Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

1495052545589

Comments

  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I'm not saying that only Ford is responsible. I realize that both Firestone and Ford are to blame.
    Firestone is responsible for supplying crappy tires, Ford is responsible for putting them on, AND dragging their feet in fixing the problem...remember the "recommended tire pressure" TSB?

    And yes, this forum does repeat itself.
  • Supreme court reverses(denies) class action suit against Explorer.

    http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=11883


    NHTSA Denies Firestone Request For Ford Explorer Investigation

    www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/pressdisplay.cfm?year=2002&filename=pr11-02.html


    Analysis on Explorer and Firestone statistics:

    http://media.ford.com/events/Firestone_charts_August24.PPT

    Scroll through first 10 or so slides, if they bore you.


    Anyways Scorpio, how would you as a company, test for tire failure after 3, 4 or 5+ years of use and possible under maintenance?


    This is how it works. Ford puts an order into Firestone for a shipment of tires. Firestone says ok, we'll get right on it, and have all of their plants produce more of the reuqested type of tires. Ford gets them, installs them, and 4 or 5 years later 1,100 out of 4 million+ Explorers have accidents involving tire tread separation. Not a huge number, definitely involving old tires that have probably never seen a air gauge except by the dealership.


    At least Ford has systematically replaced all tires that are in question, therefor reducing the risk of future occurances to zero. Show me where Ford dragged their feet? A 2 billion (or similair amount) cost to replace all the tires isn't something you would JUMP into as a corporation is it? Don't think this is where they started fixing the problem. Remember they only were chaning a few tires at first? Then they went ahead and took pretty much all Firestones off? Once it became known that the Firestone decatur tires were signifigantly below status quo, they were all replaced.


    And what does Toyota do to owners with sludge in their oil? I'm sure Firestone is swearing their tires are good, as long as properly maintained. Ford could have done the same, but they didn't.


    End of story, all information retained from government and company releases, and NOT the local TV NEWS.

  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    lock knobs are still a farce. A passenger should be able to get into the vehicle with its window rolled down and not have to reach inside and physically open the door or have the driver lean way over and open the door for them. I drive all the time with my windows down and if I pick somebody up, they can't simply unlock their own door. Either I or them have to do it from the inside by reacing way over (driver) or reaching way down to actuate the lever (passenger). Talk about stupid with a capital "s." All because some idiot bean-counter at Ford saved 10 cents on every unit.

    Don't you ever recall getting into somebody else's vehicle with the window rolled down and simply unlocking it and getting in?

    As for headrests - they should be required by law for safety's sake. Just about everybody has headrests now - except cheapo penny-pinching Ford.

    Since you asked, I put on more miles on Fords than Toyota because of my work. That's why I'm familiar with all the irritating details, like the lock knobs. Or the gas pedal that's too high off the floor and the tip of your foot slips off it, going under it. Or how the 5.4 engines "tick" loudly. Heck, even discovering lug nuts that loosen on their own. What a crock.

    I'm not going to bring up the bad design on the rear shock absorbers again and how they're vulnerable to damage. By your own admission, you don't four-wheel much so I guess you wouldn't care. But others do care. In fact, in the wish-list for pickups thread, others brought this point up as well.

    And it's still a joke that Ford's premier off-roader, the FX4, comes with an MP3 player instead of a locker. HA!

    BTW, I don't remember you thanking me for straightening you out on that whole central, pacific and eastern time confusion of yours. Don't worry, you're welcome.
  • By calling a company full of bean counters, you sure do nit pick a lot of stuff yourself.

    Doors locks. I guess that's why Ford charges $405 ($344 invoice) for Power mirrors and windows, power door locks, remote keyless entry.

    While Toyota sells Power windows and door locks, cloth door trim, glovebox light for $525 ($420 invoice) or in the xtra cab $565 (452 invoice). Adding power mirrors to the above can cost as much as $825 ($660 invoice) on a double cab, or $695 ($556 invoice) on an Extra cab. Even with the $825 dollar option, there is still no mention of remote keyless entry.

    I can understand why you don't have power equipment, it can cost twice as much in a Toyota. I also wonder why does it cost 130 dollars extra for power windows in a crew cab versus a 4WD Xtra cab?

    So if you do not have power locks, how do you expect to raise and lower the passenger window, with it's manual operation? (By reaching way over) One thing you can do with the Ford doors, is to open the inside handle just enough to open the lock, but not open the door. Your example is only valid if the window is down in the first place, and if that is the case, the would be passenger can easily use the inside door handle to get the job done.

    I find it very amusing you state that Ford is trying to weazle out of paying .10 cents for a longer door lock knob, while Toyota charges up to twice the amount to install (fewer) power options.

    But nevermind that logic, Ford has nothing but conspiracies to save money in your eyes.

    Headrests--->IIHS.ORG rates Tacoma's headrest "Poor". Ranger receives a Poor & a Marginal rating depending on seat. So at least with Ranger you get a choice, and IIHS can not rate a headrest which you say does not exist...

    And yes, I do not off-road. I will drive a dirt or old fire road here and there, but I don't cross open fields for no good reason.

    And every person is entitled to mistakes, even a small miscalculation of time zones. I live and learn by my mistakes. But whom can best be judged by the act of bringing up past mistakes over and over again?
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    I have power equipment on my Toyota, except mirrors. Some of our Fords at work do not. Coincidentally, I'm not the only guy at work who thinks the disappearing knobs are a nuisance either.

    Headrests again...I'm 6'3" and in my truck, the headrest goes all the way up the back of my head. In the Ford, it does not.

    You are a real slickster, you know that? Headrests are vital in rear-end collisions. Your IIHS information on seats and restraints is based on the frontal off-set collision test, NOT rear-end collisions. Rear-enders are one of the most common types of accidents, and I wouldn't want to be in a cheapo ford and have my neck/head wrap backwords around those stupid surfboard seats with no headrest. Case closed.

    Speaking of safety - I wonder what EMS/firemen would have to say about pulling people from crushed/burning Fords and the only way to unlock and open the doors is from the inside...
  • lariat1lariat1 Posts: 461
    Your definition of "crushed" must be different than mine. I would think if the truck was crushed the doors would be inoperable.
    Another thing, wouldnt the shock hangers being below the axle be a mute point seeing that the lowest point of the truck (using Toyotas ground clearance rules) is the transfer case some 13" up?
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    how many firemen do you actually see trying to open the door and unlock it when evacuating a person from a vehicle? they will break the window 99% of the time if they can't get the door open. imo, id rather pull a handle to let someone in (of course with the ranger and any other ford, id just push the power lock button i got for the standard price)than have to reach over and roll the window down first and then expect them to unlock the door like you do on el-cheapo toyotas with no power anything unless you gave the dealer an arm before you left. but then you know when almost 90% of rangers come from the factory with power windows, power locks and keyless entry, all one would have to do with a ranger is push the button on the remote in the ignition, or push the power lock or power window button on the driver door.

    your little lock thingy is ludicrous. for someone who works for the gov't., id expect at least expect a more intelligent debate than one that means nothing. your debate on this issue doesn't even exist. and if your cruising around with your windows down and picking someone up and the door is locked-this means two things: one, you reached across and rolled the window down with the crank (can you say a pain?) and two, you once reached across and locked the door since you have no power locks. so in essence, the ranger doesn't make you stretch at all, its all power standard bud.

    and just another tidbit, what if while you are at an event, some dooda bumps your mirrors and you get in and don't realize it until you're out in traffic. you don't have power mirrors. what you gonna do? say to your friend- (if you're not alone and just screwed like im sure you've been once or twice with no power mirrors) a little to the left, down now, to the right? power mirrors standard on ranger xlt.

    and talking about safety in your truck, this is the one that (1998) got a one star rating right? how can you be worried about head restraints when you may not have a pelvis if you get hit from the side? and oh yeah, there is a limit to how far the seatback can go up. if it goes up too much, the driver can't see around it. both toyota and ford's seatbacks are the same heights. go measure if you don't believe. your claims are simply false.

    and ive had three rangers, off-roaded all of them, and never scraped my shocks. don't you understand that if its mounted higher than the bottom of the pumpkin, it won't drag? the ranger's shock mounts are up higher than the punkin. what about the tacoma t/c that uses itself as the mount for the cheap skidplate that is supposed to protect it? what if you bottom on it over a rock? think the t/c is gonna support itself? that design is hilarious, and you bellyache about shock mounts. the same type of mounting that basically every other truck manufacturer uses, even jeep.

    just one more question- if you're so tall, why does your foot slip off the accelerator so easily? im 5'7, and ive never had any problems. its simply as easy as adjusting your seat. but of course now, ford offers power pedals (something toyota never will) and if you have them you wouldn't have that problem. they are offered on expeditions, so your employment could get them. and the lug nuts- its your darn fault you didn't get them replaced. ford will fix them for free, but you just keep complaining about them. that's your problem. you think those toyota owners that have locked up motors are just gonna let them sit and make payments on a piece of crap car that they can't even drive? no. toyota says they'll finally fix them all and so the drivers will take them in for the repairs. that is what people do when they have a recall. they take their vehicles in. of course, the ranger had only one recall last year, and it only applied to some rangers. another thing, id rather hear some ticking (you claim) than nothing at all which is what those camry owners and every other owner of the locked up engines.

    steelman- you're living in fantasyland yourself. the 2001 ranger i had would have buried your tacoma any day any place. end of discussion. there wouldn't have even been any competition. of course i had better tires than stock, but that's cheating right? toyota quality- locked up engines, spot weld marks all over the rear cab, smaller and weaker components, and doors that are a micro thick. let's not forget that even the steering wheel is optional. LOL

    stang's still got your number.
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    We'll never convince eachother with our arguments. The only thing I have to say is that I think (know?) the Tacoma is better and the concensus in the automotive community is that it's better. The only people corroborating with you, tbunder, is your fellow Ford fans.
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    23 of 54 rear axle stalactites by tonyy Apr 03, 2002 (10:25 pm)
    I want a "full size 4X4" without the shock and park brake line above the bottom of the rear axle.
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Posts: 124
    Everyone knows that a Tacoma is better than a Ranger. Let the Ford fanatics say what they like, it simply makes them feel better about what they are driving. The rest of us know the truth. Yotas Rule!

    I'll see you at my favorite fishing hole that is smack dab in the middle of nowhere......Steelman.
  • You have convinced me. I must follow in the footsteps of Toyota. Everything I hear must be true. I must forget common sense and logic, and personal experience, and buy a Toyota because

    "tonyy" doesn't want shocks and brake lines underneath the rear axle.

    "Your IIHS information on seats and restraints is based on the frontal off-set collision test, NOT rear-end collisions. Rear-enders are one of the most common types of accidents, "

    Is this not the one test you bring up time after time when discussing Tundra's and other full size trucks? You constantly berate the F-150's results of IIHS vs the Tundra. Now I guess it doesn't mean much, because you believe "rear end collisions are the most common".

    But the fact of the matter is, that unless everyone is now driving at highway speeds, BACKWARDS into each other, one car or another has to hit other with the front of their car.

    Are you sure Ranger's don't have head rests?

    http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP/Cars/1978.html

    (Also notice the 5 star side impact rating vs Tacoma's 3 stars).

    Still complaining about the lock knobs? Go to autozone or (insert local auto parts store here) and buy a pair of nice long knobs for around $1.19. ($1.99 if you get the dice or eight ball style). There is your case closed. I would not buy or not buy a vehicle because of a 2 dollar part.

    "The only thing I have to say is that I think (know?) the Tacoma is better and the concensus in the automotive community is that it's better. The only people corroborating with you, tbunder, is your fellow Ford fans."

    Is that statement supported by the loyalty factor or continued sales leadership shown by Ford in the Truck (and SUV) categories?

    "Everyone knows that a Tacoma is better than a Ranger. Let the Ford fanatics say what they like, it simply makes them feel better about what they are driving. The rest of us know the truth. Yotas Rule!"

    I love statements that are just as valid as the exact opposite of what they are trying to say.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    a rock crawling TRD!! LOL!!!! This says it all about these Toyota diehards and thier offroad knowledge and ability.. I have NEVER seen a TRD rock crawling... I will spell this out.. the distance from your two axles on a truck does not allow for the best rock crawler.. Jeeps make the BEST rock crawling vehicles. The Locker is an OPEN axle when it is not engaged.. and cannot help you tow, pull or haul.. useless over 90 percent of the time..
    The Ranger with its new 4.0 will plain out pull out haul out power the TAcoma. Toyota fans hate to talk about HP/Torque curves.. because they don't know what the heck that means.. REAL truck owners know, that is why they buy Rangers....
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    In numerous comparos, the Tacoma stopped faster, accelerated faster, accelerated faster with a load and easily outperformed the Ranger on the trails. In every performance test, the Tacoma won, hands down. Recently, due to its rear locker configuration, it beat the Land Rover, Hummer and Jeep. Your precious Ranger with its minivan-derived LSD wasn't even a contender...
  • sonjaabsonjaab Posts: 1,057
    If the toyotas are so tuff and long
    lasting and cheaper ?
    Why don't the goverment buy them?
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    sonjaab- that was good. (laughing)
    pluto, i respect your opinion, but the article you keep quoting from is now very old. tell the military and most trail/rock guys that your trd is superior. you'll probably end up with a hummer over your bed, or a jeep will drag you somewhere and leave you.

    to be honest with you, i haven't seen a comparo of compact trucks, all off-road equipped for at least four years. id love to see the fx4, trd, zr2, nissan all face off. all manual trannys, all top of the line off-road pkgd. but living in the present, the best your trd tacoma could muster in the latest pickup of the year contest was a third place showing. and yes, im sure you'll come back and say "where was the ranger?" well, when the ranger introduces a crew-cab im sure it will get all kinds of press and be introduced to these shootouts again. until then, it is probably a safe bet to assume that it is quite content outselling all but three other trucks in this good old USA.

    hey scorpio, what happened to the tacoma? its sales is negative and sliding. and the f150 is up. so much for your theory on ford truck sales declining throughout the year. yes, the ranger is down too, but your tacoma is down period. and the ranger is still 26000 units ahead of it. and just as i suspected, the s10 has has surpassed the tacoma. the tacoma was ahead of it for a while. maybe more are just buying full-size, but sales are down for your brand.

    finally, pluto- if the general concensus in the automotive community is that the toyota tacoma is the better truck, i ask again, why doesn't it outsell all others? its a simple question and so far no one can answer it because last time i checked, the ranger was still the #1 selling compact. that tells me that the general concensus in the automotive world is that the ranger is the truck people want, not tacoma.

    oh yeah- screw BMW's, they are terrible in reliability and everyone has them these days. for a guy who seems to have all the answers, i find it cool that you ask my opinion. well, here it is. beemers are underpowered, at least the ones you are talking about. and it seems now that everyone has them. if i were to buy a 30K car, it would be a no brainer. lexus IS300 all the way. that car rules and is beautiful. and the lexus is rated #1 all the time. id buy one in a heartbeat. yes, i know they're toyota. but they are put together by robots. ever read the book, "the lexus and the olive tree?" i cant remember the author (jonathan someone), but he talks up lexus, he toured the plant and i guess they're built like clockwork.
    i also like the acura type-s cars. very classy. and that new infiniti is sweet. id stay away from european cars unless you can buy an M3 or something. the beemers are sweet cars and handle like a dream so ive read. but the lexus is just that- a lexus.
    but hey, id be happy with a new civic Si. that car is way cool.
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    except when it comes to Rangers vs. Tacomas! Haha! Seriously though, I know the article I'm referring to is from 1998 and that's only because, like you said, there haven't been any recent compact truck comparos. BUT, not too long ago the TRD did face off with the Jeep, Hummer and Land Rover and won. I forgot which publication it was, but it created a lot of controversy. But the publication stuck to its guns and said "the stocker with the locker" negotiated their courses better than the others. Jeep was the runner up. And to answer sonjaab's question, the gov't will probably never have contracts with Toyota for vehicles for reasons I won't go into here - suffice to say we all know the gov't isn't always efficient with our tax dollars and doesn't spend money wisely...

    Believe it or not, I appreciate your opinion on the bimmer. I've kind of come to the same conclusion myself. It's just that if I went with the 350Z, I would be getting a V6 engine instead of a straight six (BMW). And let's face it, the only reason Nissan went with the V6 is to save money and use an existing engine for this car. IMHO, the V6 is a very inferior design. It's a compromise for space considerations. It's compact, but is not naturally balanced and therefore requires power-robbing counterbalances. It is also very prone to longitudinal vibration and not nearly as smooth as a good straight six. With that 350Z's long nose, there's no reason a straight six wouldn't fit - Nissan just didn't want to develop the engine that would suit this car (original Zs did have a straight six, by the way). And my past experiences with Nissan have been very disappointing - they always boast about the hp their cars have, but the driving experience is always disappointing. So if I want a good engine in a rear wheel drive sports car that I can afford, my only choices are the bimmer and the IS300 (which also has a good straight six). I'm sure the IS300 will be a more reliable car, but I'm not so sure it will deliver the driving satisfaction of the bimmer. BMWs are hard to beat in that regard - on paper, sometimes they're not that impressive but they have intangible qualities that make them very enjoyable to drive. I'll keep you posted on which one I end up buying, which should be before the end of summer.
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Posts: 124
    No wonder I don't believe anything Tbunder says about the Ranger. He says that a BMW is terrible in reliability (LOL)! That is hilarious! The BMW is known to be one of the most reliable, well engineered luxury cars on the planet. The German engineering of these cars is considered top notch.

    Tbunder, please, let's be realistic. I suppose your next post will be that the Ford Focus is a much more reliable vehicle that an BMW. Your reason will probably be just because it sells more units (LOL)! You Ford fans really know how to make somebody laugh.

    Take care........Steelman.
  • That comparison is the one and the same tbunder is talking about. It's from 1998, or at the latest 1999. One interesting thing to note is the Jeep (with LSD) got the same Trail rating as the Tacoma, however the Tacoma got 12.51 more points in the mechanical category, presumably because of its locker, so it barely pulled ahead and won.

    And if you re-read it, the Jeep did very well on the slow trails, but the Tacoma did better on the high speed trails. (Product of wheelbase?) If they both turned out with the exact same trail score, that should tell you something.
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    Tacoma must be quite an off-roader if it held its own, and then some, against the Jeep - a vehicle specifically made for four-wheeling and not much else.

    Why wasn't the Ranger a contender? Why was the Tacoma TRD nominated as the compact pick-up competitor in this comparo? Because the people who conducted the test know the TRD is the most capable compact available!
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    sonjaab: Government would have a hard time justifying long-term benefits of Toyota (if it were true). Gov't is not exactly a money-saver, nor a smart-choice maker.

    tbunder: care to post a link with sales results? We've all learned not to trust whatever you just say (600lbs heavier!)

    stang: It hang on with a jeep and "barely won"? Ohh, that's a good one. You are making Tacoma look real good there.
This discussion has been closed.