Bias, most of us suffer it so if the only concern is reliability of a turbo vs a brand prejudice do a little more research and go accordingly.
200k Challenge: Which Will Hold Better? 2021 Colorado or the 2021 Ranger?
- Thread starter NDL
- Start date
I'm tall & skinny and don't like the ergo's of the Tacoma. I agree the Ranger looks/is tall for it's width.
You can still get a regular cab F150 with a 6.5' bed. That might make more sense than a Ranger or a Tacoma.
You can actually order a F150 regular cab 4X2 with a 5.0 V8 if you want scary quick.
These are indeed rare to see:
You can still get a regular cab F150 with a 6.5' bed. That might make more sense than a Ranger or a Tacoma.
You can actually order a F150 regular cab 4X2 with a 5.0 V8 if you want scary quick.
These are indeed rare to see:
Ranger and D-Max are both winners overseas but with the changes and powertrain options here it’s kind of a head scratcher. Obviously they’re going to be more engaging and less awful to drive than a Tacoma.
The future of the Colorado is also in peril thanks to Isuzu’s departure. Full size trucks print money and GM isn’t going to get off its butt and try to develop a new vehicle for the dying midsize market.
The future of the Colorado is also in peril thanks to Isuzu’s departure. Full size trucks print money and GM isn’t going to get off its butt and try to develop a new vehicle for the dying midsize market.
Last edited:
I totally agree with you. I am not sure what is taking GM so long for what seems to be an obvious move. Make mine a crew cab ZR2 version.
I will take my initially awkward seating position and uhaul truck ride Lasting 20 years at 20k a year. This is just my bias, it is a low iworry vehicle. .
The next runner up is the ford, I am sure it has the technology share d4s dual injection system that is other eco boost engines have. Still some more worries with a turbo to be concerned with.
GM can eat a bag of Gummy Phalic symbols, they owe us all money and they put out some crap.
The next runner up is the ford, I am sure it has the technology share d4s dual injection system that is other eco boost engines have. Still some more worries with a turbo to be concerned with.
GM can eat a bag of Gummy Phalic symbols, they owe us all money and they put out some crap.
I want to thank everyone for their posts, even if I don't thank y'all individually, know that I read, and appreciate, everyone's input.
****
I want something cheap, and I also want body on frame construction; the Ridgeline offers neither.
Yours was a very edifying post...thank you
Y
****
So where are you going to come out, NDL?
I suppose everyone forgot (self included) the obvious -- Honda Ridgeline
I want something cheap, and I also want body on frame construction; the Ridgeline offers neither.
Yours was a very edifying post...thank you
Y
Can you test drive both and report back?
One has a turbo and the other has an engine that eats timing chains every 30,000 miles or a modern emissions diesel. The mini duramax in the Colorado is appealing, but I, personally want nothing to do with a modern emissions diesel.
For my, in this segment, the '20 Frontier with the 3.8/9 speed or Ranger are what I would be looking at. I certainly have my longstanding complaints with Ford, but I think the 2.3EB even with a turbo would be a long lasting engine.
Doing an oil change on the new Ranger is very inconvenient, and would be a potential area of frustration for a DIY'er. The location of the oil filter is very...unfortunate.
The Colorado has been around a long time, a proven design although imperfect as they all are. And the Ranger is a "new again" model (I generally steer away from those for a few years), but Ford has built its reputation on pickups and they know what they are doing. So I think they are both a good choice. Personally I would choose the Colorado because I prefer NA engines, I have good experience with GM vehicles and I like the look and design better. Also I agree with other posts stating they might choose the Ranger if a NA engine was offered... maybe. I would not buy a new Tacoma because they are overpriced for the content, I expect better fuel economy from Toyota, and I am sad to say that the current Tacoma is not built as well as previous generations. I would never consider a Ridgeline because it is not a pickup, it's an SUV with a small open area in the back. And I would never consider a Nissan because I have never, never ever liked any Nissan made after 1980, except for the Maxima and GTR. Even the Infiniti brand is unappealing to me.
2016 Colorado 2.8L Turbo diesel owner here.
My best suggestion is to go to both the Colorado & Ranger owners forums. Check to see what owners have high odometer mileage on their trucks and what issues they had.
Low miles and no problems on my truck that would require me to bring it back to the stealer, I mean dealership. 30 to 32 mpg highway is what I am seeing. However, it is encouraging to see that there are other Colorado diesel owners with 140,000, 180,000 and 240,000 miles on 2016 & 2017 model year trucks.
There is a major service maintenance item at 150,000 miles for the 2.8L Diesel engine. It is a timing belt change. Rumor has it that 2021 is the last year for this engine.
My best suggestion is to go to both the Colorado & Ranger owners forums. Check to see what owners have high odometer mileage on their trucks and what issues they had.
Low miles and no problems on my truck that would require me to bring it back to the stealer, I mean dealership. 30 to 32 mpg highway is what I am seeing. However, it is encouraging to see that there are other Colorado diesel owners with 140,000, 180,000 and 240,000 miles on 2016 & 2017 model year trucks.
There is a major service maintenance item at 150,000 miles for the 2.8L Diesel engine. It is a timing belt change. Rumor has it that 2021 is the last year for this engine.
Maybe I will be getting my wish for the 2.7 liter turbo engine after all, especially if the Duramax option goes bye-bye.
Here's the rub. The 2.7 turbo is roughly 310hp / 348 lb-ft torque. The 2.8 Duramax is 181hp / 369 lb-ft torque.
That torque number is close enough. Why spend over $4000 more over the 3.6 for the Duramax... if the 2.7 turbo is almost within 5% on torque?
GM really needs to dump the 3.6 as the optional gas engine here.
Good points...thanks
Oh, did you say it: an oil change on the new Ranger is ridiculously time consuming
It might be; the 3.5 Ecoboosts seem to be doing quite well. Maybe the 2.3L will have a similar record. It is thirsty however, and as much as its thirst is reasonable for the power it puts out, I would rather have less power and something a little more thrifty.
Isn't this "new" version of the Ranger similar to versions that have been around for a long time, just outside the US?
I call those Peapa trucks cuz I always see older men driving them. I always get happy when I see them. Rare indeed
yes and it’s proven to be a good truck with big global sales. in australia the hilux still moves more units but as toyota keeps sabotaging itself it’s destined to be the #1 player.
again the problem here is that people loyal to the ford brand or just wanting a pickup gravitate to a full size, which is better in everything but parking
Last edited:
I’ve driven numerous 2016+ Chevy Colorado’s and GMC Canyons. I wouldn’t be a bit considered with their reliability or durability. They seem to all around well built trucks. I haven’t driven a new Ranger yet. I haven’t been given one by any rental agency thus far. I’m sure it’s reliable and will go 200K with minimal issues. The one thing I do know about the Ranger is oil changes seem to be more complicated. The oil filter is mounted in such a way you have to remove part of the inner fender. A bit of a pain but has nothing to do with overall durability.
Similar threads
