Tiny Truck Fight - Ranger vs Colorado/Canyon

[plainjaneFJC]

Your driven a new RAM? The interior and cab are light years better than a Ford.

That ain't just the Colorado. That's every American vehicle made from about 2000-2012. Interiors are FINALLY starting to show some quality, but Ford is way ahead of GM and Chrysler is still trailing far behind.

And thin body panels are just the way of the future my friend. Gotta shed the weight from someplace to squeeze in under the EPA's ever-tightening grip on fuel economy requirements. If you'd told someone 20 years ago that Ford would be making a full sized aluminum pickup truck with a 4 banger, they'd say you were crazy because it wouldn't be strong enough or powerful enough, or cost effective, but here we are. All in the name of using less fuel.

 

[32vsnake]

Had an 04 canyon 4x4 xtra cab, 4cyl 5spd bought new off the lot. Loved the size, fuel economy and basic utility of the truck. Was less enthused with the durability and overall quality. Traded it in on a new 08 ranger with the fx4 package, truck is far more substantial and capable in stock form. IMO
Ranger is tough as nails and pretty simple to work on. The biggest downside is the fuel economy and fuel range. Economy really should be better. I travel with 2 15l rotopax's to help extend the range and I've yet to run out of fuel

My ranger now sports a torsen LSD in the front and fox 2.0 coil over conversion... truck is really smooth and very capable

 

[4x4x4doors]

I think I'd probably go for whichever you can find in the best condition vs. price.
Since 1982 (the first ones), I've had 6 S10s or Blazers and one Colorado. The first S10 and the Colorado were shopped against Rangers and wound up largely being the deal I got rather than the specific vehicle. The Colorado is a crew cab which wasn't an option on the Ranger.
Mechanically, the 4.3 (4 of the 6) was a darn good engine and very reliable. The 3.7 in the Colorado has been every bit as good from a power standpoint and is better on gas. (This may also be a factor of 2008 vs. 2001 and earlier). I've only got 60K miles on the Colorado as opposed to the combined couple of hundred thousands on the S10s.
I don't have personal experience with ownership of the Ranger but have friends who have them and haven't really heard anything that would keep me from buying one.
My comparison shows the Colorado to be a bit roomier cab although I've heard folks complain about the seats which are really a matter of personal preference and may be the bench vs. buckets thing also. The Colorado feels bigger (dimensions wise) than the Ranger although actual measurements show them begin very close at the extremes. Shape is a factor.
The Colorado will probably lose out in ground clearance (flatter floors put the transfer case lower). Aftermarket support is very limited.
Ranger has essentially been using the same chassis/suspension since 1982 to when the run ended which increase market size and better supports aftermarket profitability.

Edited to add: If shopping Ranger, don't overlook the Mazda as they were very nearly rebadges of the same truck.

 

[Marauder_Pilot]

Edited to add: If shopping Ranger, don't overlook the Mazda as they were very nearly rebadges of the same truck.

Funny you should note that, I've actually been explicitly shopping Mazdas because they're generally even cheaper because nobody looks for them. And, random trivia, the Ranger is technically a re-badge of the B-Series, not the other way around-Mazda originally designed and engineered the truck.

The only reason I'd go for the Ranger specifically over the B-Series is because the B doesn't seem to have an equivalent to the FX-4 package, but I might not bother with it anyways if I plan to lift it.

 

[Merica!]

I can't speak about the ranger but I've owned one 4.3L s-10 blazer and driven many others and they all have seemed like dogs. IMO they can't get out of their own way and get the fuel economy of a v8. I now own an 04 Colorado 3.5L 4X4 and it seems way faster. Here are the hp/torque ratings of the 4.3L s-10,and the 3.5 and 3.7L Colorado 4x4's.

2003 w/ 2WD 4.3 L Vortec 4300 (LU3) V-6, MPFI 180 hp (134 kW) @ 4400 RPM 245 lb·ft (332 N·m) @ 2800 RPM X
2003-2004 w/ 4WD 190 hp (142 kW) @ 4400 RPM 250 lb·ft (339 N·m) @ 2800 RPM

2004–2006 3.5 L (214 cu in) L52 I5 220 hp (164 kW) @ 5600 RPM 225 lb·ft (305 N·m) @ 2800 RPM[6][7][8]
2007–2008 3.7 L (223 cu in) LLR I5 242 hp (180 kW) @ 5600 RPM 242 lb·ft (328 N·m) @ 2800 RPM[9][15]
2009–2012 3.7 L (223 cu in) LLR I5 242 hp (180 kW) @ 5600 RPM 242 lb·ft (328 N·m) @ 4600 RPM[11][16][17][18]

Hope this helps.

 

[4x4junkie]

I don't have a whole lot of input on the S-10/Colorado's reliability, but indeed, they don't have the aftermarket like the Ranger has (and are not as buildable for offroad as a pre-'98 Ranger is). And Tacomas (Toyotas in general) are NOT anything even close to what many talk them up to be... They have as many problems as anything else has (maybe even more so, if my own experiences are any indication). So no doubt you'll be way ahead of the game to buy something without the inflated price premium driven purely by hearsay from people that choose to look past whatever issues theirs may have had.

A former coworker of mine had a late 90s 4x4 4.0 ranger. In his words: "This thing is such a turd. It gets 14 MPG, does 0-60 in 2.5 miles, and there's always something broken on it. If it was an animal, it would be covered in flies."

Mine (a '94 4.0L, same engine used thru '00) gets 20 MPG hwy, 17 or so in-town (was 24 hwy before the lift & 33s), 0-60 in maybe 10 seconds, and the only things ever broken on it (excluding crappy aftermarket suspension parts) was a result of my own doing in my younger years (excepting for a factory stereo unit that quit, was replaced under warranty).

So I would have to guess that your coworker didn't maintain his vehicle properly and/or maybe it was geared improperly for his tire size too (the factory 3.27 gears some were fitted with and the 235/75R15 tires would qualify).

And, random trivia, the Ranger is technically a re-badge of the B-Series, not the other way around-Mazda originally designed and engineered the truck.

The Ranger is Ford-built & engineered through & through (excepting for some parts such as the transmissions). The Ford Courier was the re-badged Mazda B-series (1972-1982 IIRC). After that, the B-series then stood alone until it became a re-badged Ranger for 1994 in US markets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_(North_America)

 

[thethePete]

^ To be fair, there are 2 different 4.0L engines in the Ranger. One is OHC, one is OHV. One sucks camel ********, and gets garbage mileage. The other one is a solid motor, but still less fuel efficient than the 3.0L. As a Ford mechanic, I chose to go with the all-iron 3.0L as I've seen them with well over 400,000Km of abusive driving with a manual trans behind them and no issues. It's a rock solid engine, and has a small amount of aftermarket support to cover it's weaker performance areas. The 4.0L engine is a reliable motor in either variant, but the OHC has 3 timing chains, one of which is at the back of the engine, and requires the engine to be pulled when the tensioner fails. Not if, when. The 3.0L engine was used up until 09, or 10, IIRC. Other than switching to SLA front suspension from their classic TTB/I-Beam suspension, not much was changed on the Ranger other than aesthetics.

I would steer towards a 3.0L 4x4, and do a hub conversion on it. The big drawback to the 4x4 Ranger is that the hubs are constantly engaged, so you're always turning your front drivetrain. That's where your crap mileage comes from. There are hub kits available that switch to a classic locking hub, which allows you to leave them freewheeling when driving on pavement and not suffer the fuel econony hit.

If space/size is your only justification for the small truck, and fuel economy doesn't matter, certainly go for a 4.0L. I'd personally look for an FX4 Level 2. They came slightly lifted from factory, with the desirable Alcoa rims and 32"s.

Honestly the front end on the Colorado twins would be my biggest detractor from getting one.

 

[nmatcek]

^

Honestly the front end on the Colorado twins would be my biggest detractor from getting one.

Why is that?

 

[PhilActual]

I have a 2003 fx4 level 2. Its stock and has 31" bfg all terrains. It averages 15-16 mpg when im going 75mph on the interstate. I put 30000 miles on it last year and about 5 days a week I put it in 4wd. The truck is quite low and has a lot of stuff to get hung up on. The seats are kind of uncomfortable and the transmission sometimes has a hard time going in gear. Also the gears in the transmission seem wrong but i think thats typical of ford. Over all its a good truck but sometimes i still miss my 92 4runner.

 

[thethePete]

Regarding the Canyonaro front end: Encapsulated rotors are the biggest detractor for me, they're almost impossible to replace without wrecking the wheel bearing in the process, which means your front brakes are about 400$/corner. You can machine them if you have an on-vehicle rotor lathe, but those aren't cheap. The balljoints are also weaker, and the design of the arms and geometry are less condusive to lifting/suspension modification. The SUA rear end is nice for flex and up-travel, but the front end is lacking, IMO.

Philly4runner: Your results are about the same as most others that I know. 15-18mpg is what I hear from most people with those trucks, and you're right, sorry I misspoke, they come stock with 31"s not 32"s. I can't speak to the performance of the auto, it may be a final drive gearing issue or something; mine is a 5-spd, and with 31"s and my stock 4.10s it's fine to drive and I average 18-23mpg but mine is 2wd and a 3.0L.

 

[nmatcek]

Regarding the Canyonaro front end: Encapsulated rotors are the biggest detractor for me, they're almost impossible to replace without wrecking the wheel bearing in the process, which means your front brakes are about 400$/corner. You can machine them if you have an on-vehicle rotor lathe, but those aren't cheap. The balljoints are also weaker, and the design of the arms and geometry are less condusive to lifting/suspension modification. The SUA rear end is nice for flex and up-travel, but the front end is lacking, .

I replaced my front rotors with drilled and slotted and changed my front pads and the whole front end cost me around $200.

 

[4x4junkie]

^ To be fair, there are 2 different 4.0L engines in the Ranger. One is OHC, one is OHV. One sucks camel ********, and gets garbage mileage. The other one is a solid motor, but still less fuel efficient than the 3.0L. As a Ford mechanic, I chose to go with the all-iron 3.0L as I've seen them with well over 400,000Km of abusive driving with a manual trans behind them and no issues. It's a rock solid engine, and has a small amount of aftermarket support to cover it's weaker performance areas. The 4.0L engine is a reliable motor in either variant, but the OHC has 3 timing chains, one of which is at the back of the engine, and requires the engine to be pulled when the tensioner fails. Not if, when. The 3.0L engine was used up until 09, or 10, IIRC. Other than switching to SLA front suspension from their classic TTB/I-Beam suspension, not much was changed on the Ranger other than aesthetics.

.

anickode mentioned his coworker's truck was a "late '90s 4.0 4x4". This should've had the OHV 4.0L, as the SOHC engine was not put in Rangers until the '01 models. I agree the SOHC engine is not near as good as the OHV (pushrod) engine. I seem to recall Ford made an update to the cam tensioners for '04, so anything after that is probably less likely to have the tensioner issues.

Also, '00½-'11 4WD models have the full-time hubs (live spindles). Everything prior to that had locking hubs of some sort, and can be directly fitted with manual locking hubs if it doesn't already have them factory (you can easily tell the full-time hub by the presence of a large nut in the center of the wheel hub).

 

[Marauder_Pilot]

I don't have a whole lot of input on the S-10/Colorado's reliability, but indeed, they don't have the aftermarket like the Ranger has (and are not as buildable for offroad as a pre-'98 Ranger is). And Tacomas (Toyotas in general) are NOT anything even close to what many talk them up to be... They have as many problems as anything else has (maybe even more so, if my own experiences are any indication). So no doubt you'll be way ahead of the game to buy something without the inflated price premium driven purely by hearsay from people that choose to look past whatever issues theirs may have had.

Just given my anecdotal experience with Toyota pickups, I wouldn't say it's ALL heresay...but I can't stomach paying nearly twice as much for the same vehicle with only a small increase in mechanical reliability-and plenty of other problems, like severe rust problems. (It's not uncommon to see older Toyota pickups up here where the beds have completely rusted away and been replaced by homemade, frequently wood, flatdecks or boxes). I can't speak to the current Tundra, but the owners of older Tundras and Tacomas have always been super pleased with them...but, up here, a late-model Tacoma is $20,000, minimum. A Ranger is half that, and two Rangers are more reliable than one Taco.

As far as buildability and aftermarket, I'm not too concerned with either. I already have two vehicles desperately needing my build money, so the most I'd be looking at is a small lift, some larger tires and maybe a light bar.