Howdy, Stranger!

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





Ford Ranger vs Toyota Tacoma

17891012

Comments

  • " 240 Dodge vs 245 Toyota HP? 300 Dodge vs 315 Toyota Torque? Making a mountain out of a anthill?..Care to explain to me how 5 extra horsepower and 15 extra torque make the Dodge a poor work vehicle?."

    The small difference in output in these engines is almost exactly equal to those between the Tacoma's and Ranger's, as *tbundy* has been repeating since he's existed here. Has *tbundy* been making a mountain out of an anthill too? You've never popped in here telling us so. Or are you just BIASED???

    Don't worry, you don't have to answer that. Actions speak louder than words.

    "I just don't see how you can say the Tundra is the best truck available"

    Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said that - that's simply your flawed intrepretation of this discussion. I've stated numerous times I think the best working truck is the Ford Power-stroke diesels. Since people are always saying the Tundra is a poor work truck, it follows that the Ram, with an even weaker engine, is a poor work truck also.

    We can argue about this topic until the sun goes super-nova, midnight_caballo. If the Tundra's weak, then so is a 4.6 F-150, or 4.8 Silverado, or 4.7 Ram. We all know it, and that's why you start comparing 3/4 and 1 ton trucks to the Tundra.

    Bye bye.
  • You take things so personally. I was not trying to be biased, but I do target a known instigator, those known to lack respect. (i.e. midnight caballo, my name is based on my race car, which if you called my mustang a horse, I wouldn't be very happy with you.)

    Work trucks must be customizable. I'll say the Tundra is a good work truck when I see a flatbed version. Because Toyota does not offer one, you can only cry foul play when we try to compare the offerings of the Big 3.

    As far as comparing apples to apples, the difference between the 3.4l and the ford 4.0l does have a slightly larger difference in output. Also when you compare the v6 overall power, the Ford 4.0l has 8.9% more horsepower and 8.1% more torque vs Toyota 3.4, compared to the Toyota 4.7l 2% horsepower difference and 5% torque increase compared to the Dodge 4.7.

    So 9%/8% has a greater significance to me that 2%/5% in two vehicles that you state are weak. So that only goes to say that your 3.4l is weak compared to the Ford 4.0l. And if you do not consider your Toyota's engine weak, how can you claim that it is weak in a Dodge? Using your logic the Tacoma is a weaker work vehicle than the Ranger, as much as the Ram is to the Tundra.

    The Big 3 base engines may be 2-5% weaker than a tundra's v8, but if you can't bring out the larger engines available, then why do you even try to form an opinion based on the pickups themselves? You don't think the SVT Cobra is a weak sports car, when the base engine is a 3.8l v6? You can state that the majority are sold with the smallest v8 installed, but if you are talking work trucks, not daily drivers, your statement holds no water as to what is weak, because the smallest v8 is not for work trucks. Unless you consider the Tundra a work truck.

    So the Tundra can only outsell the Avalanche... What does this tell us?
  • "You take things so personally. I was not trying to be biased, but I do target a known instigator, those known to lack respect."

    It's hard to take these accusations seriously from somebody who throws online temper tantrums (promptly deleted, of course) and sends hate-mail. Talk about taking things personally...

    I've said before that I think the Ford PSDs are the best work trucks around. I personally don't consider any of the 1/2 tons with the base V8 serious work trucks. When you compare the Tundra to its PEERS, its performance and capabilites are on par with the others.

    It's just plain asinine to compare trucks that aren't equipped the same. Your insistence on doing so makes you, well, you know...

    If you want to complain about the Tundra's lack of options, fine, that's a valid point - I will concede that. But if you're going to call the Tundra weak, then you should be unbiased and consistent and label all the other Big 3 base V8 models weak(er) too. But you don't and therein lies the problem.

    Quit acting like the Tundra was intended to take on the heavy duties and failed miserably. Like every other truck, it was designed and built for its intended application - in this case, a light duty truck. If your requirements call for a heavy duty truck, the Tundra and the Big 3 base V8 models aren't going to work, because they weren't built for those kinds of applications. There's nothing wrong with the Tundra. People are just upset Toyota doesn't offer a heavy-duty version of one. In fact, what many consider "faults" with the truck others find a virtue, like the smaller size which makes it more maneuverable and practical for certain locales.

    If the Tundra can't fulfill your needs, that doesn't make it a bad truck. It simply means you're looking as the wrong class of trucks for what your intentions are.

    So you see, all the "problems" you "see" with myself and Toyota Tundras are simply the result of your skewed perception of reality. There's nothing wrong with Tundras, and you really can't label people as "instigators lacking respect" simply because they have different opinions.

    And I never meant "midnight_caballo" to be lacking in respect. It could be worse - how does "midnight_burro" sound?
  • The manufacturers seem to be stumbling all over themselves to create a "nitch" market with all the different versions, engines, options, striping, Led Zepplin soundbeds, and stupid commercials (I hate that Chevy commericial with the steers that stand-in with mouth agape when the "man" parks his Chevy "rig.") How many suburbanites envision themselves as ranch hands haulin' cattle?


    And what is with the Avalanche's "armadillo" skins of plastic hangin' all over the sides? That rig is "butt-ugly!"


    Have you guys seen the Chevy Cheyenne? Colorado?

    And have any of you attended the 2003 Car show?


    It doesn't come to St. Louis until the end of January.....The Edward-Jones Dome didn't want to interfere with the Rams in the playoffs...We used to hold our car show the second or third week of January. Man we gotta hire a front line to block for our offense! We lost three quarterbacks this year. And wait until you see who quarterbacks on Monday Night Football against San Francisco!

  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    "And what is with the Avalanche's "armadillo" skins of plastic hangin' all over the sides? That rig is "butt-ugly!"

    It looks like a big ugly piece of tupperware. You have to really wonder what goes through someone's mind when they decide to buy that thing.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    OWNED. YOU JUST WERE.

    if the F150 isn't considered a work truck, why does it offer optional payload and gvwr packages? also, why does it offer two V8's? around here, everyone has either an F150 or silverado to do their contracting work. the big bosses drive SD's. the tundra is weak. how can you compare it to the other full-sizers when in reality, it has tacoma underpinnings? i dont feel like it, but please list payload capacities, tow ratings, inside dimensions, etc. make sure you take into account what is available to the average joe when going down the options list. what about that 5.4 anyway? how close is the most powerful engine in tundra to the 5.4 in power/torque? don't want to go there? not surprised. around here anyway, every F150 on the lot has the 5.4 in it, it's only like a $750 option and doesn't get much worse mileage. you always seem to put up a convincing argument, but comparing the tundra to any other domestic full-size, it just doesn't have any validity. helper springs on tundra? i wonder why. what is the payload of a tacoma? hehe
  • It's funny to see a regular visitor to edmunds start have to resort to non-sequitor comments concerning tantrums, hate mail, etc. That is neither here, nor there, (nor ever happened), and it doesn't belong in a car related discussion. As Sergeant Friday would say, "Just the Facts, Ma'am".

    Good for you in seeing that the Ford Diesels are the best work trucks around. I also don't consider any of the base v8's real work trucks either. I didn't know we were arguing that point. After that you seem to miss my point. I never contested that a "base" v8 was a work truck. I was only building on your statements that if the Dodge 4.7l v8 was weak compared to the Tundra v8, then by your logic, the Tacoma is weaker (if crunching numbers) that the Ranger. That line of statements was an attempt to trigger a line of thought in you to think that maybe 2-5% isn't all that much. If it was, then you just conceded your Tacoma was underpowered, which I believe is not the case.

    P: "If the Tundra can't fulfill your needs, that doesn't make it a bad truck."
    If the Dodge has 2% less horsepower, that doesn't make it a bad truck either. Some people think a Tundra is butt ugly. Others don't, and appreciate it's record of reliability and want the most power(in the base engines). Looking at the sales figures, I can only guess which group is in the majority. That's really the only point I was trying to make.

    P: "all the 'problems' you 'see' with myself and Toyota Tundras are simply the result of your skewed perception of reality. There's nothing wrong with Tundras, and you really can't label people as 'instigators lacking respect' simply because they have different opinions."

    So you believe I have a skewed perception of reality? Do you still believe you are not lacking in the respect department? I only bring light to that in the hopes that you see how hypocrite it is, and maybe just stick to trucks?
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 5,870
    This personal beef is ancient history and you guys need to keep it off of the boards. It comes up in EVERY XXX vs Toyota topic and it never changes. Nobody has changed their mind yet, and I doubt that repeating the beatings is going to get them to this time. If you can't back off of it, the topic will be shut down.


    Agree to disagree and move on please.


    PF Flyer
    Host
    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? pf_flyer@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • "if the F150 isn't considered a work truck, why..."

    >>Don't pass your blanket statement along as being mine. I said BASE V8 F-150s aren't work trucks, and others here feel the same way. That fact negates everything else you said.
  • "I was only building on your statements that if the Dodge 4.7l v8 was weak compared to the Tundra v8, then by your logic, the Tacoma is weaker (if crunching numbers) that the Ranger."

    >>Then I will take your example a step further and compare your 3.0 Ranger to my 3.4 Tacoma and call it weaker. What's that you say? It's not right to compare trucks that aren't equipped the same? Exactly.

    "If the Dodge has 2% less horsepower, that doesn't make it a bad truck either. Some people think a Tundra is butt ugly."

    >>The Dodge not only has less horsepower, but it weighs much more and guzzles gas like no tomorrow. Then throw in the undeniable fact Dodge makes the worst transmissions on the market and VIOLA - you have a poor work truck (in my opinion). One more thing - how many work trucks do you see with 20" chrome rims and low-profile tires?

    "Looking at the sales figures, I can only guess which group is in the majority."

    >>As far as sales figures go, they mean absolutely nothing to me. If there were as many Tundras available for sale as F-150s or Rams and people weren't buying the Tundras, then you might have a point. Fact is Toyota makes Tundras in just one plant with limited production capabilities, and they sell what they make. In comparison, the Big 3 don't sell everything they make and must rely on profit-breaking killer sales incentives (or, as in Dodge's case, lengthened warranties to alleviate justified concerns of poor reliability) to sell. In this case, production capability dictates Tundra sales, not the "worthiness" of the truck, as you would like us to believe.

    >>And the majority of people who buy a truck will never use it to their potential. I find it refreshing that there's a realistic segment of the population that looks at some of these trucks and say to themselves "I don't need this huge, gas guzzling thing that's a chore to drive..." Remember how you said we shouldn't place so much importance on our trucks' off-roading capability because most of us will never leave the pavement? Why don't you feel the same way regarding these trucks' towing and hauling abilities? Most people aren't going to use them for towing and hauling, and that's a fact.

    "So you believe I have a skewed perception of reality? Do you still believe you are not lacking in the respect department?"

    >>YES, I do. And I also believe you either have a severe case of selective amnesia or lack the backbone to acknowledge your actions, especially those relating to the temper tantrums and hate-mail. But at least you learned along the way a thing or two about shock absorbers and posting copyrighted pictures.

    >>Respect. Didn't they ever teach you have to give it to receive it?
  • Ok, pluto, this debate is getting silly. Care to bring out your other persona Yoda, the one who appeared and accused me falsely of copyrighted pictures? That's right, falsely. And what about shock absorbers? You have yet to provide proof that they are a major design flaw in a Ranger. That was just a rediculously long debate about nothing. I said they pose no problem, you said there were a major design issue. It's all a dead and moot issue. All you can say is they hang low on the rear axle. Must be quite a problem for the people "you find refreshing, because they don't want something huge, or to go offroad with".

    How's that Limited slip in your Toyota doing, Pluto? You know, the Limited slip differential you said that engages whenever you don't have your locker locked? Or the Limited slip that is available on a Tacoma(not). If you state you have to give respect to receive it, when have you followed your own rule? So I ask you again Pluto, stick to trucks, because this is not a popularity contest, and there will be no winners if this mud slinging continues.

    Comparing the 3.4l to a 3.0l, well, why not compare it to the 2.3l? You can bring up all kinds of comparisons, but realistically you are selling one side short. Because an auto manufacturer offers more options than the other, that should not be considered a "unfair". Hopefully someday Toyota will expand it's niche marketing, you know offering trucks that can do work, or just a grocery getter.

    Nobody said the F-150 (4.6) makes the perfect work truck. However the new 6.0l Diesel SD would kick butt! Even the 5.4l that is a very popular option throws your point out the window.

    While I don't see many "work trucks" with 20 inch rims, I do see plenty of street trucks, and plenty of work trucks. Many people buy trucks just to dress them up, and stock 20" rims may be valuable to them. I personally don't care for that much flash, but others do, and again, the available options only diversify the amount of consumers who will buy the truck. I would say the majority are just daily drivers, but about 20-30% are used for hauling. Maybe 10-15% of street trucks with the flashy rims, lowered suspension, etc. Whatever floats their boat. The only analogy is that each owner will find what meets their needs, and the more options available make it easier to find a truck that meets their needs.

    In retrospect, doesn't this all appear to be a Us vs Them debate?
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i like how you didn't even reply to anything i said to you. nice flag waving. we all know it's hard to keep up with domestic truck offerings, but you at least could have tried.

    regarding those 20" rims on ram 1500's, care to list a comparison against payload and towing between a ram with 20's and a tundra with it's best whatever tires? i'd love to see just how wimpy those 20" rims are and the tires that wrap around them. please, back up your statement with some facts. ill be waiting.

    and stooping so low to comparing your 3.4 to a little 3.0 is now your new lowest point. i was surprised to see you had to do that. that's pretty pathetic.

    also, still waiting on your comments about the 5.4 against the only engine available in tundra. and the spec comparison between f150 and tundra in the payload and towing departments with the best available equipment.
    we know you're squirming, and it's hilarious.

    facts man, facts. you started this whole debate. back it up with something other than blanket statements like the 20" tires and wheels on rams being flashy and all that.
  • Reading your last post, particularly the last paragraph, would lead one to believe you embrace diversity and options when it comes to pick-up trucks. Well, the Tundra only adds to the diversity and options available to consumers, offering people a very reliable and for some, a more practical, refined alternative to the Big 3 offerings, yet you certainly don't embrace it. Why can't you practice what you preach and accept the Tundra as that, instead of constantly comparing it to something it wasn't even designed to compete against and declaring it a failure? How can we ever consider you credible when your actions run contrary to your stated beliefs and intentions?

    If Ford offered a truck exactly like the Tundra, you would declare it a glaring success and yet another example of how Ford offers another pick-up option for us.

    Your statements about the copyrighted picture debacle are nothing short of pure lunacy, plain and simple. Now I'm accused of having multiple personas? Please, midnight_caballo - I take great pride in proving you wrong, and I wouldn't want to share the spoils with other fictitious members. Numerous times myself and others began to point you to YOUR posts which had copyrighted pictures (only after you made such a stink about mine, of course), only to find said posts had disappeared (a phenomena quite common when it comes to you and your postings...). As always, you simply blamed the moderator for deleting them. Don't you think the moderator would have deleted them on his own when they were first posted, rather than having to be directed to them later by the whistle-blowers??? You just don't add up, midnight_caballo.

    The shock absorber debate was an intelligent, technical discussion that went to hell after you were defeated and threw a temper tantrum that was promptly deleted. If the debate was truly "ridiculous and about nothing" why did you take it so seriously? While you deny the temper tantrum took place, why then did other members who witnessed it comment on it?

    While you like to point out the limited-slip incident, I find it amusing that out of my hundreds of posts I've made since I've been a member, that's my ONLY mistake you can bring up. At least I didn't go back and delete the post and say I never posted it, or blame the moderator for deleting it, LOL.

    I actually think you're a pretty intelligent guy, midnight_caballo, and find it worth my while debating with you. I wouldn't invest the same amount of time and effort in my postings directed at *tbunder,* however, because I think he's a 15 watt bulb not worth the energy consumption to debate with. But you must simply learn to admit mistakes when you make them, and become more tolerant of those whose opinions differ from yours.
  • What does all of that fairy tale nonsense have to do with these trucks? I'm suprised you didn't include something about me kicking some kittens too.

    It must of taken you a long time to type all that too... :)

    Signed your master of all Conspiracy...
    Midnight_stang.
  • I'm on work time, not my own time. And I'm hardly surprised you don't/can't address the issues I've brought up.
  • You didn't answer my question. What does this have to do with trucks? If you want a response, are you sure you want the answer? You have brought up these so called mistakes of mine over and over again, yet I have replied and said my peace in the past. We all know the root of your claims are false. Nobody has validated your claims, because it's off-topic and false.

    And tell me again, how does saddaddy's pictures of tacoma's and F-150's get deleted too, if I just deleted anything you thought was incriminating against myself. My links were from non-copywrighted pages, your TEXT was very clearly not. Isn't it silly to accuse me falsely what you are truly guilty of?

    Signed again, Your master of Conspiracy, the shadowy figure in the grassy knoll,
    Midnight_Stang.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    The tundra doesn't even want to compete with the trucks you put it up against.

    And tbunder, not trying to start ANYTHING here, but, what is wrong with someone (I don't know who, I didn't read everything) comparing the 3.4L to the "little 3.0L." You sit there and compare the 3.4L to the 4.0L all day and I will to. If I did my math correct, the 3.4 is much closer in size to th e 3.0 than the 4.0. Whats the deal? Seems fair to me.
  • Is Plutonious always this argumentative? I wasn't around to witness any previous mistakes, yet I wouldn't like to argue about meaningless issues.
    To add to the engine comparison, the 3.4l can also be compared to the ford's 4 cylinder extended cab. Still I would also have to compare Toyota's little 4 cylinder would not hold up to the larger v6 found in the Ranger.
  • Hello, I came to this forum to read up about what everybody thought about these two trucks. I am also interested in a Nissan frontier or s10 possibly. What do you guys recommend based on your experiences? I am looking for a economical vehicle that is safe, reliable, and doesn't break my piggy bank.
  • Of course, I am going to recommend the Tacoma. In four cylinder form, it is not only economical and affordable, but as "bullet-proof" as you can get. Toyota's four cylinders are what earned them their reputation for reliability and durability.

    You will probably save a little if you buy a Ranger, especially with their never-ending sales incentives (that alone should raise your eyebrow). But remember, if you buy an extended warranty plan (the Tacoma already has a lengthy warranty) and you sell the truck (which you will someday), the difference in purchase price is going to be trivial. I encourage you to read the classifieds in your area and compare the prices of used Rangers and Tacomas.

    You will find people who swear by their Rangers, and you will find an equal number who curse theirs. Just peruse these forums and you'll see. That's because Ford quality is hit or miss. Individual owners, reliability surveys, used-car price guides, etc. unanimously point to the Tacoma as being the better vehicle. All the anectodal tales by the Ranger guys will not change this fact.

    Bottom line - Toyota is noted for quality, Ford advertises it (Quality is job #1...).
  • Any analyst will remember that a larger proportionate number of vehicles in the market will lead to more reports of complaints. The Ranger has been a sales leader for over 18 years. People are also more likely to voice a complaint than a praise. That is seen in the recent dialog here. You should read through any forums dedicated to any vehicle you plan on purchasing, but every account found should also be taken with a grain of salt.

    I have owned two rangers, a 93 and now a 03 which have both been more than satisfactory. My 93 reached over 142,000 miles, and showed no sign of stopping anytime soon. My 2003 is an even more refined version that is a simple pleasure to drive. The Tacoma is known for Toyota Reliability. The Ford Ranger is known for more options available, and a better value of a truck. You simply can't purchase an equal Tacoma for a the same price of a Ranger, and this is especially true with the current rebates and financing specials.

    My advice is to define your budget, take a look at the models currently offered in the market, and see what fits your definition of needs and wants in a truck.
  • "Any analyst will remember that a larger proportionate number of vehicles in the market will lead to more reports of complaints."

    Yes, and the reliability surveys (in the Tacoma's favor, or course) take that into account, so that's a cheap-shot. Some people around here seem to think mass-produced vehicles will lead to more complaints and problems. Over 22 million Corollas have been produced and is the most recognized car in the world, yet it has a sterling reputation for reliability. So does the Camry, one of America's most popular cars. So much for that theory.

    midnight_caballo is right, you must define your budget before your purchase. But you must also take a hard look at your vehicle ownership habits. A lot of the Ford guys buy vehicles and trade them in every couple of years. I guess the theory is some people simply feel a car payment is part of their budget, so they might as well have a new vehicle all the time. I think that's a waste of money, personally. If that's what you do, you'll probably come out ahead with the Ranger. In comparison, Toyota buyers generally keep their vehicles longer. If you own long-term and will sell the truck someday on your own, odds are the Toyota will be a better choice.

    As the saying goes, "Buy cheap, buy twice."
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    "Reliable, powerful, cheap"
    Choose two. This seems to be the best way to pick your truck.
    Ranger is cheap and powerful, Tacoma is reliable and powerful, Nissan is cheap and reliable, S10 is cheap.
    Here's my opinions on this:

    Ranger: If you want a cheap truck, you might as well buy this one. Yeah, it's been a bestseller for 18 years, and yes, it may have the strongest naturally aspirated V6 in its class (not by much, though), but seeing all the recent troubles and pages of discounts/cashback options Ford gives out, one should simply wonder if it's a safe bet.
    It may seem like a good investment to begin with, but few years down the road, you may have trouble selling your truck. Look around the used car lots and see how many Rangers you see. I see a lot out here.

    Tacoma: I drive this, so it may sound biased. It's got a nice engine that's 8 years old now (3.4L) and still packing a punch (.6L less and 20/15 less than 4.0L by Ford). The only downside to Toyota is that it's expensive, but doesn't have to be. I picked up my Tacoma well-equiped for 21.4K plus TTL (that's for Xtracab, 2 door). If you don't want a 4WD, you can get one definitely for less than 20K. Plus, 2003 is the last year for this generation of Tacoma, and you may be able to pick one up in 6-8 months even cheaper.

    Nissan: 3.3L V6 has been around for ages, and is reliable. Unfortunately, it's pretty powerless if you compare it to others. Combined with heavier weight of Frontier, it's even worse. Don't fall for the "210hp supercharged V6".....it's just something Nissan engineers slapped together to temporarily keep up with the competition. Charged 3.3L Nissans are slower than naturally-aspirated Tacoma V6s.

    S10: I've owned a 1993 S10, and I'm never buying a Chevy again. Enough said.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    scorpio- you are misstating info about rangers. id like you to let us all know what trouble the ranger line is having concerning quality. only thing i can think of was a rear differential problem that affected something like 800 trucks.
    and concerning all the used rangers vs tacomas, how many mustangs vs corvettes do you see for sale? when you build more of any one vehicle, there will be more of them for sale. how many Honda CBR motorcycles do you see for sale in the paper vs ducati 916's? even you can figure that one out.

    pluto- a bunch of people are pointing at you and laughing their respective asses off. you have ODD in it's worst case. yeah, go ahead and look it up. also, the focus is now the world's #1 selling car. what's that say about the corolla?

    and ford would never build a truck like tundra, they only build trucks that are able to work while at the same time go to the grocery store. not ones that just pick up groceries like the tundra. i would hate to think that one day i would have to accept a ford truck to be just a truck with a special purpose or place in consumer's hands, and not a work truck. that's sad.

    what about those 20" ram rims being wimpy? im still waiting on your results, or proof.
  • Ya ! but know one in their right mind would sell
    there Duc !!
  • "when you build more of any one vehicle, there will be more of them for sale."

    >>What does that have to do with the fact a Tacoma is still easier to sell than a Ranger, as Scorpio pointed out? That was the point and, as usual, it went over your head.

    Besides, your theory isn't exactly true. I don't see many Toyotas, especially Camrys and Corollas (of which there are a zillion out there) for sale because people don't sell them. But when they do, they're hot items and command a good price. Ranger's don't even command a good price when they're NEW, LOL! And in a used-car market saturated with Rangers, what makes you think a Ranger is going to be an easy sell?? But oh yeah, the Ranger's sales numbers......

    Sometimes, Ranger owners even have to rely on misrepresentation and lying to sell their truck. Like claiming on E-bay it was never abused, yet in fact the owner has "jumped" and four-wheeled their truck. I've never had to lie to sell any of my Toyotas.

    "what about those 20" ram rims being wimpy?"

    >>Tell you what, why don't you show me a heavy duty low profile tire? Why don't you show me pictures of somebody four-wheeling with some aired-down low profile tires, too! Have fun!
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    This is getting too much.

    About the 20" rims... I was shooting fireworks with a buddy that got a new Dodge Ram Sport with dubs. 4WD and loaded to a T. He said what I had assumed when we asked him if he would like to follow us down a VERY muddy road, "Man, they don't even MAKE a tire for my truck that could get ten feet in that stuff." The smallest rim he can fit is a 17 which they do make a few tires for now.

    About 1:00 AM we started to leave. Where we were parked you could either climb a wet grassy hill to the road or back down to another road (we were parked in a tight turn). He put it in 4wd and moved about an inch forward and decided he would have to back down the hill, much to his dismay. Well I, not being one to back down to a Mopar, locked my rear end and climbed that grassy hill with my bald ATs along with some of my other 4x4/MT equipped buddys. The guy with the new dodge felt kinda crunchy but at least his truck stayed nice and *pretty*!

    Oh and the same night I witnessed an 80s Toyota pickup pull out a stuck F250 SD PSD 4x4. I kid you not. The yota had the 22re engine and about 31" tires and did struggle a bit, just not nearly as much as the brute he pulled out. The diesel driver was prolly only stuck cuz he ran off the road having had a few too many adult beverages, but still. The Yota was on pavement but the pull was up a steep incline and over the wall of a deep rut, so it wasn't that great of a feat, however, it was quite amazing to the untrained eye to see this little thing pull out that huge loud stanky beast. I was surprised to see that little truck do it.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    "Well I, not being one to back down to a Mopar, locked my rear end and climbed that grassy hill with my bald ATs along with some of my other 4x4/MT equipped buddys."

    Exactly how bald were they?
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i never said a ranger is easier to sell than a tacoma. but obviously they must be since they outsell them every year. what i was saying is that the reason there are so many rangers for sale compared to tacomas is because they build so many more rangers vs tacomas. as usual, you change everyone's words around to say what you want them to say so that you can argue with them. PLEASE, PLEASE back up what you say about the wimpy 20" rims and tires on new rams. yes, i know they won't do the baja, but that has nothing to do with payload capacity and towing. provide some facts so you won't look like a total dilrod.

    sad- ill believe a little 22re toyota pulled out a 6500lb SD when i win the lottery. he may have moved him a little so the SD could power himself out. but if you expect us to believe that a little POS 80's toyota truck pulled a huge SD up a steep incline all by itself, you really are in toyota fantasyland. all those little 22's do is buzz around and cry when they see hills. i had a friend who pulled two jet skis with a '94 toyota 4x4 with that engine. the trip was 25 miles to the lake, he had it in 4th gear the whole way. i, otoh, had a nice powerful vortec 4.3 in my ZR2 and cruised at 60mph laughing at any hill. he also had to put his in 4lo when pulling his skis out of the water. i left mine in drive with no engagement of the t/c. so don't go telling me this tall tale when i know what that engine is like. it is gutless. yes, it may last a long time, but so does a singer sewing machine, but i doubt it could pull a SD out of a steep ravine.
  • "so don't go telling me this tall tale when i know what that engine is like."

    >>Tall tales!?!? You used to brag everyday about how you would jump your Ranger and go stump-pulling in the woods to everybody here at Edmunds. Yet on E-bay, you advertised your truck as "never having been abused."

    The rest of your post sounds like a classic *tbundy* tall-tale, too.
This discussion has been closed.