Howdy, Stranger!

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

If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII



  • frey44frey44 Posts: 230
    Thanks for the tire suggestion. I am open to any ideas, but won't buy new wheels, so whatever I buy will need to be the recommended 235-75-15 or 255-70-15. So, I will check out my local dealers and see who sells the BFG. The cost of new wheels at this point (I am planning to sell my Ranger soon) wouldn't we worth it to a new buyer or me. (I am already getting killed on depreciation ! Mercy ! It makes me sick, itf the trade-in values on Edmunds and Kelley Blue Book are realisitc !) I am planning to get a Tundra later this summer, if I can find one with V8, LSD and ASB 2x4. I have found the a 4x4 was a bad choice for my type of use. Peace, bro.
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    Here's a theory you can kick around:

    Did it ever occur to you maybe Toyota doesn't want to manufacture more Tacomas? Their Freemont, CA plant which makes Tacomas is running at capacity, and Toyota has no problem selling Tacomas. Maybe Toyota doesn't feel it's necessary to build a new Tacoma plant.


    The Tacoma isn't Toyota's "cash-crop." The Camry and Corolla are, both nationwide/worldwide best-sellers. To top it off, Lexus is the most popular luxury vehicle line in North America (only took them about 10 years to bump the competition). Toyota is making money hands over fists with other ventures right now. Just because Toyota COULD sell more Tacomas doesn't mean they're going to built a new plant and build more.

    Either way, I say you are like a little lemming jumping off a cliff following the masses with this "more sold = better" nonsense.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    "also, the ranger may not sit up as high stock, but nothing can touch it as far as articulation and wheel travel."

    -and you got this info where?

    The ZR2 is a cool truck, but it's quite expensive (far more than a taco) and you have to put up with Chevy's hit or miss quality. The S-10 and Blazer are usually at the bottom of any reliability data chart.
  • If you say the Freemont assembly plant is running at capacity, which for the sake of argument we will say is true, then why not open another plant and double the production? New plant, same Toyota standards should equal twice the original profit (after start up costs), RIGHT?

    Wrong, Toyota is producing pretty much the exact same amount as there is demand. If you could monitor production numbers a bit easier on the toyota site, you could even do a recent past analysis on the product sold vs product made. If anything Toyota is keeping the supply evenly matched with Demand, so they can max the profit on each vehicle made. Good job for business, bad for people wanting the most truck for their money.

    I just bought a big screen TV on the memorial weekend. Best Buy will deliver it in 2 weeks because the whole metroplex (Dallas/Fort Worth Texas) is out of the model we purchased. Since this newly released model was so quickly sold out, you know what? The price is now $1999.99 instead of the 1699.99 we bought it for. Supply and Demand, pure and simple. And do you think JVC is gonna sit there and produce the same amount? Demand is obviously high, it was a typical high spending weekend, but any company will know they need to get more out to the stores.

    I am not saying the Ranger is better because it sells more. I am saying it is better truck (the cause), so it does sell more (the effect). Now you can keep on saying Toyota Tacoma is the best stock off-roading compact truck, But have you not noticed the overall decline in compact truck sales (vs. last year). It's not the huge niche you make it out to be, but I am not discounting the Tacoma is a great off-road vehicle. I am just saying big deal, most of the people do not care about off-roading, compact trucks or both, and the sales figures back me up 100%.

    Finally more people must like the options, looks, pricing, quality, reputation, or "whatever floats their boat" found in the Ranger. These people do not have silly hang ups about lockers, shock absorbers and disappearing door lock knobs.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    your claims. You don't have a tendency to lie, just a tendency to believe everything those ignorant salesmen tell you. Who remembers the bed being welded to the frame -- ya get my drift?

    You listed some components of the zr2s, i researched it on the web, even read the sticker on one sitting at my local chevy dealership (the second one in the past few years). No where could I find anything that supports even one of those ZR2 specific claims you made. Why would chevy not brag about any of this?

    As far as the frame, the same amount sticks out from under the ZR2s as the normal highriders, they both have the same size axles as well. I mean, I sat and looked at em sitting right next to one another. Maybe they just leave the stickers off of some right? No, one had a Zr2 package and the other had like a "high stance package" or something like that. Both the same price. I would love to believe that what you say is true buttt...

    My good buddy bought one in late winter, complete with the ZR2 sticker, he knows nothing of the things you speak of.

    However, all this is totally irrelevant. It has long been established that all the people here care about quality vehicles. That's why we argue over these two trucks, Rangers and Tacos, that are both pretty tightly and well made. How can you even put anything chevy in the same sentence? You yourself have dogged on em in the past. Own a truck for more than two years and you will understand what these trucks are supposed to be like. I have realized that that is your real shortcoming. You know nothing about having a truck for the long haul. Dodge/Chrysler wins all sorts of initial quality awards with their cars, but everyone knows how bad they suck. Same with alot of other vehicles that you defend. I could build a car to look nice and ride good for 30k miles.
  • frey44frey44 Posts: 230
    Econ 101.

    ;-) Peace, bros.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    you're talking to what use to be mr. zr2 man. i owned two of them, and pounded both to misery. i know all about them. i find it funny your buddy bought one and doesn't know jack about it. too bad. just to enlighten you to what they consist of, go here:

    pluto, as usual your jaws are smoking and your brain isn't.

    like stang said, i am an open minded person and know a lot about vehicles. more than you ill claim (which isn't saying much mr. locker/lsd man). im not brand loyal to anything, but i do have some common sense, and that tells me that the tacoma is nice, but has very thin, weak doors and weak powertrain to handle any kind of real hard work that any ranger would consider everyday use.

    ZR2's may be high, not much higher than a similarly equipped tacoma, $25-$26K, but belive me, you get a lot more with the ZR2. more power, torque, a lot safer vehicle, better towing, etc. it may not be as tight as a ranger, but it sure isn't no slouch. i consider the ZR2 a bodybuilder on steroids, the ranger a triathlon event guy, and the tacoma a college wrestler. there's my analogies. ive owned three rangers, two ZR2's, and zilch tacomas. i like safe vehicles. end of discussion.

  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    "tacoma is nice, but has very thin, weak doors and weak powertrain to handle any kind of real hard work that any ranger would consider everyday use."

    Doesn't seem like Rangers can handle everyday hard work like accelerating out of a parkinglot...

    You like safe vehicles? Tacoma was rated safer than the S-10. OOOPS!

    Where do you keep coming up with this thin sheet-metal argument? Do you have a link, or are you just making stuff up again?
  • allknowingallknowing Posts: 866
    I guess I was wrong in that I thought you had a marketing background. If you do, you obviously realize that your statement "I am saying it is better truck (the cause), so it does sell more (the effect)" is an extremely flawed argument. I don't feel like presenting a class in marketing 101 other than saying that there are too many other contributing factors (price for one) to make such a poorly grounded general statement. Argue with me as you will, but I wouldn't hire anyone in marketing in my company that could use such ambiguous supporting evidence to come to such a conclusion. On the other hand, if you have a better case for your conclusion (real evidence rather than your personal feelings), let us hear it as long as it's not the same ol' stuff. I think you're smarter than that stang. Maybe you thought that we all graduated from the same wonderful college that tbunder came from and that you could easily pull one over on us.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 8,377
    Let's not let this discussion creep from the trucks to talking about each other. That's never a good idea...


    Just a reminder that our Town Hall chat happens on Wednesday (5-7pm Pacific/8-10 pm Eastern).

    This week the topic is Coming to America: Import Cars You'd Like to See

    PF Flyer


    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

    Edmunds Moderator

    Need some roadside assistance? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Just purchased or leased a vehicle? Share your vehicle reviews

    PF_Flyer's 2014 Versa Note Long Term Blog
    How To Start Your Own Long Term Blog

  • My statement about cause and effect was a bit general. However when I concluded that post with "Finally more people must like the options, looks, pricing, quality, reputation, or "whatever floats their boat" found in the Ranger." I thought that final statement would be a specific enough explanation, and expansion on the other statement.

    So instead of "better" truck, substitute the words "fits more consumers needs and wants", "more truck for less buck" or "one of the best compact truck solutions". It is all in the eye of the beholder, but the underlying point is more people choose the Ranger for whatever reason, and more people keep coming back for the past 16 or so years.

    No marketing experience here, in fact I despise the Marketing folks who must appeal to the lowest common denominator. I am a database designer/business analyst for one of the three largest mortgage companies in the U.S. So that must mean I am a bit detail oriented. Marketing, corporate image, and slogans? Nah, give me cold hard data, and logic to present it.

    So obviously I can not poll or interview the 74 thousand new Ranger owners (Through end of April 02) and ask why did they choose it. However the data suggests that three people out of five choose the Ranger, and it seems much more likely because they wanted it. Not because Toyota does not make enough Tacomas. That is how I'm suggesting the cause and effect. The Ranger somehow appeals to more people(even despite the older models and the amount still on the road from previous models), and still keeps on selling. Some people now hate Mustangs because everyone has one. However after 16 straight years of being the number one compact truck, people still favor the Ranger. Does that not indicate something on the overall value/offering the Ranger provides that is still appealing?

    Frey--->You are right, Rangers do generally cost less, so they sell more. However with more XLT and Edge models moving than XL's, you know it's not all fleet or people buying base models. Especially with Tacoma's cheaper base model price (MSRP).
  • allknowingallknowing Posts: 866
    OK stang I'll buy that. Thanks for the excellent response. Having some experience in marketing (hard to admit now that you've almost called me a lowlife, ha), I'll bet that Toyota purposely keeps their Tacoma numbers down to some extent in order to keep the price up. As it stands now, they have a higher profit margin and sell every Tacoma that they produce (I've never seen a Tacoma excess inventory sell or rebate). Ford has a different philosophy of higher production and probably a lower profit margin. I couldn't tell you which one is really profiting more.
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    has to do with which is the better truck. Just because the VW Beetle is a world best-seller, does that make it a better compact car than the AWD Subaru WRX? Is the best-selling Mustang coupe better than a BMW 3 Series coupe?

    To me, the fact that the Ranger is mass-produced and doesn't really do any one thing extremely well simply tells me it is a generic, lower-priced truck designed to appeal to the masses.
  • But it must do everything well enough to appeal to more people year after year. Or maybe there is not enough issisteelmen or fourwheeler subscribers who demand the ultimate off-road vehicle.

    The VW Beetle is the world best seller, because it has been around for decades. If you want to compare the Bug to the Subaru, might as well throw in bicycles in China for comparison. The Mustang coupe is better than a BMW 3 Series coupe if you consider bang for buck performance. One could say the BMW is twice the car, but it is also twice the price! The Mustang offers 190 hp and 220 lbs/ft torque for about the same price as a 4 cylinder Accord or Camry. It is better to compare comparatively priced vehicles, and vehicles in the same class/niche. Otherwise you are comparing apples to bananas.

    The Ranger may be a generic lower priced truck to you, but that does not hold up when the price difference between a Tacoma and a Ranger can be in favor of either model. It may be as much as $2,000 difference, or it may only be a few hundred dollars in favor of the Tacoma. It just depends on the options you want.

    Allknowing--->Yeah, I have never seen any big incentives offered on a Tacoma either. At about twice the product sold vs. a Tundra, I would bet the Tacoma does bring in a good profit for Toyota. I do think Toyota is doing an excellent job making them, and selling them as a business should. The profit margin per Tacoma is probably higher than a Ranger, however I would guess the gross revenue from all Ranger sales would still be higher than all Tacoma sales through sheer numbers.

    I also was not inferring anything about you in marketing, just in general I am more likely to ignore the marketing hype. Even I am not very enthusiastic about the latest Feel good William Ford commercials, and I wonder why all I see are bridgestone commercials now... :)
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    SPECIFICALLY what the Ranger does better than the Tacoma. And I challenge you to provide some supporting evidence.
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Posts: 124
    I agree with Stang, what's up with these stupid Bill Ford commercials. The marketing department missed the mark with that whole campaign.

    Hey, Stang, you might have made a good point on your last post. The market for people looking for good offroad pick ups is probably not nearly as large as the market for people looking for pickups for highway use only. That may be one reason for the sales differences between the Taco and Ranger.

    In any case, I'm glad that I'm lucky enough to live in God's country where having a good offroad pick up (like my Tacoma) is a great advantage.

    Tbunder - I've been working my Tacoma hard ever since I bought it over 14 months ago. I've been offroad in the woods (on logging roads) much of the time (going to and from camp and horseing around in the woods). I've used it to get wood for camp (on more occasions than I can count), loaded it with gravel for a home project, loaded it with a snow machine all winter (and went everywhere with it). I've also had a 4-wheeler in the back of it (and gone everywhere with it). You know what, if that isn't working a pick up truck then I don't know what is. Furthermore, I haven't had one major problem yet. As mentioned before, my only problems are a dashboard that rattles when it is cold out and a broken cup holder. So your argument that a Tacoma cannot be worked hard is probably the single most ignorant thing you've said thus far (although you have said some pretty strange things).

    Take care and I'll see you in God's country...........Steelman.
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    My truck's been worked pretty hard too, and it's four years old. Only problems are the squeaky clutch (sometimes) and the broken power window switch which is really my own fault, I suppose. I've exposed my doors to an awful lot of dust and rain. I like having my windows down.

    There is a TSB on the squeaky clutch. Does this mean if I take it to the dealership, they will have to fix the clutch for free?
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    "What specifically does the Ranger do better than the Tacoma???"

    Haven't you been listening, it sells better. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And tbunder - I am reading the zr2 page now. 3.73 gears=pretty sad. The rest of it doesn't sound too wonderful. Maybe he doesn't include everything in his list huh? Still only have 15" wheels, which is a sin in your eyes. Also only 7" wide, not the best for such a miraculous setup. Track bar - big deal, most true off roaders take em off for more flex anyways. Not a bad truck though. Do you mind telling how you went thru two of them?
  • Let's see. Offering 4 doors in extended cab configuration. More powerful 4.0l v6. Available v6 in a regular cab. Steering Column mounted automatic shifter. Standard ABS. Standard A/C (on Edge & XLT's?). Free clock. Standard Tachometer. Available Limited slip differential (remember you said this was advantageous when you thought the Tacoma came with it). Standard passive anti-theft. Higher maximum towing capacity. More comfy seats with better support. Slightly larger interior space.

    SUPERIOR crash safety ratings. NHTSA and IIHS.

    Better pricing, usually 0-2000+ dollars in Rangers favor on similair equipped vehicles.)

    More abundant options. Less price gouging per option.

    Looks(in my opinion).

    So in summary, if you want the most powerful engine, the most options, and the most safety possible for the better price, Go Ranger. That is how people buy vehicles. They see what fits their needs, see what they like, and find a good deal on a vehicle. That vehicle (for the past 16 years) is proven to be the Ranger.

    What, you wanted me to quote :)

    saddaddy---> You have not been listening to me. The Ranger is NOT the best because it sells. It is the best SO it sells. Have questions, please see my last 3 or 4 posts above first.
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    I would like to see comparos where the Ranger with its better "paper options" outperforms the Tacoma. Many vehicles enter comparos looking like the clear winner on paper, but in reality don't cut the muster.

    Please show me tests where the Ranger:

    1. tows better
    2. hauls better
    3. four-wheels better
    4. performs on pavement better
    5. lasts longer/more reliable
    6. has better resale value

    I've posted such links. Now it's your turn. Case closed.

    BTW, IIHS rated the Tacoma higher than the Ranger in crash-tests. Also, what's the advantage of having a column mounted gear-shift? I don't care, I would never buy an automatic. And finally, I'm glad the Tacoma doesn't come "standard" with all the options you listed. I'm not interested in most of them, and wouldn't want to pay for them. Especially ABS.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    What advantage does a steering column shifter have? I hate em, especially on compact trucks. I've been driving my dads new silverado, and hate that their is no OD button to push, and if you wanna manually downshift, it is not as easy. My vote is for the floor shifter, hands down.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    pluto, do you know how ignorant you sound debating with stang? he is presenting you with solid facts, while you still keep bragging about your nearly five year old magazine test. hilarious.

    sad- i started out in a new reg. cab ZR2, sold it for an ext. cab, sold that for an explorer sport when my daughter was born. traded that for the ranger.

    your comments on the ZR2 stuff doesn't make sense when your tacoma comes with 3.73's if im not mistaken. four wheel disc brakes..heat treated upgraded cv joints, reinforced brake lines, carbon composite skidplates, upgraded ring and pinion gears, full-size truck rear axle, re-inforced and widened frame...these are all bad? and that track bar doesn't hinder any flex (i know as i had both my ZR2's hit the bump stops, it keeps the axle in line when doing high speed runs, keeps it from going side to side. the ZR2 was created as a chase vehicle at Baja, and so it is built with what it needs to accomplish this. sure it is aging, but it is still twice the truck any tacoma is. not even close. it weighs nearly 4000 lbs in ZR2 trim. the fact that it comes stock with 15" wheels is fine, as we all know gm will never change this since the ZR2 is now a staple in trucks, and anything other than a 31x10.50 wouldn't look right. i guarantee the next gen. s10 will probably come with 16's or higher. and just how wide do you need a wheel to be to handle 31's? according to, the 7" wheels are above the minimum for the all-terrain tire that it comes stock with.

    hmmmmm......i sense a little jealousy here that since you don't have it, you don't like it. seems to be a common theme around here with tacoma owners who don't like cd players, power anything, a/c, fog lights, tow-hooks, o/d over-ride on column shifter, abs, or anything else that comes standard on ranger and is extra on tacoma. it is so obvious to ford guys.

    steelman- good for you, im glad you use your truck. maybe pluto will learn how to finally engage his clutch/starter switch and maybe put his truck into four-wheel drive after reading your posts. either way though, you still have pop can thick doors and bed walls. enjoy though.

    see you in god's country where the other guy runs the stoplight and slams into your door. according to safety tests, you'll have a high likelihood of a pelvic injury. lovely huh?

    oh yeah, just fyi....i changed my mind about the mazda. i plan on getting some type of truck. thanks sad. what was i thinking?
  • "Many vehicles enter comparos looking like the clear winner on paper, but in reality don't cut the muster."

    And this supports your 4 year old fourwheeler review?

    You are wrong about IIHS. Both the Tacoma and Ranger receive Average Overall ratings. It's a dead tie. Tacoma has higher risk for injury (Head and Left foot) and the Ranger has a lower safety cage rating (marginal). However the Ranger receives no Poor ratings, except on one of its head restraint models.

    NHTSA is a different story altogether. Tacoma scores one full star lower than Ranger in every test, except passenger frontal crash test.

    1. tows better
    For instance, The Ranger offers a regular cab, long bed with 4.0L 5 speed Automatic, with 6015 pounds "Maximum Towing Capacity". The highest I have seen the Tacoma regular cab is 3500. Edmunds says the extended and crew cab tacomas can do a maximum of 5000. I do believe says up to 5600. By the way, which engine has the most torque at the lowest RPM available? I would say that is probably the better vehicle for towing.
    2. hauls better
    How do you suppose we test that? I think the Tacoma has 100-200 pounds higher Payload capacity, but to haul it better? Who knows. Unless you can prove otherwise, they are probably pretty close.
    absence of evidence is not Evidence of absence.
    3. four-wheels better
    I do not contest that off the show room floor, the Tacoma has the advantage. However I do think four-wheeling contradicts with item #6 below. The best off-road vehicle when used will be a little beat up, and doesn't that affect used market value?
    4. performs on pavement better
    Here's another category that is really too close to count. With LSD, and ABS, the Ranger has safety on its side. I'll post links to reviews if you actually want to debate this. I've seen praise for both vehicles on on-road handling.
    5. lasts longer/more reliable
    There are many examples in favor of each argument on this issue. 140,000 miles and 9 years old. Driven several Rangers over 200,000 miles at an old job. All machines break. At least my window switches still work. Toyota has the reputation. Ford has the economy. There are so many old Fords on the road that just won't die, and if they do parts are so cheap and available. With reasonable driving habits and Maintenance, any vehicle can last.
    6. has better resale value
    You are probably right there, but if you call it what truly is, it might be a bit more clear to you why. "Has Better used market value" With more Rangers being sold for the past 16 years, it would be harder to sell for top dollar. Since roughly 3-4 Rangers have been sold for every Tacoma or Toy "Pickup", you should expect one to hold its market value better than the other. However this benefits anyone in the used truck market greatly. Basic economics (Supply and Demand) taught in 7th grade.

    Of course if you are like me, you don't care about the ultimate towing, hauling, or off-road vehicle. If I wanted that, I would start looking at full size trucks. But these are Compact trucks. I would venture a generalization of compact truck buyers are mostly looking for something to help with moving furniture, or home depot projects. How many trucks do you see daily that have a payload vs not? How many trucks do you see daily off-road vs not?

    Do you notice anything about our lists? See the difference in the content? See how you are centered around topics that are likely in favor of the Tacoma, while I listed items found in favor of the Ranger.

    Every person buying a vehicle has these lists. If not, they are just a blind consumer. Assuming most people research a purchase likely close to half their yearly income, everybody lists their pros and cons. Every list is different, and tailored after individual wants and needs. Then they decide which vehicle they buy based on the big picture. And we know which vehicle that is more likely to be, right?

    We can debate all the little issues all day. If I bring up points like better pricing options, better safety, more configurations, bigger engine, you can only ignore those statements and re-iterate the off-road reviews. The reality is we both win or we both lose.

    Both trucks are great, and as I've said before The Tacoma is a great truck, recommended to all. The Ranger is the Best Buy.

    Even Hank Hill (King of the Hill) drives a Ranger... :)
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,079
    A major daily newspaper is writing a story about collision damage insurance, and is looking to talk with drivers who have run into deer or moose. "In most states, such an encounter is not covered by comp. or collision damage insurance; you need special coverage. I want to talk to people who have had these collisions and learn how they handled them. Likewise, I'd also like to hear from people who were involved in some other sort of incident involving their auto and found out that insurance they thought they had was not there." Please respond no later than Monday, June 3 to [email protected] and/or [email protected] Thanks as always!

    Jeannine Fallon
    PR Director


    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • allknowingallknowing Posts: 866
    Wow I didn't realize that Hank Hill drove a Ranger. The Taliban choose the Tacoma so it's difficult to determine which is the better endorsement.
  • kbtoyskbtoys Posts: 62
    Just thought I would post this link about the tacoma.
  • rickc5rickc5 Posts: 378
    About time someone injected a bit of levity into this pit. Thanks!

    BTW- I believe you and I are the only two participants on this forum who have owned both a Tacoma and a Ranger? Seem that way to you?
  • allknowingallknowing Posts: 866
    Yeh, I think that you're right. Some of the Ranger guys have mentioned that they have owned other Toyota cars but not a tacoma. I'll bet that most of the Ranger supporters have never driven a Tacoma and probably the reverse is also true.
  • toadmantoadman Posts: 39
    I haven't been on the Edmunds board for awhile. So I'm not surprised that the same items are being hashed and re-hashed over and over again. I seriously doubt that any Ranger owner is going to change the mind of any Tacoma owner on this board or any other board to switch sides. The only thing that matters is personal preference.

    There's nothing said on this board that will change my mind about the truck I drive. The only thing that will swing my feelings toward my truck is if it starts crapping out on me and falls apart. I suspect that's true for everyone who participates on this board, regardless of the vehicle they drive.
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Posts: 124
    I have driven both a Ranger and a Tacoma (I own a 2001 Tacoma). I drove my girlfriend's mom's Ranger (I think it is a 2000) just to try it out before I purchased my Tacoma. It was a V6 (I'm not sure what size) and it ran like a 4 cylinder motor. I could not believe how sluggish the engine was. Furthermore, I did not care for the interior looks and was not real impressed with the ride. On a positive note, I will say that she has not had any problems with it so far (I think she now has 24,000 miles or so on it).

    Anyhow, I am objective and have driven both and the Tacoma was the best choice for me.

    Take care and I'll see you in the woods where there are a lot of black flies out now.......Steelman.
This discussion has been closed.