Two days ago I returned the Ranger to the dealership for some body work. Its barely a month old, if that. It was going to be in the shop for some days, so they popped for a rental. I had the choice of a S10, sonoma, or focus. For kicks, I got the S10, although I hate them. Here is what I found, in comparison.

The Ranger LX sits upright, like a truck should. The S10 sits like a coupe. The seats were somewhat soft cloth, and very low even for a sedan, and I thought when I'd first sit in it I was in a lowered El Camino or something.

The Ranger was straight, inside and out. The S10 had the passenger side lump on the floor, like they have had for years. I don't know what its purpose is, but it is definitely out of place on a truck.

The S10 had the typical GM radio with a cd player, with louder bass than Fords, but it had the volume/mph thing going on that's annoying. The bass was louder on the S10, but the Ranger had a deeper bass (at mid volume, of course).

The S10 had a Vortech v6, and it was pretty spiffy. No complaints about its noises at start up, or at idle on a roll, or rough sound while accellerating, because it is a rental, but I wouldn't expect it from a V6 as much as I would a 4banger. Transmission showing signs of wear (21,000 on the clock).

Ranger looks good, S10 looks ugly, but thats subjective. The 03 Ranger has a newer design. The 03 S10 looks no different than someones 2000 that someone I knew had.

The S10 was loaded, power everything, and my Ranger doesn't even have a cassette player, but I tell you what, I was glad when I got my truck back today.

I love my truck

 

By the way, I used to love the looks of Silverados/GM trucks until I worked for a company that had a fleet of them and superduties(and i was a regular driver of all of them), and another company giving me a 2000 F250 was also a good experience, but i promise you it hasn't biased my opinion

 

yeah i have my ranger which i drive everyday and then i drive this s-10 for a company truck at work. I tell you im glad to git in my ranger at the end of the day. looking at those s-10s just makes me laugh. who the hell thought of that rear bumber design and yeah i feel like i sit so much lower in the s-10. im a left arm out the window kind of guy and i can't do it comfortably in the s-10. i just think the ranger is a whole better truck personally

 

But S-10s, just like every other GM truck or SUV or van have a really rough tranny. I always notice that when you shift out of park or reverse...or any other gear for that matter, you hear a CLUNK...and then it kinda rolls for a bit

 

I would never own an S-10. The body/chassis quality just isn't there. The only thing i can put my faith in is the tranny. I am not a fan of GM engines and can't stand the way they put 'em together. Ranger is the best small truck besides the Tacoma.

 

That's where they put their catalytic converter. It's been there SINCE 1983!! Wouldn't you think, BY NOW, that they would have found a better place for it?

 

as was noted gm has always made there trucks more like cars they are more suited for town driving than work, they do tend to ride better, and usually are alittle quiter but if you want a usable truck the ford or dodge are better. The ford will ride better than the dodge every dodge I have driven ride rougher than the semi truck I drive.

 

S-10's blow chow...and I'm a Chevy guy. Somebody mentioned the back bumper...what dufus at GM came up with that garbage?

And how about that stupid hump for the cat? Double dumb. Don't forget that lower body molding....eeeeeyuuuuuck!!!

Of course, the Ranger doesn't look like much either. It's still the box with wheels its been from the beginning...aside from the goofy rounded grill they stuck on it to make it look like a "big" truck.

As for gm making cars and labeling them as trucks...I've seen those "cars" work right along side those "trucks" from Furd and they don't seem to complain, whimper, or shy away from the heavy liftin'.

 

I worked for chev dealership as a mechanic for 2 yrs, and have seen the frontends literly fall apart when used for any time on farms, and gravel roads, plus gm never made a decent heavy duty rearend (this is why the hotrodders put in ford 9in), and just for fun used to take chevy owners off road on a bet that all they had to do was follow me and they would bend there frame only lost that bet once, and that was to a guy that had spent alot of money on gusseting, and yea all the little trucks look like boxes on wheels

 

monsterbaby,

How long have you worked at the Ford dealership as a mechanic? Of course a mechanic is going to see broken parts. Why the heck else would somebody bring their truck to the garage? Because it's working properly?

The older Chevy's had a weak spot in the frame right at the steering box. If they had oversized tires, they would for certain either bend or break the frame right there. As for FURD...you only need to go to a truck pull one time to see where the FURD frame was weak (I'm talking 'bout the 70's, early 80's Furds). Put a tape measure between the top of the bed and the cab before and after the pull and you'll find a bent frame. Each run would widen that gap betweed cab and bed.

Here's a story of a dufus. He was driving a tow truck (F350) and had to pull a car out of low lying ditch with the winch. Every time he tried, the front of the two truck would just raise up. So...being the genius that he was, he had his buddy park his truck in front of the FURD and the chained them together (to hold down the front of the trusty F350). He gave one little "eeernt" on the winch and a 6 inch gap appeared between the towing platform and the back of the cab. I'm not saying a Chevrolet wouldn't have done the same thing...I'm just telling you what I saw when he drove it back to the shop!

As for the 9"...that is one fine differential, VERY dependable. However...if it was so tough...isn't it odd that Furd switched from the 9" full floating axle to the semi-floating 8.8" that looked a WHOLE lot like a Chevy 12 bolt (8.875")? Hmmmmmmmm......

Speaking of rearends (no...I'm not trying to be one), have you ever seen what happens to the old Furd 250's with divorced transfer cases when the front end begins to crow hop under a load (like at a truck pull)? You could put money on the fact that the 582 foot long driveshaft to the front diff would drop out if the u-joints weren't fresh, and once that happened, all the torque went to the rear shaft which normally snapped it off too. The ol'coils up front of those trucks just could not contain all that hoppin' when the going got tough.

 

You are kidding, right? Let's take an example then... The Ford Ranger, and ... what's the GM... oh yeah, the Colorado. The Ranger has a greater payload, higher towing capacity, and more torque despite the fact that the Chevy is a larger truck! Explain that.

Sorry, but that guy is right. GM trucks ARE cars with a bed on them. That's why you don't see many of them used as fleet vehicles or on the job. (Not to mention that they are very poorly engineered).

And another thing...if you think the Ranger looks like a box with wheels on it, you should get your eyes checked. This one I just bought has all kinds of rounded edges, and smooth lines. Composite headlights, molded dome hood, fender flares, sculpted tail-lights, etc. It's a beautiful truck actually compared the the space-ship looking things the competition is putting out these days. I don't think there's any way it looks like a box.

See, Ford learned a lesson. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Ranger is still the #6 selling vehicle in America, so why change?

 

Nope. Not kidding bro.

By the way...the Colorado has a payload of 1503 lbs, while the box with wheels is limited to 1260 lbs. Hmmm...Chevy sure puts some mean coil springs under its cars these days.

As for the engine, you are right, the Furd does generate more torque (238 ft/lbs @ 3000rpm).

Of course the I5 in the Colorado is close at 225 ft/lbs but wait, what is this...it will give it to you at 2800 rpm? Gosh...isn't that 200rpm LOWER than the Ford???
And all this time you guys have been telling me that torque down low is where it counts and only Ford's got it. Of course, the puny 3.5L I5 does generate 220 hp (which is only 13 more horses than the Ford's larger 4.0L V6...so I'll try not to mention it again.)

The end result? They are too dang close to claim one is junk and one is king. It comes down to preference.

Now as far as I'm concerned...you can keep both of'em. Give me a full size!

 

Ranger is much more comfortable ride i think, kicks the s-10 where it hurts. and have you seen the stepsides on them s-10/sonomas, i dont think many stepsides look that good nowadays but thats gotta be one of the worst ive seen. another thing that looks wierd is if you look at them from the rear, the wheels look like they are offset into the truck, is that for lowering purposes cuz all they use those things (s-10s)around here is for lowering, gm realized what their trucks are used for and made it easier for them to be slammed on the ground useless

 

I think the S-10's look awful and so does the new Colorado. Furthermore, the nose on the Chevy's is just plain terrible. The GMC's full size trucks are the only ones that still "look" decent.
Of course...the F150 has looked goofy since the late 90's. The new 2004 F150 is dubbed "more car like than ever" so if you guys think Chevy's are car like...ya ain't gonna like the new F150. Ford is agrees and will still offer the "Heritage F150" just in case folks don't like what they've done.

 

What the ford guys are trying to get at is that chevy doesn't put there vehicles together as well as ford, the frame, body, etc. Out here in the northwest i hear more about chevy structural damage than dodge transmission problems. and the only reason ford has the F-150 heritage is for people who want the V6 and Stick.