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 XI

16970727475112

Comments

  • Nobody is denying anything, we are (I am) just trying to prove how overblown your antics are. You grab 1 bit of news that is anti-ford or anti-ranger, and post it over and over again. An Atty General worried about Mercury poisoning(only from Fords, but Toyota is cranking out vehicles with mercury in them as we speak). An ignition modules, that doesn't like heat, that could cause stalling in 10-15 year old vehicles. If your vehicle is 10-15 years old, it isn't just the ignition that could cause it to stall! Besides, the government sanctioning body on vehicle safety, NHTSA has made no move to warrant any recall. Ford is doing it voluntarily, al beit under court pressure. There was a Ford document submitted that stated it could be a issue. It is pure conjecture to make this lead you to believe that Ford is all about cost cutting and customer safety last. How do you know this was a major problem? Did you know the judge ordered a recall for California vehicles only? Did you know that Ford's proposed settlement would include all vehicles nationwide?

    We all know of the magazine quotes you have been posting, so there is no need to re quote them again. That's great fourwheeler praises Tacoma over all others, but only if you are into 4x4ing with a truck off the show room floor. 1. You're probably going to trash up the truck. 2. You will break or scratch stuff 3. If you're really serious about spending money or the ultimate off-road vehicle, you better modify it.

    Think of this whole series of posts as a long discussion/debate. That is why you sound like a broken record. What would you think of someone who always replies with the same thing over and over?
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Midnight -

    See, the thing is, I have provided concrete evidence, rather than useless personal opinion. No offense, but the basis of a sound argument is facts and data flying back and forth. I provide enough of that on the Tacaom end to justify it's clear victory in this forum.

    There are no "experts" in this forum, so nothing will be decided here by making up stories and offering useless pretend information.

    However, there *are* experts at fourwheeler.com and at the NHSTA and at other sources who monitor, test, and track all the data and information for these vehicles.

    So the results of serious testing, comparisons and competition carry just a wee bit more weight than " I didn't see any Tacomas on the trail today so they must not be good".

    Thanks for letting me clear this up.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    "However, there *are* experts at. . . other sources who monitor, test, and track all the
    data and information for these vehicles."

    Like Consumer Reports? They monitor, test(a test that runs every vehicle over the SAME test track) and track data and information on these vehicles.
    Only difference is they recieve no pay for the effort, unlike 4Wheeler. . .

    8^)~
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    fuel lines that could break and cause a fire:

    NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 88V019000


    Hmm do you want a stalling 1988 Ranger or the potential of your truck, and you, burning as in the 1988 Toyota pickup?


    Both are the subject of a NHTSA recall during the period that is considered serious and damning by spoog. Both reflect design errors in the vehicles.


    Now, which one does spoog center on?

  • spoog says "so nothing will be decided here by making up stories and offering useless pretend information."

    while in the past he says "More Ford quality at work, more of Ford cutting corners and costing people's lives" and "Again, more concrete evidence of Ford overall lack of quality." and "You buy garbage, garbage is what you get. "

    Do as I say, not as I do huh? Practice what you preach.

    The TFI Module isn't life threatening. Not one accident was caused by it , and not one life taken because of this module.

    Next Ford will have to recall the Model T for lack of roll-over protection.
  • 2k1trd2k1trd Posts: 301
    Well it's official,the new tundra has optional LSD diff and i'm willing to bet the future tacoma's will also.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    Spoog says they won't last like a locker!!!
  • allknowingallknowing Posts: 866
    Let's start a spoog vs. vince8 forum.
  • allknowingallknowing Posts: 866
    Ha! Good response.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    What about the fuel line fire problem in YOUR Ranger? Hanve't you realized yet you can't play this game anymore? The Ranger just has way too many bad things documented about it. You have been playing with a shirt hand this entire time.

    Even a lab rat eventually learns if the red cheese has an electro shock......

    Recalls Summary

    Make: FORD TRUCK
    Model: RANGER
    Year: 1998
    NHTSA Campaign ID Number: 97V186000



    Defect Summary:
    VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: LIGHT DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH 4.0L ENGINES. THE FLEXIBLE SECTION OF THE CHASSIS MOUNTED FUEL LINE THAT CONNECTS TO THE ENGINE WAS ROUTED TOO CLOSE TO THE EXHAUST MANIFOLD. THE LINE COULD CONTACT THE MANIFOLD.
    Consequence Summary:
    THIS COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN DAMAGE TO THE FUEL LINE, OR IN SOME CASES, CAUSE A FUEL LEAK. FUEL LEAKAGE IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE COULD RESULT IN A FIRE.
    Corrective Summary:
    DEALERS WILL INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL CLIP TO HOLD THE FUEL LINE IN THE INTENDED DESIGN POSITION.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    I read this also about the LSD for both Tacoma and Tundra. Looks as if Toyota took a beating and will now offer these diffs... Hmm....
    Allknowing, you need to change your name to knownothing... How are you linking your open rear diff? I did one heck of a number on your ego huh bud? I popped that "Toyota is god bubble" but good!
    I sure like how all these Toyota boys backed away from CP's offroad adventures... Hmm..
    I had to convince and show a Tacoma owner that the Ranger now just plain out powers a Tacoma with the new SOHC 4.0. He would not budge, swore the Tacoma had more HP/Torque! LOL!!
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Well gang, Edmunds has compared the crew cabs from all the makers, and it has faired very very well.


    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/46966/article.html


    "The Tacoma was by far the most capable truck in this test when it came to off-highway performance. "


    -Edmunds.com, 2001 crew cab test


    Of course, we all knew this already, right?


    "Off-road, the Tacoma is simply awesome. The tightly controlled TRD-tuned suspension dispatched every obstacle with ease, and the high ground clearance made scaling large boulders a much less threatening affair than most of the other trucks in the test."


    - Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison


    "This engine is the best of the bunch, hands down. It offers the best compromise between fuel economy and power. "


    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison


    "In addition to its solid overall performance, the Tacoma also boasts Toyota's long-standing reliability record. One editor noted: "You could probably drive the hell out of this thing every day for 10 years, and it would still serve you well, asking only for gas and regular maintenance."


    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparisons


    "It was the general consensus that the Toyota was the most capable off-road of all the trucks. "


    Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparisons

  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    "There are certain areas that I think Ford could improve upon, however. Unloaded ride quality was poor; the truck was too bouncy and generally unpleasant to drive. Even more worrisome was the lackluster build quality found on our test truck. Interior trim pieces were loose and had large gaps. The driver-side window switch pod popped out easily, exposing the wires beneath. Our truck was also leaking transmission fluid during our test.

    Ford has been criticized recently about declining levels of quality. Maybe it's time to bring back the old Ford tagline. You know, where "Quality Is Job 1"?"

    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    If you want 2nd place, get the Toyota!!! Too rich indeed.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Thats ok Modv- the Tacoma won "ultimate 4x4" by fourhweeler this year, and "opened a can of whoop-a@@" in the 2001 pickup of the year and won that one too.

    The point is that the Edmunds comparison eloquently and clearly demonstrates what I have been saying all along -

    The Tacoma destroys the Ford vehicles offroad, and has much better reliability and quality.
  • frey44frey44 Posts: 230
    i saw a new Tundra (2002). it was an SR5 4x4, and had limited slip on the sticker. what i DO NOT know for sure, is if you can get this option with the 2x4. i hope so as i am planning to buy one in a few months, as soon as i unload my 2000 Ranger 4x4. i assume this 275.00 price is fairly consistent throughout the US.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    I know you're really proud of your TRD, why don't you post a story in the topic I created about any of your offroad stories, I tried to creat a topic on offroad tales and trails, where you can write about
    some of your trail rides also I'd like it where no one berates another persons truck, there are some great tales already posted.
  • Nope, no difference even with the name change. Your cabeza still appears empty. When your drugs wear off let us all know how to go about "linking our rear diff.".
  • I didn't think Ranger was even available in a Crew Cab configuration.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    No it was the Explorer Sport Track, totally different suspension than a Ranger, coil springs in the rear.

    Spoog missed this:

    2001 Compact Crew Cab Comparison Test
    First Place - Dodge Dakota SLT Plus Quad Cab
  • Great spoog, I found your article. Looks like your 2001 Tacona crew cab is higher rated than the EXPLORER SPORT TRAK. But look at the forum, it's Tacoma vs Ranger, but I see no Ranger comparison. Sport Trak came in 3rd. Tacoma came in 2nd place. And the Dodge DAKOTA came in first.


    "Off-road, [the Tacoma] it was very good, but maybe a little too stiff. It felt too tippy and nervous, even though it handled everything we threw at it. On-road, it had that same nervousness, like the suspension is just a tad too tight. "

    "[The Tacoma] had the worst seats of the group, designed to fit those with small frames. The seat bottom is almost non-existent."

    "Toyota likes to entice buyers with a low base-price vehicle and option it up. Our vehicle was no exception."


    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/46966/page007.html

  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    "Off-road, it was very good, but maybe a little too stiff. It felt too tippy and nervous, even though it handled everything we threw at it. On-road, it had that same nervousness, like the suspension is just a tad too tight. However, again, it never became a serious issue, and it handled the slalom at the track very well."
  • oH YEAH, The nonsense Spoog posted in post #2141, only affects two thousand Rangers. He cut and pasted the Recall, but seemed to have left out this part.

    Owner notification is expected to begin December 1, 1997. Manufactured From: AUG 1997 To: SEP 1997 Potential Number of Units Affected: 2000

    Looks like a fix was in place 2-3 months after the problem was found.

    Looks like you are getting desparate in finding Anti-Ford web articles to post, spoog. Tsk Tsk indeed.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    "What about the fuel line fire problem in YOUR Ranger? Hanve't you realized yet you can't play this game anymore? The Ranger just has way too many bad things documented about it. You have been playing with a shirt hand this entire time."

    Really? I OWN A 1999, the recall you posted is for a 1998. And before you search the 1999 datat, the only fuel recall was on the 3.0 engine, I have the 4.0.

    As usual, worng again.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    What I have been saying all along, low base price but you cannot get any vehicles like that. . .most are optioned up. And even if you COULD get one, it would be missing many many featrues that are standard on the Ranger, like a tachometer, FM radio. . .you know, needful things.

    Ranger has very few options, most is standard equipment.

    The Sport Trak is an EXPLORER, different engine, different suspension, different body, different tranny. . .
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    "Providing the muscle for the Tacoma is Toyota's 3.4-liter double overhead cam 24-valve V6. The most modern engine in the test, it is also the most efficient in terms of power versus displacement (if we don't count the supercharged Nissan).

    But the downside

    of a multi-valver is that it usually makes its big power at higher rpm —

    not a desirable characteristic in a truck, which needs low-rpm grunt for hauling and handling off-road duty."

    HMMM NOT DESIRABLE IN A TRUCK?!? Last time i looked, the Ranger and Tacoma were trucks.

    "The Tacoma, however, didn't seem to be lacking at all and, indeed, had a fat, useable powerband that made for lively performance all 'round. Again, the relatively

    light curb weight of the Tacoma helps out in this respect."

    HMMM LIGHT CURB WEIGHT. That desirable in a truck? Oh yeah i remember the Consumer Reports article where the bed crumpled. And look at that frame compared to the Ranger, it is about 2-3 inches narrower in mass on the Tacoma.

    "Also making the most of the engine's ability was the cooperative automatic transmission that features "normal" and "power" shift modes, and when in the latter position it furnished quick and firm (though sometimes abrupt) gear changes."

    Soooo no report on the 5 sp manual? Hmmmm a true off-roader would not TOUCH and automatic as it destroys the crawl ratio. . .

    AND THIS:

    "What surprised us was the brake fade we experienced after hustling the Tacoma through some Los Angeles-area
    canyon roads. It got to the point that the brake pedal's travel doubled, and the ABS was impossible to invoke. After we
    cautiously completed the long and twisty descent, the brakes had a chance to cool off and were fine once again. In
    fairness, this was a rather extreme scenario (the route was marked with "steep grade" signage) that we attacked
    aggressively, one that most drivers wouldn't experience too often. And as this did not occur on the test loop (an editor
    took a short cut through the canyons on his way home), it was not held against the Tacoma in the scoring, but still
    bears mentioning."

    SEVERE BRAKE FADE?!?! By that is desireable on a 4X4 on places where your life depends on brakes. . .

    Yeah, great article spoog, can't even figure out an Explorer is not a Ranger.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Yeeeeehaww!!!

    Im just having some fun here boys nailing the 30,000th nail in the Rangers coffin....yeeeehaw!!!
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Well gang, Edmunds has compared the crew cabs from all the makers, and it has faired very very well.


    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/46966/article.html


    "The Tacoma was by far the most capable truck in this test when it came to off-highway performance. "


    -Edmunds.com, 2001 crew cab test


    Of course, we all knew this already, right?


    "Off-road, the Tacoma is simply awesome. The tightly controlled TRD-tuned suspension dispatched every obstacle with ease, and the high ground clearance made scaling large boulders a much less threatening affair than most of the other trucks in the test."


    - Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison


    "This engine is the best of the bunch, hands down. It offers the best compromise between fuel economy and power. "


    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison


    "In addition to its solid overall performance, the Tacoma also boasts Toyota's long-standing reliability record. One editor noted: "You could probably drive the hell out of this thing every day for 10 years, and it would still serve you well, asking only for gas and regular maintenance."


    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparisons


    "It was the general consensus that the Toyota was the most capable off-road of all the trucks. "


    Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparisons

  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    The following quotes taken exactly from Edmunds.com-

    "There are certain areas that I think Ford could improve upon, however. Unloaded ride quality was poor; the truck was too bouncy and generally unpleasant to drive. Even more worrisome was the lackluster build quality found on our test truck. Interior trim pieces were loose and had large gaps. The driver-side window switch pod popped out easily, exposing the wires beneath. Our truck was also leaking transmission fluid during our test.

    Ford has been criticized recently about declining levels of quality. Maybe it's time to bring back the old Ford tagline. You know, where "Quality Is Job 1"?"

    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison

    " We voted the Expedition most likely to break"

    -Edmunds.com

    " The ranger rattled like a diamondback offroad"
    -Edmunds.com

    " the ranger center console broke off"

    -edmunds.com

    Anyone see a pattern here?
This discussion has been closed.