Have you recently purchased a new car or are you trying to and struggling to find affordable options? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by 5/26 for more details.

Compact Pickup Comparison: Frontier, Ranger, Tacoma, S10, Dakota, B-Series, & Hombre

16791112

Comments

  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    eagle- re-read the post. i believe i stated taurus/sable. and not mercury sable sells more than accord or camry. you want to dispute this?

    notknowing- please show me something i've made up? can you do it?

    scorp- no, not laid off, not grouchy. never am. my life is perfect. just don't like to read such bullcrap as toyota taking over ford as leader of truck sales. that's ludicrous to say the least. and you can laugh and put down the s/c'd frontier all day long, but it still has more power and torque than your little toyota. not to mention, it retains its resale value tons better. it's also still the only compact truck to have a s/c installed on it from the factory, with no modifying to an otherwise innocent assembled engine.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    what? after some heavy (right, this is such info) thinking, ive just realized something.

    toyota offers the least powerful truck of any compact manufacturer. ranger has more power and torque. nissan has more power and torque. GM offers more torque, and everyone knows the L35 is underrated in power. now i see why you all are hoping that toyota brings out a new V6 for tacoma next year. you need the power. and some of you will argue, "but i can get a s/c, and my tacoma will blow away any super-duty or chevy hd", well, still bullcrap. look on yahoo, i don't see any factory option for a s/c on tacoma. stock to stock, from the factory, toyota is at the bottom end of the power wars.

    and im sure you'll all say that it was only 2001 that the ranger got more power. yes, true. but even the old pushrod 4.0 had more torque than the current 3.4 in tacoma.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    How much HP and Torque is needed in a compact truck? At 190HP and 220lb/ft torque there is nothing that the Tacoma will not do that I would need it to do. It will haul as much as I can fit in the bed and tow as big a trailer as i would dare tow in a compact truck. The only thing that is needed is better mileage in trucks, not more HP. The Tacoma will get to 60MPH in under 10 seconds and will do 100MPH. What more is needed?
    I do not have a Tacoma but the Tacoma owners that I speak to with the 3.4L 4WD are getting 20mpg plus and the S-10 owners (like me), Ranger and Dakota's achieve 15-20 mpg. Bring on the mileage, the power is more that enough.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Yeah.....Nissan Frontier 3.3L base engine surely beats Taco's 3.4L. In your dreams. Why am I saying that? Because Nissan STILL offers a base 170hp 3.3L. If they only offered a blown version of it, sure, then it'd be fine. But while they are offering a base V6, they are on the bottom.
    WHen charged the 3.3L does have 20hp/20lbs more than our base engine. It might also qualify for a gas guzzler tax, while we are at it. And it's been said...you can order charged up Taco with factory warranty. You can disregard it all you want, but it's there, nevertheless.
    As for taurus/sable outselling Camry, well, Silverado/Sierra(?) outsells F-series, so whats your point?
  • smgillessmgilles Member Posts: 252
    http://members.tscnet.com/pages/sosburn/Taurus.htm


    Talk about hatred for a car company.


    Also, Tbunder, what sense does it make to compare a S/C Nissan to a non-S/C tacoma. What is even funnier is that the non-S/C taco is still just as quick and gets a good 4 mpg more, but you go ahead and tell us how great it is.


    http://www.motortrend.com/aug01/trx/1.html

  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Lets see how tbunder is going to discredit that site. Sure, he can say it's made up, but I wonder why would anyone subject themselves to civil lawsuits like that (for spreading false statements).
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    yeah, but my whole point was that the toyota tacoma is the least powerful of all compact trucks. and that is one fact none of you can argue with. i know it hurts, otherwise you all would not have come back defending it until your fingertips bled.

    oh, and if you want to talk about ford haters, lets see what you say after taking a look at this site. im sure you'll all just downplay it all to he77. you gotta love that awesome powertrain warranty though. or lack of it.

    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html

    i wont discredit your site, but can't you guys find some current info? that car they are bashing is a 1990 taurus. id hope in 12 years that ford has gotten a little better. after all, the taurus/sable platform sells more cars in the usa year after year than both accord and camry. people like them cuz they're cheap, offer way more power than accord or camry, and are extremely safe. safest of the bunch matter of fact. quadruple 5-star rating from the gov't.
  • smgillessmgilles Member Posts: 252
    Your whole point is wrong.

    Nissan 3.3 170hp/200ft/lbs torque
    Toyota 3.4 190hp/220ft/lbs torque

    Nissan 3.3S/C 210hp/246ft/lbs torque
    Toyota 3.4S/C 251hp/275ft/lbs torque

    Now, please explain to me again how Toyota makes the weakest of compact trucks. Nissan has this category all cleaned up.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    smgilles, a s/c tacoma is NOT a factory option. it is a s/c manufactured by eaton, and is not listed in their brochure. so it seems, that you have posted mis-informatin-AGAIN.

    please realize that the 3.4 makes less power than nissan's factory equipped supercharged 3.3. man, it must hurt more than i thought.

    and the ford SOHC 4.0, that thing just whoops up on things. if you haven't driven one, i encourage you to do so. it is a rocket. oh that's right though, the 190 horses is JUST enough to what it's asked, right? until a ford ranger 4.0 pulls up, and then the serious work can get started. hehe
  • smgillessmgilles Member Posts: 252
    Tbunder: You do keep me humored and I appreciate that, but I must digress.

    Supercharger-Related Coverage:

    All TRD Sport Parts are aftermarket parts designed, manufactured and marketed exclusively for Toyota vehicles. The TRD Sport Parts warranty covers not only the defective dealer-installed 3.4L V6 TRD Supercharger, but also any Toyota Genuine Part that is damaged by the defective dealer-installed TRD Supercharger for as long at the vehicle is covered by the original Toyota Powertrain Warranty.

    It's okay to admit you are incorrect. We won't hold it against you.

    On a side note, I will agree with you about Toyota giving people the shaft over engines sludging. If that happened to me I would never buy another Toy., I would have to move over to Nissan. Also, you noticed of all those cars listed NOT one was a taco!
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    You have a talent for disregarding evidence. Oh wait, you are working in law enforcement...nevermind.
    Nissan still offers a baseline 3.3L engine WITHOUT charger. Compared to the baseline 3.4L from Toyota, Nissan comes out the loser by missing 20hp/20lbs.
    Only when Nissan charges the engine (pretty crappy charger too, only 40 horses) does it come out on top. Also the thing to consider is that Frontier weights 600 lbs (as you admited before) more than a comparable Taco, or in that neighbourhood, +/- 100 lbs. The extra 20hp/20lbs Nissan gets from the charger will be eaten up by having to move all that extra weight. Not to mention horrible gas milage of a charged 3.3L (you would be better off getting a V8 for that gas).
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    you're missing my whole point. ford also offers a 3.0 engine, but i don't seem to see you comparing that to the 3.4. the 3.3 s/c is pretty crappy, ill agree. but it still is an option printed in their frontier brochure, and it has more power and torque than any available brochure printed, factory built, option checkable toyota engine available for tacoma. the 3.3 is standard, but the s/c is an option built at the factory. the tacoma s/c engine is not. it is an aftermarket, tear down the otherwise perfect engine modification. cant you see my point? why is it so hard to admit this? who cares, right? you can buy the s/c, but you have to do it after your truck is built. and yes, it is awesome after doing so, but it still is not something that a truck will have when it pulls up to the toyota dealership on a transporter.

    smgilles- what are you talking about? the "trd" s/c is built by eaton. you better check your sources. and who cares if its covered under warranty, i never said it wasn't. but, that engine sludge issue and toyota blaming the customers have me wondering just how well they stand behind the powertrain warranty. im sure you see my point. i just saw the coo of toyota sales on o'reilly tonight, seems like an okay guy. think his sienna would have been covered?
  • smgillessmgilles Member Posts: 252
    Since when is the 3.3S/C the standard engine that comes in the frontier???? I think you know well as I do that the 4 cylinders are the base standard engines.

    Why would I compare the 3.4 to the Ford 3.0? Toyota has a 4 cylinder that will work the 3.0 over. I am just comparing apples to apples. If you want we can start comparing the 2.4 to 4.0.
    Also, if you look you will see that both Nissan and Toyota use Roots type blowers that are direct bolt ons. All you are doing is replacing the intake. There is no engine modification here.

    I will have to catch the O'Reilly re-run. Hopefully he will help get everything resolved. If Toyota is at fault (which we all know they are) someone in high places better start making some heads roll. Also, it would be a cold day in hell before I EVER let a dealer "certified" mechanic ever tear into my engine. You might as well go in with you hands around your ankles.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    In response to your question "notknowing- please show me something i've made up? can you do it"?
    The answer is unequivocally yes I can and very easily at that.
    Do you want me to mention your posts that stated that the FX4 was exacly like your XLT except for tires and shocks? Or how about your claim of a potential sludge problem on a Tacomas without producing even one case of a documented occurance. Maybe your posts of off-road expertise and truck jumping skills followed by your comical E-Bay post stating "mostly highway miles" when you were trying to sell your Ranger. Another good one was your wonderfully "accurate" comments on the Toyota truck bed. Remember that?
    Would you like me to post copies of these posts, and others, to let the new guys envy your research skills or would you rather just be quiet on the matter?
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    That'll leave a mark!!!
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    said the 3.3 sc is standard. i said the 3.3 is in 4x4's, you cannot get the 4banger in a nissan 4x4 anymore as far as i know. im looking at the brochure right now.

    what i am saying is that scorpio didn't compare the 3.3 sc to the 3.4 which is what my whole point is, instead he took nissan's weakest engine and compared it to toyota's strongest factory engine. i am talking about most power and torque. the nissan's available factory engines have more power and torque than toyota's, and even more than ford's 4.0. nissan is a little bit or torque shy or producing the strongest compact truck engine on the planet. they already have the highest horsepower.

    either way, the nissan's sc is a factory equipped option. nowhere, i repeat, NOWHERE in my tacoma brochure is the s/c for tacoma mentioned as an option in the options list. its a dealer installed option, and therefore, has to be put on by the dealer, after the truck has been unloaded. it does not come from the factory with a supercharger. if it did, don't you think toyota motor co. would be bragging it up on the backs of motor trend and car and driver?

    "toyota has a 4 cylinder that will work the 3.0 over". what are you talking about, the 3.0 has more torque and horsepower. ford's 3.0 has 154 horse and 180 lb/ft of torque.
    toyota's 2.7 has 150 horse and 177 lb/ft of torque. you do the math.
    plus it's a v6 in a regular cab if you want it. the 3.0 will also tow more. hmmmmmmm......what's wrong with your statement?
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    please go look under an FX4, and a regular off-road XLT. write down the part numbers on all the suspension components. then go compare them to each other at the parts counter. you'll find that the ONLY difference is the shocks. the springs, torsion-bars, skidplates, axles, frame, transfer-case are all the same. also, i had the same exact tires as FX4's on my ranger, only mine were LT rated. i had BFG all-terrains. so to make my truck an FX4, all i would have had to do was add some bilsteins, and the torsen rear lsd (in place of ford's corporate edition). that's it. sure the FX4 has a special interior decor and chrome tow-hooks, but funtionally, all a regular off-road XLT owner would have to do to make his truck an FX4, is put on some 265/70/16 (closest in size to the 31's and what i had) BFG at's, some bilstein shocks; as the FX4's bilsteins cross-reference to all rangers, and add the torsen rear lsd. in terms of off-road performance and componentry, that's all that separates the two. i challenge you to go to a ford parts counter after writing all the FX4 and regular off-road stuff down. you'll find that they're all the same part #'s. biggest things are tires and shocks and the torsen.

    as far as what i consider off-road abuse and what you consider off-road abuse are obviously two different things. maybe a ranger owner doesn't think he's pushing his truck while the tacoma owner does when doing the same things. either way, my ranger was showroom new when sold and the buyer heeded what i said. i think his words were, this thing is perfect and beautiful. he also loved the BFG's that ford bought and paid for. im sure the next time you sell something you'll state everytime you actually used it for what it was meant. i happen to believe that taking a truck off-road and use it for what it is meant to be used for is not abuse. it was never abused. the components that came on my ranger that made it awesome off-road were used and used in a manner that ford builds and tests their trucks for. and the miles were MOSTLY HIGHWAY MILES. i dont travel off-road to work. it probably had 100 miles at most off-road out of 8000 or so when it sold.

    and yes, there is a potential for sludge problems on tacomas. after all, one of the 4-banger engines used in tacoma is one of the affected engines if im correct. why would the tacoma engine be any different. i think a can of worms are just being opened regarding toyota engines and sludge. we'll have to wait.

    what about the toyota bed? are you saying that i was wrong when i said that it is smaller than rangers? how about that it isn't secured down to the frame as well as a ranger's? what about all the spot weld marks on the cab right above the bed on tacomas. are you saying that i was also wrong when i said that toyota's beds rust out tons faster than any other truck built?

    nice try allknowing, but again you are either typing in your sleep, or taking quotes of mine totally out of context and using them to your advantage. i find it rather amusing. i love to prove people like you wrong all the time. 2nd round......
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    "what about the toyota bed? are you saying that i was wrong when i said that it is smaller than rangers?"

    -the ranger bed is shorter and narrower than the tacoma's. It is, however, 1/2" deeper.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Whether it is a factory-installed option or dealer-installed, it makes no difference. What is important here is that dealers will warranty it for you, as part of the drivetrain, for the duration of warranty, at which point it makes zero difference who installed it. If the charger blows your engine 4 years 11 month and 29 days down the road, guess what? You get a new engine (with a charger) under warranty....theoretically, at least.
    If you want to compare strongest engines...thats fine. We can take the 60 extra horses that charger provides for 3.4L.....or even without the charger.
    The 20hp/26lbs that Nissan charger provides over 3.4L sound great on paper. In reality it's a joke. Buyers spend $2000 on 40 extra hp (TRD charger can be had for $2000 plus installation....well under 3K figures, and gives 60 horses more) on an already crappy engine, which makes it even more crappy. Nissan is simply trying to find this great temporary solution until they can figure something out, because in the last 2 years they went from being in not such a bad position with 3.3L to being smack down last. While their solution may be working somewhat, the 20hp extra that they get over the 3.4L are quickly eaten up by the 600 lbs of extra weight that S/C KingCab has.
    And one last thing: remember..you said this yourself. "It's not that the engine requirements went up, it's just that we all got spoiled".
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    this one is a classis....
    "Ranger weights 600 lbs more than Tacoma because it is made of real steel, not tin like Tacoma".

    The bed: it took us a week to convince you that "Rangers' bed was NOT spot-welded to the frame".
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    The bed: it took us a week to convince you that "Rangers' bed was NOT spot-welded to the frame".

    I believe that was mod, not anyone from the Toyota crowd.
  • smgillessmgilles Member Posts: 252
    If you want I can go back show you the posts where I was the first to ever make a stink about that. He just wouldn't believe me. It took mod to drive the point home and I still don't think tbunder thinks any different. He just doesn't bring it up any more.

    If you like though you can assume anyone who owns a Toyota must have to change their tire fluid and make sure the barrings in the muffler are greased.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    the spot-welded to the frame issue was totally taken the wrong way to begin with. the ranger's bed is welded to an apparatus that is bolted to the frame. where are the toyota's bolts? face it, the tacoma bed is nowhere near as secured to the frame as a ranger's.

    and yes, i did misspeak on the weight of the ranger. and i do think i already explained that one. i was thinking of the frontier when i put those weight numbers down. i had my trucks misplaced in my mind. at the time, i was thinking about a frontier and had their specs in my head. either way, the ranger still outweighs the tacoma. and plus, on ranger, you don't see all the spot welding marks on the cab like you do on the tacoma, hence the names of tin cans and so forth that people refer to them as.
  • smgillessmgilles Member Posts: 252
    "nissan is a little bit or torque shy or producing the strongest compact truck engine on the planet. they already have the highest horsepower."

    Do you actually believe any part of the statement you made? The strongest compact engine on the planet. That is the funniest thing you have said yet. Also, if you can find spot welds all over the taco I would love for you to point them out.

    Do they weld the wheels to the rotors on Fords also??? LOL! That's pretty good that you would need a torch to rotate the tires or get the box off.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    someone explain to smiley horsepower and torque numbers concerning the nissans and every other truck maker. im through trying to get through to him. do they not make the highest horsepower engine from the factory? (sc 3.3-210 horses) are they NOT a few lb/ft of torque away from having the torquiest compact truck engine? (the L35 has most)

    better yet smiley, go yahoo.com and check out all small trucks. please, please compare horsepower/torque figures and see who has the most power. and who also almost has the most torque as well. you'll see that toyota and gm both make 190 horses, ford makes 207, and nissan makes 210. gm also has most torque at 250, nissan im not sure, but not quite that much, but more than ford and toyota.

    "do you actually believe any part of the statment you made?" why yes i do. cuz it's the truth my man.

    can you believe you actually post the nonsense that you do? without first checking sources to see that you're wrong in the first place? you're hilarious dude. you truly are making yourself out to look kinda, well, you know.......

    to see YOUR spot welds (as everyone who has a toyota tacoma has them), just put your truck in the sun and look below the rear window. looks tough dont it? why is it that the cab is joined right there? that might be the culprit of the 1 star side rating.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    "the spot-welded to the frame issue was totally taken the wrong way to begin with. the ranger's bed is welded to an apparatus that is bolted to the frame. where are the toyota's bolts? face it, the tacoma bed is nowhere near as secured to the frame as a ranger's."

    -I'm sure all the tacoma owners will have trouble sleeping tonight for fear that the bed's on their truck might fall off.
    Since the Ranger obviously has a more secure bed, it probably has a higher payload rating, right? can you show us those numbers?
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    You're correct in that the rear end is different. You argued that that wasn't the case for a while but changed your tune later when you found out that you were wrong.
    Stang is right in that I was referring to the weld issue concerning the truck bed.
    The scope of the problem is that you arrogantly name call people taking a different view than yours while your side of the argument is often pure conjecture.
    There's no productive reason to attempt to defend these positions at this point as I can bring up plenty of additional examples, i.e. your argument that a bed cover will give better gas mileage, that the Ford Explorer's SOHC 4.0 noisy timing chain and intake gasket problem couldn't harm the engine and so on.
    If you treat others here a with a bit more respect, we won't rub in all the times that you're wrong. Everyone here has probably had a view that has been proven incorrect in some fashion, however, mutual respect remains because the discussion doesn't result in name-calling.

    By the way and to answer your last question, yes you're wrong about the Toyota bad rusting. Toyota corrected that issue a long time ago and you know that because you've been shot down on that before. Why deliberately spread misleading info unless you enjoy being known as always wrong?
    Nobody here holds grudges so let's just go on and discuss trucks without the name-calling. You'll have our mutual respect if you just do that. Enough said.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Yes....all your statements were horribly misunderstood. Hmm..."Who taught you physics?!", "Almost all laid off hightech workers resort to crime"?
    As for the weight issue: after you've been pointed out by maybe 10 people that your statement was false, you promptly shut up about it for a week. Then, a week later, you casually mentioned "Oh, by the way I found out why I was thinking 600 lbs". Ranger outweights Tacoma by 60 lbs. It's nowhere near enough to assume Ranger is made of real steel.
    As for trucks engines:
    The only way Nissan could make it into the 200+ hp range was to slap a charger on the engine. Everybody else makes an engine thats almost as powerful by having natual aspiration. Again, if you want to compare charged engines, lets put a TRD charger on the 3.4L that is WARRANTIED by Toyota for the duration of powertrain warranty, and then compare. It's not a factory option, because there aren't that many people who buy Tacos with chargers. Instead, it's a factory-warrantied bolt-on, so that people who want it can get it without having to worry about any problems 4.5 years down the road. Does Ford offer anything like that for Ranger? Probably not. Not with warranty. You said before "I'm sure Ford would put a charger on the 4.0L and give it warranty". Well, until we see some actual facts and not your "I'm sure" (because we know how much thats worth), Ford is stuck with the least powerful V6 (now that Nissan beats 4.0L, and 3.4L TRD just spanks both of them) of the 3.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    please tell me what post i stated that "almost all laid off high tech workers resort to crime?"

    and please tell me what posts i stated that the ranger weighed more (which i did) and what post i corrected myself. i want to see if your timeframe is correct.

    Scorpio stated:
    The only way Nissan could make it into the 200+ hp range was to slap a charger on the engine (big deal, they did and now its more powerful). Everybody else makes an engine thats almost as powerful by having natual aspiration. Again, if you want to compare charged engines, lets put a TRD charger on the 3.4L that is WARRANTIED by Toyota for the duration of powertrain warranty, and then compare (fine, but this is not a factory option, its aftermarket and not even built by toyota). It's not a factory option (good, we're finally getting through to you a little), because there aren't that many people who buy Tacos with chargers. Instead, it's a factory-warrantied bolt-on, so that people who want it can get it without having to worry about any problems 4.5 years down the road (what does this mean? doesn't nissan warranty theirs as long as toyota? yes). Does Ford offer anything like that for Ranger? Probably not. Not with warranty. You said before "I'm sure Ford would put a charger on the 4.0L and give it warranty". Well, until we see some actual facts and not your "I'm sure" (because we know how much thats worth), Ford is stuck with the least powerful V6 (now that Nissan beats 4.0L, and 3.4L TRD just spanks both of them) of the 3. (dude, dude, you're hallucinating big time. i NOW know you're jealous of ford's 4.0 power advantage and torque advantage. its obvious, you're squeaming on the floor with rage).

    the point is this: NISSAN MAKES A MORE POWERFUL ENGINE THAN TOYOTA AND FORD FOR THEIR SMALL COMPACT truck. IM TALKING FACTORY DIRECT. THEY OFFER A S/C FROM THE FACTORY AND IT IS MORE POWERFUL THAN TOYOTA (190 horse) OR FORD (207 horse). CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

    they will also warranty this as long as toyota does their engines. the reason ranger owners don't want a s/c is because the 4.0 SOHC already has over 200 horse, they don't need it. toyota owners need the extra power and torque because the 3.4 is low on power and torque. whereas the 4.0 has tons of torque and power.

    your statement that ford is stuck with the least powerful engine is a lie. from the factory, ford has the second most powerful engine offered in a compact, and the most powerful naturally aspirated engine at all. don't you understand this? are you that dense? YES, YOU CAN GET A S/C ON TACOMA, BUT NOT FROM THE FACTORY. AS FAR AS GOING DOWN THE LINE AND CHECKING OPTIONS WHEN YOU ORDER, AN S/C IS NOT THERE.

    i know its so hard to accept these facts, as ive seen over the last day with you toyota boys trying to say, no my s/c will whoop up on any engine. nah, not from the factory. the 3.4 is the largest engine offered by toyota, and it only has 190 horses and 220 lb/ft of torque. accept the facts and just say, yeah, we're underpowered, but we still have a good engine (until we blow a head gasket that is, lmao).

    scorp, you make me laugh at your lunges. nothing there though. you really are weak my man.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    I'm not going to waste time with digging up your posts. The posts about Ranger being 600 lbs heavier than Tacoma were few month ago, when you were preaching how Nissan is better than Taco, because you were looking to buy it.
    You don't remember the big discussion about your CJ degree? That was only a few weeks ago.
    Now....I know exactly what your reply will be. Something like this: "Oh, so you don't want to look for them because you know you are wrong. Thats ok, my main man."

    As for all your comments in my post: you may think you are funny, but I find it stupid. "you're squeaming on the floor with rage"? Maybe you take this personally, I don't. Go see a shrink, go out to a donut shop, shoot some criminals, or whatever you CJ people do, don't take this personal. Nobody else does.

    Let me ask you this: what difference does it make where a part was installed: at a factory, or at a dealer? With warranty coverage being absolutely the same, what difference does it make? Also...lets see. There's actually 3 points of installation: factory, distribution port, and the dealer. At the port they put in things like mats, sliding rear glass, small things that don't require many changes. Like ABS has to be installed at the factory. Towing hitch is installed at the distribution port. At the dealer they do work like putting in chargers. So which one is factory? Is there a difference?
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    We should really congratulate tbunder at this point. I believe he has the Edmund's record for the "greatest number of times wrong" in any forum.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    i hate to say this on a pickup thread, but i am pretty sure that i will be buying a new jeep liberty in the next week or so. they are so freakin cool imo. they are also very affordable (the one im looking at is $22800, and outright can be had for $19900) and from the reviews i've read, extremely capable off-road and have a very solid build quality to them. not to mention that the V6 is very powerful. in case you want to know, its a sport with the cheapest wheel/tire combo. i plan on putting on 245/70/16's on it, which will replace the factory 215/75/16's (the larger tire option is 235/70/16). this tire is basically a 30x9.50/15 size, only a little bit taller by a couple tenths. let me know what you all think of them. i know you probably hate them, but i personally find them to be the only suv i really think is capable off-road, and doesn't cost 30-35 grand. also, a totally manual t/c seals the deal.
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    does that mean you won't be posting here anymore?
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    And trying to proove others wrong in past incidents is on topic for a truck forum? Come on people, lighten up.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    He literally asked for it.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    "he literally asked for it"
    and you didn't deliver, did you?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    We did deliver, but you are too stubborn to admit it. You just say "Well, it was all a big misunderstanding".
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    Liberty is nice, but I'd personally look for any 2001 Cherokee's that might be left over. probably could get a hell of a deal on one, plus get the torquey 4.0 V6 and live axles front and rear. Long live the XJ! that's just me though.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    i drove a liberty today with the 3.7. omg, this thing is down right fast. it felt as powerful as my ranger, and it weighs like 300 lbs more. i was thoroughly impressed. this new engine rocks!
    no comparison between the cherokee and liberty imo. liberty as tight as a drum while the cherokee is very cheap. ive read nothing but good about the liberty's off-road prowess (8 inches of travel up/down at both ends). i know the cherokee is downright perfect off-road, but the old brick style design is a big turn-off for me. plus that old 4.0 won't hold a candle to the new 3.7. also, the liberty's components are very tucked away underneath the frame/body, while the grand/cherokee's exhaust and other stuff hang down more. thx for the input though.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
    PLEASE drop the personal battles here. Stop trying to "prove" things.


    There are some things that people are obviously NEVER going to agree on, so why keep beating the same dead horse?




    PF Flyer

    Host

    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    "Stop trying to "prove" things."

    -Isn't that the very goal of a debate? I agree about the personal attacks, though.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    go here:

    ok, just smile then.
  • imprtlvrimprtlvr Member Posts: 38
    LOL..most of you guys sound like uninformed teenagers arguing back and forth (like you see over on MSN carpoint) and alot of you have your performance specs wrong. Anyway....the Ranger is a decent small truck, but it suffers from the typical bland and cheap Ford interior, and the reports of wiring/electricl problems(like the Explorer and Mustang). The Frontier looks great, however the base 4 cylinder is a joke, the 170hp V6 isn't much better and the SC 210hp gives good acceleration but not much at higher speeds and it has the annoying supercharger whine. The truck has a cheap paint job and a little too much plastic inside also. The Tacoma is a great, solid truck. The best interior in my book. So it comes down to personal choice, quit trying to win people over with your immature arguments. Different people like different things, you know there are people out there who still think the Ford Pinto or the Yugo were great cars.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    You think the Ranger has cheap interior? And you compare that to a Tacoma? Ever compare the interior of the Tacoma to a Corolla? The Ranger might seem inferior to you, but it is very functional and complete interior, which looks just fine to boot. But it's all about opinions anyways...

    Funny you mention the Explorer and Mustang too. Seems that everyone else doesn't mind the electrical/wiring problems (which don't exist), that they are the best selling models.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    the ranger is cheap? lol
    the tacoma interior looks like a book out of the '80's arcades. cheap straight dash, cheap flimsy doors, small rear window, no quad cab option on ext. cabs, where's the indash cd changer? crappy seats, etc.
    the ranger interior is classy and first rate in my book. nothing compares to the features one can get. not to mention it comes with real towhooks, not a little hook under the bumper. LOL
    and they call the tacoma a truck? with its pencil sized driveshafts? hilarious.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    This arguement about quality of interior is completely opinion-based.
    "I think Ranger interior is cheap."
    "No way! Tacoma interior is cheap."

    For all it's worth, Tacoma interior is nice and functional (except the clock). No flashy dash work, nothing. Nice, simple and functional design. tbunder, do you want the interior of a truck to look like you are sitting in an F-18 or something? Would you like a DVD player to go with that too?
    No 4-door extended cab? True. Does Ranger offer a full doublecab version? I didn't think so.
    Lay off the tow hooks, will you? It's a stupid point. "Oh, I have this extra bolt, and you don't! Haha, my truck rules!"
    Taco hook does the job, and if you are a "real offroader", you'll not be sticking with stock version of the truck anyway. A couple of month ago one of the trucks in our party rolled.....we didn't use towhooks to turn it over and pull it out of the hole. We used winches instead. And real steel bumpers (not the ones Ranger and Tacoma have). Your real tow hooks would have been useless there, no matter how many you had.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    I think both the ranger and tacoma have nice interiors. if you want to see a cheap interior, look at a chevy.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    scorpio- you are wrong. the ford towhooks are bolted directly to the frame and are extremely thick. they would not have been useless. they would have come in very handy. it's obvious you are leery of your one now and very jealous you don't have real ones. who wouldn't? its just common sense. shoot, even the liberty im looking at has two real ones sticking out from the bumper from the frame.

    also, anyone can take a truck and put a lift, winch, and larger tires on it. big whoop. it takes a real man to take a stock truck off-road and show it's true colors. seems like some of you toyota owners are relatively reluctant to do this, and pound them once in a while. case in point one of my ZR2's. nothing takes abuse like those ZR2's.

    imo, the gm's are quite plush inside. almost like a caddy. not cheap at all. the tacoma is by far the cheapest looking inside of all small trucks. even the nissan has it all over the toy. but it's got a lot of stuff over the toy. kinda like a vhs player compared to a dvd player. toyota is just a little old and dated. anyone see the episode of trucks! yesterday? they had the nissan sc crew cab on. although they said they still needed more power, they ruled it as #1 in small trucks. i don't agree, but accept that it's a good truck.
  • jim4444jim4444 Member Posts: 124
    They ruled it number 1? Were you smoking something? Was I?

    They said something like it was just alright offroad, not for seious offroading.

    And compared to the other supercharged truck the Lightning, they said dont even bother but for @ $25,000 if you want a 4 door longbed compact that was it.

    A supercharged engine that makes a whopping 3 more HP than a Ford V6 without all the complexities that go with supercharging, seems like you'd be better off with the Ford, or in our case, the Chevy (99 V6 S10 here) that gives you more torque.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    i happen to have it on tape here. and yes, they did rate it #1 in the compact class. as far as off-roading, they praised it if i am hearing right. praising nissan for still having a real transfer case lever. they also do mention it to the lightning, but i think their comment after this is quote "this just isn't what this truck was built for", regarding high performance and speed like the ford. they hailed the interior, exterior styling, pretty much saying that it is generations ahead of any other small truck.

    i personally like the n/a 3.3, and if i were to buy a nissan, it would be a cheap XE model. but, i am not buying a nissan. just mentioning what they said about it on their show. order a transcript if you need to. would my 2001 ranger bury it off-road? obviously. but it does offer stuff no other small truck does- a long bed crew cab, a factory supercharger that doesn't need added on after you receive the truck, 17" wheels, like it or not styling, 300 watt rockford fosgate stereo, etc. maybe you were smoking something.
This discussion has been closed.