Ranger's 2.3L 4-cyl vs. Colorado's 3.6L V6

[Floyd]

These vehicles don't compare well at entry level due to the fact of Ranger's clearly superior drive train alone.
As trim levels progress they become more competitive but never quite make the grade even at the $40,000+ level.
While the Ranger is superior overall... It Particularly stands out at the XL trim level.

Sponsored

 

[John62]

These vehicles don't compare well at entry level due to the fact of Ranger's clearly superior drive train alone.

Kind of lost me there, ranger's clearly superior drive train, as compared to what?

 

[Floyd]

Kind of lost me there, ranger's clearly superior drive train, as compared to what?

Compare the engine supplied with the base Colorado or the base Tacoma,with the Base engine supplied with the Ranger.
Compare the transmission supplied with the base Colorado or the base Tacoma. to the transmission supplied with the base Ranger.
In order to even approach the value offered in the Ranger you must compare them at their respective higher trim levels.
Compare what $25,000 buys when applied to each. Its just apples to apples
Sorry for the confusion, I just figured most people would know what "entry level" means.

 

[John62]

Compare the engine supplied with the base Colorado or the base Tacoma,with the Base engine supplied with the Ranger.
Compare the transmission supplied with the base Colorado or the base Tacoma. to the transmission supplied with the base Ranger.
In order to even approach the value offered in the Ranger you must compare them at their respective higher trim levels.
Compare what $25,000 buys when applied to each. Its just apples to apples
Sorry for the confusion, I just figured most people would know what "entry level" means.

I knew what entry level was, but in my case hard to compare price wise, as I don't have the entry level 4 cylinder Chevy offers, I got the 6.

So was basically looking for the same level trim, as mine 4x4, 17 in wheels, etc., where the XL STX is comparable, but realizing it's a 4 cylinder. Where the 4 to 6 option with Chevy was around a 2,000.00 difference.

I want to test drive one, although something I would consider buying, as the Lariat and XLT just seemed high for a 4 cylinder? So hoping the XL STX would be comparable price wise?

 

[Arc Ranger]

I knew what entry level was, but in my case hard to compare price wise, as I don't have the entry level 4 cylinder Chevy offers, I got the 6.

So was basically looking for the same level trim, as mine 4x4, 17 in wheels, etc., where the XL STX is comparable, but realizing it's a 4 cylinder. Where the 4 to 6 option with Chevy was around a 2,000.00 difference.

I want to test drive one, although something I would consider buying, as the Lariat and XLT just seemed high for a 4 cylinder? So hoping the XL STX would be comparable price wise?

Is your Colorado an extended cab or crew cab? I have a 4x2 SuperCrew Ranger XL with STX package, also added the tow package and drop in bedliner. I paid $30,400 out the door. If i had gotten SuperCab instead it would have been about $2,500 less.

 

[VAMike]

I knew what entry level was, but in my case hard to compare price wise, as I don't have the entry level 4 cylinder Chevy offers, I got the 6.

Yes, nobody wants the base engine on the other trucks so the base price is sort of a fantasy.

So was basically looking for the same level trim, as mine 4x4, 17 in wheels, etc., where the XL STX is comparable, but realizing it's a 4 cylinder. Where the 4 to 6 option with Chevy was around a 2,000.00 difference.

I want to test drive one, although something I would consider buying, as the Lariat and XLT just seemed high for a 4 cylinder? So hoping the XL STX would be comparable price wise?

I'd rather have the ranger 4 cylinder than the 6s from the other trucks. You're getting too hung up on the number of cylinders rather than the actual utility and driveability (not to mention the much better transmission).

 

[Floyd]

I knew what entry level was, but in my case hard to compare price wise, as I don't have the entry level 4 cylinder Chevy offers, I got the 6.

So was basically looking for the same level trim, as mine 4x4, 17 in wheels, etc., where the XL STX is comparable, but realizing it's a 4 cylinder. Where the 4 to 6 option with Chevy was around a 2,000.00 difference.

I want to test drive one, although something I would consider buying, as the Lariat and XLT just seemed high for a 4 cylinder? So hoping the XL STX would be comparable price wise?

So if you would objectively compare entry level to entry level on the drive train you would get the point.
But even considering as you have an upgraded Colorado to the Ranger, the difference is still striking in favor of the Ranger.
If you don't see that,then you may be better off to stay with the Colorado.
I truly appreciate those who buy Colorados and Tacomas , It takes the pressure off Ranger buyers who appreciate the best value on the market.
I understand why you don't have the "entry level" 4CYL Chevy offers... you had to upgrade to their 6CYL in a failed effort to match the entry level Ranger 4CYL.
My point from the begining.

 

[Hounddog409]

I knew what entry level was, but in my case hard to compare price wise, as I don't have the entry level 4 cylinder Chevy offers, I got the 6.

So was basically looking for the same level trim, as mine 4x4, 17 in wheels, etc., where the XL STX is comparable, but realizing it's a 4 cylinder. Where the 4 to 6 option with Chevy was around a 2,000.00 difference.

I want to test drive one, although something I would consider buying, as the Lariat and XLT just seemed high for a 4 cylinder? So hoping the XL STX would be comparable price wise?

Hi for a 4 cyl. ???

You do realize that 4 has more torque, more payload, and more towing than the GM 6.....right?

You paid 2k more for a 6 that does not match the turbo 4.

And look up at what RPM that 6 makes max torque. The Ford 4 makes max torque at 3k RPM.

There isbno comparing powertrains. Amd i didnt even mention the POS 8 speed GM tranny.

 

[John62]

Yes, nobody wants the base engine on the other trucks so the base price is sort of a fantasy.


I'd rather have the ranger 4 cylinder than the 6s from the other trucks. You're getting too hung up on the number of cylinders rather than the actual utility and driveability (not to mention the much better transmission).

Not getting hung up on the amount of cylinders just always preferred a 6 over a 4 in a truck. And to be honest I got the Colorado 6 knowing the Ranger did not have the 6 option or I would of waited to buy, as I've always had Rangers, but V-6's not 4's. I don't regret my choice as the V-6 is a very good runner, but I always like the ranger better just didn't really want a 4, but that's just me. Although everything I read, I'm at least wanting to test drive one.

 

[John62]

there's more torque

Hi for a 4 cyl. ???

You do realize that 4 has more torque, more payload, and more towing than the GM 6.....right?

You paid 2k more for a 6 that does not match the turbo 4.

And look up at what RPM that 6 makes max torque. The Ford 4 makes max torque at 3k RPM.

There isbno comparing powertrains. Amd i didnt even mention the POS 8 speed GM tranny.

I realize with the combination there is more torque, although better HP with 6., been lucky as I don't have any issues with the 8 speed like some do.
Just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo, maybe it's because of issues in the Mustang with it, if I remember right? I'm not here to knock the Ranger like some think, I owned two previous Rangers that serviced me well, my last had 250,000 when I got rid of it, just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo.

 

[Wes Siler]

there's more torque

I realize with the combination there is more torque, although better HP with 6., been lucky as I don't have any issues with the 8 speed like some do.
Just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo, maybe it's because of issues in the Mustang with it, if I remember right? I'm not here to knock the Ranger like some think, I owned two previous Rangers that serviced me well, my last had 250,000 when I got rid of it, just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo.

Yeah, I don't think you understand engines.

 

[VAMike]

Not getting hung up on the amount of cylinders just always preferred a 6 over a 4 in a truck.

That's what "getting hung up on the amount of cylinders" is...for no particular reason, you want a 6 instead of a 4. I think that's silly--a V-6 is a poor substitute for an I-6 or a V-8 (or V-12!) if bigger really is better, and is popular mostly because they fit so nicely in FWD applications--but it's your truck so you can buy what you want. But if you weren't hung up on the number of cylinders you could get a better truck.

 

[John62]

Yeah, I don't think you understand engines.

Why because I'm not partial to turbo's Turbo= more parts=more maintenance and doesn't a turbo on a small engine make it work harder, in turn putting more strain on internal parts? Which work at higher temps while degrading oil quality faster? You know engines so tell me why a turbo 2.3 is a better engine, not in just performance but maintenance and longevity?

 

[Floyd]

there's more torque

I realize with the combination there is more torque, although better HP with 6., been lucky as I don't have any issues with the 8 speed like some do.
Just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo, maybe it's because of issues in the Mustang with it, if I remember right? I'm not here to knock the Ranger like some think, I owned two previous Rangers that serviced me well, my last had 250,000 when I got rid of it, just not crazy about a 2.3 turbo.

Enjoy your Colorado, and thanks for taking one for the home team, I never would have.

 

[John62]

, you want a 6 instead of a 4. I think that's silly--a V-6 is a poor substitute for an I-6 or a V-8 (or V-12!)

Well I was speaking in term of the mid size trucks, Ranger, Colorado, Frontier, etc. as most offer the 4 or 6, although thought I heard of a future 8 in the Colorado, but not sure?

But if you weren't hung up on the number of cylinders you could get a better truck.

As I said, just not sold on a 2,3 turbo? I keep vehicles long hoping for very little maintenance, as my last Ranger got 250.000 on the engine when I sold it with no engine issues. Just can't see a 2.3 turbo pulling 250.000 with no major engine issues, maybe I'm wrong time will tell?

Sponsored