CR compares the new Ford Ranger and the Chevy Colorado

I’m not a member, so I can’t read the article. I’m curious what the overall gist of the article was. Was there a clear winner? If so, what did they base the win on?

They preferred the road manners of the GM products, but the superior reliability of the Ranger–along with its superior safety systems–gave the Ranger the nod… by a small margin.

1 Like

I’m curious how they can rate the reliability of a vehicle that was just released.


Me, too. That has always bothered me about CR. Years ago they rated a Geo Prizm lower for reliability than a Toyota Corolla. Essentially the same car built in the same plant in California.


specially a turbo four cylinder in a good size truck . Talk to me when it gets to 100000 miles minimum .

Well, in fairness to Ford, they’re already putting a turbo 6 gas motor in the f150. Two different turbo v6’s now. I guess they’ve been pretty reliable? No firsthand knowledge of them, myself. I was pretty skeptical when the ecoboost engines first came out. But I guess they’re doing ok, Ford sells a ton of them.

Agree that you can’t judge the reliability of a brand new model, though.

I’ve noticed that when renting cars, especially an HHR. The ride quality and tracking straight down the road were both excellent, better than most other cars I’ve driven. I wonder why that is?, seems like you got basically the same suspension parts in most cars, at least comparing the same weight class. The HHR was like riding on rails, even at speeds approaching 80 mph.

In my experience there are Ford people, and there are GM people. They act like the competing people in Jerusalem.


Compared to your vehicles the HHR was impressive. To real vehicles , not so much . That is why it only lasted 5 years and did not sell well.

1 Like

I looked at the ratings in 1998 before I bought my Regal LS. The system ratings were all half or full red circles; better than Camry or Accord. Yet, their overall rating for the Buick was lower than for the others. I still don’t understand how they can do that.

I’m not a fan of CR. As mentioned, how can they know anything at all about a just released vehicle.

I remember back in 2013 when CR reviewed the new Camrys. According to the CR the models with the 4 cylinders were rated excellent on panel fit, wind noises, squeaks, rattles, and had excellent hardware and fasteners.

In the same breath they say the models with the 6 cylinder is rated poorly in all of those areas. So these guys say that the installation of a 4 banger on the assembly line makes everything fine from bow to stern? I don’t think so. How they can publish this with a straight face I have no idea.


I take vehicle tests with a grain of salt. When I bought my 2001 Ranger (new) CR said the 4 liter wasn’t significantly better than the 3 liter. I only drove the 3 liter, it was adequate. Later had an opportunity to drive a 4 liter, world of difference.
Back in the 80s in another magazine probably C&D or R&T, there were seperate test by two different writers. One an MB the other a Crown Vic. The writer of the Crowne Vic report commented that Ford needs to understand that there is no market for a two ton sedan. The MB writer raved about the MB. Comparing the published statistics the Crown Vic beat the MB in almost all tests and cost one half as much.
No one is immune to bias.

I seem to remember CR many years ago dismissing the LIncoln Mark VIII and for 2 reasons.
One is lack of leg room in the back seat. I have no idea what they’re talking about because my prior and current Mark is the only car I’ve ever owned that I was able to ride comfortably in the back seat for hours on end. There’s gobs of leg room and even with the front seats back the rear passengers are not cramped.

Secondly, they said the rear window vision was poor and they could not see out the back window. No idea on that either. From the driver’s seat one cannot see either C pillar at all in the rear view… The only way of even seeing those pillars is by leaning over the center console where the eyes are in the middle of the windshield. Even then they’re not a problem.
No idea how they figure this stuff.

The little red and black dots come from the reports CR gets from people who respond to surveys, so they are a reflection of the impressions of a population of users, not fans or mechanics or professionals in the auto business. Lately there have been cars with low ratings that seem to result from very fiddly and complex interactive digital systems, even though the car itself ran fine, all the systems operated smoothly and reliably. If people find it hard to operate the audio or figure out the adaptive cruise control they tend to downgrade the whole car.

1 Like

I remember that article but not for the same reasons. It was comparing the Mark VIII to the Infinity Q45. Both were as identical as two cars could be, other than the number of doors. Both weighed 4600 lbs, had 280 hp, DOHC, 32 valve 4.6L V8’s. The had almost identical performance scores too. These were on facing pages.

Yet according to their articles, the Mark got a disappointing 18 mpg while the Q got an outstanding for its size 18 mpg.

BTW, I’d have been more interested in seeing the Ranger compared to a Tacoma.

1 Like

Where I used to work, our fleet mechanic hated the Colorados in our fleet. The engines held up well, but not much else. If I was in the market for a truck in this class, I don’t think I’d consider either of these models; it would be a choice between a Toyota Tacoma and a Nissan Frontier.

With new models, it’s projected reliability until they get actual numbers, and then they revise their findings. By the time a new model makes it to market, the parts have been put through rigorous testing, and the manufacturers sometimes give CR access to the testing standards and results.

Does it say “Lexus” on the back? If so, +100 points. If not, no points, unless it is Detroit 3 iron, then -100 points.


The new Colorado may (or may not) be better than those older ones. Like you, I’ve not heard many positive comments on the first gen Colorado, though.

Nissan Frontier would probably be the best choice. I don’t think it’s been redesigned in quite a while, so should be a proven design and cheaper. I’ve read several complaints about the Tacoma’s newer 3.5 V6 from Taco fans. Some miss the older, torquier 4.0. I’m curious if the 3.5 is the same engine that is in my wife’s 2013 Highlander? It does well in the car based suv. Might be a little weak in a crew cab 4wd midsized truck, I don’t know. Speaking of which, the midsized trucks seem to be as large today as the half tons of a few years ago (like my 05 Sierra). The half tons of today are as big as the older 3/4 tons. And today’s 3/4 tons are monstrous. I looked at a 3/4 ton Sierra at the dealership last year. With the tailgate up, the top of the tailgate was literally to the middle of my chest. I’m 6’3! It’s a good thing everything has a backup cam now!

1 Like