Well, I wonder what this picture of my truck is for. I personally am a private person myself and I just can't seeing myself posting a web site or divulging more information than needed. I guess that is the New Yorker in me always raising red flags and questioning the motives. However, I will befriend a stranger in need and give assistance, but that is on a person to person exchange. Hmmm . . . well this is the information age and how exactly do you post a picture? I have no idea.
You do seem intent on getting the Tacoma. I have to wonder why you don't know what a locker is when in fact you want the TRD. If you are buying a vehicle base on an image of off roading in the Toyota brochure for the Tacoma then you are buying it for the wrong reasons.
Vince or Cpousnr I am not sure if it was Vince or Cpousnr that said in so many words clearance is not used to ride over any object. I certainly could not agree with you more. Where I am able in off roading trail I always try to keep my differentials away from objects regardless of the height clearance. At the same time I am reminded by the policy to Tread Lightly so it depends on the trail and the terrain. What do you guys think about those ads the car manufacturers are conveying in the SUV's and 4x4 pickups a go anywhere image?
First off, I dont own a scanner, and secondly, dont take pictures of vehicles, i take pictures of people and places. If you think adding 31's and rancho shocks is going to enbable your ranger to go where my tacoma goes, you are mistaken. First off, you dont hasve the decent gears. I have the 4:10s. secondly, I have more clearance. thirdly, I have the clutch start cancel, the locker, larger brakes, mucho power, a winch, better DEPARTURE and APPROACH angles(not even close this makes a HUGE difference in offroad worthiness). Sorry, but your Ranger with 31's and some new shocks will NOT go where my Tacoma goes. Its as simple as that. I mean, even 4 wheeler admitted the Ranger" jounced up and down in the heavy stuff and got left behind, whil the Tacoma wasnt even phased, in fact, the tacoma felt like it drove better offroad, and like the spirit of Stuart Ivan took over the truck as it glided over the terrain".
If you think reviews like that are just because of the TRD, you are mistaken. The Tacoma is engineered for this. The Toyota suspension, the diff, the brakes, the FEEL of the machine, the angles, the six-lug setup for a compact ,the superb engineering of the manual trans and the balanced weight of the truck ALL add up to its SUPERIOR offroad performance.
If 4 wheel mag had 31's and those ranchos on your Ranger they stilll would have chosen the Tacoma because its design is SO SUPERIOR.
Wow, you guys are busy. Spoog doesn't own this truck. Brian, looks as though you have made up your mind anyway by reading your posts. The Ranger is the better value hands down. And the better choice for the everyday user. This is why it continues to outsell the Tacoma 4 to 1. You asked what the difference is between a locker and limited slip. If you have to ask this question you are buying the Tacoma purely for image. A locker is better in STRAIGHT away climbing/traction only. If it is image you are looking for you are going to pay the price. You did not answer my question as to whether you have driven a Ranger/Mazda? There is no way you can get a Tacoma comparably equipped like my Ranger for 19.6K. I have (to name some of the options) PS/PB, AC, AM/FM CD 80watt stero, tilt, leather wrapped steering wheel, tow pkg, offroad pkg, fog lamps, sport bucket seats, power windows, power side mirrors, alarm, remote entry, factory tinted windows all around, factory fender flares, tow hooks front and back, 4wheel anti lock brakes, 16" wheels, 4.0 V6, 5spd to name what I can off the top of my head. Hind, there is no weight in the back of a pickup, we all know this. The supercharger is purely a sales gimick. Don't get me wrong either. I do feel the Ranger is the better value/truck. Better for me and what I was willing to pay for a compact truck. Like I said, I use my 4x4 just about every weekend I can. I live in the NW and this country isn't easy on a 4x4 vehicle. I already have went up against a TRD Tacoma and it was even. The only difference was price, as I keep saying. If you want image rather than value, and you want the TRD sticker that badly, then do it. See you in the hills.
You guys are awfully judgemental. Just because I want to do some research on the truck I buy doesn't mean that I won't use it. As I siad before I don't have a 4x4 now, this will be my first. I will be taking it out with my friends and learning as I go. I don't think I should pass on the locker just because I don't know when it correct application would be. That's absurd. Are you saying I should buy a new truck every time I learn to do something new in my old one? That's pretty near sighted. I have driven the Mazda and I didn't think that the ride was any different. The only difference was that I thought the Tacoma seemed to tilt a little more in the turns. If I had made up my mind I wouldn't be here talking to you guys. I just want information, I assumed you guys would understand that. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I want the BEST compact 4x4 on the market. Period. I don't care about the image other people have of the truck, in fact one of the first things I would do is have the TRD sticker removed. I think the truck looks much better without it. To say that since I don't know how the locker works that all I care about is image is just plain rude. I tought I could learn something on here before I made a decision about a MAJOR purchase. I certainly wasn't planning on being insulted. Thanks for your time. Bye.
Oh, and why the HELL are you insisting my Taco is not mine? What the heck is your problem?
AND VINCE didnt you read the 4wheel mag article? They even said the Ranger COULD NOT keep up with the TRD tacoma. So I really doubt that you kept up with one. Maybe on a forest road, but certainly not on the rough stuff. You still deny that the tacoma kicks some major but offroad. Why do 4wheeler mag and petersons offroad praise it for its toughness and offroad ability? Keep your little grocery getter, im outta here. Im tired of dealing with people who ignore thorough test drives and thrashings that result in pertinent , factual stats to back up my claims. Adios. Oh, and im getting a cap for my Taco next week. She's gonna look REALLY SHARP. Maybe you will see my tailights dissapearing into the dust.
What was it the 4wheel reviewers said about the Ranger?
" well, it just kinda Loopty-dood on the rough stuff......and got left behind.........."
Quite honestly, I think A Tacoma fares better off -road. And also quite honestly, I think a Ford/Mazda is more comfortable to sit in and drive. The reason I like Ford/,azda better is because I am not a 24/7 off-roader and I do more work and city driving. That is why I like by B4000. (Which actually does not lean in corners, but it's a 4x2). I am considering a Frontier King Cab... any one have any objections?
Anybody been following the Long Term Ranger on this site? Edmunds reviews it favorably thus far but how come we already see this
1.) Dashboard squeeks 2.) Steering pulls to the right (Still pulls after being fixed bt Ford) 3.) Won't go into 4 low 4.) Cruise Control Recall 5.) Squeeking rear springs 6.) Clinking sound from Tranny/Transfer case 7.) Creaks and Rattles offroad 8.) Problem Electric window 9.) Loud/Rough Idle
Is this is what you get when you save the 2 or 3k and buy a Ranger?
Maybe Closer than before, but not EQUAL to a TACOMA......
Would be nice if Edmunds would do one on the Tacoma too.
Listening Edmunds?
wsnoble: Well the June report was not that bad and if you read the full text the testers are still impressed with the vehicle overall.
1. So this is a major problem? 2. I thought this got corrected. 3. It does go into 4 low, it did not engage a few times the first time. Reselect and drive on. Put it in perspective. 4. Spoog already alerted this site to this as did Ford to all effected vehicles. As I recall it was not the whole fleet. And the problem is fixed. 5. Put in perspective. The TEXT of the article questions that the lube job may not have been done correctly. 6. Not sure about that. 7. And no Toyota creaks or rattles off road. I doubt it based on Consume Reports rating on "integrety" which was worse than they rated Ranger. At anyrate, does this effect the ability of the vehicle. 8. A reason why I didnt get that option. I got two hands. 9. Correct. The 4.0L is a rougher sounding engine than the 3.0. And your point?
If you wish to post data regarding Ranger, thats fine but have the courage to post the positives from the very same article that you are extracting the percieved negatives.
Look at my posts on Tacoma info I have gathered. i cite the positives and the negatives.
Would you do that please because your post was a very obvious attempt to slam dunk the Ranger. I quote from the very same June review:
"Managing editor Grant Whitmore is convinced that the Ranger's thoughtful interior is the number-one reason the truck sells so well. He commented on the well-placed controls, excellent visibility, comfortable seats and roomy cab. He was also impressed by the quality of sound coming from the Ranger's AM/FM/CD player and the use of high-grade materials on the seats, door panels and dash. In his words, "These standards are not matched by any other small pickup I've driven."
STANDARDS NOT MATCHED. Quality.
"10 months into our Ranger experience and the truck shows no signs of excessive wear and tear (except for the continuing decomposition of the side steps and bedliner). The red paint is still as bright and attractive as the day we brought it home, and the handsome interior still has staffers raving."
No signs of excessive wear and tear...
"Drivetrain comments centered on the adequate power the truck has and its ability to spin the rear tires when the road surface is less than perfectly dry."
Power. Why vince wants the chip does amase me.
"Time marches on, yet the Ranger continues to age gracefully. As a functional cargo (or three-person) hauler, this compact Ford has plenty to offer in terms of looks, comfort, quality and value. We wonder how many SUV buyers could save some money and still get by with an extended-cab Ranger."
Looks, comfort, quality and value.
I agree with sushi regarding the 4 wheelin ability of Tacoam. I mearly state I will get where Tacomas can go rather easily, maybe not as fast or agressively but I will get there.
Because I HAVE been 4 wheeling in difficult areas and quite frankly the only Tacomas I have seen were parked next to their ATV trailers, not out on the bad areas like my Ranger.
So how did you miss those positives ws unless you were working an agenda?
By the way the May post identifys a cable replacement for the cruise.
From the April report on Ranger:
"Twisting the dash-mounted knob to 4-Low had the Ranger ready for action, or so it would seem. As Mr. Whitmore quickly discovered, just having four-wheel drive doesn't guarantee an easy off-road experience. The Ranger's light rear-end, combined with the rain-and-snow-soaked roads, sent the truck sideways whenever the road surface had the slightest tilt. This was especially disconcerting when the road tilted toward a steep drop-off and the Ranger's rear wheels seemed intent on sending the truck over the edge. This is more of a general truck problem as opposed to being Ranger specific, so we don't hold it against the Ford that its tail likes to wag when climbing slippery surfaces.
For the record, a Honda Passport accompanied our Ranger during its off-road excursion and suffered none of these "slideways" problems on the mud and snow. Maybe there's something to this SUV thing after all. Our managing editor assured us that, had the roads been dry, the Ranger's strong engine and compliant suspension would have allowed him to drive "like a banshee" off road."
Well I would think the problem was more the Firestone Wilderness tires.
"Two of our staffers, who aren't particularly truck fans, needed to use the truck for moving duties during the last month. What started as a relationship of necessity ended with both employees complimenting the truck on its good looks and pleasant driving characteristics. The raised driving perspective and responsive automatic transmission were given special mention."
So you saw no positives right ws?
Just saw the 4 low issue in their Dec report. Since they off roaded in April, do you think it was fixed? Wish I knew what they did.
The window problem was addressed as glass alignment.
Since I'm STILL waiting on a 4.0, 5 spd.auto to come in I'm having second thoughts about gas mileage after reading the Edmund's long term test. Worst gas mileage 9.4 and best 18.3, that seems terrible. Are they dogging the truck that much?
" "Twisting the dash-mounted knob to 4-Low had the Ranger ready for action, or so it would seem. As Mr. Whitmore quickly discovered, just having four-wheel drive doesn't guarantee an easy off-road experience. The Ranger's light rear-end, combined with the rain-and-snow-soaked roads, sent the truck sideways whenever the road surface had the slightest tilt. This was especially disconcerting when the road tilted toward a steep drop-off and the Ranger's rear wheels seemed intent on sending the truck over the edge. This is more of a general truck problem as opposed to being Ranger specific, so we don't hold it against the Ford that its tail likes to wag whenclimbing slippery surfaces. "
Wasnt this one of the problems 4 wheeler mag noted? They said they preferred a floor lever mounted 4wheel system for engaging because its the quality goods.
A honda passport? lol. You know your on well maintained roads if a Honda Passport keeps up ! lol.
Another quote from cspousner:
"I agree with sushi regarding the 4 wheelin ability of Tacoam. I mearly state I will get where Tacomas can go rather easily, maybe not as fast or agressively but I will get there."
No you wont. You simply cannot get to areas that my tacoma can. Its as simple as that. A deep, sloppy bog with deep bottom and your left scratching your head in front of the obstacle. Your poor gearing vs my 4:10's automatically make it more difficlt for the vehicle to climb and bullrush through slop. Add to that my locker, and time for you to turn around and head back home. Sure you could get to some places I go, but not all of them. I gaurantee you that.
10 years of driving wetland areas , sand, and boulders has taught me a thing or two. The Rockies are a tough place to offroad in the spring and early summer, when its all runoff and SLOPPY, but things dry up and the offroading tends to be a lot easier. Try the deep humid forests of the Cascades or the northwoods of Michigan and Minnesota. There is SO MUCH water in these areas. Its everywhere you look. Water + dirt = much tougher offroad conditions.
Dont make me come out there and put your Ranger to shame Cspousner.
Brian, if you are still here or read this room. It is just that you question everything I do but nothing spoog does or says??? I got a bit defensive. You can learn a whole bunch from this room. The Ranger/Mazda is the better truck/value. By the way two very important items I forgot on my long options list above. An EXTENDED factory warranty, and spoog keeps talking about plates to guard the gas tank. I have these plates on my Ranger also, along with other plates to guard suspension/undercarriage. Spoog, it is so obviouse you know very little about the Ranger/Mazda, or what they offer. We can quote each other back and forth from article to article. You will obviously never see that a Ranger/Mazda is the BETTER truck/value. I will never agree a Tacoma is worth the extra 4-6K. And yes, I did go up against a TRD and was NOT impressed. In your Petersons article there are so many inconsistencies, along with the mismatch of two trucks they chose to test. Spoog, you obviously don't read my posts or even know where I live. I live in the NW. right by the "deep humid forests" of the Cascades you speak of. I offroad up by MT Hood, Rainer, Helens all year long. My Ranger will go anywhere your Tacoma will, I am fully confident of that. This arguement is going around and around in circles. I'm going on vacation in a few days. Enjoy your overpriced, overrated, Tacoma's!. I'll take the money I save and enjoy life a little bit more. This is Ford Country! See you in the hills!
You are insane if you think your Ranger will go where my Tacoma does. YOu REALLY , REALLY must not have read that 4 wheel mag and Petersons road test. YOu REALLY must not have looked at the tests, or the stats. You are a fool. 7.4 inches of clearance? And you do have the inch thick gas tank cover?
4 wheel even said " dollar for dollar , the Tacoma offers the best all around compact truck package(or maybe any truck) out there. "
You got what you paid for Vince. You got an underpowered truck with none of the engineering pluses that the Tacoma has. Heck, even the Toyota 4 cyl puts out 150 hp.
Enjoy playing catch-up with your bogus air filter and chip. Ah, having quality AND superior performance is nice.
Check out the safety recalls I posted on this thread way back. Something like 38 recalls in ten years, and 7 for the Tacoma. It would do you good to check out the 4wheelr link if you havent done so.
Also, check out the latest big SUV test here on Edmunds. They tested an Expedition, and A Landcruise. They LC won hands down. It had a much higher clearance, and completely destroyed offroad. The Expedition had the lowest ground clearance of the class(usual Ford), and was the worst offroad(again no surprise). Not only did it fail offroad, but the testers even said that it rattled and shook like it was falling apart, and that they would be scared to take it onto a rough surface more than 3 times a year.
Why am I bringing this up? Well, Toyota and ford have similar enginneering trends down their lines.
Landcruiser=best offroader in class, highgest ground clearance highest resale in class 4 runner=highest ground clearance in class, highest resale value in class Tacoma highest ground clearance in class, highest resale value in class
Expedition=lowest GC in class explorer=lowest GC in class Ranger=lowest gc in class
You had mentioned the Edmunds ranger long term wrap up, and how they complained of squeaks and rattles. see the pattern here? Ford models their trucks after one antoher, and their line of trucks have similar traits, wether good or bad. Just like Toyota. If the Ranger squeaks and rattles on the road, imagine if it were offroad!!! Or how about the sad expedition, trying to plod through some simple terrain" squeaking and buckling and rattling, we needed all hands to control it," (edmunds review). The landcruiser " drove thru the terrain with no problem while we had ONE HAND on the wheel, and the extra ground clearance made things much easier".
I like Fords, they ride nice and have nice interiors, but offroaders they are not. You can see this in the way they desgin their trucks, with the lowest ground clearance, no lockoing diffs, no standard fuel tank and skid plates, and a laughable " offroad" package that consists of a cheesy [non-permissible content removed] sticker. lol. YOu can always tell alot about a certain vehicle if you look at the others in that automakers lineup.
landcruiser= most amazing 4x4 ever desgned, king of the hill offroad performance, locking front center and rear diffs, lowest in cabin decibel levels, engineering marvel, insane resale value 4runner= agile handling, locking rear diff, highest gc, not as smooth as explorer, but more sporty, clutch start cancel, great resale value tacoma= best stock offroading pick up made, highest ground clerance in class by far, best dealer offroad package by far, large stabilizer bars, fine adjusted offroad supsension, 6 bolt wheel lugs for compact truck, larger full-size truck brakes, seamless transmission, clutch start cancel, standard skid plates for fuel tank, diff and engine, optional; supercharger dealer installed.
look at the two lines. One is for the mainstream, one is for the more sporty crowd, the more performance oriented crowd. YOu really need to read the 4wheeler url I posted awhile back. It's between the mazda, ranger, and tacoma, in the 98 pickup of the year test. Let me know what you think. oh, the mazda IS the Ford Ranger. Its the same truck with the mazda name.
Just pulled an interesting stat from that Car Wizard site.
Why does the 4 wheel drive ranger have 7.4 inches of rear ground clearance with the p215/75r155l tires,
and the 4 wheel drive tacoma have 11 inches with p/225/75r15 tires?
What are those tires, about a half inch to an inch difference? lol.
Why anyone would make or sell a "truck" with only 7.4 inches of ground clearance is beyond me. Thats about the same clearance as many cars, and the subaru outback!!!!!!!
Wow. It would take some work to get the Ranger up to Tacoma clearance standards. What was that about " going anywhere the Tacoma can"lol.
Sushi, No objections as long as you are satisfy is the important thing.
Vince, You could have been more original about the image thing. Gosh you scared him off to Tacoma. Acutally I would never advise a person to buy anything, just in case the vehicle is a lemon. When you get that chip I would like to hear about it. Sounds interesting.
Spoog, You might get a kick out of this site from a comparison point of view. No I do not agree with the views of this site.
1.) Yes it is a problem because it is an example of poorer build quality and engineering by Ford. My Tacoma dash doesn't squeek.
2.) Not on the first try. maybe not a major issue but still a reasonable concern, and a heads up of what to expect for service from a Ford dealership. This could be important to those reading this Conf. as a reason to choose one truck over another. There are all sorts of Conf's. on this website discussing Ford's poor Service departments.
3.) Did evetually go but why not the first time or the second. Possible heads up to poor tranmission engineering or instillation. I think that says somthing about a possible long term situation. I think that's worth keeping in mind, from my perspective.
4.) It is still a recall effecting safety. And Ford seens to not be getting it right a few years in a row on a few of their products (Effects Explorers Also) That would consern me as a potential owner. Safety is IMPORTANT.....
5.) Again Ford service Dept. My 98 Tacoma has 14k on it and it doesn't squeek.
6.) Tranny clinking? It was part of the article! Again makes you look at build quality and engineering. A tranny that clinks and has trouble with 4 low sometimes.....?
7.) Yes maybe some Tacomas may squeek to, but this Ranger doesn't have that may miles on it and the last Ford dealer seemed to have a problem lubing it the first time......
8.) Is not getting Elec windows because Ford can't make them right your answer? Again Ford Build quality and Engineering.....
9.) My point being that the engine is loud in a bad way. A friend of mine has that engine in an 99 Exp. Sport and it sounds awful. My Tacoma doesn't have this problem and it must be worth mentioning since the Edmunds folks did and they like the Ranger. All they need is a little soundproofing for the cabin. my v6 is just as powerful and doesn't have a "loud and rough idle"
You know what i do like the Ranger. I owned a 94 Excab V6 XLT 4X4. I now own a 98 Tacoma Xcab V6 4x4 and i like it better. I've dealt with Ford Service Dept's when i owned the 94. It wasn't pretty. Poor service and poor excuses from more than one dealer. So i bought a truck that will most likely see the dealer a whole lot less. Have you ever owned a Tacoma/Toyota Truck? Having owned both i think my perspective should be pretty fair.
Also i did start off my POST stating that the Edmunds guys do LIKE the Ranger. And if posting facts from sources that are pro Ranger, is "Slam dunking", than so be it. Again the Ranger is NOT a bad truck, but Ford still has some build quality and some engineering issues to deal with. If i had never owned either i would find these points very helpful when reading through this Conf. The Ranger is getting better, but is still not quite there..........
First of all yes you did start out with the favorable comment.
1. Neither does my Ranger's dash squeak. 2. Most cars are aligned to slightly go to the right, you know AWAY from the left oncoming traffic? I think it is the Castor adjustment. Maybe this is the issue. At any rate, there is no more reporting of this issue in their previous 6 months of reporting. 3. They went 4 wheeling months after this issue so I do not think there is an issue but I requested from Edmunds to explain what happened. My 4 low engages every time, no problems. 4. Not an issue as it was not all units and was repaired at Ford dealer on there next service. Hmm and yet Consumer Reports selects them as a best buy over the Tacoma. Hmm. 5. 14K on my Ranger springs do not squeak. 6. You missunderstood my comment. I have asked Edmunds to address the corrections, if any for this. 7. I dont notice any on mine even when I 4 wheel it offroad. 8. No, not really. I had them on an Intrepid and was quoted a price of roughly $500 a side to replace the motor. Did not want them on the Ranger as the cab is much narrower and me at 6'3" 36" shirt sleeve can reach the handle. Just a personal preference. Plus, remember it appears to be a window alignment nothing major. 9. Well I dont notice a rough idle but, like my Intrepid with the 3.5L 225hp engine, the report is that the engine is louder than other engines.
The sound proofing on my cabin, for the most part is inch or so foam in plastic. Noise is not a real issue as far as I am concerned.
Address for me if you will the fact that Consumer Reports rates the Tacoma below average (12-15% of OWNERS, I repeat OWNERS of Tacomas reporting integraty problems, wind noise, leaks etc) while rating Ranger above average (5-7% of OWNERS reporting problems) for the same area.
Well if your last vehicle was a lemon why even consider it. Go with the Ford/Mazda and honestly torque is the important thing and not the horsepower. Honestly, what kind of Tacoma you had if I may ask?
Ranger is definitly the best buy for the money. Okay that said and done let me get to some overlooked things. 1. The automatic 4WD Tacomas have an ECT button that the Ranger does not have. 2. The 4WD Tacoma has 6 lugs per wheel, while the Ranger has 5 lugs I believe. From an engineering standpoint the six lugs provides a better distribution of forces. 3. Tacoma has the clock seperate from the radio, which is a nice feature. I know that in my F150 or traded "92" Mark III Ford conversion van if you had the radio on AM or FM you had to press a button to see the time or visa versa to see the station. 4. The 4WD Tacoma uses hooks to keep the floor mat from sliding. I know that in my former Mark III Ford van it used snaps. Snaps were okay until they started to rust and became useless. 5. The Tacoma uses a spiral antenna and not sure if the Ranger does. It provides for a better signal reception. 6. Toyota has an option for full length running boards that the Ranger does not offer. I have the full length and they help keep the brush away from sides of the truck.
Please thourougly read the recalls. www.carpoint.msn.com for reliability ratings. The Ranger is rated very well in CR they did have good things to say, Edumnds, JD power, and Popular Mechanics. shopper: Please scroll back and see the duel of stats between the Ranger and Tacoma. The Ranger can offroad believe me. This is my second. My first went to 94K with only a clutch and brake replacement. At sale/trade it ran fine. I use my truck. I camp/fish/ and enjoy the Cascade mountains. The Ranger has never failed me and has always gotten me where I need to go. Option for option the Ranger is less than a Tacoma, this is no secret. The Ranger offers a limited slip, the Tacoma a locker. There are pluses and minuses for both. I guess it depends on how you are going to use the truck. If it is just to go on Forest Roads/logging roads, trails, the Ranger will work fine. I believe the Ranger is the best all around truck because its ride is better than the Tacoma, and its more comfortable. It will take you up in the hills and downtown comfortably. Test drive a Mazda/Ranger you will see. I have a 4.0 XLT kingcab 5spd loaded with 3.73 limited slip.
wsnoble: I respect your opinion but in the same issue of Consumer Reports that you cite, Ranger was chosen a "Recommended Buy" and Tacoma was not.
HMMM maybe the New Yawker addition was different. . .
Dont take it personal, I was born and raised in NJ and have relitives in Troy, St. Lawrence, Corning, Elmyra, Towanda, Onianta(spelled it wrong, off I88), and dear old dad is NYU grad '51.
spoog I think you may be getting hung up on reading the stats on a Ranger and Tacoma vs actually measuring them. Take for instance the Toyota homepage when you look at the comparison of the Tacoma vs Ranger.
They list 12 advantages to Toyota but do not list that there are 12 advantages to the Ranger. By that I mean options on Tacoma vs Standards on Ranger. Some of the standards for Ranger, not on Toyota are: Air, tinted glass, AM/FM radio/Cassette, vanity mirror, Tachometer, ABS brakes, better fuel ecomomy and a bigger gas tank. They also forgot to mention Ranger has a anti-theft cause you cant start the vehicle without the key cause of a code. Additional they hold on to the 7.4 inch rear clearance when I know mine is over 8". By the way do you know the clearance on your rear differential.
Ever watch "Good Will Hunting"? Do you like apples?
You dont measure from the axle. You measure from the bottom of the LOWEST part of the vehicle that is not the wheel. That would be the bottom of the rear diff in most cases. The rangers with p215's is 7.4 inches. the tacomas rear ground clearance with p225's is 11 inches.
This is NOT debatable. It is a statistical fact. So if you have 235's on there your rear clearance when measured properly should be around 9 inches.
so you have 235 tires. The tacoma STILL has 1.25 more inches of rear ground clearance with p225's than a 4x4 ranger with 235's. Interesting.
Lets not debate the Ranger vs. Yota ground clearance please. Toyota trucks have always led their respective classes in minimum ground clearance. Its an engineering tradition of theirs.
9.75 inches of rear GC with p235's isnt that bad. Ill admit its not awful.
I AGREE that the RANGER is a BETTER VALUE. Ok? There, I said it. I am tired of all this useless bickering and stat-ignoring. ' FOR THE MONEY< THE RANGER IS A BETTER VALUE.
IT ALSO HAS A MORE COMFY INTERIOR AND IT LOOKS BETTER TO ME ON THE INSIDE.
For anyone looking to save a buck and get a truck that handles most needs well it is a good truck.
Now, if you will agree that the Tacoma is sportier, and is Superior off road, we can end this nonsense.
All Really I don't know who started this stuff that Spoog does not have a truck. For all purposes maybe the rest of us don't have trucks. This is cyberspace and a lot of people say things are said that maybe true or untrue.
Shopperx, You may not like the way he says it, but there is no need to get to the gutter level. I don't recall Spoog or anyone else sinking that low.
Reading the statistics from the Toyota Homepage am I correct in stating that the Tacoma comes with:
1. No air conditioning unless you order as an option? 2. No ABS brakes unless you order it as an option? 3. No Tachometer unless you oder it as an option.? This is an important gage to have when you are looking for your torque range (2750 rpm for Ranger, 3600 rpm for Tacoma) Why without a tach you stand a good chance of over reving and blowing that very nice 3.4 L V6. 4. A smaller gas tank and worse EPA mpg? 5. A longer stopping distance than the Ranger even though the brake pads and rotors are bigger than the Ranger and the vehicle is lighter in weight? 6. No AM/FM radio unless you order it as an option? Man thats a deal you get an AM radio stock. 7. A shorter wheel base for a rougher ride. A rough ride commented on in Consumer Reports AND this very service we are now using Edmunds? 8. No vanity mirror for the wife to pretty herself up unless you order it as an option? 9. No remote power mirrors unless you order it as an option? 10. No solar tinted glass PERIOD? 11. No anti-theft devices unless you go add it on after market?
Is this really the superior vehicle that you speak of spoog?
You see spoog, this is the data from the Toyota home page under Tacoma Limited 4X4 V6.
I just gave you facts about your superior vehicle. All the 11 items listed are standard on the Ranger XLT.
12. I think this right, no tow hooks unless ordered as an option? 13. No Independent Front Suspension option at all?
You see, Toyota wants you to load the vehicle up with options, which many people do to give it a better degree of livability/
I cannot for the life of me understand why they would produce a top of the line 4X4 the Tacoma Limited, without at least a tachometer and an AM/FM radio standard. But they do and that comes directly from their web site!
Obviously you cant READ.I said 7.4 rear ground clearance with the p215's for the ranger, and 11 inches of rear ground clearance with the p225's on the tacoma. Go back and PROPERLY comprehend what I said before.
Hey, you may like all your little car goodies, but were talking about trucks here. We were comparing offroad engineering and engineering in general.
If we were debating wether a vehicle is standard for options, then you would be right, the ranger offers "more" options for the money. No question about it. But does a radio or a vanity mirror really make or break a vehicle designed for work and offroad use? I dont think so. Maybe if we were discussing ford escorts.
tHis is a 4x4 group, and I have posted 4x4 related facts. Those neat-o options are fine and dandy, but do not make or break a vehicle in terms of "superiority". That comes down to performance and engineering.
oh, you also get 39 safety recalls and god knows how many technical buletins with the XLT package.
This is a good debate, but honestly spoog is the only one acting like an adult.
ShopperX, I would be stunned if Post #463 isn't deleted by the end of the day. Even if spoog is just a kid (and I am NOT saying he is) you are the one who needs to grow up.
I am not trying to jump in and play peace keeper or anything, I have been enjoying the debate and hope it continues, but when remarks like those in Post #463 are made, it isn't about the trucks anymore.
This is the source, from Toyota's home page that I extracted the last data that I posted. There is a little Toyota symbol where the Tacoma exceeds the compared vehicle. And that is fine and very understandable. But look where the compared vehicle beats the Toyota. Guess they do not want you to look there.
Now I have been what I think is nice and given ample opportunity for a Tacoma owner to post the TRUE clearance for the standard Toyota 8 inch rear end.
TRUE CLEARANCE. LOWEST POINT.
I know it as I took the time to measure it.
1. It is NOT 11-12 inches as stated on previous posts on this site. 2. It is a lower number than that. 3. It is not a number that is in double digits unless you use the decimal point.
Gonna give someone this day to post the TRUE numbers and then I will post mine. Tacoma owners will not like that number because it is very close to my Rangers lowest clearance point.
Any Tacoma owner up to the challenge? Cause I got the numbers and KNOW the tale of the tape.
YEs i can read spoog any you might be correct as to the source of the 7.4 inches.
But a Tacoma does not have 11 inches worst clearance on the standard Toyota 8 inch rear end. I got down in the dirt and measured one. And the vehicle I measured was equipped with 31X10.5X15 tired.
sporan: So you are saying that spoog, who refered to me as a liar on this board is the only one acting as an adult? I went out to take the inituitive to MEASURE my vehicle to provide some useful information for comparison on this board. Not printed information, actual measured data. And his reaction to that was to refer to me as a liar.
And you think he is the adult? I would ask you to review that decision carefully.
If you check previous posts, spoog has presented some very informative PRINTED data and made assumptions based on that data.
I took my Ranger in the mountains and tried to give insite as to how it performed.
I MEASURED my vehicle and when Tacoma owners would not do it I MEASURED the Tacoma. I am now trying to give the "superior vehicle" owners an opportunity to bow out gracefully because the numbers presented from the data sheets is bogus.
Not that it is a bad vehicle at all, a great four wheeler. But it is closer to a Ranger than you might think. And easily $3000-5000 more expensive.
I like the air as an option only. If you live in Alaska you don't need air. Why have to pay for it if you don't need it or have the extra pulley yanking on the belt. I like ABS as an option as well. Not all insurance companies are offering dicounts for ABS because of the amount of crashes with it. They say some people are pumping the ABS brakes and not stoping in time to avoid a collision. Some companies are even penalizing for it. A vanity mirror, though may be nice for ladies riding shotgun, this is a truck not a cadillac. You can get an alarm through toyota. Was the fuel economy comparing the 3.5V6 to the 3.0V6 or the 4.0V6.? Edmunds shows braking on the Ranger at 150ft from 60 to 0 and the Tacoma at 148ft....? The radio issue can be looked at two ways. "The no radio i can't beleive it way" or "I can add my aftermarket Alpine CD player no problem and not have to pay for a radio". Also the ranger radio is not easily replaceable with aftermarket radios due to it's odd shape. Most will admit a good radio is important. Edmunds shows the Tacoma as having Tinted windows? As far as the rougher ride, i think that's in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. Not really something you can state as fact.....
You are obviously in a very defensive mood. I specifically pointed out ONE post by ONE person who IS NOT YOU. Calling someone a lier is one thing, and I think that if a person honestly feels another is lying, then they should say so. I was refering ONLY to post #463 which is a flagrant violation of Edmund's Town Hall Policy, as well as being childish and rude.
Don't jump down my throat, I think the Ranger is a better vallue too.
I am enjoying the debate and look forward to your actual clearence numbers. Thanks.
Comments
brianca.
The article was in the June issue.
Well, I wonder what this picture of my truck is for. I personally am a private person myself and I just can't seeing myself posting a web site or divulging more information than needed. I guess that is the New Yorker in me always raising red flags and questioning the motives. However, I will befriend a stranger in need and give assistance, but that is on a person to person exchange. Hmmm . . . well this is the information age and how exactly do you post a picture? I have no idea.
Vince or Cpousnr
I am not sure if it was Vince or Cpousnr that said in so many words clearance is not used to ride over any object. I certainly could not agree with you more. Where I am able in off roading trail I always try to keep my differentials away from objects regardless of the height clearance. At the same time I am reminded by the policy to Tread Lightly so it depends on the trail and the terrain. What do you guys think about those ads the car manufacturers are conveying in the SUV's and 4x4 pickups a go anywhere image?
dont take pictures of vehicles, i take pictures of people and places.
If you think adding 31's and rancho shocks is going to enbable your ranger to go where my tacoma goes, you are mistaken. First off, you dont hasve the decent gears. I have the 4:10s.
secondly, I have more clearance.
thirdly, I have the clutch start cancel, the locker, larger brakes, mucho power, a winch,
better DEPARTURE and APPROACH angles(not even close this makes a HUGE difference in offroad worthiness). Sorry, but your Ranger with 31's and some new shocks will NOT go where my Tacoma goes. Its as simple as that. I mean, even 4 wheeler admitted the Ranger" jounced up and down in the heavy stuff and got left behind, whil the Tacoma wasnt even phased, in fact, the tacoma felt like it drove better offroad, and like the spirit of Stuart Ivan took over the truck as it glided over the terrain".
If you think reviews like that are just because of the TRD, you are mistaken. The Tacoma is engineered for this. The Toyota suspension, the diff, the brakes, the FEEL of the machine, the angles, the six-lug setup for a compact ,the superb engineering of the manual trans and the balanced weight of the truck ALL add up to its SUPERIOR offroad performance.
If 4 wheel mag had 31's and those ranchos on your Ranger they stilll would have chosen the Tacoma because its design is SO SUPERIOR.
Spoog doesn't own this truck.
Brian, looks as though you have made up your mind anyway by reading your posts. The Ranger is the better value hands down. And the better choice for the everyday user. This is why it continues to outsell the Tacoma 4 to 1. You asked what the difference is between a locker and limited slip. If you have to ask this question you are buying the Tacoma purely for image. A locker is better in STRAIGHT away climbing/traction only. If it is image you are looking for you are going to pay the price. You did not answer my question as to whether you have driven a Ranger/Mazda?
There is no way you can get a Tacoma comparably equipped like my Ranger for 19.6K.
I have (to name some of the options)
PS/PB, AC, AM/FM CD 80watt stero, tilt, leather wrapped steering wheel, tow pkg, offroad pkg, fog lamps, sport bucket seats, power windows, power side mirrors, alarm, remote entry, factory tinted windows all around, factory fender flares, tow hooks front and back, 4wheel anti lock brakes, 16" wheels, 4.0 V6, 5spd to name what I can off the top of my head.
Hind, there is no weight in the back of a pickup, we all know this. The supercharger is purely a sales gimick.
Don't get me wrong either. I do feel the Ranger is the better value/truck. Better for me and what I was willing to pay for a compact truck. Like I said, I use my 4x4 just about every weekend I can. I live in the NW and this country isn't easy on a 4x4 vehicle. I already have went up against a TRD Tacoma and it was even. The only difference was price, as I keep saying.
If you want image rather than value, and you want the TRD sticker that badly, then do it.
See you in the hills.
I have driven the Mazda and I didn't think that the ride was any different. The only difference was that I thought the Tacoma seemed to tilt a little more in the turns.
If I had made up my mind I wouldn't be here talking to you guys. I just want information, I assumed you guys would understand that.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I want the BEST compact 4x4 on the market. Period. I don't care about the image other people have of the truck, in fact one of the first things I would do is have the TRD sticker removed. I think the truck looks much better without it.
To say that since I don't know how the locker works that all I care about is image is just plain rude. I tought I could learn something on here before I made a decision about a MAJOR purchase. I certainly wasn't planning on being insulted. Thanks for your time. Bye.
brianca.
Oh, and why the HELL are you insisting
my Taco is not mine? What the heck is your problem?
AND VINCE didnt you read the 4wheel mag article?
They even said the Ranger COULD NOT keep up with
the TRD tacoma. So I really doubt that you kept up with one. Maybe on a forest road, but certainly not on the rough stuff. You still
deny that the tacoma kicks some major but offroad. Why do 4wheeler mag and petersons offroad praise it for its toughness and offroad ability? Keep your little grocery getter, im outta here. Im tired of dealing with people who ignore thorough test drives and thrashings that result in pertinent , factual stats to back up my claims. Adios. Oh, and im getting a cap for my Taco next week. She's gonna look REALLY SHARP.
Maybe you will see my tailights dissapearing into the dust.
What was it the 4wheel reviewers said about the Ranger?
" well, it just kinda Loopty-dood on the rough stuff......and got left behind.........."
1.) Dashboard squeeks
2.) Steering pulls to the right
(Still pulls after being fixed bt Ford)
3.) Won't go into 4 low
4.) Cruise Control Recall
5.) Squeeking rear springs
6.) Clinking sound from Tranny/Transfer case
7.) Creaks and Rattles offroad
8.) Problem Electric window
9.) Loud/Rough Idle
Is this is what you get when you save the 2 or 3k and buy a Ranger?
Maybe Closer than before, but not EQUAL to a TACOMA......
-wsn
Where on Edmunds can that be found?
YOu get what you pay for........
http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/longterm/98Ford.Ranger.lt.html
Would be nice if Edmunds would do one on the Tacoma too.
Listening Edmunds?
wsnoble:
Well the June report was not that bad and if you read the full text the testers are still impressed with the vehicle overall.
1. So this is a major problem?
2. I thought this got corrected.
3. It does go into 4 low, it did not engage a few times the first time. Reselect and drive on. Put it in perspective.
4. Spoog already alerted this site to this as did Ford to all effected vehicles. As I recall it was not the whole fleet. And the problem is fixed.
5. Put in perspective. The TEXT of the article questions that the lube job may not have been done correctly.
6. Not sure about that.
7. And no Toyota creaks or rattles off road. I doubt it based on Consume Reports rating on "integrety" which was worse than they rated Ranger. At anyrate, does this effect the ability of the vehicle.
8. A reason why I didnt get that option. I got two hands.
9. Correct. The 4.0L is a rougher sounding engine than the 3.0. And your point?
If you wish to post data regarding Ranger, thats fine but have the courage to post the positives from the very same article that you are extracting the percieved negatives.
Look at my posts on Tacoma info I have gathered. i cite the positives and the negatives.
Would you do that please because your post was a very obvious attempt to slam dunk the Ranger. I quote from the very same June review:
"Managing editor Grant Whitmore is convinced that the Ranger's thoughtful interior is the number-one reason the truck sells so well. He commented
on the well-placed controls, excellent visibility, comfortable seats and roomy cab. He was also impressed by the quality of sound coming from the
Ranger's AM/FM/CD player and the use of high-grade materials on the seats, door panels and dash. In his words, "These standards are not
matched by any other small pickup I've driven."
STANDARDS NOT MATCHED. Quality.
"10 months into our Ranger experience and the truck shows no signs of excessive wear and tear (except for the continuing decomposition of the
side steps and bedliner). The red paint is still as bright and attractive as the day we brought it home, and the handsome interior still has staffers raving."
No signs of excessive wear and tear...
"Drivetrain comments centered on the adequate power the truck has and its ability to spin the rear tires when the road surface is less than
perfectly dry."
Power. Why vince wants the chip does amase me.
"Time marches on, yet the Ranger continues to age gracefully. As a functional cargo (or three-person) hauler, this compact Ford has plenty
to offer in terms of looks, comfort, quality and value. We wonder how many SUV buyers could save some money and still get by with an
extended-cab Ranger."
Looks, comfort, quality and value.
I agree with sushi regarding the 4 wheelin ability of Tacoam. I mearly state I will get where Tacomas can go rather easily, maybe not as fast or agressively but I will get there.
Because I HAVE been 4 wheeling in difficult areas and quite frankly the only Tacomas I have seen were parked next to their ATV trailers, not out on the bad areas like my Ranger.
By the way the May post identifys a cable replacement for the cruise.
From the April report on Ranger:
"Twisting the dash-mounted knob to 4-Low had the Ranger ready for action, or so it would seem. As Mr. Whitmore quickly discovered, just having
four-wheel drive doesn't guarantee an easy off-road experience. The Ranger's light rear-end, combined with the rain-and-snow-soaked roads,
sent the truck sideways whenever the road surface had the slightest tilt. This was especially disconcerting when the road tilted toward a
steep drop-off and the Ranger's rear wheels seemed intent on sending the truck over the edge. This is more of a general truck problem as opposed
to being Ranger specific, so we don't hold it against the Ford that its tail likes to wag when climbing slippery surfaces.
For the record, a Honda Passport accompanied our Ranger during its off-road excursion and suffered none of these "slideways" problems on
the mud and snow. Maybe there's something to this SUV thing after all. Our managing editor assured us that, had the roads been dry, the
Ranger's strong engine and compliant suspension would have allowed him to drive "like a banshee" off road."
Well I would think the problem was more the Firestone Wilderness tires.
"Two of our staffers, who aren't particularly truck fans, needed to use the truck for moving duties during the last month. What started as a
relationship of necessity ended with both employees complimenting the truck on its good looks and pleasant driving characteristics. The raised driving perspective and responsive automatic transmission were given special mention."
So you saw no positives right ws?
Just saw the 4 low issue in their Dec report. Since they off roaded in April, do you think it was fixed? Wish I knew what they did.
The window problem was addressed as glass alignment.
Just report the whole story ok?
" "Twisting the dash-mounted knob to 4-Low had the
Ranger ready for action, or so it would seem. As
Mr. Whitmore quickly discovered, just having
four-wheel drive doesn't guarantee an easy
off-road experience. The Ranger's light rear-end,
combined with the rain-and-snow-soaked roads,
sent the truck sideways whenever the road surface
had the slightest tilt. This was especially
disconcerting when the road tilted toward a
steep drop-off and the Ranger's rear wheels seemed
intent on sending the truck over the edge. This is
more of a general truck problem as opposed
to being Ranger specific, so we don't hold it
against the Ford that its tail likes to wag whenclimbing slippery surfaces. "
Wasnt this one of the problems 4 wheeler mag noted?
They said they preferred a floor lever mounted
4wheel system for engaging because its the
quality goods.
A honda passport? lol. You know your on well maintained roads if a Honda Passport keeps up ! lol.
Another quote from cspousner:
"I agree with sushi regarding the 4 wheelin ability
of Tacoam. I mearly state I will get where
Tacomas can go rather easily, maybe not as fast or
agressively but I will get there."
No you wont. You simply cannot get to areas that my tacoma can. Its as simple as that. A deep, sloppy bog with deep bottom and your left scratching your head in front of the obstacle.
Your poor gearing vs my 4:10's automatically make it more difficlt for the vehicle to climb and bullrush through slop. Add to that my locker,
and time for you to turn around and head back home. Sure you could get to some places I go, but not all of them. I gaurantee you that.
10 years of driving wetland areas , sand, and boulders has taught me a thing or two.
The Rockies are a tough place to offroad in the spring and early summer, when its all runoff and SLOPPY, but things dry up and the offroading tends to be a lot easier. Try the deep humid forests of the Cascades or the northwoods of Michigan and Minnesota. There is SO MUCH water in these areas. Its everywhere you look.
Water + dirt = much tougher offroad conditions.
Dont make me come out there and put your Ranger to shame Cspousner.
The Ranger/Mazda is the better truck/value. By the way two very important items I forgot on my long options list above. An EXTENDED factory warranty, and spoog keeps talking about plates to guard the gas tank. I have these plates on my Ranger also, along with other plates to guard suspension/undercarriage.
Spoog, it is so obviouse you know very little about the Ranger/Mazda, or what they offer.
We can quote each other back and forth from article to article. You will obviously never see that a Ranger/Mazda is the BETTER truck/value. I will never agree a Tacoma is worth the extra 4-6K.
And yes, I did go up against a TRD and was NOT impressed. In your Petersons article there are so many inconsistencies, along with the mismatch of two trucks they chose to test.
Spoog, you obviously don't read my posts or even know where I live. I live in the NW. right by the "deep humid forests" of the Cascades you speak of. I offroad up by MT Hood, Rainer, Helens all year long. My Ranger will go anywhere your Tacoma will, I am fully confident of that.
This arguement is going around and around in circles. I'm going on vacation in a few days.
Enjoy your overpriced, overrated, Tacoma's!. I'll take the money I save and enjoy life a little bit more.
This is Ford Country!
See you in the hills!
go where my Tacoma does. YOu REALLY , REALLY
must not have read that 4 wheel mag and Petersons road test. YOu REALLY must not have looked at the tests, or the stats. You are a fool. 7.4 inches of clearance? And you do have the inch thick gas tank cover?
4 wheel even said " dollar for dollar , the Tacoma offers the best all around compact truck package(or maybe any truck) out there. "
You got what you paid for Vince. You got an underpowered truck with none of the engineering
pluses that the Tacoma has. Heck, even the Toyota 4 cyl puts out 150 hp.
Enjoy playing catch-up with your bogus air filter and chip. Ah, having quality AND superior performance is nice.
Also, check out the latest big SUV test here on Edmunds. They tested an Expedition, and A Landcruise. They LC won hands down. It had a much higher clearance, and completely destroyed offroad. The Expedition had the lowest ground clearance of the class(usual Ford), and was the worst offroad(again no surprise). Not only did
it fail offroad, but the testers even said that it rattled and shook like it was falling apart, and that they would be scared to take it onto a rough surface more than 3 times a year.
Why am I bringing this up? Well, Toyota and ford have similar enginneering trends down their lines.
Landcruiser=best offroader in class, highgest ground clearance highest resale in class
4 runner=highest ground clearance in class, highest resale value in class
Tacoma highest ground clearance in class, highest resale value in class
Expedition=lowest GC in class
explorer=lowest GC in class
Ranger=lowest gc in class
You had mentioned the Edmunds ranger long term wrap up, and how they complained of squeaks and rattles. see the pattern here? Ford models their trucks after one antoher, and their line of trucks have similar traits, wether good or bad.
Just like Toyota. If the Ranger squeaks and rattles on the road, imagine if it were offroad!!!
Or how about the sad expedition, trying to plod through some simple terrain" squeaking and buckling and rattling, we needed all hands to control it," (edmunds review). The landcruiser
" drove thru the terrain with no problem while we had ONE HAND on the wheel, and the extra ground clearance made things much easier".
I like Fords, they ride nice and have nice interiors, but offroaders they are not. You can see this in the way they desgin their trucks, with the lowest ground clearance, no lockoing diffs, no standard fuel tank and skid plates, and a laughable " offroad" package that consists of a cheesy [non-permissible content removed] sticker. lol.
YOu can always tell alot about a certain vehicle if you look at the others in that automakers lineup.
explorer-- grocery getter, smooth rider comfy
expedition=grocery getter, smooth rifder comfy
ranger=grocery getter, smooth rider, comfy
landcruiser= most amazing 4x4 ever desgned, king of the hill offroad performance, locking front center and rear diffs, lowest in cabin decibel levels, engineering marvel, insane resale value
4runner= agile handling, locking rear diff, highest gc, not as smooth as explorer, but more sporty, clutch start cancel, great resale value
tacoma= best stock offroading pick up made, highest ground clerance in class by far, best dealer offroad package by far, large stabilizer bars, fine adjusted offroad supsension, 6 bolt wheel lugs for compact truck, larger full-size truck brakes, seamless transmission, clutch start cancel, standard skid plates for fuel tank, diff and engine, optional; supercharger dealer installed.
look at the two lines. One is for the mainstream, one is for the more sporty crowd, the more performance oriented crowd. YOu really need to read the 4wheeler url I posted awhile back. It's between the mazda, ranger, and tacoma, in the 98 pickup of the year test.
Let me know what you think.
oh, the mazda IS the Ford Ranger. Its the same truck with the mazda name.
Wizard site.
Why does the 4 wheel drive ranger have 7.4 inches
of rear ground clearance with the p215/75r155l
tires,
and the 4 wheel drive tacoma have 11 inches
with p/225/75r15 tires?
What are those tires, about a half inch to an inch
difference? lol.
Why anyone would make or sell a "truck" with only
7.4 inches of ground clearance is beyond me. Thats
about the same clearance as many cars, and the
subaru outback!!!!!!!
Wow. It would take some work to get the Ranger up
to Tacoma clearance standards. What was that about
" going anywhere the Tacoma can"lol.
No objections as long as you are satisfy is the important thing.
Vince,
You could have been more original about the image thing. Gosh you scared him off to Tacoma. Acutally I would never advise a person to buy anything, just in case the vehicle is a lemon. When you get that chip I would like to hear about it. Sounds interesting.
Spoog,
You might get a kick out of this site from a comparison point of view. No I do not agree with the views of this site.
http://www.leeca.esu.k12.oh.us/ofcs/ofhs/stu9798/my/web.htm
Here are my resposes to your ?'s
1.) Yes it is a problem because it is an example of poorer build quality and engineering by Ford. My Tacoma dash doesn't squeek.
2.) Not on the first try. maybe not a major issue but still a reasonable concern, and a heads up of what to expect for service from a Ford dealership. This could be important to those reading this Conf. as a reason to choose one truck over another. There are all sorts of Conf's. on this website discussing Ford's poor Service departments.
3.) Did evetually go but why not the first time or the second. Possible heads up to poor tranmission engineering or instillation. I think that says somthing about a possible long term situation. I think that's worth keeping in mind, from my perspective.
4.) It is still a recall effecting safety. And Ford seens to not be getting it right a few years in a row on a few of their products (Effects Explorers Also) That would consern me as a potential owner. Safety is IMPORTANT.....
5.) Again Ford service Dept. My 98 Tacoma has 14k on it and it doesn't squeek.
6.) Tranny clinking? It was part of the article! Again makes you look at build quality and engineering. A tranny that clinks and has trouble with 4 low sometimes.....?
7.) Yes maybe some Tacomas may squeek to, but this Ranger doesn't have that may miles on it and the last Ford dealer seemed to have a problem lubing it the first time......
8.) Is not getting Elec windows because Ford can't make them right your answer? Again Ford Build quality and Engineering.....
9.) My point being that the engine is loud in a bad way. A friend of mine has that engine in an 99 Exp. Sport and it sounds awful. My Tacoma doesn't have this problem and it must be worth mentioning since the Edmunds folks did and they like the Ranger. All they need is a little soundproofing for the cabin. my v6 is just as powerful and doesn't have a "loud and rough idle"
You know what i do like the Ranger. I owned a 94 Excab V6 XLT 4X4. I now own a 98 Tacoma Xcab V6 4x4 and i like it better. I've dealt with Ford Service Dept's when i owned the 94. It wasn't pretty. Poor service and poor excuses from more than one dealer. So i bought a truck that will most likely see the dealer a whole lot less. Have you ever owned a Tacoma/Toyota Truck? Having owned both i think my perspective should be pretty fair.
Also i did start off my POST stating that the Edmunds guys do LIKE the Ranger. And if posting facts from sources that are pro Ranger, is "Slam dunking", than so be it. Again the Ranger is NOT a bad truck, but Ford still has some build quality and some engineering issues to deal with. If i had never owned either i would find these points very helpful when reading through this Conf. The Ranger is getting better, but is still not quite there..........
-wsn
I think he went a little far in ripping the Ranger as a truck and saying it would probably get stuck or roll over in in dirt.
PLus, he loses alot of credibility when he shows a picture of a Dodge Ram and calls it "quality".
Thats the weakest comparison I have yet seen.
Where did you find that web site?
lol
Well I thought it was amusing, but you got to admit it was bias. Found it on the web search engine snap.com.
If anyone is interested there is a good site for newspaper and magazine
http://www.metagrid.com
First of all yes you did start out with the favorable comment.
1. Neither does my Ranger's dash squeak.
2. Most cars are aligned to slightly go to the right, you know AWAY from the left oncoming traffic? I think it is the Castor adjustment. Maybe this is the issue. At any rate, there is no more reporting of this issue in their previous 6 months of reporting.
3. They went 4 wheeling months after this issue so I do not think there is an issue but I requested from Edmunds to explain what happened. My 4 low engages every time, no problems.
4. Not an issue as it was not all units and was repaired at Ford dealer on there next service.
Hmm and yet Consumer Reports selects them as a best buy over the Tacoma. Hmm.
5. 14K on my Ranger springs do not squeak.
6. You missunderstood my comment. I have asked Edmunds to address the corrections, if any for this.
7. I dont notice any on mine even when I 4 wheel it offroad.
8. No, not really. I had them on an Intrepid and was quoted a price of roughly $500 a side to replace the motor. Did not want them on the Ranger as the cab is much narrower and me at 6'3" 36" shirt sleeve can reach the handle. Just a personal preference. Plus, remember it appears to be a window alignment nothing major.
9. Well I dont notice a rough idle but, like my Intrepid with the 3.5L 225hp engine, the report is that the engine is louder than other engines.
The sound proofing on my cabin, for the most part is inch or so foam in plastic. Noise is not a real issue as far as I am concerned.
Address for me if you will the fact that Consumer Reports rates the Tacoma below average (12-15% of OWNERS, I repeat OWNERS of Tacomas reporting integraty problems, wind noise, leaks etc) while rating Ranger above average (5-7% of OWNERS reporting problems) for the same area.
Just wondering. . .
But Dakota was 4 Wheeler mag "4X truck of the year" the year before the Tacoma.
Does that say something of their testing?
Just curious.
1. The automatic 4WD Tacomas have an ECT button that the Ranger does not have.
2. The 4WD Tacoma has 6 lugs per wheel, while the Ranger has 5 lugs I believe. From an engineering standpoint the six lugs provides a better distribution of forces.
3. Tacoma has the clock seperate from the radio, which is a nice feature. I know that in my F150 or traded "92" Mark III Ford conversion van if you had the radio on AM or FM you had to press a button to see the time or visa versa to see the station.
4. The 4WD Tacoma uses hooks to keep the floor mat from sliding. I know that in my former Mark III Ford van it used snaps. Snaps were okay until they started to rust and became useless.
5. The Tacoma uses a spiral antenna and not sure if the Ranger does. It provides for a better signal reception.
6. Toyota has an option for full length running boards that the Ranger does not offer. I have the full length and they help keep the brush away from sides of the truck.
Again i like the Ranger, but the Tacoma is the better off road truck, as the Ranger is better on paved roads if you want that car like ride.
I still question Ford Build quality and Enginnering, based on reviews and the amount of Recalls of their products.
Again i owned both products and these are my observations.......
-wsn
The Ranger is rated very well in CR they did have good things to say, Edumnds, JD power, and Popular Mechanics.
shopper: Please scroll back and see the duel of stats between the Ranger and Tacoma. The Ranger can offroad believe me. This is my second. My first went to 94K with only a clutch and brake replacement. At sale/trade it ran fine.
I use my truck. I camp/fish/ and enjoy the Cascade mountains. The Ranger has never failed me and has always gotten me where I need to go.
Option for option the Ranger is less than a Tacoma, this is no secret. The Ranger offers a limited slip, the Tacoma a locker. There are pluses and minuses for both. I guess it depends on how you are going to use the truck. If it is just to go on Forest Roads/logging roads, trails, the Ranger will work fine. I believe the Ranger is the best all around truck because its ride is better than the Tacoma, and its more comfortable. It will take you up in the hills and downtown comfortably. Test drive a Mazda/Ranger you will see. I have a 4.0 XLT kingcab 5spd loaded with 3.73 limited slip.
Does the 4 Runner have the same axcel setup as the Tacoma?
9.75 inches. The fornt end frame is 10". The Rear axcel is 8.25" all with 235X75X15 tires.
I respect your opinion but in the same issue of Consumer Reports that you cite, Ranger was chosen a "Recommended Buy" and Tacoma was not.
HMMM maybe the New Yawker addition was different. . .
Dont take it personal, I was born and raised in NJ and have relitives in Troy, St. Lawrence, Corning, Elmyra, Towanda, Onianta(spelled it wrong, off I88), and dear old dad is NYU grad '51.
http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/whitmore/99Toyota.Tacoma.Limited.4WD.TRD.rt.html
PROS: The Tacoma is powerful, good-looking and competent off road.
CONS: The seats are the least comfortable we have ever sampled and the price is ridiculously high for a compact pickup truck.
This paraphrases what vince and I have been saying I think.
They list 12 advantages to Toyota but do not list that there are 12 advantages to the Ranger. By that I mean options on Tacoma vs Standards on Ranger. Some of the standards for Ranger, not on Toyota are: Air, tinted glass, AM/FM radio/Cassette, vanity mirror, Tachometer, ABS brakes, better fuel ecomomy and a bigger gas tank. They also forgot to mention Ranger has a anti-theft cause you cant start the vehicle without the key cause of a code. Additional they hold on to the 7.4 inch rear clearance when I know mine is over 8". By the way do you know the clearance on your rear differential.
Ever watch "Good Will Hunting"?
Do you like apples?
from the bottom of the LOWEST part of the vehicle that is not the wheel. That would be the bottom of the rear diff in most cases.
The rangers with p215's is 7.4 inches.
the tacomas rear ground clearance with p225's
is 11 inches.
This is NOT debatable. It is a statistical fact.
So if you have 235's on there your rear clearance when measured properly should be around 9 inches.
so you have 235 tires.
The tacoma STILL has 1.25 more inches of rear ground clearance with p225's than a 4x4 ranger with 235's. Interesting.
Lets not debate the Ranger vs. Yota ground clearance please. Toyota trucks have always led their respective classes in minimum ground clearance. Its an engineering tradition of theirs.
9.75 inches of rear GC with p235's isnt that bad. Ill admit its not awful.
There, I said it. I am tired of all this useless
bickering and stat-ignoring.
'
FOR THE MONEY< THE RANGER IS A BETTER VALUE.
IT ALSO HAS A MORE COMFY INTERIOR AND IT LOOKS BETTER TO ME ON THE INSIDE.
For anyone looking to save a buck and get a truck
that handles most needs well it is a good truck.
Now, if you will agree that the Tacoma is sportier, and is Superior off road, we can end this nonsense.
Really I don't know who started this stuff that Spoog does not have a truck. For all purposes maybe the rest of us don't have trucks. This is cyberspace and a lot of people say things are said that maybe true or untrue.
Shopperx,
You may not like the way he says it, but there is no need to get to the gutter level. I don't recall Spoog or anyone else sinking that low.
1. No air conditioning unless you order as an option?
2. No ABS brakes unless you order it as an option?
3. No Tachometer unless you oder it as an option.? This is an important gage to have when you are looking for your torque range (2750 rpm for Ranger, 3600 rpm for Tacoma) Why without a tach you stand a good chance of over reving and blowing that very nice 3.4 L V6.
4. A smaller gas tank and worse EPA mpg?
5. A longer stopping distance than the Ranger even though the brake pads and rotors are bigger than the Ranger and the vehicle is lighter in weight?
6. No AM/FM radio unless you order it as an option? Man thats a deal you get an AM radio stock.
7. A shorter wheel base for a rougher ride. A rough ride commented on in Consumer Reports AND this very service we are now using Edmunds?
8. No vanity mirror for the wife to pretty herself up unless you order it as an option?
9. No remote power mirrors unless you order it as an option?
10. No solar tinted glass PERIOD?
11. No anti-theft devices unless you go add it on after market?
Is this really the superior vehicle that you speak of spoog?
You see spoog, this is the data from the Toyota home page under Tacoma Limited 4X4 V6.
I just gave you facts about your superior vehicle. All the 11 items listed are standard on the Ranger XLT.
Spoog, the 9.75 is on the front differential. The rear is around 8.25 due I think to the 8.8 inch ring gear/
12. I think this right, no tow hooks unless ordered as an option?
13. No Independent Front Suspension option at all?
You see, Toyota wants you to load the vehicle up with options, which many people do to give it a better degree of livability/
I cannot for the life of me understand why they would produce a top of the line 4X4 the Tacoma Limited, without at least a tachometer and an AM/FM radio standard. But they do and that comes directly from their web site!
and 11 inches of rear ground clearance with
the p225's on the tacoma. Go back and PROPERLY
comprehend what I said before.
Hey, you may like all your little car goodies,
but were talking about trucks here.
We were comparing offroad engineering and engineering in general.
If we were debating wether a vehicle is standard for options, then you would be right, the ranger offers "more" options for the money. No question about it. But does a radio or a vanity mirror
really make or break a vehicle designed for work and offroad use? I dont think so. Maybe if we were discussing ford escorts.
tHis is a 4x4 group, and I have posted 4x4 related facts. Those neat-o options are fine and dandy, but do not make or break a vehicle in terms of "superiority". That comes down to performance and engineering.
oh, you also get 39 safety recalls and god knows how many technical buletins with the XLT package.
ShopperX, I would be stunned if Post #463 isn't deleted by the end of the day. Even if spoog is just a kid (and I am NOT saying he is) you are the one who needs to grow up.
I am not trying to jump in and play peace keeper or anything, I have been enjoying the debate and hope it continues, but when remarks like those in Post #463 are made, it isn't about the trucks anymore.
Now come out fighting! :-0
This is the source, from Toyota's home page that I extracted the last data that I posted. There is a little Toyota symbol where the Tacoma exceeds the compared vehicle. And that is fine and very understandable. But look where the compared vehicle beats the Toyota. Guess they do not want you to look there.
Now I have been what I think is nice and given ample opportunity for a Tacoma owner to post the TRUE clearance for the standard Toyota 8 inch rear end.
TRUE CLEARANCE. LOWEST POINT.
I know it as I took the time to measure it.
1. It is NOT 11-12 inches as stated on previous posts on this site.
2. It is a lower number than that.
3. It is not a number that is in double digits unless you use the decimal point.
Gonna give someone this day to post the TRUE numbers and then I will post mine. Tacoma owners will not like that number because it is very close to my Rangers lowest clearance point.
Any Tacoma owner up to the challenge? Cause I got the numbers and KNOW the tale of the tape.
But a Tacoma does not have 11 inches worst clearance on the standard Toyota 8 inch rear end. I got down in the dirt and measured one. And the vehicle I measured was equipped with 31X10.5X15 tired.
So you are saying that spoog, who refered to me as a liar on this board is the only one acting as an adult? I went out to take the inituitive to MEASURE my vehicle to provide some useful information for comparison on this board. Not printed information, actual measured data. And his reaction to that was to refer to me as a liar.
And you think he is the adult? I would ask you to review that decision carefully.
I took my Ranger in the mountains and tried to give insite as to how it performed.
I MEASURED my vehicle and when Tacoma owners would not do it I MEASURED the Tacoma. I am now trying to give the "superior vehicle" owners an opportunity to bow out gracefully because the numbers presented from the data sheets is bogus.
Not that it is a bad vehicle at all, a great four wheeler. But it is closer to a Ranger than you might think. And easily $3000-5000 more expensive.
Just my thoughts...
-wsn
Don't jump down my throat, I think the Ranger is a better vallue too.
I am enjoying the debate and look forward to your actual clearence numbers. Thanks.