By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Do those rear wheel torque figures also somehow improve the tacoma's safety in a crash?
"Rouche(aka lasts 4 years tops)" If you can't even spell Roush, I'm pretty sure you don't even know what it is. Here's a link if you actually want to know.
http://www.roushracing.com/performance/99f1504x4.html
"Ford and Chevy(especially Chevy ) are known for
"junking" up their vehicles with all kinds of
uselss garbage and decals."
So stuff like superchargers, bilstein shocks, and larger tires (like the stage 2 roush f150 4x4) are "junking" up a vehicle. Oh wait! That sounds exactly like YOUR truck. So, did Toyota/TRD "junk" up your truck too?
"Just like Cspounser's defects. Doesn't Cspounser
already have a defective window and wipers? Chalk that one up the the NHSTA DEFECT INVESTIGATION stat file.
Well, I have NO defect in my windows, the wiper switch was replace when I got a service as was the door switch. But one of these days spoog you will
RESPOND
to my NHSTA DEFECT comments regarding Tacoma. Like the
LOCK UP OF THE TRANSFER CASE THAT RESULTED IN INJURY
THE FACT THAT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THE NHSTA DEFECTS REPORTED FOR TACOMA RESULTED IN INJURY as compared to Ranger defects
AND
The FACTS just presented to you in # 739 that the FOUR WHEELER REVIEW USED AN AUTOMATIC NON-OFFROAD EQUIPED RANGER WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN LOWER TORQUE AND HP VALUES. YOU CANNOT EXPECT A 3.73 REAREND TO GET THE SAME TORQUE VALUES AS A 4.10.
And I for one would think that, if you ever wanted to a test to be fair, you too would want to see the results of a 4.0L 4.10 rearended 5 speed Ranger.
What are you afraid of?
I will ASK you to not make assumptions on what has and has not been a defect on my vehicle, ok? Most often you have been in error.
Notice I did not say you lied?
What is Four Wheeler afraid of? That a Ranger would wax a Tacoma so they picked a Ranger configuration that was sure to lose? Kinda sounds like they were perhaps paid more by Toyota than Ford that month. . .
Because I think the outcome would have been very close if a manual tranny 4.10 rear end Ranger had been used in their test.
Hind, you paid too much. just grab your ankles and take it like a man.
TRD is a sales gimmick and it seems to have worked on a certain few. Like I said, TRD comes with options most will use only %2 of the time they drive their vehicle.
I wonder how many TRD's actually see more than just gravel roads? Who would take a 23K truck into areas the locker may actually be used? OH yeah, keep it under 5mph too! LOL.
Well not bashing the TRD Sticker or the Tacoma lasted a long time! So much for being a "Man of your Word"...
The torque issues seems kind of rediculous. Were taking sides over 5 ft/lbs and a couple rpms? I'de say the two are just about equal...
CP
Ranger? Honest? What do you think of the latest Edmunds long term? Seems the Ranger is having drivetrain problems again. I'm not bashing the truck, but those "Clunking Sounds" wouls scare me if i had one that did it....
My .02
-wsn
you do not GET it YOUR way!
I/Edmunds has had complaints about "off topic" and personal attacks in this topic. When this happens, I just go through and clean house. If I consider it questionable or out of line, it's gone. The judgement of the host is final.
I don't have a dog in this fight. But I WILL clean out the dog house. When it's deleted, it's GONE. Period.
"That government governs best which governs least." The same thing applies to hosting. Minimal intervention is preferable. However, my personal philosophy is, if you HAVE to intervene, it's "Kill'em all, let...." you know the rest of the quotation.
Let's keep it civil in here!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
Edmunds tore apart the RAnger in its last post. I find this kind of interesting. Read back and you will see how they praised the same characteristics that they now rip apart. Also, they tried to stuff a guy 6' tall into the back seat??!! what?? come on, on any compact truck the back seats will be uncomfortable for anyone over 5' or so!
And if you read on WSN you will see the clunking is gone. They lubed the yoke.
I agree with vince on the Ranger long term. The November comments seemed rather out of character from the last few months. Yes, there had been some previous comments regarding what was percieved as drive train noise but there was also a lot of praise in the previous posts.
Not to upset our California posters but the attitude of some of the Edmunds "so called testers" from November should get a dose of reality regarding trucks. To try to explain in a Californian's terms:
Like ya know dude, like, the like, comments from the, like school girls that like, thought the truck was, like ikkey and like SOOOO un kewl!
Give me a break, it is a TRUCK for God sake.
Edmunds, that was a pitiful November review on the long term Ranger.
In regard to my experiences, I have NEVER had the clunk referd to. And I have the manual, NOT automatic so their comments do not apply.
WSN
Come back at 100K? Well, I am almost 1/4 of the way there. . . But a good thought to be sure I will be there!
For or about Toyota IFS but since Ford is very simular may work for Fords too:
http://www.off-road.com/toyota/tech/torsion/
My assumptiuon is that this is you. I did not make the 100k comment, but will report back in 100k. I now have about 19k and still no problems...
My comments on the Ranger review were not to point out "Bad Things" about the Ranger, they were to show that Edmunds talks out both sides of their mouthes, when it comes to reviews, in my opinion. They have choosen to "Bash" and "praise the Ranger for the same things. As they always "Bash" the Tacoma for it's price and back seat as well. They are both compact Ecab trucks, not Buicks. Rear seat space comparisons should be compared to other Compact Trucks. They are not for 6' people. They were originally for "Extra" stuff. Most of the first offerings in this line didn't even have seats in them. As for Toyota's and Price. Edmunds is famous for bashing Toyota for cost, but Edmunds always seems to review the Limited models. Most folks i know are not driving Limted Tacomas. If were gonna compare the Ranger and the Tacoma, maybe Edmunds should compare an SR5 4x4 to their long term Ranger.
My point is this:
Compare like models, And don't compare the rear seat of an Excab Compact Pickup to that of a Car.
Hey edmunds i think the hauling ability of the Long Term Miata stinks compared to the Ranger and Tacoma. Get a Grip!
My .02
-wsn
PS Vince i did read on about the Yoke, What is your reply to your "Sticker" comment?
The Lunar Mist (Gray) looks great (First 4x4 xcab in that color I have seen). I like it better than I thought I would.
That's 3 of us that work together that have bought one in the last year. That ought to tell you something.
Not to be mean but.. that sounds alot like the way high school kids think.. Gotta get the same thing as the freinds so i can fit in..
just an observation.. not intended to offend.
I was just laughing at the comment about the person with a Toyota about stickers wsn. He was claiming Ford had tones of stickers on their trucks. Well, I guess he has never seen the TRD stickers, or the Prerunner stickers.
Well, cruiser, 4 guys I know bought Rangers in the last 3 years, whats the point?
I really think Edmunds stuck their foot in their mouth with that last long term review of the Ranger. They contradict themselves over and over again.
I dont think that I will ever buy a ford again, the only reason I say that is because of my experience only. every one has had a good truck or car that they have loved wether it be a toyota, ford, or hyundai. The bottom line is any truck is good as long as it runs and does what it is supposed to.
sredman,
If those comments were not intended to offend then what possible purpose could they have served?
vince,
I may be wrong but the Prerunner does not have any stickers
I'm 37 yrs. old with 2 kids. My money is a little too tight to be buying something just because someone else has one. I don't play that way. And vince, before you start with your ranger being cheaper so if my money is tight why did I pay more for a Tacoma ranting, I paid a little more for what "I" think is a better more reliable truck due to my previous purchases of Ford, Chevy, and Toyota.
Matter of fact, I was the one recommended my 2 co-workers check the Toyota out before they bought. (both were looking at Rangers). They both made their own decisions to by Toyota.
I have nothing against you Ranger owners or a Ranger. It would be my second choice. I personally like the Tacoma better.
I'll tell Larry and Curley you said hey.
"Because I think the outcome would have been very
close if a manual tranny 4.10 rear end Ranger had
been used in their test. "
"Very Close" ? Would the 4.10 rear end have helped the Ranger from " whoopty-dooing" and "dragging" over the bumps? I think not.
4wheelers MAIN complaint with the Ranger offroad was its very poor offroad suspension, not to mention its lack of any real offroad features.
You say the Ranger was not "offroad equipped". Interesting seeing as how Ford does not offer any "offroad equipment" for the Ranger.
on the flipside, Toyota engineers their pickups for offroading AND offers STOCK offroad features that other manufacturers simply don't.
It's FORDS fault that they dont offer the great options toyota does, not 4wheelers.
Clutch start cancel switch, REAL locking diff, heavy duty brakes, rack and pinion steering, offroad tuned "hide-away" suspension, standard front, rear, and fuel tank skif plates, higher engine intake, 6 lug nut wheel bolts (opposed to the Ranger 5 bolts), offroad tuned shocks, offroad stabilizer bar, higher standard ground clearance, better crawl ratio, better gearing,
Higher standard payload(3/4 ton rating), higher standard towing, and on and on and on. These are features that make a truck, NOT air conditioning and power windows and "map lights".
Like 4wheeler.com said,
" The Tacoma beat the Ranger in EVERY single performance related category".
" The Ranger sacrifices offroad handling with its car orientated suspension".
My posts have always offered solid, solid statistical truths and I have always backed up my comments with PROOF, but yes the structuring and other apsects have been weak.
There are some good reasons for that.
Also, for such a tough truck why does the Tacoma finish LAST in the crash test of all compact trucks? And you constantly seem to forget the price difference of about 4K!, along with the limited use of the locker, 5mph was it?
Cluctch start is only good for 5spds, Your air intake is about 1/4" higher and this is due mostly to the larger tires Toyota uses 31" and 265's. Many of these features such as skidplate are available for Ranger at a low cost that still would not come close to the Tacoma price. I am glad you put the word "standard" in because the RAnger matches the TAcoma in every aspect of towing or hauling when properly equipped. And even when properly equipped still comes in at a much lower PRICE.
You and MMC constantly put Ford down for making so many Rangers. Why are you putting a company down for being able to meet the consumers needs at a FAIR PRICE with a Quality truck?
The Ranger also offers more flexibility when options are concerned. You can order any Ranger with any engine, tranny, rearend, whatever you NEED. Can Toyota do that? NOOOO.
And MMC sides with a person who knows nothing about offroading. Spoog, the guy who likes to go over objects in his path rather than use his tires to crawl over them, or claims the 2.7 has 155 HP? and is more powerful than the Ford 3.0
LOL!
It's time for you to give it up. You have NEVER offered anything to this group other than heresay and myth spouting.
"I suggest you take a little look at
the Edmunds long term test review of the Ranger
thay have. Their experiences with defective,
sloppy production eloquently back up my NHSTA
statistics."
"Your" NHSTA statistics somehow explain that per Edmunds the ranger has a truck-like ride, has a small extended cab which won't fit 6-footers, and has stuff (an armrest) that will break off when you apply enough pressure to it?
Well, could this be because it's a compact truck? It's not made to ride like a car or carry 4 large passengers like a family sedan. And the armrest broke itself off too? Yeah right. This long-term test only goes to show that car people don't like trucks. They'll opt for an SUV, which is essentially a disguised minivan, over any truck. To each his own.
Also, the pathetic review performed in your coveted article is worthless. How can you compare two differently optioned trucks in a comparison test? Who do you think pays these guy's salaries?
The only reliable and unbiased (at least to the point of evaluating their own vehicle) resource is the actual owner. Why don't you take a look a look at J.D. Power & Associates? They survey the actual vehicle owners to see how they like their vehicle. Consumer Reports can also be a good source of information. They are unbiased, as they derive no income from auto manufacturers.
Another thing. Although Vince may be a bit grating at times, he uses facts (at the least vast majority of times) to back up his opinions. A single, biased, contradictory, two-year-old, magazine article is NOT a reliable source of information.
At least Cspounser has offered URLs and other data to counterpoint at least some of what has been said here.
You have offered ZERO sources. The 4wheeler comparison test is an EXTRMELEY relevant test because both vehicles are the same now as when tested. It is an EXCELLENT source, as well as the June 99 issue of Petersons OFFROAD where the Tacoma ONCE again was chosen over the Ranger in a head to head comparison test.
See, this forum is titled " Tacoma verse Ranger".
Comparison tests that use exemplary testing methods comparing the Ranger verse Tacoma are welcome here, if you couldn't already tell by the header. 4wheeler ACTUALLY tears down the vehicles and tortures individual parts.
I suggest you read their testing methods. Truly a class act.
Bringing TRUCKS out onto the trails for a few weeks is the BEST test I can think of to see if a truck is rugged enough.
You can quote all the "Johnny-goes-grocery-shopping-the groceries-fit-nicely-in-the-backseat-Cindy-likes-the-passenger-side-vanity-mirror" reviews you want, but it's a good thing 4wheeler still beleives in testing trucks like TRUCKS.
The same applies to PETERSONS JUNE 99 offroad issue where the Tacoma is chosen YET AGAIN over the Ranger in a head to head comparison test.
Spoog, you and I have been going head to head for months now. I have listed many links that you refuse to go to. You keep claiming the Ranger can't offroad. Thats funny, I had mine burried in over a foot of snow yesterday!!! on MT Hood and I was doing fine.
And I like the way you continually leave out the huge price differences in your reviews. Along with the crash tests, the 5mph limit on the locker. The Ground clearence is a joke, this comes from the 31" tires Toyota puts on their trucks. Even my friend who owns a TRD doesn't know where your coming up with these numbers? His truck side by side with mine has maybe a 1/4" adavantge. Granted I have 265's on.
And you never acknowledged the guy who's seats were falling apart? why? or the guys Tacoma that slipped out of park? why?
Fact is the Ranger can go anywhere a Tacoma can go and for less cash out of your pocket, this you can't handle.
Ranger Tacoma
Payload 1,660lbs 2,069lbs
Towing 6,060lbs 5,000lbs
These are from carpoint (who gets the specs from the manufacturers). The tacoma has a higher payload rating probably due to its stiffer shocks and springs in its suspension. The ranger has a higher towing rating probably due to its higher torque at lower rpm engine. But, keep in mind that these are manufacturer ratings, which are guidelines to help you not damage your truck. I've never seen or heard of an actual third party test to determine these ratings. Ford or Toyota might be exaggeratory or conservative in their ratings, or they might have different methods for determining them.
Example: For ground clearance, Ford measures from the lowest point of the vehicle to the ground. Toyota measures from the rear axle to the ground, although the front axle is about 2" lower to the ground.
"You can quote all the "Johnny-goes-grocery shopping-the groceries-fit-nicely-in-the-backseat-Cindy-likes-the-passenger-side-vanity-mirror"
reviews you want"
Uh, I don't. I think reviews are useless (to a point). I rarely have seen one that is unbiased and realistic. You, on the other hand, think that they're gospel.
Another thing, why can you never answer my questions? I posted a question on the board 5 or 6 times with no response, while you were posting your magazine article over and over and over again.
Here's another question for you, which I've asked previously. Do you think that bilstein shocks, larger tires, and a supercharger is "junking" up a truck? You stated that it was when talking about Roush, but this sounds remarkably like your truck. I was just wondering your thoughts on this.
Finally, I provide facts (manufacturer's ratings, unbiased third party ratings like J.D. Power & Associates, and personal experience). You keep posting about some old magazine article review. Have you wondered why no other tacoma guys talk about it? Well, they know that it's useless.
Vince writes:
the Ranger can tow, or haul as much as the
Tacoma when properly equipped. And the crash test
was done by Dateline, Tacoma finished LAST
"
The crash testing was done by the NHSTA. The very site you denounce for its incredible stats and knowledge of defects, recalls and other quality and safety issues.
And the Tacoma finished last in side impact crashes ata acertain angle at a certain speed. It's other areas were as good as the others.
"Finally, I provide facts (manufacturer's ratings,
unbiased third party ratings like J.D. Power &
Associates, and personal experience)."
JD power and associates phones new car purchaser three months after their purchase and asks them questions. 3 months.
You can't tell a darn thing in 3 months. They are "INITIAL quality surveys" that dont go beyone the length of a year.
You are grapsing for straws here Cthompson. Posting manufacturers ratings?
" You keep
posting about some old magazine article review. "
ITs not old, and it is completely rellevant.
Like I have said before, if it is too old for you, just check out the June 1999 issue of Petersons offraod magazine where the Tacoma is picked YET again over the Range rin a head to head trail romp.
"Have you wondered why no other tacoma guys talk
about it? Well, they know that it's useless"
Not really. A couple of people have purchased their Tacomas with the help of that awesome 4wheeler test. I mean, come on Cthompson, it's the most comprehensive test we have for the Ranger vs. Tacoma. They actually take stuff apart, take pictures of parts, explain their advantages, ect ect. The section of photos detailing the Rangers highway only tuned suspension is worth a thouhsand words.
I mean, you can just SEE the difference in design philosophy when looking at those photos, and especialy when in person looking ynder the Tacoma.
Yes, the 4wheeler comparison is from 98, but the Tacoma and Ranger are still the same vehicles as from that test. And if it is to old for you, again, check out the june 1999 issue of Petersons offroad where the Tacoma is YET AGAIN chosen over the Ranger in a real head to head comparison.
I suggest you take a look at how JD associates get their data..........your talking basically about telemarketing.....is that how you review a 4x4? Or do you REVIEW a 4x4 by taking it out and beating it up out on the trails for a few weeks?
I think EVERYONE in here knows the answer to that question.
"Fact is the Ranger can go anywhere a Tacoma can go
and for less cash out of your pocket, this you
can't handle."
Sory, not going to happen. A ranger will NOT be able to go where a Tacoma TRD with factory locker will go. It is just as simple as that. 4whheelr, Petersons offraod, and even that lame carpoint review know AND say the Tacoma is a cut above other 4x4's. The Tacomas offroad suspension is SO superior to the Rangers that 4wheeler even had to say " The Rangers highway supsension sacrifices offroad performance", " the Tacoma is one of the strongest 4x4's we have ever tested, taking the hills on with the aplomb of Ivan Stewart. We have never driven a 4x4 quite like it"
" The Tacoma offers features the others simply dont, and they all work well, in all evnvironments. That is why the Tacoma is our UNANIMOUS decision 4x4 of the Year over the Ranger"
As for the ground clearance, Toyota 4x4's ALWAYS lead their respective class. Sorry pal, but your looking at least at an inch of differnece between a Tacoma and Ranger with the same tires.
As for your "sources" ( quoting unproven problems from made up people), please go to the Chevy vs Ford group with tta kind of thing. It simply is not going to fly here.
all the reviews, all the comparison point to the absolute superiority of the Tacomas offroad ability. I suggest you re-read them.
PLEASE try to deal in fact here. These things have been proven, just like the Tacomas poor side crash test results have been proven.
You can't have it both ways Vince.
The only thing being denounced is your understanding of what these facts and figures represent. Do you understand what a TSB is?
Take a look at the NHSTA ratings for compact trucks over the last few years. Would you want to be hit in a vehicle with the ratings that the toyota has received?
http://www.autopedia.com/html/NHTSA/NHTSA_NCAPtrucks.html
Just look at the past five years or so. It is terribly inconsistent, sometimes 3-4 stars then 1 star in frontal ratings. It has always been rated at 1 star for side impacts each year of testing.
If someone runs a red light, do you somehow have the power to stop time and turn your truck 90% to not get t-boned?
I ACCEPT that the Tacoma has side crash issues. this has been clearly proven.
The same can be said for the Tacomas reliability, and offroad prowess, which IS proven by data from the NHSTA and 4wheeler, Petersons, and every other Tacoma review.
Things will NEVER be resolved here until you and Vince start ACCEPTING what has been PROVEN over and over and over again.
Just like I have accepted the crash data, you and VInce should accept the proven reliability data
from the NHSTA proving the Tacomas superior reliability, lack of defects, and saftey recalls.
how can you and Vince quote from the NHSTA on the crash data, yet denounce their other data concerning Ranger defect and recall issues?
It is SIMPLY laughable.
How can you denounce the exemplary testing techniques of a proven truck magazine, offering excellent head-to-head comparison data?
You see, I REALIZE and ACCEPT the crash data for the Tacoma. But I also REALIZE and accept that due to engineering and other aspects, the Tacoma is a more reliable defect free vehicle, and an inherently better offroader. This has been proven again and again, NO differently than the NHSTA crash test data was proven.
Is anyone else here getting tired of dealing with people who cant see over their own blind agenda?
I do too, but you don't understand them. There's much more to be had than just raw data.
"4wheeler, Petersons, and every other
Tacoma review"
These are OPINIONS.
"How can you denounce the exemplary testing
techniques of a proven truck magazine, offering
excellent head-to-head comparison data?"
Exemplary, excellent??? Ha! How can you do a head-to-head comparison with two dissimilar trucks? They can't even get the specs right in their own article. And they are supposed to be some sort of experts???
"Is anyone else here getting tired of dealing with
people who cant see over their own blind agenda?"
Speaking of blind. Do you somehow not see the question(s) that I have posted for you? Well, I can tell you why you won't answer them. It is because you'd have to admit that you were WRONG.
Oh, I get $$$ from Ford for posting that I like my truck on this message board.
I have to say that these trucks will never compete
with toyota for fit and finish,build quality,and
just design in general.Even the guy's that drive them say they are scrap!....just thought i would
share that with ya.
Fact is spoog, I paid over 4K less for my Ranger in 1998. It now has almost 25K hard miles on it. I use it as a 4x4 in the Cascade Mtns of the Northwest. And yes, it gets me where I want to go, hauls what I need, tows what I want.
For those wanting to pay more for a perceived advantage of some sort, more power to them.
I quote facts spoog, have been for months. I am tired of listing site after site to dispute you and you just slough it off.
1" of clearance difference with a 4x4 Ranger and a Tacoma side by side with the same tire size? Nope, done that, maybe 1/4" I'll give you that much.
And I notice Toyota fans don't like to talk the dirty word, Head Gasket. Yep, still a problem, search the net!!LOL
And for Y2KTRD, the cities in my area use Rangers! Wonder why? Can you say value, dependability, reliability, less upkeep and inexpensive to repair! Straight from an administrator.
Toyota has lost its value it had in the 80's and 70's. They used to sell a fantastic quality vehicle at a much lower cost than any domestic. When Toyota Tacoma even reaches into the top 20 for car and truck sales this will mean somthing. By the way the Ranger is number 7 in OVERALL car and truck sales! Sales do matter, that is what makes the money.
please continue these discussions in Topic 1469 Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - IV.
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host