Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - X
This topic is a corrected continuation of Topic
2143 (and later 2268)....
Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - IX. Please
continue these discussions here. Thanks!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
2143 (and later 2268)....
Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - IX. Please
continue these discussions here. Thanks!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Gee, toyota owners in denial that the problem could be with firestone so instead assume it's all ford's fault.... go figure.
Gee, ford owners in denial that the problem could be with ford so instead assume it's all firestone's fault....go figure.
Hmmm..is there an echo in here?
As I recall from rereading the last few posts, we were talking about SUV's, not pickups. but ok, we'll address that too. The rangers (again, same thing as the mazda B series) do use the wilderness AT's on many of their trucks. -but they generally use a different size that are NOT made in the decatur IL plant. as for the F150, I'm not sure I've ever seen wilderness AT's on one, but if you say so I'll believe you. -but they too would be a much different size than the tires involved in the recall.
So, I guess you did answer my question. there aren't any other SUV's with these firestone tires.
INNOCENT families have been KILLED thanks to crappy quality control. It is the fAULT of FORD AND Firestone.
THESE deaths are NOT occuring on other vehicles with these tires.
How you can EVEN SIT THERE and defend a company that so BLATANTLY cut corners SICKENS me.
Some of you are so blind and company loyal you will deny the very fact that Ford is at least responsible along with Firestone for the deaths of around 100 people.
Absolutely disgusting.
here's a recap for you: Never have I said that ford is not to blame for this tire fiasco. I have repeatedly said in previous posts that I think that ford is very likely at fault for not acting sooner, and/or covering up this problem. if this is the case, then I hope they get punished big time by the justice dept. too many innocent lives have been lost because of this problem. my only argument is that the explorer is NOT the cause of the problem, the tire is.
personally, I have no brand loyalty spoog. and it's pretty funny that you of all people would accuse someone else of this. in fact, it's your brand loyalty that sickens me and most others in these forums.
http://mirror.bridgestone-firestone.com/news/atx/newsmain_ATX.html
so that places all the pickups with firestones on the recall list. Mountaineer, so have any rolled? Are they exactly the same as the explorer? Or do the Mountaineer owners keep their tires at 30 psi? Then again, it could be that they just didn't sell enough of them....
I wouldn't discount that no other SUV's are on the final list. NHTSA is asking for another 1.4 million tires to be added to the recall. We will just have to wait and see when the dust settles. My only point as even the hitcher verifies, the two common denominators in the roll overs is Ford and Firestone....can't see how ford could be innocent on this one.
out on the highway..."
Firestone Wilderness AT or AX right?
Or was it something else?
BTW, just turned over 34,000 miles on original brakes on my Ranger. No problems, so there is not, in my mind, ANY issue regarding brakes wearing out early on the Ranger, as I recall you recently stated.
Eagle...
No, spoog makes me laugh, in the knowledge of his lack of....hmmm whats the right word...
street smarts.
And I REALLY enjoy his lack of answers to very OBVIOUS mistakes on his part, false information (as we see now in the tire issue) and also as you just saw, PASSION regarding a certain brand, yet RIPPING (incorrectly) Ford owners for the same thing.
Meet spoog, the resident, well you fill in the blanks. . .
No real problems. It was a U Haul 5X8 with a 6X4X3 solid ceder wardrobe, 5X4X3 dresser, and my moms hope chest, a twin bed and some other filler odds and ends (a 100+ year old two man saw).
The trailer was 900lb, wardrobe maybe 225lb, dresser maybe 125lb, the chest maybe 100lb and the bed and other stuff maybe 150lb for maybe 1500lb. MPG was down around 12 most of the trip but went up to 15.5 on the last leg from Clayton, NM into Denver. Go figure.
Had to clean my KKM air filter in Amarillo, to get that gas mpg up a bit. Notice a power increase too.
Just wonder why wilderness AT's would be on a van. . .
ford is likely guilty for the way they mishandled this situation, I agree. I'm just sticking for Ford's product, not their protocol. -eagle
Over 100 people killed SPECIFICALLY in Ford Explorer's and firestone tires. Hmmm.......
Quit dodging the facts.
Usually spoog when the facts do not match his biased perception. . .
Am I blind? Can I not read? Or is the title of this topic wrong?
Of course, silly me, thinking there would actually be some "spirited debate" on 2 good trucks when we can debate TIRES!!!!!!
Yes, its tragic what's happened! Yes, Firestone should be liable. If Ford withheld information, they should as well. Simple as that.
keith24
4.6l v-8, 5-speed manual, ext. cab, 31" tires, blah, blah, blah: I could go on!
The new Ranger, however, does look sporty! I've seen a couple of pics; its got a brawnier appearance, kinda like an F150 thats been in the sauna a little too long!
keith24
eharri3,
In response to your comment (post #11) I think your boy Vince is the author of all those Ranger vs. ? sites. So it is probably his insecurities showing through...even though I constantly tell him that the Ranger is a good truck he's got nothing to be ashamed about. Except his stupidity. LOL
I would find it hard to believe you had Wilderness AT's on a van, since that is an off-road type tire.
Not defending them at all, have been very caustic in my comments on Firestone, don't like the tires they produce, have had bad luck with the FR 460's on my Caravan.
Just sugesting that because you had a blowout, would not jump out there and blame Ford. Could have been faulty owner maintenance on your part, running with a bad tire OR just a simple sharp object in the road that you did not see. . .
I had a post on the Ranger and my experience with brake life and trailer towing. No examples from Tacoma as I did not see any towing anything recently. And in regard to brakes, someone has posted that Ford brakes wear out under 30,000 miles and Tacomas never wear out. That is not correct in both cases.
Had some fun with a couple of Jeeps and an F-150. Did not get stuck once an had mud up to mid wheel. A guy that works at the Whataburger there told me about it. My Ranger was the first Ranger he had ever seen with a front receiver hitch so we talked a bit about what it was used for, winch mounting.
Nice Texas hospitality.
"I would find it hard to believe you had Wilderness AT's on a van, since that is an off-road type tire."
The tire is used on SUV's and light trucks. You do know that the Econoline 150 is a light truck? I did have the blackwall side on the outside for your information.
Blowout? Say the word SEPARATION . . .
Did I say in any of my post that it was from lack of maintenance or hitting a sharp object? Duh....
NO . . .
A large dealership in my area has a blue 01 4x4 Supercab Ranger up on a rack in the front of the dealership. The color is blue and the interior looks grey. The only one I saw however. I couldn't see anymore on his lot, he may have had some in the back lot though. Looks good, nice aggressive look to it. However, it did have small Firestone tires!! Damn, I wish they would drop those cheap 4ply tires for their 4x4 vehicles..
In that article I posted on the 2001 Ranger(Truckin' mag) I saw those Damn Firestones on 4 of the 5 pictures of the new truck. They were on all of the available models except the XLT where they had the BFGoodrich's. I would bet that the pictures were taken and at the magazine before the whole issue went public.
I didn't care for the "added-on" look of the grey fender flares with the metallic red paint. They looked dated and didn't match the "bed rail protectors(?)" which are a lighter shade of grey. I now want to see an "Edge" with the painted flares as a comparison.
This truck also had the Firestone tires. I hope the owner got a substantial reduction in price for those so he/she can soon buy some good tires.
I got my ARE bed topper the other week and it looks great. Finally have somewhere to lock up golf clubs, camping equipment, etc. I have recieved many many complements and the paint match is perfect as well as everything else. Maybe some pics in the future if I could only get around the firewall that prevents outsiders from accessing my development web server here at work.
You're welcome dmould, did you see the Edge? It doesn't look as "deluxe" as I thought it might have. I guess it's aimed at "rally" offroaders...with all the bright colors offered. I think I like the XLT best.
rickc5,
I am with you, I really don't care for the grey flares on any of the trucks(one of the reasons my Frontier is an SE). But I will say this, I see that with an offroad truck or at least one that does goes offroad it makes more sense to have them. In fact, take the front bumper on all the current 4x4 Fords(any model) their bumper facia is grey plastic makes perfect sense on a 4x4 since you'll be hitting twiggs, steep dirt mounds and so forth will offroading. But lets take the Taco(TRD) or even my SE both with PAINTED facias! It's kind of funny right? that these two companies can think of stuff like shock mounts(located high for clearence), 'tuned' offroad suspensions and std. skid plates. But they have painted flares and facias
Ford loses records of Explorer tests,
says trials were not on actual SUVs
By Joseph B. White
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
DETROIT, Sept. 20 — Ford Motor Co. cannot find original records of key 1989 tests of Firestone tires used on Explorer sport-utility vehicles, company officials said in a news conference Wednesday.
FORD ALSO REVEALED that the tests were conducted using a modified Ford F-150 pickup truck designed to mimic the load distribution and performance of a Ford Explorer, not an actual Explorer. Ford spokesmen Jason Vines and Ken Zino said such testing was common practice.
Ford has submitted an affidavit from a retired engineer that tests of the Firestone tires designed for the Explorer were done in 1989, using tires inflated to 26 pounds per square inch. That’s the pressure Ford recommended for the Explorer. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. officials have since said they recommended the tires be inflated to 30 psi.
Rep. Billy Tauzin (R., La.) and his aides have questioned the adequacy of Ford’s testing of the Firestone tires used on the Explorer. The Ford spokesmen said data they have submitted shows the auto maker conducted extensive testing.
Advertisement
My '99 white Tacoma TRD had black flares. I thought they looked okay, not great, just okay. THEN I noticed white spots on them that didn't wash off. Upon closer inspection, they were paint chips! Toyota painted white plastic flares black.! DUUUUHH! If the flares needed painting, I sure would have preferred body color instead of easily chipped flat black.
And your article would have what to do with the Ranger?
obyone:
Accept the rumors about Bush, you should accept the rumors(most are facts) about the current occupent and his deputy (the scheduled the fumagation team yet for Jan 20th, the WH NEEDS it).
Rickc5:
You and i still need to get together for some wheeling. I have been a bit busy as of late.
So, now we have tires that were never tested on an actual Explorer or Ranger, and now Ford is balking and changing the recommended tire PSI.
Tsk Tsk.
30 Front, 35 rear.
So, other than struggling to slam Ford, what is you point bringing in Explorer data, maybe incorrect data, into a Ranger/Tacoma room?
PERHAPS, you could answer the questions you have been asked OR TRY to defend the very POOR side impact report in that death trap you call a Tacoma.