Howdy, Stranger!

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

Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
edited March 2014 in Ford
Lets keep this one going for a while, shall we? No more government subsidized apartment talk, please


  • Don't want to get too far off topic - but there's no way I'll make it to San Antonio this weekend because of work. There's just no stopping the machine...
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    From what I've heard, Ford may be announcing tomorrow that they might close one of the Ranger plants. The 2 current Ranger plants are in St Paul, and Edison, NJ. Being from MN I really hope they don't close the St Paul plant, but I guess we'll soon see. Anybody else hear any info about this?
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    the way that the front tires and wheels on Rangers tend to be at an angle. The bottom sticks out further than the top. I see this on all types: new and old, 2 and 4wd. You know when you see old caddilacs with too many folks in the back seat - thats what it looks like. I have also noticed this on Ford vans. What is it? Makes the trucks look kinda weak, tongue in cheek.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    noticing it on the Twin I Beam vans and trucks and the TTB 4WD but the newer A arm torsion bar Rangers(Vans and Super duties still use TIB) shouldn't have it.

    The TTB and TIB have the ability to offer more travel than just about any stock setup, they're still the truck to beat in stock desert classes. But as you've noticed the camber can get weird and with long travel there was bumpsteer.
  • nothing wrong with a degrees or two of negative camber. It increases handling and stability.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    True, but the complaint was the tire wear. You can shim 'em to get them straight.

    My list of TTB or TIB trucks include:

    '83 Ranger 4X4
    '85 F250 4X2
    '86 Ranger 4X2
    '96 F150 4X4
    '01 F250SD 4X2

    The only one that ate tires was the '96. I had some Cepak (General?) tires that wore strange. The Goodrich A/T wore fine on the same truck.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I bet it was the ones with the torsion bars now that you mention it and I think. Prolly doesn't hurt anything but it definitely does not look very good if you ask me, but oh well. Thanx for clearing that up everybody. Has tbunder not found our new hideout yet?
  • But scorp beat me to it... :)

    saddaddy--->Looks alright to me however... :D

    mod--->I don't think it's too dramatic to really notice a difference, unless the Ranger is driven long miles for straight distances with no road crown. While turning you get better( more equal) contact. I guess this is why alot of people complain about the Ranger's "roaming" steering at center.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    I would think it would be the opposite. The newer torsion bar Rangers have A arms and shouldn't have that kicked out look. Oh well.

    Stang, I've personally never really had a problem with the TTB/TIB. I think a lot of the complaints stem from tire wear when you put service bodies or a lot of weight on the back and don't adjust the camber(it's expensive and needs shims. The early TIB wasn't adjustable for camber at all, you had to bend the I beams!!!)
  • Wheel camber dictates whether your truck will have understeering or oversteering tendencies. Negative camber causes oversteer, while positive camber causes understeer.

    Negative camber means the the top of the tires point towards the centerline of the vehicle. Imagine looking at a vehicle with negative camber straight-on from the nose, with the tops of its tires pointing slightly inward. Due to the elastic nature of the tires, they form part of a cone-like shape (a conic section) whose tip is towards the inside of the vehicle. When rolled, a cone will rotate about its tip, meaning the end opposite of the tip rolls inwards. Wheels with negative camber do the same thing - they want to steer inwards towards the center of the vehicle. Because both the left and right tires have negative camber, their inward steering tendencies are cancelled but only when traveling in a straight line. When cornering, more weight is shifted towards the outside tires, thus increasing the outside tires' tendency to steer inwards. That means the vehicle has a tendency to steer to the inside of its turn arc when turning - hence the name "oversteer," meaning the steering effect is exaggerated.

    Positive camber causes understeer because the same principles apply. A postive-cambered wheel forms a conic section whose tip (an imaginary point) points towards the outside of the vehicle. Again, because both the left and right tires will have positive camber, the tires' outward-steering tendencies will be cancelled when traveling in a straight line. But in a turn, the weight of the vehicle shifts towards the outer tire, and its outward-steering tendencies become exaggerated, causing the vehicle to turn towards the outside of its turn arc. That's why it's called "understeer."

    It surprised me that the Ranger appears to have negative camber built into its front wheels, meaning the truck would oversteer. Trucks inherently have oversteering tendencies due to their design (rear-wheel drive with light rear end). I would think a little positive camber in the front wheels would neutralize some of the truck's oversteering tendencies. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the Tacoma has positive cambered front wheels, as they appear to point outwards.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    it backwards. it's the ttb rangers that have the inward pointing tires. the a-arm setup is imo pretty straight. ive taken plenty pics of my truck from the front, and never noticed it. and i notice everything. i had a '93 ranger 4x4, and it had the inward pointing tires. when the suspension compresses, the wheels and tires compress inwards too.

    drove another frontier today, man that things just not my ranger. not too bad though. it does about 2600rpms at 70. my ranger does about 2400. about right. dealer wanted 500 over invoice. found a silver sr5 color pkg. dc trd in virgina for 21500 asking. im talking to him, but i have to sell mine first. i have an offer from another guy in virgina (ironically) on my truck if i don't get my reserve.

    and i almost started this forum, but i thought of it right after i shutdown my lap. i knew one of you's would.
  • will hold its wheel camber throughout the suspension's movement, just like tbunder mentioned with his tires pointing inwards througout the suspension's compression and extension. But some don't, and have positive camber at extension, and negative camber at compression. This makes for a very unstable package, obviously.
  • "Well-controlled overall, with good steering feedback, Rangers handle easily, corner capably, maneuver neatly and stay reasonably stable on curves."

    "The steering is almost too light, but is quick and provides good road feel. The ride is smooth for a compact pickup, due partly to a revised suspension..." msn.carpoint

    Positive camber may lessen oversteering qualities of a truck, but if you drive at less than Wide Open Throttle, then who cares? It's only a degree or two if that...

    Have you driven a Ford, Lately?
  • I thought this was a Tacoma vs. Ranger forum. What happened to the debate? Is this a dead issue?
  • This forum is entitled "Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part VII" while the previous forum was entitled "Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger - Part VI". The possibility that the new title (which uses a comma in place of the dash or hyphen) is not grammatically correct is confusing everyone.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I'll take a role of Devils' advocate here:
    More like,
    Alan Greenspan=unemployment.
    Dot-com bubble burst=unemployment.

    This is just a continuation of a trend that has started in high-tech sector, and will probably not end with Ford in the auto industry. Ford is just.....sorry....roadkill on the recession superhighway :)
    However, we ought not see this happen to Toyota or any other automakers, since falling dollar and rising yen provide an economical advantage to Japanese automakers.
  • But Japan has been in a recession for quite a while. It was the American economy that was making them money. At least the imports can still produce quality cars for competitive price and still make a profit.

    Ford went through this in the early 80's, but turned around and was making profit until 2001. I don't think they are roadkill, but they definately got run over. As the saying goes, what doesn't kill ya will make you stronger, so look for Ford to be back in the black somewhere in 2003. We still have the truck and SUV sales to keep things moving.

    "Although the actions we're outlining today are difficult, they are necessary steps to lead Ford back to a strong financial and competitive position," said Nick Scheele, president and chief operating officer. "They will help us to address our problems, while at the same time permitting us to keep a sharp focus on delivering great products. Quality and value will be the hallmarks of our cars and trucks."

    But only time will tell...
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    allknowing- its toyota tacoma vs. ford ranger, part XII; not part VII. dont confuse us anymore than we already are by that darn out of place comma. jeez.

    steelman- nonetheless, whatcha wanna debate? i'm all ears......
  • leon_vleon_v Posts: 8
    i am looking for miles per galon data for tacoma and ranger 4x2 vs 4x4.
    any help is appreciated!

  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I get about 20 mpg (80% hiway). At first mileage was pretty bad - like 16 and lower. City driving also hurts mileage a good bit. I think 4x4 is just about the same. Oh - and Im talking about v6's (dont say a thing about the comma, anyone).
  • kg11kg11 Posts: 530
    Taco std cab V6 4X4-18 hwy,15 city,12 towing 4200lb(hwy)
  • My 2.3l Ranger reg cab 4x2 (with auto) gets 21.5 MPG city, and 29-30 Highway...

    Oh yeah, 138,000 miles and 1993 model.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    best with a SOHC 4.0 V6.....22mpg.
    worst with a SOHC 4.0 V6.....16mpg.

    this is with a little bit wider than stock tire. the 265/70/16 is about a full inch wider than the 245/75/16 that comes stock, but exactly the same height. im talking in BFG all-terrains. i had both sizes of BFG's on my truck before finally trading in my 245 BFG's for the larger 265's. 245's looked way too skinny imo.
  • 2k1trd2k1trd Posts: 301
    2001 w/supercharger = don't care :)
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Tacoma, 4x4, 2002 V6 standard:
    city : 17.5-19 mpg (mixed highway below 75mph and city street driving, engine usually revs aroudn 2500 rpms when going fast, 2000 rpms normally, except when I gun it from time to time).
    highway: 80-85mph: 18.5mpg, 90mph: 16.5mpg, and I don't drive slower than that.
    This is on stock tires, stock 3.91 gears and with amsoil airfilter.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566

    Scorpio: You have a v6 in a 2002 Std. cab???
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    No, standard tranny. Xtracab.
    Putting a V6 into standard cab with 5spd and 4x4 would be great, but a little too expensive.
    4-banger is very potent offroad, as I have witnessed firsthand yesterday
This discussion has been closed.