YellowBee
Member
- Thread starter
- #1
Great comparison by MT that I think pretty much nails it on the head why the 24 Ranger is a better buy.
2024 Ford Ranger vs. Toyota Tacoma: Midsize Mainstays, Born Again
One midsize truck is new but feels old. The other isn’t as new but feels newer.
Alex LeanseApr 03, 2024
Can reinvention repudiate reputation? Not long ago, the Toyota Tacomawas best known as the midsize truck segment's bestseller, and the Ford Ranger was its versatile but forgettable competitor. Both pickups were notorious for being dismally old. But now that each has—finally—been redesigned for 2024, it’s time to let go of what you know about these midsize pickup truck rivals. Our comparison test evaluations of the 2024 Tacoma and Ranger easily demonstrate how improved they are from their ancient predecessors, yet one is clearly superior to the other.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: The Contenders
When the Ranger returned to the United States market for 2019, it was a fresh face on our truck scene—but anyone who’d visited Bangkok, Sydney, or Rio de Janeiro in the years leading up to that might’ve spotted it cruising around. That truck first went on sale overseas in 2012, making it old enough for a redesign the moment it landed stateside.
For 2024, that redesign arrives—albeit late again. Although planned with the American market as a priority, it’s still a global truck; as before, drivers overseas have had access to the newest Ranger for a couple years already. Regardless of where it’s sold, the “new” Ford Ranger isn’t completely so. It’s built on a modified version of the same platform as its predecessor. Additionally, the base powertrain carries over. Fortunately, that 2.3-liter turbocharged I-4 making 270 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque and 10-speed automatic didn’t need much improvement.
Despite these similar fundamentals, Ford successfully differentiates the new Ranger. Its prominent LED headlights lead the way for a body that’s buffed up and boxed out. The cab, available in crew configuration only, integrates big screens, storage spaces, and design flourishes to make the outgoing Ranger’s seem downright drab. Towing and hauling capacities don’t change much, though improved driver assist and trailering aids promise to ease those duties in the 2024 Ranger.
Entering its fourth generation literal decades after the third-gen model arrived, the Tacoma shows a relatively evolutionary design. The familiar fascia and exaggerated sculpting give it a look resembling its predecessorremixed for the modern era. Yet under that sheetmetal it’s properly new. Gone is the frame that’s underpinned the Taco since 2005, replaced by the TNGA-F hardware also found in the Tundra and Land Cruiser.
The old Tacoma’s naturally aspirated engines have also wheezed their last breaths, now replaced by a 2.4-liter turbocharged I-4 and an optional hybridized version of the same engine. In its standard form tested here, it sends 278 hp and 317 lb-ft through an eight-speed automatic to the rear or all four wheels in most configurations. Depending on setup, maximum towing and hauling increase slightly from before.
Inside, Toyota gives the new Tacoma access to all the latest technology and driver assists. Whether it’s built as an access cab or crew cab, abundant bins and cupholders are integrated throughout the chunky interior design.
For this comparison, we brought in the volume-selling Ranger XLT and midlevel Tacoma TRD Sport. Each came equipped with 4WD, a crew cab, a 5-foot bed, and a drizzle of options for pricing right around $46,000.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: Interior Considerations
When designing the old Tacoma, Toyota seemed to forget to consider how humans might fit inside the vehicle. The cabin was short, height-wise, and the seats were positioned low to the floor, an odd arrangement for a truck. It remembered for the new Tacoma, and the seating position is more upright, leaving front seat occupants’ legs at a natural bend and their noggins with improved headroom.
That’s not to say it’s necessarily a comfortable place. Although the driver’s seat is supportive, it uses extremely hard padding that’s just a degree plusher than a wooden chair. It’s all upholstered in fabric of a thread count barely higher than burlap.
Sitting in the Ranger is comparatively luxurious. Its driver’s seat is similarly ergonomic in shape but uses softer foam that cushions instead of creating pressure points. Ford’s steering wheel is sized appropriately; Toyota’s corporate truck wheel fits well in the Tundra but feels too large for the Tacoma.
Big size benefits the infotainment in our test Tacoma, which came outfitted with the available 14.0-inch touchscreen. That allows for a huge backup camera view, and Toyota’s user interface proves intuitive once you get past the absence of a home button. This Ranger has the upgraded 12.0-inch touchscreen, which is certainly large enough. However, its vertical orientation isn’t ideal. You need to take your gaze too far off the road to see its lower area, whereas the Toyota’s dashboard-top location keeps everything closer to your line of sight. What’s more, this Tacoma’s all-digital gauge display is larger and more reconfigurable than the Ranger’s standard instrument cluster screen.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: Cab and Bed Utility
Both cabs provide plenty of useful, clever spaces to store things, with Toyota going near-obsessive in molding bins or cupholders into every conceivable void. Additionally, the Tacoma’s second row cushions fold up to accommodate taller items inside, or its backrests can be folded down if that better suits a particular load. The Ranger’s back seat backrest doesn’t move, and only its cushion lifts—and does so in one piece, eliminating the possibility of a single rear passenger sitting alongside cargo, as can happen in the Tacoma thanks to 60/40 split seats, albeit only if that passenger is short enough to fit with the Tacoma’s minuscule legroom.
But you don’t buy a pickup just to carry stuff in the cab. Beds are a big deal, and this Ranger’s is better. The XLT trim comes standard with dual 120V in-bed power outlets and multiple fixed tie-downs, along with a molded ruler and slots for clamps built into the tailgate; our truck had a $495 spray-in liner. Meanwhile the Tacoma’s bed has adjustable tie-downs that slide along its length—and that's about it. In-bed outlets are part of an extra-cost package, and a factory bedliner is not available, though it’s also not necessary, as the entire inner bed surface is composite.
Ford also has advantages for towing. Our Ranger came with the $825 Advanced Towing package, which adds a trailer brake controller and Ford’s Pro Trailer Backup Assist, tech that adds dashboard controls to let you steer a trailer while reversing. Toyota offers a system called Straight Path Assist, which lets the Tacoma correct its steering in reverse after you’ve gotten everything pointed in the desired direction—which can often be the hardest part. As our test trucks were equipped, the Ranger could tow and haul more than the Tacoma: With 4WD, the Ford can pull 7,500 pounds and carry 1,711 pounds in its bed, while the Toyota maxes out at 6,400 pounds and 1,407 pounds in those measures.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: On the Road
Starting the engine in both trucks produces a telltale four-cylinder sound with plenty of turbocharger whistle. Each delivers power in a similar way: slightly laggy off the line and so-so in the midrange before power hits strongest at the top of their rev range. In MotorTend testing, the Ranger is quicker, hitting 60 mph in 6.9 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.4 seconds at 90.2 mph. The Tacoma accelerates to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds and crossed the quarter in 15.6 seconds at 91.1 mph.
Transmission tuning makes all the difference in how the Ranger and Tacoma drive. Features editor Christian Seabaugh noted issues with the Tacoma’s eight-speed: “The gear ratio feels spread too far apart while the final drive is too tall. Couple that with the transmission’s tendency to upshift as early as possible, and I found that it was constantly hunting for gears while driving.” Both behaviors unfortunately echo those of the previous-gen Tacoma’s ancient six-speed automatic, something we figured the newer gearbox would have (and should have) cured.
We prefer the Ranger’s 10-speed, not simply because it has more gears but rather because of how it uses them. “The ratios are well-picked, it shifts smartly, and it’s hard to catch out in the wrong ratio,” Seabaugh said.
In trucks, brake feel matters as much for occupant comfort as it does in keeping loads secure. Seabaugh described the Ranger’s brake pedal as “typical Ford,” with “long travel and not a lot of bite until about a quarter way through the stroke, but after that they’re pretty progressive.” Meanwhile, the Tacoma’s grabby brake tuning puts its rear windshield at risk of flying cargo. When pressed, the Toyota’s pedal exhibits some play before initiating an abrupt stopping response. Despite our preference for the Ranger’s brake feel, the Tacoma’s stopping performance is better. In 60–0-mph brake testing, the Tacoma needs 121 feet, while the Ranger requires 140 feet—likely a factor of the relatively open-tread design of the Goodyear Wrangler Territory tires fit to the Ford, compared to the Toyota’s General Grabber HTS set.
Our evaluations occurred with the beds unladen, giving us a sense for how the trucks drive in most situations. The Tacoma’s ride is stiff and jarring—old-school trucky, though less so than before—so we’ll charitably posit that, when laden, the ride might smooth out somewhat. And this TRD Sport model includes the new-for-2024 coil-sprung rear end; lesser trims keep the old Tacoma’s leaf-sprung design, which we’ve found rides worse. Every change in surface texture and shape is transmitted through the suspension to the too-hard seat. Senior editor Aaron Gold calls the Tacoma’s ride quality “rather rough” yet in some ways prefers it to the Ranger. “With occasional exceptions, the Ford’s suspension does a nice job of softening bumps,” he said before adding a caveat: “The ride gets jiggly and buzzy over successive impacts.” Off-road, the Tacoma takes impacts abruptly but doesn’t begin swaying into secondary motions, which the Ranger does.
Even though the Tacoma’s firm suspension helps it avoid body roll, we prefer the Ranger in demanding handling situations. “On curvy, narrow roads, the Ranger isn’t bad for a pickup truck,” Gold said. “It feels tidy and doesn’t mind being hustled.” Seabaugh agreed, noting how the Tacoma “often feels out of sorts” on winding roads due to the steering that “lacks feel” and is “completely isolating from the road.” Meanwhile, he deemed the Ranger "more dynamically pleasing,” with “good feedback and decent feel” from the steering, which would also benefit towing and off-roading.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: What’s the Better Midsize Truck?
Cruising back to base, taking time to consider what we like and dislike about each truck, we found such ruminations were easier in the Ranger because we didn't need to shout our inner dialogues. The Tacoma’s din of road and wind noise—"boy, this is a noisy truck compared to the Ranger,” Gold said—make quiet reflection more difficult. Expanding on the point, Gold deemed the Tacoma as “feeling less substantial than the Ranger, largely due to the NVH, lighter steering, and plasticky interior.” Contrastingly, Seabaugh’s final summarizing comment on the Ford is simple: “Solid truck, this.”
In redesigning the Ranger and Tacoma, Ford and Toyota each had the opportunity to shake off cobwebs from the ancient outgoing trucks and let the 2024 models tell their own, new stories. Despite an abundance of modern hardware, impressive digital displays, and edgy, eye-catching looks, the 2024 Tacoma tale remains much the same: It’s in need of additional finishing. Slight improvements to comfort, powertrain tuning, and bed features would go a long way for this new Tacoma, which stubbornly remains equal parts refined and rough.
Although technically not as “new” as the Toyota, the 2024 Ranger turns a page even with largely carryover fundamentals. Ford succeeds in hiding the not-new platform and engine under layers of thoughtful and fresh design, pleasant driving dynamics, and useful work-ready equipment. In doing so, the Blue Oval delivers a truck that’s more ready for the needs and whims of today’s midsize pickup drivers than the segment’s bestseller.
2nd Place: 2024 Toyota Tacoma TRD Sport
Pros
1st Place: 2024 Ford Ranger XLT
Pros
2024 Ford Ranger vs. Toyota Tacoma: Midsize Mainstays, Born Again
One midsize truck is new but feels old. The other isn’t as new but feels newer.
Alex LeanseApr 03, 2024
Can reinvention repudiate reputation? Not long ago, the Toyota Tacomawas best known as the midsize truck segment's bestseller, and the Ford Ranger was its versatile but forgettable competitor. Both pickups were notorious for being dismally old. But now that each has—finally—been redesigned for 2024, it’s time to let go of what you know about these midsize pickup truck rivals. Our comparison test evaluations of the 2024 Tacoma and Ranger easily demonstrate how improved they are from their ancient predecessors, yet one is clearly superior to the other.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: The Contenders
When the Ranger returned to the United States market for 2019, it was a fresh face on our truck scene—but anyone who’d visited Bangkok, Sydney, or Rio de Janeiro in the years leading up to that might’ve spotted it cruising around. That truck first went on sale overseas in 2012, making it old enough for a redesign the moment it landed stateside.
For 2024, that redesign arrives—albeit late again. Although planned with the American market as a priority, it’s still a global truck; as before, drivers overseas have had access to the newest Ranger for a couple years already. Regardless of where it’s sold, the “new” Ford Ranger isn’t completely so. It’s built on a modified version of the same platform as its predecessor. Additionally, the base powertrain carries over. Fortunately, that 2.3-liter turbocharged I-4 making 270 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque and 10-speed automatic didn’t need much improvement.
Despite these similar fundamentals, Ford successfully differentiates the new Ranger. Its prominent LED headlights lead the way for a body that’s buffed up and boxed out. The cab, available in crew configuration only, integrates big screens, storage spaces, and design flourishes to make the outgoing Ranger’s seem downright drab. Towing and hauling capacities don’t change much, though improved driver assist and trailering aids promise to ease those duties in the 2024 Ranger.
Entering its fourth generation literal decades after the third-gen model arrived, the Tacoma shows a relatively evolutionary design. The familiar fascia and exaggerated sculpting give it a look resembling its predecessorremixed for the modern era. Yet under that sheetmetal it’s properly new. Gone is the frame that’s underpinned the Taco since 2005, replaced by the TNGA-F hardware also found in the Tundra and Land Cruiser.
The old Tacoma’s naturally aspirated engines have also wheezed their last breaths, now replaced by a 2.4-liter turbocharged I-4 and an optional hybridized version of the same engine. In its standard form tested here, it sends 278 hp and 317 lb-ft through an eight-speed automatic to the rear or all four wheels in most configurations. Depending on setup, maximum towing and hauling increase slightly from before.
Inside, Toyota gives the new Tacoma access to all the latest technology and driver assists. Whether it’s built as an access cab or crew cab, abundant bins and cupholders are integrated throughout the chunky interior design.
For this comparison, we brought in the volume-selling Ranger XLT and midlevel Tacoma TRD Sport. Each came equipped with 4WD, a crew cab, a 5-foot bed, and a drizzle of options for pricing right around $46,000.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: Interior Considerations
When designing the old Tacoma, Toyota seemed to forget to consider how humans might fit inside the vehicle. The cabin was short, height-wise, and the seats were positioned low to the floor, an odd arrangement for a truck. It remembered for the new Tacoma, and the seating position is more upright, leaving front seat occupants’ legs at a natural bend and their noggins with improved headroom.
That’s not to say it’s necessarily a comfortable place. Although the driver’s seat is supportive, it uses extremely hard padding that’s just a degree plusher than a wooden chair. It’s all upholstered in fabric of a thread count barely higher than burlap.
Sitting in the Ranger is comparatively luxurious. Its driver’s seat is similarly ergonomic in shape but uses softer foam that cushions instead of creating pressure points. Ford’s steering wheel is sized appropriately; Toyota’s corporate truck wheel fits well in the Tundra but feels too large for the Tacoma.
Big size benefits the infotainment in our test Tacoma, which came outfitted with the available 14.0-inch touchscreen. That allows for a huge backup camera view, and Toyota’s user interface proves intuitive once you get past the absence of a home button. This Ranger has the upgraded 12.0-inch touchscreen, which is certainly large enough. However, its vertical orientation isn’t ideal. You need to take your gaze too far off the road to see its lower area, whereas the Toyota’s dashboard-top location keeps everything closer to your line of sight. What’s more, this Tacoma’s all-digital gauge display is larger and more reconfigurable than the Ranger’s standard instrument cluster screen.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: Cab and Bed Utility
Both cabs provide plenty of useful, clever spaces to store things, with Toyota going near-obsessive in molding bins or cupholders into every conceivable void. Additionally, the Tacoma’s second row cushions fold up to accommodate taller items inside, or its backrests can be folded down if that better suits a particular load. The Ranger’s back seat backrest doesn’t move, and only its cushion lifts—and does so in one piece, eliminating the possibility of a single rear passenger sitting alongside cargo, as can happen in the Tacoma thanks to 60/40 split seats, albeit only if that passenger is short enough to fit with the Tacoma’s minuscule legroom.
But you don’t buy a pickup just to carry stuff in the cab. Beds are a big deal, and this Ranger’s is better. The XLT trim comes standard with dual 120V in-bed power outlets and multiple fixed tie-downs, along with a molded ruler and slots for clamps built into the tailgate; our truck had a $495 spray-in liner. Meanwhile the Tacoma’s bed has adjustable tie-downs that slide along its length—and that's about it. In-bed outlets are part of an extra-cost package, and a factory bedliner is not available, though it’s also not necessary, as the entire inner bed surface is composite.
Ford also has advantages for towing. Our Ranger came with the $825 Advanced Towing package, which adds a trailer brake controller and Ford’s Pro Trailer Backup Assist, tech that adds dashboard controls to let you steer a trailer while reversing. Toyota offers a system called Straight Path Assist, which lets the Tacoma correct its steering in reverse after you’ve gotten everything pointed in the desired direction—which can often be the hardest part. As our test trucks were equipped, the Ranger could tow and haul more than the Tacoma: With 4WD, the Ford can pull 7,500 pounds and carry 1,711 pounds in its bed, while the Toyota maxes out at 6,400 pounds and 1,407 pounds in those measures.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: On the Road
Starting the engine in both trucks produces a telltale four-cylinder sound with plenty of turbocharger whistle. Each delivers power in a similar way: slightly laggy off the line and so-so in the midrange before power hits strongest at the top of their rev range. In MotorTend testing, the Ranger is quicker, hitting 60 mph in 6.9 seconds and the quarter mile in 15.4 seconds at 90.2 mph. The Tacoma accelerates to 60 mph in 7.4 seconds and crossed the quarter in 15.6 seconds at 91.1 mph.
Transmission tuning makes all the difference in how the Ranger and Tacoma drive. Features editor Christian Seabaugh noted issues with the Tacoma’s eight-speed: “The gear ratio feels spread too far apart while the final drive is too tall. Couple that with the transmission’s tendency to upshift as early as possible, and I found that it was constantly hunting for gears while driving.” Both behaviors unfortunately echo those of the previous-gen Tacoma’s ancient six-speed automatic, something we figured the newer gearbox would have (and should have) cured.
We prefer the Ranger’s 10-speed, not simply because it has more gears but rather because of how it uses them. “The ratios are well-picked, it shifts smartly, and it’s hard to catch out in the wrong ratio,” Seabaugh said.
In trucks, brake feel matters as much for occupant comfort as it does in keeping loads secure. Seabaugh described the Ranger’s brake pedal as “typical Ford,” with “long travel and not a lot of bite until about a quarter way through the stroke, but after that they’re pretty progressive.” Meanwhile, the Tacoma’s grabby brake tuning puts its rear windshield at risk of flying cargo. When pressed, the Toyota’s pedal exhibits some play before initiating an abrupt stopping response. Despite our preference for the Ranger’s brake feel, the Tacoma’s stopping performance is better. In 60–0-mph brake testing, the Tacoma needs 121 feet, while the Ranger requires 140 feet—likely a factor of the relatively open-tread design of the Goodyear Wrangler Territory tires fit to the Ford, compared to the Toyota’s General Grabber HTS set.
Our evaluations occurred with the beds unladen, giving us a sense for how the trucks drive in most situations. The Tacoma’s ride is stiff and jarring—old-school trucky, though less so than before—so we’ll charitably posit that, when laden, the ride might smooth out somewhat. And this TRD Sport model includes the new-for-2024 coil-sprung rear end; lesser trims keep the old Tacoma’s leaf-sprung design, which we’ve found rides worse. Every change in surface texture and shape is transmitted through the suspension to the too-hard seat. Senior editor Aaron Gold calls the Tacoma’s ride quality “rather rough” yet in some ways prefers it to the Ranger. “With occasional exceptions, the Ford’s suspension does a nice job of softening bumps,” he said before adding a caveat: “The ride gets jiggly and buzzy over successive impacts.” Off-road, the Tacoma takes impacts abruptly but doesn’t begin swaying into secondary motions, which the Ranger does.
Even though the Tacoma’s firm suspension helps it avoid body roll, we prefer the Ranger in demanding handling situations. “On curvy, narrow roads, the Ranger isn’t bad for a pickup truck,” Gold said. “It feels tidy and doesn’t mind being hustled.” Seabaugh agreed, noting how the Tacoma “often feels out of sorts” on winding roads due to the steering that “lacks feel” and is “completely isolating from the road.” Meanwhile, he deemed the Ranger "more dynamically pleasing,” with “good feedback and decent feel” from the steering, which would also benefit towing and off-roading.
Tacoma vs. Ranger: What’s the Better Midsize Truck?
Cruising back to base, taking time to consider what we like and dislike about each truck, we found such ruminations were easier in the Ranger because we didn't need to shout our inner dialogues. The Tacoma’s din of road and wind noise—"boy, this is a noisy truck compared to the Ranger,” Gold said—make quiet reflection more difficult. Expanding on the point, Gold deemed the Tacoma as “feeling less substantial than the Ranger, largely due to the NVH, lighter steering, and plasticky interior.” Contrastingly, Seabaugh’s final summarizing comment on the Ford is simple: “Solid truck, this.”
In redesigning the Ranger and Tacoma, Ford and Toyota each had the opportunity to shake off cobwebs from the ancient outgoing trucks and let the 2024 models tell their own, new stories. Despite an abundance of modern hardware, impressive digital displays, and edgy, eye-catching looks, the 2024 Tacoma tale remains much the same: It’s in need of additional finishing. Slight improvements to comfort, powertrain tuning, and bed features would go a long way for this new Tacoma, which stubbornly remains equal parts refined and rough.
Although technically not as “new” as the Toyota, the 2024 Ranger turns a page even with largely carryover fundamentals. Ford succeeds in hiding the not-new platform and engine under layers of thoughtful and fresh design, pleasant driving dynamics, and useful work-ready equipment. In doing so, the Blue Oval delivers a truck that’s more ready for the needs and whims of today’s midsize pickup drivers than the segment’s bestseller.
2nd Place: 2024 Toyota Tacoma TRD Sport
Pros
- Cool styling
- Abundant interior storage
- Huge digital displays
- Loud and harsh ride
- Grabby brakes
- Unimpressive bed
1st Place: 2024 Ford Ranger XLT
Pros
- Civilized road manners,
- Good engine-transmission pairing
- Airy and attractive cabin
- Suboptimal infotainment orientation
- Long stopping distances
- Fewer in-cab storage options
| POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS | 2024 Ford Ranger XLT Sport 4x4 Specifications | 2024 Toyota Tacoma TRD Sport 4X4 Specifications |
| DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT | Front-engine, 4WD | Front-engine, 4WD |
| ENGINE TYPE | Turbo direct-injected DOHC 16-valve I-4, alum block/head | Turbo port- and direct-injected DOHC 16-valve I-4, alum block/head |
| DISPLACEMENT | 2,261 cc/138.0 cu in | 2,393 cc/146.0 cu in |
| COMPRESSION RATIO | 10.0:1 | 11.0:1 |
| POWER (SAE NET) | 270 hp @ 5,500 rpm | 278 hp @ 6,000 rpm |
| TORQUE (SAE NET) | 310 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm | 317 lb-ft @ 1,700 rpm |
| REDLINE | 6,000 rpm | 6,200 rpm |
| WEIGHT TO POWER | 16.5 lb/hp | 16.5 lb/hp |
| TRANSMISSION | 10-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic |
| AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE/LOW RATIO | 3.73:1/2.37:1/2.72:1 | 3.58:1/2.33:1/2.57:1 |
| SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR | Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; live axle, leaf springs | Control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; live axle, coil springs |
| STEERING RATIO | 17.6:1 | 17.0:1 |
| TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| BRAKES, F; R | 12.2-in vented disc; 12.1-in vented disc | 13.4-in vented disc; 13.2-in vented disc |
| WHEELS | 7.5 x 17-in cast aluminum | 7.5 x 18-in cast aluminum |
| TIRES | 255/70R17 112T Goodyear Wrangler Territory AT (M+S) | 265/65R18 114T General Grabber HTS60 (M+S) |
| DIMENSIONS | ||
| WHEELBASE | 128.7 in | 145.1 in |
| TRACK, F/R | 63.8/63.8 in | 66.0/66.0 in |
| LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT | 210.6 x 75.5 x 74.4 in | 213.0 x 77.9 x 74.6 in |
| GROUND CLEARANCE | 9.3 in | 10.7 in* |
| APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE | 30.2/25.8 deg | 32.2/21.9 deg* |
| TURNING CIRCLE | 42.5 ft | 44.4 ft |
| CURB WEIGHT (DIST F/R) | 4,453 lb (56/44%) | 4,598 lb (58/42%) |
| SEATING CAPACITY | 5 | 5 |
| HEADROOM, F/R | 39.8/38.3 in | 38.0/38.4 in |
| LEGROOM, F/R | 43.7/34.6 in | 41.8/33.7 in |
| SHOULDER ROOM, F/R | 57.1/56.7 in | 58.3/57.8 in |
| PICKUP BOX L x W x H | 59.6 x 62.4 x 21.3 in | 60.3 x 53.0 x 21.2 in |
| CARGO VOLUME | 43.5 cu ft | 39.8 cu ft |
| WIDTH BET WHEELHOUSES | 48.2 in | 44.4 in |
| CARGO LIFT-OVER HEIGHT | 34.8 in | 34.0 in |
| PAYLOAD CAPACITY | 1,717 lb | 1,407 lb |
| TOWING CAPACITY | 7,500 lb | 6,400 lb |
| TEST DATA | ||
| ACCELERATION TO MPH | ||
| 0-30 | 2.5 sec | 2.5 sec |
| 0-40 | 3.7 | 4 |
| 0-50 | 5.2 | 5.4 |
| 0-60 | 6.9 | 7.4 |
| 0-70 | 9.1 | 9.4 |
| 0-80 | 11.8 | 12 |
| 0-90 | 15.3 | 15.2 |
| PASSING, 45-65 MPH | 3.5 | 3.6 |
| QUARTER MILE | 15.4 sec @ 90.2 mph | 15.6 sec @ 91.1 mph |
| BRAKING, 60-0 MPH | 140 ft | 121 ft |
| LATERAL ACCELERATION | 0.72 g (avg) | 0.77 g (avg) |
| MT FIGURE EIGHT | 28.6 sec @ 0.57 g (avg) | 27.9 sec @ 0.61 g (avg) |
| TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH | 1,500 rpm | 1,500 rpm |
| CONSUMER INFO | ||
| BASE PRICE | $41,190 | $44,095 |
| PRICE AS TESTED | $45,650 | $46,435 |
| AIRBAGS | 6: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain | 8: Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee |
| BASIC WARRANTY | 3 yrs/36,000 miles | 3 yrs/36,000 miles |
| POWERTRAIN WARRANTY | 5 yrs/60,000 miles | 5 yrs/60,000 miles |
| ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE | 5 yrs/60,000 miles | 2 yrs/25,000 miles |
| FUEL CAPACITY | 18.7 gal | 18.2 gal |
| EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON | 20/24/22 mpg | 19/23/20 mpg |
| EPA RANGE, COMB | 414 miles | 364 miles |
| RECOMMENDED FUEL | Unleaded regular | Unleaded regular |
| ON SALE | Now | Now |
| *With air dam removed; clearance 5.8 in with air dam |
Sponsored
, but this one, Olaf 
is a big win to me...
