in the GM twins is very appealing, esp. the diesel option. None of this is effectively addressed by the Nissan or the Toyota. At least with the Frontier you can buy a very properly equipped 4x2 in the mid 20s, a price point that nobody else touches, at least until Ford and GM decide to put a few fleet trucks on the lots.

papajim--"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."

You obiviously did not read the rest of the response especially the part "before you factor in discounts." Do you expect large discounts on the Ranger anytime soon? Maybe eventually but the Ranger hasn't even come out.

isnt it 3000 rpm for the ford torque?

I would not be one of the first to go out and buy a Ranger. Better to wait a couple of years for the bugs to get worked out especially those from the plant that is producing a new product. I would say that is true with any new model even the Colorado/Canyon 2015 model.

So for about $1000 less than the Ford you can get a well equipped crew cab 4wd Z71 with a Duramax or a 3.6 ZR2.

How can the Ford win in the power train category when it has 4 more gears and get worse fuel economy from 4 cylinder vs a V6?

On the max payload test you'll indicate that the Ford 'crushed' the Toyota but the Toyota handled it's max payload better. It would seem to me that maybe the Ford shouldn't be rated that high.

I would not be one of the first to go out and buy a Ranger. Better to wait a couple of years ...

@Jeff

We can take your advice, because if I remember right you are the guy who spent some stupid amount of money to fix an invisible rust spot on a 15 year old 4 cylinder S-10.

Or maybe I'm reminded that you bought an Isuzu pickup from new car inventory from a dealer who was so desperate to unload that P-O-S that he would have probably paid YOU to get it off his lot.

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.


Posted by: Clint | Dec 27, 2018 11:36:47 AM

////

Nice Ford and Toyota article and you pour the wine on about Chevy?

GM lives rent free in your head clinty. Just buy one already, with a 6.2 (I’ve owned two of your unicorns already and will be getting a 3rd soon). Maybe you won’t be so bitter going forward.

"Turbo engines and 10-speed tranny will not last long bud!
Posted by: oxi"

I guess that explains why Semi's use naturally aspirated engines mated to 4-speed transmissions. Or do they?

"Turbo engines and 10-speed tranny will not last long bud!
Posted by: oxi"

I guess that explains why Semi's use naturally aspirated engines mated to 4-speed transmissions. Or do they?


Posted by: Walt | Dec 28, 2018 1:49:38 PM

Design format is not as important as the designer.

In the case of Ford the last 20 years. Engine development has become a marketing tool, not a design for longevity

@papajim--I still have the Isuzu no problems. The S-10 is still going strong, I plan on getting another 2 years out of the S-10. 2k on having not only body work but sandblasting the frame and having it rust proofed to get 3 to 4 more years out of a vehicle which amounts to less than $700 a year. 2k to fix an old truck versus 30k for a new truck. Or I could spend 4k on a used S-10 or Colorado with 200k miles and put another 2k or more in repairs for a truck that had little or no maintenance. You are a fine one to be giving financial advice and have more opinions than sense. The S-10 is well maintained with only 117,900 miles. Find me a truck like that with that low of mileage that is well maintained.

Even Consumer Reports warns readers to wait on a new model of any vehicle. It takes time for the plant and the workers to adjust to a new models especially when that plant was producing Fiestas for years and is now switching to Rangers and Broncos. Since you are so gung-ho on the Ranger and you think it is the best truck on the market when are you going to trade that aging Silverado on a new Ranger? Put your money where your mouth is or be quiet.

Typical papajim looking for an argument. He will be the same in 2019. Papajim will even argue when he meets his maker. Has little good to say about anyone or anything.

Jeff I don't tear down people, I challenge their ideas.

All of these trucks and cars we buy are very complex designs and assemblies. Sometimes Detroit gets it right, and sometimes not. There's no sure formula for buying a new car, or even buying used cars for that matter.

I'm famous for saying the older I get the smarter my dad gets.

As he got older he became convinced that we should keep our cars longer and fix 'em when they break. Pay cash for everything.

He eventually quit trying to outsmart guys who sell cars every day for a living---we cannot win that game. He preached that despite the fact that we had some in-laws who owned car lots.

If you want a new Ranger, go buy one. You can afford it.

@papajim--Look in the mirror, I was responding to you to your prior response of "We can take your advice, because if I remember right you are the guy who spent some stupid amount of money to fix an invisible rust spot on a 15 year old 4 cylinder S-10.

Or maybe I'm reminded that you bought an Isuzu pickup from new car inventory from a dealer who was so desperate to unload that P-O-S that he would have probably paid YOU to get it off his lot."

The rust spot on the S-10 was on the driver's side extended cab and it was not invisible. I almost decided to let it go but I thought that getting another 3 to 4 years out of a vehicle that I knew the history on and that was paid for was cheaper than buying someone's truck with an unknown history and most likely one that was not maintained. Also I am going to give it to my nephew after I am finished with it and he is just as meticulous on keeping a vehicle in proper condition. Yes I can afford a new Ranger I can also afford to pay cash for a new Mercedes or BMW but that doesn't mean that I should. I would rather keep what I know and like than try to please others. I have to be secure with my self and not spend my time pleasing others.

@papajim--"I'm famous for saying the older I get the smarter my dad gets.

As he got older he became convinced that we should keep our cars longer and fix 'em when they break. Pay cash for everything."

My dad was the same and put more value in his children getting a college education than impressing others with the newest vehicle. I am grateful for that and it didn't ruin my life to wear hand me down clothing from my 2 older brothers. I never went a day without food, or shelter even though I 't would have liked my own
new clothes. That old Chevy Impala station wagon and Chevy II maybe didn't impress my class mates but I took care of both vehicles keeping the maintenance up and keeping them both clean and waxed. I didn't have a hard life nor did I have to work when I was in high school but I was taught to be responsible and to take care of things. So you might make light of me taking care of a 20 year old truck but that is the way I was raised and that is my value system. You want to criticize and make light of that then that is your problem. I take pride in taking care of what I own

So for about $1000 less than the Ford you can get a well equipped crew cab 4wd Z71 with a Duramax or a 3.6 ZR2.

How can the Ford win in the power train category when it has 4 more gears and get worse fuel economy from 4 cylinder vs a V6?

On the max payload test you'll indicate that the Ford 'crushed' the Toyota but the Toyota handled it's max payload better. It would seem to me that maybe the Ford shouldn't be rated that high.


Posted by: Jack | Dec 28, 2018 12:14:08 PM

Only a turd who hates their country would buy a GM. Bailed out by taxpayers. $11.5 Billion. Refuses to address recalls because they will cost too much AFTER knowingly killing people with faulty ignitions!! Laying off workers right before the holidays then releasing the "My Mom/Dad works for Chevy" employee pricing. You are a gutless puke to buy from this company. PERIOD. I used to drive nothing but Chevy trucks just like my dad and my grandpa. I will no longer buy from this corrupt murdering company. Go ahead and defend them. When you lose your 17 year old daughter only to find out they covered up the problem, you'll know how I feel!!

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2018/03/07/ignition-switch-scandal-general-motors-pay-millions-arizona-consumers/405188002/

https://www.wcpo.com/money/consumer/dont-waste-your-money/why-gm-won-t-recall-thousands-of-takata-air-bags

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-kick-stomach-apos-massive-080016323.html?bcmt=1

They should rename this section into “comments from whiny and insecure adults.” You all are patethic.

the FAKE Frank

@Communist GM "Only a turd who hates their country would buy a GM. Bailed out by taxpayers. $11.5 Billion. Refuses to address recalls because they will cost too much AFTER knowingly killing people with faulty ignitions!! Laying off workers right before the holidays then releasing the "My Mom/Dad works for Chevy" employee pricing. You are a gutless puke to buy from this company. PERIOD. I used to drive nothing but Chevy trucks just like my dad and my grandpa..."

Speaking about turds, love how these over paid GM workers cry about losing their jobs. As the idiot unionized worker mentioned - we had to bail out GM in the tune of billions of dollars, so that idiots like him can get paid twice or three times the amount that a worker in Mexico or China is getting paid. These morons would love for the governement to bail out GM again so that they can keep making the big bucks! So they can keep producing garbage vehicles that are recalled once a week...lol Go find a real job or move to Mexico and work there for reasonable wages. The party is over....and it's about time!

BTW - He never mentions that GM paid back all of the money.

Did GM pay off every penny of the government loan? I think some of it was forgiven to get GM back on their feet. The GM bond holders sure took a bath when their bonds became worthless. Hopefully we as taxpayers will not have to go thru a Government bailout again. If it happens again then maybe those companies should be sold off even if it is to the Chinese. Never again.

Jeff s try doing some research before asking silly questions. It's easy they have something called the INTERNET now.

Yes. GM repaid the loan portion of the automaker bailout ahead of schedule, with interest.

What the Ford folks like to forget is that they also received bailout money. Ford Credit received its bailout from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, not TARP. These were very low-cost government loans to the tune of $5.9 billion that helped Ford tip-toe past bankruptcy and overhaul their factories to bring out more fuel-efficient technology.

Ford Credit borrowed $15.9 billion dollars as opposed to GMAC, GM’s financing arm which borrowed $13.9 billion. These numbers make the perception that Ford was the only Detroit-based company that didn’t need a federal handout during the economic crash completely false.

@Really!-Thanks. Were those bond holders ever made whole?

@Really!--Maybe you need to read about the repayment of GM's loan closer.

"General Motors announced this week that it repaid its multibillion-dollar taxpayer-backed TARP loans. GM even bragged that it was able to “repay the taxpayers in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying [GM] vehicles.” There was great fanfare, including expensive, around-the-clock GM TV commercials nationwide. But, the hype is not the reality. In fact, GM did not repay the loans with money it earned from selling cars. Instead, GM repaid the TARP loans with money it withdrew from another TARP fund at the Treasury Department."

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-general-motors-really-repay-its-taxpayer-bailout

Where did everybody go?

I'm confused. I thought there was an all-new Tacoma around 2017 or so. Was that just a refresh? I'm not up on Toyota trucks. The high stances and high hood lines are an abomination to me, so I don't spend a lot of time looking at what they're doing until which time they totally change their styling to reflect a serious product for people who drive pickups for serious reasons. You know, like for "on road". The mpg estimates of the Tundra should be embarrassing to them, but I thought that the Tacoma was newer and more modern than everyone is saying in these comments.

As for value, that category really only matters as it relates to power trains, because everything else is so equally priced, but these two trucks are not equal trims but were scored as if they were. I believe I'm right in saying that the Ranger Lariat FX4 is analogous to the TRD Off-road and so their scoring makes no sense. In the mid-size class, Ranger can't really win a value competition, because they'll match up with the competition with their only power train versus the competitor's V6s; and if you look, they all match up almost exactly feature for feature. If you look at full-size, however, it's a totally different game as F150 can be had at any trim level with virtually all configurations with all four gas-engine power trains, meaning one can get a regular cab, long bed with a 470 ft-lb torque and up to 25 mpg for less than $35K; and so those power train choices with low premium add-ons to the price allows them to destroy the competition for value; but here at the mid-size class, when Ranger has no true base engine, it's a mute point comparing the Ecoboost to any of the V6s. It all depends on how one values a little four cylinder turbo mated to a ten speed versus a torque-wimpy V6, which some people prefer for some odd reason; but if you look at each without much bias, they're very comparable and so are the prices at each trim level and package. I'd say the biggest thing helping the Ranger in reviews, which I had already predicted, was the fact that a 3.73 rear axle is standard; and when one realizes that Ford was able to use aggressive gearing, using this small four cylinder turbo and still achieve class-leading mpg, I sort of figured it would win all the driving comparisons for driving pleasure.

it's a totally different game as F150 can be had at any trim level with virtually all configurations with all four gas-engine power trains, meaning one can get a regular cab, long bed with a 470 ft-lb torque and up to 25 mpg for less than $35K

@Greg F

Where? I just don't see them. Are they sleepers (stripped of badging to indicate the twin turbo engine)?

@Jeff s - lol now Jeff is quoting Fox news...heeeeheeeee

Hey Jeff where is your next quote coming from "The Gateway Pundit"....heeeeheeee

@really!

Unfortunately Jeff's name gets hijacked even more than mine. BA aka BAFO, aka a host of other names including the names of other commenters was up late last night posting under other people's names. He doesn't really have much to contribute so he attempts to disrupt.

@Really!--Only quote Fox news when it is true. If you believe that GM paid off their debt with earnings then I have some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona. Moving TARP funds from one account to another is not paying your debts off in full. GM was bailed out and so was Chrysler because of the number of jobs that would be lost if they went under. I currently own 2 GM products and I am not saying this out of hatred for GM it is just the facts. GM's repayment of its debt could be called "fuzzy math".

@papajim--Look in the mirror and you will see that you are the disrupter. You have to pick an argument with anyone and you are extremely biased. You must be a real joy to live with. No wonder your wife works.

Greg Faulkner--Agree the TRD Pro would have been a more equal test. I do like that the TRD Pro is available with a 6 speed manual even though that is not part of this test. The Ranger does get the most out of its power with the 10 speed automatic and the 3.73 rear axle. The only advantage to me for the Tacoma would be the 6 speed manual in the TRD Pro and that Tacomas for now hold their value better but that could change in the future if Ranger gets more popular and proves to be a great truck. Don't see Ranger dethroning Tacoma's Number 1 sales but I believe Ford will sell a lot of Rangers and Ford's profits will see a noticeable increase. I do agree with Mark's and Brian's comments about a Ranger Raptor being in our future. Exciting times for midsize truck buyers.

BA cannot help himself.

He keeps posting under Jeff's ID because his views have lost all currency on this site. He wants to be the FAKE Jeff S---and he is.

That's not a Fake Jeff S. How do I know? Reality. Reality.

the FAKE Tony

@Greg Faulkner--My hope is that GM and FCA never have to take another Government bailout. With GM's current actions of discontinuing less profitable cars and selling off Opel and Vauxhall that these are done to keep GM from needing another bailout. Ford is being criticized for taking Government money to retool plants to make the Ford Focus and Fiesta which are now being discontinued. Not exactly the same as a bailout since Ford was not facing bankruptcy but at the same time we the taxpayers paid for it. Ford to their credit was proactive in not taking a bailout by selling off Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, selling their heavy truck division to Sterling,and discontinuing Mercury. Originally Ford was going to get a government loan to stave off bankruptcy but Ford did take corrective action. GM finally took corrective action only after they received the bailout--discontinuing Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer, and Saab. Chrysler was given over to Fiat. The Government wanted to get out of the car business and that is why the GM loan was paid off with TARP funds and Chrysler turned over to Fiat. Don't disagree with that but let's be honest about the GM loan repayment which was not at all like Chrysler's repayment of its Government loan in the 80's which was paid off by Chrysler's profits and not moving TARP funds from one account to the other. The Chrysler of the 80's paid off their loan in full with out any shenanigans.

If you really want to end the discussion of bailouts fine but don't be disingenuous by stating that GM paid their loan off in full the way most of us interpret that a loan should be paid off.

My opinion is the next time a corporation is too big to fail that instead of getting a bailout they should be either liquidated or taken over by a corporation that can be responsible for their debts. That is my opinion regardless if it is GM, Ford, FCA, Sears, or any other corporation. I understand that the bailout was to preserve jobs but I don't believe the taxpayers will support anymore bailouts. If a corporation cannot stand on its own feet it deserves to fail.

My opinion is the next time a corporation is too big to fail that instead of getting a bailout they should be either liquidated or taken over by a corporation that can be responsible for their debts. That is my opinion regardless if it is GM, Ford, FCA, Sears, or any other corporation.

@Jeff S or whoever you are

Incredibly naive statement. "taken over by a corporation that can be responsible for their debts."

Earth to Jeff---that's called a bond. GM couldn't sell their bonds to ANYBODY in those days.

Secondly, just how many HUGE corporations are there? GM is so big that it would have had to be broken into smaller bites for any firm or group of firms to assume those responsibilities.

The financial troubles in 2008 were not simple to resolve, and that's why the solution was not attractive or very politically popular.

You are not wrong on the key point---GM's government bailout was the wrong RX. It should have been conducted in the private world of banking and finance, not in the halls of Congress and the White House where NONE of the big decision makers had any skin in the game.

THE RANGER LOOKS VERY FEMININE LIKE THE TYPICAL FORD FAN BOYS AND EVEN THE GM FAN BOYS.

GUTS

GLORY

CLASS LEADING RAM TRUCKS

@papajim--No private financing was available to GM or Chrysler and that is why the CEOs flew to Washington DC on their corporate jets to ask for a loan from the Government. Maybe the Government should have stepped in and met with private financiers to convince to offer the loans. Maybe that did happen but if so none of us were told. At the time most of us were told that the number jobs at stake that could be lost were too great and would cause lasting damage to our economy. We were also told that GM along with the banks and financial institutions were too big to fail.

As for huge corporations taking over GM it most likely would not have been a US based corporations. The Chinese have more than enough funds to take over GM. Not saying that is ideal but that would be step 1 and if that is not possible then step to is to liquidate the assets.

I do agree that Congress didn't have skin in the game and as a taxpayer I hope it never happens again. Very distasteful and it is no way to run any business. I understand many of the recent decisions of GM, Ford, and FCA on discontinuing products and not waiting for another financial crisis. Maybe I don't agree with every decision but if in the long run if it means the survival of all these corporations without Government bailouts then that is the right decision. We have a Government that cannot even pass a budget so why give them any more power especially when they don't take responsibility for doing the job they are elected to do.

Thanks for sharing this quality information with us. I really enjoyed reading.

We have a Government that cannot even pass a budget so why give them any more power especially when they don't take responsibility for doing the job they are elected to do.
Posted by: Jeff s | Jan 3, 2019

All the smart guys on CNN used to sniff and chuckle when conservatives spoke about the "size of government." Looks like the laugh is on us! Today 80 percent of every federal tax dollar is already ear-marked before it gets to Washington. Which of course does not include state/local taxes. This was entirely unheard of before 1960.

Go to the DC area and you quickly see that nobody works in factories, very few people work for anyone except the government.

They are immune from hiring slumps because they all work for the feds and every year the feds increase their payrolls. During the last recession folks in the DC area did just fine.

We used to have recessions every few years. They were brief and not very deep. Today we only have one every 10 years or so and the government prints trillions of dollars trying to offset it. The libs own it now.

THE RANGER LOOKS VERY FEMININE LIKE THE TYPICAL FORD FAN BOYS AND EVEN THE GM FAN BOYS.

GUTS

GLORY

CLASS LEADING RAM TRUCKS


Posted by: HEMI RAMPAGE | Jan 3, 2019 1:09:16 PM

Kind of like the new Ram that is very much more Durango like in the front and is yet somehow changing the rules and will take us to a level of success never before seen. I guess every brand has at least one blithering idiot like yourself.

Why anyone would pay $4,000 more for a Ranger than a Tacoma is beyond belief and/or common sense. The Ranger will be worth $20k in 4 years and the Tacoma about $30k. Ford sure loves your brand loyalty idiocy.

BTW - He never mentions that GM paid back all of the money.


Posted by: Wetback Ford | Dec 29, 2018 6:44:59 PM

Did GM pay off every penny of the government loan? I think some of it was forgiven to get GM back on their feet. The GM bond holders sure took a bath when their bonds became worthless. Hopefully we as taxpayers will not have to go thru a Government bailout again. If it happens again then maybe those companies should be sold off even if it is to the Chinese. Never again.


Posted by: Jeff s | Jan 1, 2019 4:47:35 PM
Jeff s try doing some research before asking silly questions. It's easy they have something called the INTERNET now.

Yes. GM repaid the loan portion of the automaker bailout ahead of schedule, with interest.

What the Ford folks like to forget is that they also received bailout money. Ford Credit received its bailout from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, not TARP. These were very low-cost government loans to the tune of $5.9 billion that helped Ford tip-toe past bankruptcy and overhaul their factories to bring out more fuel-efficient technology.

Ford Credit borrowed $15.9 billion dollars as opposed to GMAC, GM’s financing arm which borrowed $13.9 billion. These numbers make the perception that Ford was the only Detroit-based company that didn’t need a federal handout during the economic crash completely false.

Posted by: Really! | Jan 1, 2019 5:10:08 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury/u-s-government-says-it-lost-11-2-billion-on-gm-bailout-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430


"Jeff s try doing some research before asking silly questions. It's easy they have something called the INTERNET now."......LMMFAO!! Open mouth and insert foot!!


Are you serious? Ignorance is bliss. Maybe your hero Obama said they paid it all back, but it's common knowledge that the government/ taxpayers lost approx. $11-$11.5 billion when all the calculations were done. GM said it paid them back, but that was proven very much false. They also recently said they didn't want to recall takata inflators because it would cost them $1.5bil and, oh yeah, because they are "safe". Ford is paying back ( big difference ) it's loan. It's like two people with mortgages. You pay it for 30 years and your neighbor somehow gets his paid by the government and gets to keep it. You wouldn't care then either would you? LOL.

https://www.newsomelaw.com/blog/2018/12/05/gm-files-3rd-request-to-avoid-takata-airbag-recalls/

The Ranger will be worth $20k in 4 years and the Tacoma about $30k

@Ramrod

I don't care if the used car sticker price is $100k, it will still be a Tacoma---rusty frame, drum brakes, lousy seating, and all.

I drive a 2018 Honda Ridgeline that I lifted2 inches and put larger tires on it. Also Kevlar paint. Drives great gets 19mpg mixed and 23-25 highway. Pulls my 21 ft bass boat without effort. I live it ....they should have it and the Chevy/gmc in the next ssmall truck shootout!

No manual option on Ranger is a no-go.

It could never win my comparison for being disqualified immediately for the slushbox only.

No manual option on Ranger is a no-go
Posted by: Bob | Jan 7, 2019

@Bob

Actually, it's worse than that. They make a Ranger with stick shift, they just decided not to offer it to their North American customers.

"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."

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying the seat is *too high* and that by lowering it you could gain some additional headroom? My experience is that the seats are already too low (and that is a common complaint) and *for me* it would be impossible to do a seat mod to raise it up because of lack of headroom.

"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."

You are comparing a maxed out Lariat Ranger to a Tacoma Sport? I suppose you have to do to create a fake "value" category. You can configure a Lariat XLT to be more like the Tacoma Sport for about the same price.

My wife loved her old "93 Ranger 4x4 and she might want the new one when its time to replace the 2010 Edge. it has 95000 miles on it and has been an awesome car. I will probably buy a used 2019 or 2020 and the Ranger and Bronco are on the list. I'm not afraid of first year truck. well nothing could be as bad as my end of generation 06 Silverado was and my second year (13th gen 2016) f150 has been a dream after that Silvy. zi guess the Silverado would have been better if the F'ing dealer would ever fix anything but thats a whole other story.

Don't get me wrong I'm glad to see the Ranger back in our market. Competition is good especially when it comes to pricing.

However, I totally agree to do a H2H using the best Ford had to offer and then throwing in a Sport model is ridiculous.

If at the very least you have to use a TRd Offroad model.

Look if you're going to go H2H you have to take the best Ford has to offer and the best Toyota has and hit the trail (TRD-Pro).

Come back and see us when you have some real data. Thanks but no thanks.

This article came to a different conclusion on fuel economy, just slightly in favor of the 2019 Ranger. Although both fall far under their EPA ratings.

https://t.co/E4BT3xLoaG



The comments to this entry are closed.