Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII
Lets keep this one going for a while, shall we? No more government subsidized apartment talk, please
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
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.
saddaddy--->Looks alright to me however...
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.
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!!!)
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.
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.
"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?
You are correct Stang, it has begun!
ford!=unemployment.
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.
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...
steelman- nonetheless, whatcha wanna debate? i'm all ears......
any help is appreciated!
thank
kip
Oh yeah, 138,000 miles and 1993 model.
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.
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.
Scorpio: You have a v6 in a 2002 Std. cab???
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
We met up with these guys later in the day when we went to play on the rocks. Lets put it this way....couple of Tacos made it up the most difficult rock slide, I think 1 ZR2 made it also. The Ranger took another way up.
From there we just continued down the riverbed with 1 Jeep and 1 pre-Tacoma (old Toy pickup) with us.
So, it turned out to be a big Toyota run, we kept mostly to ourselves.
No carnage that I've heard of, except 1 punctured tire on a Jeep, 1 blown tire on the pre-Taco, and a small dent with scratched paint that I got on drivers side, right by the taillight. I scratched it coming through a pass, which was surprising, I thought I was going to dent in the whole drivers side, the angle was pretty extreme.
-don't you mean apostrophe??
It's funny how JD Powers used car vehicle choices, which looks at 1996 model vehicles, choose Tacoma AND Ranger as 2 of the 3 for compact Pickup. Also a 4Runner and an Explorer for SUV. Everyone (who doesn't own a Ford) thinks they are quality-less junk. But how come the Truck and SUV fleet is #1?
But just like some people's beloved off-road magazine reviews and editorials, it only becomes true gospel if you felt that way before being exposed to it. We are all awash with opinions, and they all must be valid and true, right? I mean Right!
Maybe it all depends on how you define quality. Like a 9 year old vehicle with over 135,000 miles, still getting sticker gas milage, with only a scant pittance of maintenance cost? I "got what I paid for" and more! I'm glad I bought a Ranger instead of a Taco. Have fun, and let us see how your truck holds up in the future...
Honestly, for every satisfied Ford customer like yourself, there seems to be a disgruntled one regretting his purchase due to quality issues. Recently, Ford has been recognized as Detroit's poorest quality/problem laiden manufacturer. I guess things like recalling 1.8 million Ford trucks and SUVs due to faulty lug nuts causing catastrophic wheel separation don't do much to bolster Ford's "Quality is job #1" slogan, now does it? Or how about the whole Explorer roll-over, Firestone tire fiasco?
You know, stang, it's all a big conspiracy against Ford - all these quality/satisfaction/resale value/4x4 reviews that consistently rank Toyota higher than Ford. How does one enlighten a conspiracy theorist like yourself with the truth? In your world, all the facts in Toyota's favor are just part of the conspiracy...
really guys, do you actually believe everything you see on tv? right now, ford is an easy target for the media. do you really rank their vehicles behind the other two american companies? that had to be the bonehead post of the week, and its only monday.
cnn says this.......so it must be true!!!wee hee
Except, not only do I own one, driven one of a fleet of at least 15 Rangers at a previous occupation, and have known peers with early to late 90's Rangers, my base to judge such vehicles grows far beyond the scope of one vehicle.
I am simply laughing at others attempts to deny or misrepresent the quality and dependability of a Ranger.
I will concede that if you purchase a Tacoma, you are likely to have more trouble free miles with their long-lasting drive train.
I will also concede that I still believe a Ranger is a more cost effective purchase, given it's proven longevity, long list of standard options, and overall value (AKA bang for buck).
Heck, I'd probably buy a Tacoma if the seats were more comfortable, the cabin a bit larger, my head didn't barely touch the ceiling, or my legs feel so cramped against the no frills interior. I also want a V6 in a regular cab.
Call me Picky, or a conspiracy nut, which ever you prefer, but I prefer 40 extra bucks a month and a Ranger in my driveway. Sorry if that offends ya'll...
I guess the grass is always greener on your own side of the fence...
Allknowing--->I'm glad you think and said so! It goes without saying that it's easy to misunderstand each other based on ASCII text, but thank you for saying that.
And Dear Pluto--->It's 1.7 million recalled vehicles, of which not 100% were affected. Only 98 of these vehicles had any wheel separation accidents(0.0057%), of which who knows how many were attributed to the lug nuts. ZERO fatalities. It is still an error and should have been avoided, but not all were affected and Ford did the right thing by having it fixed at their expense.
Take 6 million Explorers, half with Firestones, half with Goodyear. (Figures are not approximations, they are extremely close estimates). 1183 Tire tread separations claims on Explorers with Firestones. 2 Tire tread separations claims on Explorers with Goodyears.
So it's all the Explorer's Fault, and thus Ford?
It is worthwhile to note Ford paid 3 BILLION DOLLARS to clean up the Firestone mess. Once again, Ford paid out big time for it's customers. The Firestone plant that was under investigation is no longer operating. Hmmm. Do the math.
http:// www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/keepup/b04-383927.htm
Stang, in all honesty, you think Ford is great because they spent $3 billion cleaning up their Firestone tire fiasco? Did they really have a choice? Had they not fixed the problem, it would have been like committing business/sales suicide!
http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/keepup/b04-383927.htm
Once again, you cannot dispute hard facts! I'm glad I bought a Taco..........Steelman.
"In J.D. Power's study of new vehicle initial quality, Toyota finished first once again among multi-brand automakers, followed by Honda and Nissan. GM came in a close fourth while Chrysler and Ford finished fifth and seventh, respectively."
You know, this is just adding fuel to stang's conspiracy theory...
Stang, just curious...how come Ford's awesome quality control didn't catch those Explorers' slashed tires immediately? Why did so many vehicles make it through the assembly line before - TA DAA!!! QUALITY CONTROL DISCOVERED THE SLASHED TIRES - that it cost $3 billion to fix the tires?
Does Ford even HAVE quality control?
It was a bad situation, but the suppliers fault(Firestone). Would you think better of Ford, if Ford entered a legal blame game with Bridgstone/firestone to see who would pick up the tab, while the customers kept on driving?
Pluto--->Since you asked that exact same question before, I'll reply to that after I look up my old response in the previous forum(with the hyphen. ) That way I can just cut and paste it again, so you can bring it up again, in say, 2 or 3 months? Why don't you bring up the exploding Pinto's and the early mustangs that would spill fuel if rear ended, again? This is very repetitious, sort of like a broken record.
Steelman--->Yep, overall Toyota's definately do have less problems than Fords. However I do think the report is a bit broad, going off the makes alone . But I think we all know that the truck segment is a little closer than that report represents.
(Pluto Translation: Toyota Great, Ford not as great. Report very general. Ford truck better than Ford car. Toyota truck and Ford truck great competition. Many battle, Totanka!)
Also, what the heck does this mean?
"Steelman--->That's a true overall idea of quality. However I think we all know that the truck segment is a little closer than that report represents. Besides that is going off nameplate alone... "
Translation, please?
"Steelman--->That's a true overall idea of quality. However I think we all know that the truck segment is a little closer than that report represents. Besides that is going off nameplate alone... "
Yup, that's the kind of English I've heard in Texas...
Going back to that little slashed tire/quality control question. I know HOW it happened: newer Explorers being wider than the older ones but assembled on the same line which caused protruding equipment to slash the tires.
My question to you is WHY weren't the slashed tired noticed IMMEDIATELY? If something as obvious as slashed tires eludes Ford's quality control, doesn't that make you wonder what OTHER problems are buried in their products?
http://www.autooninfo.net/AutoonInfo/PickupRIVs.htm
That's just the truck page, but go ahead and research all you want on this site.
"Warning: New Toyota pickups sold in the U.S. are manufactured in North America with parts many of which are sourced in North America and consequently may be unsuitable for a consumer with made in Japan Toyota experiences."
Wait, I thought tbunder said it was made in Japan!
Bottom line is this.....Ranger fans will discredit every media source that the opposition will provide.
Specialized magazines will be discredited for running Toyota ads.
General-purpose magazines will be discredited on the basis of "What do they know about trucks, and why should I listen to them?".
Other sources will be discredited based on "Who are these guys?". (and I do agree with this somewhat)
I've said it before..the only way a comparison like this can be done is to have a long-term test, like 10 years, of both trucks, work them the same way, and see who dies first or goes to a mechanic more.
I'm waiting...