Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

issisteelman

My Harley is a 1995 Sportster 1200. It still looks as good as new (only 17K on it). I have straight pipes on it that make it extremely loud ("Loud Pipes Save Lives").

Thankfully, I live in NH where our motto is "Live Free or Die" and we do not have a stupid (yes, I said stupid) helmet law. So, I am lucky enough to be able to ride helmet free all year long. You have to love good old American freedom.

By the way, as you can see I truly appreciate quality since I own both a Taco and a Harley I'll see you folks at Motorcycle Week in Laconia, NH (the 3rd largest bike rally in the USA)......Steelman.

eagle63

I've got the 31 x 10.5" BFG KO's on my explorer and love 'em. of course I go them free from Ford via the firestone debacle.

midnight_stang

Best way to describe it was a combination cruiser and drag bike. I bought it for 300 bucks(had a fresh rebuilt engine), put in a new clutch, new wiring harness, and turn signals all around. Other than a few scrapes on the plastic and dual exhaust it was like new.

Was out riding one sunday, when Mom in a Minivan cuts in front of me, slams on her brakes just to turn into a gas station. 4 wheels can stop quicker than two. Unfortunately my rear wheel locked up and I had to lay her down. I slid about 50 feet, and had a Ford F-150 and trailer filled with landscaping tools right behind me.. I only had a few scrapes, but my helmet had a nice size gash in it about a quarter inch deep and 3 inches long right at the crown of my head. Luckily after picking up my bike, letting the spilled fuel dry I was able to start her up and take her home. Of course the minivan was no where to be seen after my accident. Still have about 3 palm sized scars on my body.

Helmets aren't stupid, it probably saved my life.

Besides, ever take a june bug on the highway at 70? Fairing or not, a full faced helmet is well worth it. In Texas we can get around the helmet law by taking extra safety classes.

Well sold my bike for a grand about 18 months ago. Good news was I sold it for a grand since all it needed was pipes, new plastics, and new paint on the gas tank. Sold it for 1 grand, and a nice tidy profit for all I put and got out of it.

Now I'm looking at either a DL1000 or a Bandit 1200S.

issisteelman

I said that Helmet Laws were stupid, not helmets themselves. In my opinion, government should not mandate that a motorcycle user wear a helmet. In a supposedly "free" country, the choice to wear a helmet should be a choice and not a law! And, I hate wearing them. That is my choice, thankfully, because I live in a State that still values individual freedom over wasteful government mandates.

And yes, I have been hit by many things while on the road (junebugs, bumble bees, rocks, etc.) but I still prefer the wind in my hair. As we like to say in NH, "HELMET LAWS SUCK!". Take care and I'll see you with the wind in your hair on the open road.........Steelman.

frey44

Yeah, no HELMET LAW guarantees that ALL of us will get to pay for the quadraplegic idiot who straps the helmet onto his seat, instead of his head, to look "BAD". That way, the morons who wear no helmet can be subsidized by those responsible riders who do. Helmet laws should me mandatory for anyone who WANTS TO COLLECT INSURANCE, or in any way use taxpayer's money as the result of a head injury resulting from a motorcycle accident. That way, no helmet, NO COLLECTION OF MONEY. period. Want to scramble your brains ? Fine. Just don't impose that cost {emergency room, rehab, joblessness} on the rest of us. Lay there on the road and TAKE THE PAIN.

issisteelman

who believes the hype of the liberal, big government people who want to impose their big government will upon us all. My mother is in the medical community and she has explained to me that studies have actually shown that in most serious motorcycle accidents, if you have a helmet on you will more than likely survive the accident, but will have massive head injuries that will leave you confined to a wheelchair. In these accidents, studies have shown that if you don't wear the helmet, you will more than likely die. So, you argument is completely ridiculous because these studies prove that it actually costs society more to help support those people who wear helmets and surive the accident and live as parapalegics, or quadrapolegics, or with brain damage. So, if somebody like me dies because I didn't wear that helmet, society is much better off than if I did wear it and am left crippled all my life collecting social security.

Listen, you must live in MA or something, where big government (and big taxes) is the Norm. Just don't move to NH if you like freedom.

I could go on all day about this problem but people like you (who support stupid helmet laws) generally don't even ride motorcycles and don't understand that those people who do don't want government infringing upon them when they are trying to enjoy something so pleasurable as riding the open road with the wind in their hair.

I should further point out that NH has some of the lowest car/motorcycle insurance rates in the nation (and we don't have a helmet law). Hey, I think your argument is falling apart.

Take care and I'll see you in the great, freedom loving state of NH..........Steelman.

tomh12

You probably also believe that the government really wants everyone to stop smoking. That is why they sued "big tobacco" for the BILLIONS they got. AND, why they have raised taxes so much on each pack of cigarettes....yeah, right. Ever pay attention to what they are doing with all those increased revenues? What did they do with all the taxes they collected from smokers even before this latest heist? Noticed them lowering your taxes? Think the ground work is not being set up to go after SUV's and 4WD trucks and "fat" foods next? How about not being able to use a cell phone while driving...another camel's nose under the tent. I'm with Steelman on this one....Let me take care of myself. Don't tell me what I can or cannot do, and I'll take responsibility for my actions! UHHH....whether I'm driving a tacoma or ranger to stay on topic. LOL
BTW, I don't smoke, ride a cycle, drink alcohol, eat "fatty" foods, spit, chew, jay walk, drive an SUV, speed, or know anyone who does. (Well, I don't do ALL of these.)
Tom

rickc5

Its really not about the "goodness" or "badness" of any particular laws that bugs me, its about the loss of personal freedoms. Every new law that mandates a change in individual behavior is a loss for EVERYONE. Helmets, cigarettes, cell phones, guns, seatbelts, etc. We all lose when our Big Brother "helps" us live our lives.

midnight_stang

I really wasn't trying to knock your earlier statements, Just talking about my personal experience. The helmet probably saved me from extensive medical bills, problems and/or death.

Your argument, that helmets turn obvious fatalities into people who just cost society is very self serving. That's like saying children born with muscular dystrophy, down syndrome, etc might as well be euthanised. While Darwin could argue the gene pool is being weakened, every attempt should be made to save lives, and prevent injury. That's why I wear denim jeans, boots, leather jacket and full face helmet, even in the summer of Texas.

Every precaution should be taken for preventing loss of life, or detrimental injury. Helmets probably prevent more injury than turn obvious fatalities into dependants on society. Show me a "study" that shows otherwise.

Texas legislature states that without a helmet you will be committing an offense unless you have taken "motorcycle operator training and safety course under Chapter 662 or was covered by a health insurance plan providing the person with at least $10,000 in medical benefits".

Sounds like a reasonable sound law to me.

lariat1

I will just say I enjoy MY freedom and dislike anyone telling me how to live. Now I will bite my tongue and go window shopping for a new truck.

frey44

Anyone who believes otherwise is simply buying into the "I want to look bad, riding around on my Harley, with fringed leather and a bandana" juvenile syndrome. Helmets prevent serious head injury; there is NO QUESTION about that. The American Motorcyclist Association has said it, the NIH has said it, CalTech has said it, the American Medical Association, the Insurance Institute has said it, Harvard Medical School has said it, Cycle World Magazine has said it, Dirt Bike magazine has said it, and anyone with half a brain would see the logic. Good luck if you hit the pavement with no helmet; you're a sure bet for guaranteed SERIOUS head trauma. Then, we will ALL get to subsidize your rehabilitation. EVER WONDER why NASCAR drivers wear a helmet ? Duh...gee...maybe because a helmet reduces chances of serious head trauma ?? Yup....and...those guys don't complain about it. Neither should you. WEAR A HELMET...and enjoy your bike.

midnight_stang

Good job frey, I was about to bring up Nascar. And let's not forget NHRA, motocross, etc.

Sure a helmet may turn a fatal accident into one that just costs the society. However is this a rule or exception? Overall, helmets protect, and save people from injury and fatalities. I may look dorky to some, but hey I will have a better chance to walk/drive/live through an accident.

cpousnr

A 265X16 is a 32 inch tire, not the same as a 31X10.5X15 tire. Go to the BFG site, they give the dimensions of the tires, as I recall the 265X16 is 31.8 inches, the 31X10.5X15 is 30.7 inches.

I have the 31's on my Ranger, they have 41,000 miles and are about 3/4 worn, however, the lugs do not have too much give and do not clear mud as well when worn to this level.

cpousnr

I own a classic green 1976 Kawasaki KZ900, only mod is a Vetter III fearing, LTD exhaust and an LTD seat, 32,000 original miles.

I always wear a helmet even though there is no helmet law in Colorado.

Ask Gary Busey the actor about helmets, he wears one ever since dumping his Harley, hitting his head on the curb and being in a coma for a while. I also work with a guy who races bikes. He crashed at 80 mph, was in a coma for 3 days and the only reason he is alive today is his helmet.

Just my opinion, do not care if someone wears one or not, but I think non-helmet users should be forced to carry a vew Million $ in insurance to cover the costs of the intensive care units they desire to live in. . .

issisteelman

Thankfully, in freedom loving NH, I don't have to wear a helmet and I never will. I don't do it to look "bad" on my Harley as some ignorant people like to believe. I don't wear my helmet because in my free state I have that choice (thank God). And, when it is 90 degrees and humid in the middle of the summer, I prefer to ride without that awful, cumbersome helmet sitting on my head making me sweat. You can have it. As I like to say, "Support Freedom".

Again, if you don't like freedom, I would not suggest that you move to NH where we truly appreciate the "small" role that government should be allowed to play in our lives.

Take care and I'll see you on the open road with the wind in my freedom loving hair (without a helmet) in good old NH.......Steelman.

sc0rpi0

Why would you be penalized for not wearing a helmet? It's not safer for anyone else....in reality you can become a human projectile, and with a helmet on you'll do more damage than with no helmet. You are in danger to yourself only, and Big Brother knows best. And everybody keeps saying that Russia/China provide no personal freedom. At least when I was a kid back in Leningrad, I didn't have to wear stupid helmets just to ride a bycicle with my friends. And now, in the "free" America? If I want to ride a bike in Missouri, I have to have this rediculous piece of plastic strapped onto my head, otherwise I might just get pulled over by a cop. Yep, Big Brother knows best what's good for you.
There's some point to helmet law: at lower speeds it might just save your health and you'll be able to walk away. At higher speeds (just like seat belts) it's only more likely to keep you alive long enough for ER doctors to bring you back to life to give you good news that you'll never walk, or move your hands again. Unfortunately, somehow people think that both of those cases are good for you. Not everybody's got millions of $$ to live the rest of life without having to worry about money (like that Superman actor, I forgot his name, who fell off a horse and broke his neck). Average Joe will most likely be a drag on society.

issisteelman

Right on brother. I couldn't have said it better. You know what, people can take their helmet laws and shove them.

Hey, isn't this a forum on Tacoma vs. Ranger. What happened to that debate. Did we finally decide that a Tacoma was better? Please provide me with an update.

Thanks.........Steelman.

midnight_stang

...is that "NH" (New Hampshire) has no helmet laws, at least once you become older than 18, you can ride with wind in hair all you want....

Laws as of Jan 2002

So you don't have to wear one issi. You've been missinformed.
And Scorpio, Missouri shows no helmet laws for bicycles now.

But maybe these are recent changes...

Scorpio, Big brother is not trying to control your life, just save it(at least in this case). Do you honestly think a helmet is more beneficial than restrictive? Sure it's not always a fashion statement, but how come everytime I go mountain bike riding, 95% of the people are wearing helmets?

And if you get a real helmet, a new one, not the pawn shop or walmart special, you will GREATLY improve your chances of escaping death and injury in any type of accident you will have. You simply can't contest that. This is a rule, not your exception.

lariat1

It is not a question of whether it is safer (or smarter) to wear a helmet. It is a matter of choice. Personnally I would wear a helmet but that is my choice. Just like seatbelts I choose not to wear one when I feel like it.

issisteelman

You are correct Stang. However, since I am well over the age of 18, and purchased my street bike when I was 22, I've never had to wear a helmet in NH and I never will.

Again, it is a matter of choice (thankfully), and the choice is important to me. Now, I do not intend to comment on this issue any further as the host will probably come on soon and tell us to get back to the business at hand which is how much better a Tacoma is than a Ranger Just kidding Stang, I know how you feel on that issue as well.

Take care.......Steelman.

sc0rpi0

It's not a matter of beneficial vs. restrictive. It's an attempt to apply one single law to everybody. What's next? Hmm....lets make all rock climbers use safety lines. Nobody should be able to free-climb anymore. Big Brother is trying to save my life? Thanks, I know better than to trust buerocracy, besides, where will the line be drawn? Today it's seat belts and bike helmets, tomorrow it's bycicle helmets, next week it's full body armor for rollerbladers and skateboarders (Will someone think of the children?!?!), same time next year it's mandatory helmets for taking showers, because as everyone knows, you can just slip and fall in your bathtub. If steelman wants to ride a bike without his helmet and then end up like that biker guy on rotten.com, I say go for it. Knock yourself out. You know what you're doing. If you screw up and smash your head on asphalt, it's Darwinism at work (no offense, steelman, just using you as an example It's the blatant lack of ....trust? by the government in its' citizens that makes it hard. Few idiots spoiling life for everyone else.

eagle63

"You can have it. As I like to say, "Support Freedom". Again, if you don't like freedom, I would not suggest that you move to NH where we truly appreciate the "small" role that government should be allowed to play in our lives."

- give me a break. And how many of you freedom loving NH conservatives are pro-life? (anti-choice)

sc0rpi0

People should always have a choice, and government should not interfere unless those choices directly infict damages to other people. But this is where religion barges into picture (and seeing how religion and state are separate, I don't see why they do). You can't force someone to have a baby.

frey44

Then according to your logic, crash test for trucks, and government mandated safety features, are all BS, and "impinge on your freedom". Do away with airbags, ABS and crash tests ? OK. Let's go back to a horse and buggy.

sc0rpi0

You may not necessarily be in the vehicle alone. I seem to recall that airbags are not the "promised land" as they were hyped up to be. Crash tests alone are not infringing on personal freedoms: they are merely indicators of how likely you are to suffer injury, and consumer opinion is based on that information (along with insurance rates, those leeches , which in turn forces car makers produce better vehicles. Sort of like what happened to US automakers during the gas crunch.
As for mandated safety features: hey, it comes as a part of a car. When you buy a bike, a helmet is not part of the package. You get it on your own.

cpousnr

I worked for 26 years to secure your freedom.

I have more than likely rode bikes longer than you were born. Started with a Honda 305 to be exact.

The price of your freedom is not the high insurance premiums paid now for subsidizing risky behavior.

NH a freedom state?!? Ha! My friend, you do not know freedom until you can cruise your bike, under a cloudless sky, in 90 degree weather, humidity at 20% and you can cruise for 200-300 miles and still be in the same state, (psst., I grew up in NJ and never looked back after I saw the west) listening to the chain noise and low rumble of the pipes (aw crud, Harleys now have belt drive, you dont get the chain noise).

Sure, in my opinion, anyone can ride without a helmet if they want. Just cover the potential medical expenses and allow me to scrape your silly smashed pumpkin out of the way when you crash, as a guy in a Classic motorcycle is coming thru. . .

Heck, bet my motorcycle is older than you. . got older bearing grease in the wheels too. . .

Besides, my hair is baby fine blond, it knots if I do not wear a helmet. . .!8^)

Seriously, all kidding aside, Harleys are nice bikes, but will be willing to be my KZ900 gets more looks, if only because you just plain do not see those bikes anymore.

PF_Flyer

I know that online discussion can drift from time to time, but let's try to stay on track.

As interesting as the helmet law discussion is, this isn't the forum for it.

Just a reminder that every Thursday you can join the Subaru Crew for a chat session from 6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Stop in to talk about Subaru or just to say hello! Either way, I hope to see you there!

/direct/view/.eea5f48

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

issisteelman

Yes, I am a conservative from NH, and I also support a woman's right to chose. So go stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

Believe it or not, their are conservatives in this world that support choice.

So, as I've said before, "Support Freedom", and to hell with helmet laws.......Steelman.

leomort

Need some advice here. I'm looking at the Extended Cab Tacoma 4x4 w/ automatic. Can't decide between the 4 or 6 cylinder. Which is more dependable. How about actual gas mileage bewteen the two? Does the 4 cylinder have enough power for the extended cab 4x4? I won't be towing anything with the truck.

Leo

sc0rpi0

If you're gonna get an automatic tranny, go with V6. The I4 2.7L is good, but it's best with manual transmission, towing or not.

leomort

Thanks for the advice. Any idea as to real life gas mileage w/ 6 cylinder?

Leo

smgilles

Prior to supercharger
20/22 highway
17/19 city

After supercharger
18/20 highway
15/17 city

This is an ext. cab v6 4x4....

leomort

wow! That's some good MPG! Is your an automatic or manual? I'm looking at an automatic.

With that kind of mileage, I'd get 6 cylinder.

Leo

sc0rpi0

My truck is pretty new (7.5K miles), but here's milage with V6 manual (heavy foot with aftermarker Magnaflow performance exaust)
city: (mainly street driving, with few 2-3 mile highway runs): 17mpg.
highway: @90mph: 17mpg, @80-85: 19-18mpg. If I could bring myself to drive 75 or 70, I'd get 20+.

issisteelman

Leo,

I have the in line 4 cylinder Taco (manual trans). I agree that if you are going to get an automatic, get the V6. I don't do any towing either and my I4 has plenty of power for me (150 HP). I've been getting around 22 MPG on the highway and around 15 to 17 MPG around town. I'm actually surprised at the low MPG for a 4 banger.

Take care.......Steelman.

barlitz

Got the bike, its awesome!I haven't been able to ride because I've been working a lot of hours plus the weather's been horrible, figures.. we haven't had any rain for months and as soon as I get the bike the rain hasn't stopped. BTW the jeeps running great also, 6600 miles no problems what so ever.

tbunder

sorry i started such a heated debate. here's my story, brief as i can keep it. in '96, i was riding a brand new gsx-r 750. a motorcycle, to those who follow the sport of sportbikes, which again revolutionized the motorcycle and sportbike particularly. i went to pass a car when she decided to turn right in to me at probably 65 mph. i dove down to the ditch where it was wet and my front wheel stuck like glue and immediately threw me and my bike over the front end over end. i ended landing in a barbed wire fence and slamming my head and shoulder into a wooden fencepost. i was wearing a $685 Shoei X9 air Beattie replica, which i had just gotten a month earlier. it turns out, after a chopper ride to iowa city university hospitals, the helmet saved my life. i had severe trauma to my brain, broken ribs, three broken vertebra and ended up with some nerve damage to my left side due to a brachial plexus injury. i more or less stretched out some nerves when i landed with my head and neck all stretched out. it isn't limiting or nothing, just a pain sometimes. muscles won't grow like the used to on the left, but i can walk and all that. if i hadn't had a helmet on, im sure i would have been killed. my helmet also has severe embedded scratches from the wire in it. after i sent it back to shoei for inspection, they told me it did its job and basically imploded during the impact. im not for helmet laws as iowa nearly passed one 9 years ago. but i do wear one whenever im on the highway, due to comfort, safety, and quietness. but whenever i see a motorcyclist cruising at highway speeds, i always wonder what they'd think if they ever experienced that moment of knowing they're gonna crash bad. to each his own. just watch out for the motorcyclists.

cpounsr- im afraid YOU'RE OFF! the 265/75/16 is a 32 inch tire. BUT, the 265/70/16 is a 31 inch tall tire. check the bfg site again. the two tires are different sizes. full size chevy trucks come with the 265/75/16, but toyota's and dodge dakotas, nissan frontiers, come with 265/70/16, which is in essence a 31 inch tire. just a smidge wider (.2 to be exact).

my bro-in-law has a ZR2 with factory BFG's 1997) and he has 58K and they're still real good. rotation is big. no doubt he'll get 60K to 70K if he really wants to.

wow, alot of activity here since i was last on.

saddaddy

spoog45

http://www.fourwheeler.com/

On the smaller side

"And the Winner is…

 

  

We have to admit that the name Toyota wouldn’t have seemed synonymous with performance before this compact truck comparison, but there was little doubt afterward. Tabulating the points from our six judges confirmed it: The Tacoma was the hands-down winner for on- and off-road performance and also took the top honor in the mechanical department. It even scored high in the two fields (exterior styling and interior design) that it didn’t ace. What put it over the edge? The 190hp engine that could embarrass even the Dodge V-8 in most situations; the locking differential; the loads of ground clearance; and the suspension, which was in control no matter what the situation. In short, it did everything well and did some things exceedingly well. "

midnight_stang

Well spoog is back. Even though he can cut and paste the same age old article from his "Archives", he seemed to have forgotten his password to his original account. After such a long haitus, you'd think there be some new material to show. But it is probably someone trying to impersonate.

rickc5

A generic link to fourwheeler (no Tacoma vs. Ranger stuff jumps out at me), plus a bogus "name" must equal some sort of troll. SSDD. Now, I KNOW Tacoma owners can do better than THAT!

tbunder

that article is from '98 or so. and if i remember right, they name the ranger the best truck for ride, and also say that they couldn't find anything wrong with it other than a bad spot for the shifter/radio ergos. woohoo. put a 'locker' on the ranger and some better tires and you'd see rangers taking top honors. but ford knows that even though they equip their trucks with crappy tires and just a lsd, that they will still outsell toyota by a huge margin, so why do it? they just want to sell trucks, not win magazine shootouts. and the ranger is extremely competent off-road stock. nothing articulates as well and we all know the ranger's chassis is thicker and its 4.0 whoops up on the 3.4. ford just plain outsells everything. end of story. but the tacoma is a good truck too. ooooh, that was a tricky one i threw in eh? lol, im in a good mood. dont get mad scorp and pluto.

i think that is a good start for the week of debating. )

midnight_stang

...if Ford only says the rear differential is to be used (locked) at speeds 5 MPH or less. Guess what Locker equipped Tacoma's say on the doorjam?

sc0rpi0

And maybe Ford is a cheap-[non-permissible content removed] company that makes their customers buy aftermarket parts just to stay competitive with other brands?
You don't hear me saying "put a 'locker' on tacoma and some better tires and you'd see tacomas taking top honors". I already got one of those, and with tires I have Tacoma already took top honors.
It's a really....optimistic way to look at things, tbunder, when you say "they just want to sell trucks". Doesn't seem that way to me. I think Ford wants to "sell trucks composed of cheapest materials at lowest prices". I'm fine with everything but cheapest materials part.

stang: locker can be used above 5mph, only can be engaged in that speed.

midnight_stang

I'm just wondering why Toyota doesn't want you to use it over 5 MPH, as per the owners manual and warning on the door jam.

smgilles

The warning sign on the door for the locker states, " engage at speeds below 5mph (8kmh)." It does not say anywhere to not exceed 5mph, in fact it gives no maximum speed that you cannot exceed. I have had mine upto 50mph, just make sure you do not engage above 5 or you run the risk of the pumpkin imploding.

lariat1

Do you have to be in low range to engage the locker on a Tacoma or can you engage it in 2wd?

tgravo2

Apparently you can engage it in 2wd if Prerunners have it with a TRD package.

saddaddy

except in 4lo originally. You can, however, do a 5 minute mod that allows you to engage it anytime. Very simple.

STANG -- IF the sticker even says not to use at speeds over 5mph, which it may or may not, thats only to cover Toyotas butt. It can be dangerous for inexperienced people to drive at high speeds (above 50) with the locker engaged. However, it can be done with NO mechanical damage at all. It seems to me that Ford should have tried out a similar sticker on the FX4s: "Don't mash the accelerator more than 1/4 of an inch when leaving a parking lot or you may have a broken axle." Maybe that would've helped their cause. What do ya think?

issisteelman

that a Tacoma is far superior to a Ranger. That is what I think. I just wanted to remind everyone where I stand.

Take care..........Steelman.