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
"We would characterize the drivetrain, specifically the transmission, as biased for highway performance as well. All 4.0-liter Rangers (and Mazdas, for that matter) ordered without the manual tranny get the first five-speed automatic transmission offer ed for any pickup. Our testers split over the need and/or usefulness of a mileage-biased transmission geared for empty-load flatland running"
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/ptoty.html
"As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won. "
post, you would have KNOWN that it was a 5 year study of 1993 model year vehicles. Now....from my understanding, FORD was NOT making the MAZDA trucks then. MAZDA was!!! LOL!!!!
It was a comprehensive, down and dirty 5 YEAR review!
Ford did not start creating the Mazda pickup until the 94 "model" year, which is effectively 93, BUT JD's survey was using a 93 "Model" year MAZDA, which is essentialy a 92 vehicle.
" Insert Foot in mouth " Cthompson ?
" INdependantly perceived quality" Cspounser??
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! lol!!!!!!!
All you Yahoos! lol!!!!!!!
How about Modntl!!! lol!!!!!
" FOOT IN MOUTH " har har!
" INSERT FOOT IN MOUTH" ??? HAR HAR!!!!!
THANKS FOR THE GREAT POST REdDog, JUSY LIKE I SAID THE FIRST TIME!!
THis has been Spoog....bringing you quality facts straight from the sources, once again duping the Ranger owners!
-wsn
Same problem listed 30+ times in the posts.
READ the posts first. You attempt to degrade by MUMBERS rather than content.
Not a class act spoog.
ALSO the post by reddog was refering to Ford in GENERAL, NOT just the Ranger as you imply.
Realistic, honest posts are valued, garbage just to demean based on missleading numbers reflect on the person who posts.
"You quoted the INITIAL quality survey"
That's why I said in my post the link given was the INITIAL quality survey. I did not claim it was anything else.
Read and understand more carefully.
And here is spoog again with his 2.5 year old article. We picked that one apart. I also notice he once again doesn't let you see the huge price difference in this comparison, nor the severe differences in vehicles used in the test.
WSN, as much as you want, in your mind to feel your Tacoma is safer because its a 4x4 is a joke. Toyota would not make a different body/frame just for a 4x4 truck. Toyota finishes LAST, LAST, LAST in safety.
Spoog, the one who says he owns a 4x4, who likes to use his ground clearence to go over objects in a trucks path, rather than use tires to crawl over them! LOL. Your no 4x4 person spoog, nor do you own a Tacoma of any sort. Your just a wanna be riding the coat tails of other Tacoma owners in the forum.
One thing I do notice is Tacoma owners always talk about the 4x4 aspect of their trucks and the V6 only. Lets put another variable into the picture. How about comparing the 3.0 to the 2.7? or interior space of the king cabs? or how you can order the Ranger in any configuration of motors, cabs, rearends? Choices are nice.
Lets expand this a bit guys, what do you say?
Enjoy the sticker.
http://www.jdpower.com/images/APEAL091599award.gif
http://www.jdpower.com/releases/iqs050599.htm
If you are coming out in June, you could try Medano pass. It drops you off in the Sand Dunes and you could go to the San Juan's from there.
Do not know how you plan your trip, however, if you can spend half a day, it is worth it.
If your interested I can give you detailed directions. Medano will test a Tacoma, that is for sure but it is a great deal of fun.
Cspunser writes:
" LOL!! Thanks for the GREAT post REDDOGS showing the MAZDA(exact same truck as RANGEr) finishing ahead of TAcoma! Independant Perceived Quality! Thanks Spoog, for proving my point"
Thanks Cspousner for once again being wrong, like usual!!! LOL!!!!!
MOdvntl writes:
" LOL! thanks SPoog for pointing out the MAzda/FORD is better than the Ranger lol!!"
hahhahahaha!!!! too bad that year of MAzda was
a MAZDA!!! LMAO!!!!!!
Cthompsons writes :
" Insertr foot in mouth"
Ah...Cthompy's aok in my book.
THAT 1993 MAzda that finished Ahead of the Tacoma in REDdogs reliability Survey was a MAZDA...not a FORD. FORD did not make them until the 94 model year!!!!
Yeeeeeehawwww!!!
what does everyone who ripped into me over that issue have to say now? You were all so eager to jump the gun and slam me , yet you never read the article enough to know it was a MAZDA, not a FORD. LMAO!!!!!!
Ahhh...this is rich man, way too rich.
"...1998 Reliability Study..."
1998
There must have been a typo in the other part. That is EASY to do in HTLM.
Eh, should I say wrong again spoog?
And I know your listening cause you just posted 10 minutes ago. . .
Yes, it is a 1998 study, but the MODEL YEARS OF THE VEHICLES tested were 1993, HENCE a 5 YEAR reliability study!
This also means that 1993 model year was the last year MAZDA actually made their pickup. IN other words, IT IS NOT A FORD< and FORD did not PLACE in the compact pickup segement.
You are wrong Cspounser. You mistakingly slammed me like a baffoon, when it was you who was blatantly wrong.
The lesson is over.
As for the dunes, they deserve some sort of protection, don't they?
"The post from reddog to the JD powers information
clearly states:
"...1998 Reliability Study..."
1998
There must have been a typo in the other part.
That is EASY to do in HTLM.
Eh, should I say wrong again spoog?
And I know your listening "
Go ahead Cspounser, keep digging yourself a deeper hole, keep arguing a matter that you are wrong about, but not smart enough to realize it.
I suggest YOU go back and read his post, and maybe you will FINALLY figure out the vehicles used were 1993 models, and the study ENDED in 98, thus equating a 5 year RELIABILTY study. Doh!
I would look at that study as 4 years of Ford ownership, one year of Mazda ownership. Interesting what influence Ford can have.
Also, one more thing. From the early '80s on Ford had a 25% ownership in Mazda. So the Ford influence was there even in the early Mazda trucks.
Also the period where you are refering to Ford numbers being bad include the Ford Escort which was not a very good vehicle.
And I am not your "...Dude..."
Don't make that mistake again.
Want to reconsider? Read that post above but start when I offer the guy some friendly information and judge for yourself.
Board participants, any comments on that subject?
Please cease and desist with the name calling and repetitive posts which add nothing to this forum.
TIA
"1993 is the last year of independent Mazda you
say?
I would look at that study as 4 years of Ford
ownership, one year of Mazda ownership.
Interesting what influence Ford can have.
Also, one more thing. From the early '80s on Ford
had a 25% ownership in Mazda. So the Ford
influence was there even in the early Mazda trucks.
Also the period where you are refering to Ford
numbers being bad include the Ford Escort which was
not a very good vehicle.
And I am not your "...Dude..."
Don't make that mistake again."
Cspounser, the farmer called. He said he wants you to stop grabbing at all his straw.
"I did not miss anything,just factored in the Ford ownership"
huh? You didnt miss anything? what are you talking about? You claimed that I was wrong about REddodgs post, and you said the MAzda was the exact same as the Ranger. Which it WASNT since the MAzda in the test was a 1993 MAZDA model. lol!
" I didnt miss anything"
LIAR.
HEre is a VERY good example of this.
Earlier, Cspounser blasted me for telling reeddog "good job" on his great post. See, Cspounser hadnt read that the MAZDA in that report was a 1993, the last year before FOrd took over building mazda its pickups. But Cspousner went on and on about how I was wrong, and that the FORD ranked up their with the Toyota pickup.
Even after showing Cspounser the error of his comments, EVEN going so far as to point out they were not 98 models, but 93 models in a 5 year reliability test CONCLUDED in 98, ESSENTIALY proving him wrong in his beleif that it was a rebadged FORD, he STILL has this to say:
"I did not miss anything,just factored in the
Ford ownership"
Ladies and gentleman of the JURY, THIS is why this lame debate has raged on and on and on these past few months. This quote and behaviour of DENIAL and BIAS is EXACTLY the reason why this debate goes around and around. That quote so very eloquently sums up the denial and foolishness in this debate.
SOME people just cant admit when they are wrong, or that another vehicle is superior to another, when all the facts and comparions tests point the way. THIS is the problem. Thank You Cspounser for so very eloquently providing this forum with the very reason it trudges along in insanity.
" GREAT POSTS MAN! THANK YOU!
Oh, you DO know that the MAZDA B series pickup
truck is made at the Edison New Jersey plant that I
think many people ATTEMPTED to trash as having old
obsolete equipment?"
No CSpounser, this is not the truck that was made at the Edison plant. This is a 1993 Mazda truck,
1 year before Ford took over.
"Also the ONLY differences between the Ranger
series and the Mazda series is the
GRILLE
a slightly different
CARGO BOX
and MAYBE some
Chrome trim around the doors or windows
and the
BADGES."
Nope. Maybe NOW, but this test was conducted with 1993 models, 1 year before Ford started making the Mazda trucks. HAd you bothered to read that these were 93 models in a 5 year study being concluded in 1998, you would have known this.
"Same engine, frame, brakes, wheels, tranny,
differential, shocks, springs, steering components,
suspension, radiator. . .etc.
Same independently recognized quality."
lol. Nope. Mazda. the 1993 vehicle in the test was made by Mazda, not by Ford. Ford did not start making the Mazda pickups unitl 94. Perhaps you should check all the facts out before jumping the gun like you are.
"If you do not believe me, I will post numerious
URL's from Four Wheeler, Consumer Reports,
Petersons That state they are identical."
Maybe now, but not in 1993. Had you fully read reddogs JD powers test link, you would have known that it was a 1993 MAZDA, and not a rebadged FORD.
"Just trust me on this one."
Ok, but too bad I just totally proved you wrong. Next time you decide to"think your right", check all the facts befopre jumping the gun.
Oh, you missed ALOT Cspounser, you missed a heck of ALOT dude. Why deny it?
Here is REddogs JD power reliability link :
http://www.jdpower.com/releases/80401car.html
Cspounser "didnt miss anything" ???? lol!!!
The very problem with this debate is crystalized in this post.
Do us a favor?
Take a pill
Tacoma. In the past I tried to be fair here, but that was not to be. Spoog and other have
consistently offered links and proof. It must be denial for the Ranger fans here in this topic and
their relentless distortion of the facts and links.
Now to a positive link for the Tacoma TRD. It tells of a legend and that legend can only be the
Tacoma TRD. No Ranger fans there is no mention of your truck. The Ranger dominates on the
pavement only.
http://www.offroadexchange.com/trdtest.htm
Do us a favor?
Take a pill
http://www.jdpower.com/images/APEAL091599award.gif
now this is funny... that was for the most APPEALING Cars...
a whole lot of technical merit there..
and if i recall the Tacoma was a COMPLETE Re-design..
and anyone who is tired or seeing the 4wheeler review for the thousanth time please raise thier hand.. if you want someone new to read it JUST LINK it...
you are like a 8 year old screaming at the top of his lungs to get attention..
1. Remember your Participants Agreement and the requirement for civil discourse. This precludes name calling, challenges to a persons veracity, and flaming behavior in general. Enough already!
2. You may post quotes from an article, you may not post an entire article.
3. If you make posts that extend "off the screen" as copies from certain web sites will do, they "stretch" the Edmunds window which distorts everything. Such posts will be hidden.
4. Because of size, it's time for me to "break" this topic this weekend. But if y'awl can't be civil, we don't need this topic that much! I can just freeze it and archive it!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
"ok ill admit when i wrong... the ranger and the
mazda were different trucks then... BUT so are the
1993 Toyota Pickup and todays Toyota Tacoma.
and if i recall the Tacoma was a COMPLETE
Re-design.. "
Thank you Scotts for adding some sanity to this discussion. Finally someone with the guts to admit they were wrong, just like I was wrong about the ludicrous 4low-rpm comment.
I agree with you, the Tacoma IS a different vehicle than the 93 Toyota Pickup.
Look at Cspounser. He STILL won't admit he goofed.
He just likes to call names when he is wrong.
"But I see it from a different angle.
Do us a favor?
Take a pill"
Brilliant!
Anyone else here starting to see the pattern ?
Cspounser is wrong about reddogs JD post, so he tries to deflect the issue at hand by talking about the mountains by where he lives and about the government "closing" access to the national forests. Just up and out of the blue he offer sthis topic when he is clearly losing his argument, or in error.
It's so OBVIOUS Cspunser, your like a desperate polititian taking photos with babies and a blank, wide eyed grin before election day.
"If you haven't had an opportunity to drive the new Toyota Tacoma TRD 4x4 yet, you are missing out. The engineers at Toyota have done it again. Any compliant that you might have had with the standard Tacoma has clearly been answered. This truck is awesome. With those Bilstein shocks, the truck flies over dirt roads that the regular Tacoma wants to die on. That locking rear diff really comes in handy for tackling those tougher trails, which you'll be looking for once you feel the way this truck handles.
If there has to be one compliant, and there always has to be one compliant, it's that the rear springs allow a little too much rear wheel hop for my tastes. The rear springs just allow too much wind-up of the rear axle. With 190 Horsepower under your foot, there's just too much hopping and slipping. And the standard 31x10.5R15 Goodyear Wrangler GSA tires just don't hold when you need them to. The optional supercharger would be a waste on any truck that wasn't going to be towing the max all the time. And the front mud flaps don't stick out far enough too prevent hosing the sides of the truck down. Well, I guess there are really three things to gripe about, not that I'm really gripping.
Now that that's out of the way, let me tell you why I fell in love with this truck. The interior of the truck is quite roomy for a compact truck, of course I wouldn't want to have to sit in the rear jumps seat for very long. The TRD has great road manners too. Going down the highway at just over legal speeds is no problem in this truck. Those mountain roads leading to your favorite trail seem a lot easier as well. We drove the TRD into some pretty tight corners and were amazed at how well it stuck. However, there is a noticeable amount of understeer, which is to be expected from a vehicle with a tail this light. The Goodyears seemed quite well suited for this type of use.
On the trail the TRD handled even better, sucking up bumps and dips like I had never felt before. This suspension is truly in it's element out on the trail. We were going at least 10 mph faster in the TRD than when we were in the standard Tacoma and it felt twice as comfortable doing it. On a few of the hairier trails when a tire would lift, the TRD never felt unstable. We had the right rear tire three feet in the air and you couldn't feel it from the drivers seat. That locking rear diff really helps keep your forward momentum going as well. On the three occasions that we got a rear tire in the air, the locker kept us moving safely along.
If any company was going to build a vehicle this cool, you knew it was going to be Toyota. For years older Toyotas have been a real force in offroading and now there is a new kid on the block that anyone can go down to their dealer and buy. If you are new to offroading and need to have a pick-up, the TRD is for you."
Difficult to deal with spoog plus the comments are directed a BIT too personal.
I have proved my point, been there, done that, have the tee shirt and pictures to prove it.
Spoog? a 2 year old article and rehash of TSB's which he does not even understand the meaning of a TSB.
At least hindsite and reddog post some new stuff once and a while.
But not spoog. . .
The reason I am difficult to deal with Cspounser is because from DAY 1 I have provided LINK AFTER link and FACT after FACT CLEARLY elevating the Taomca ABOVE the Ranger in terms of EVERY single performance cateogry, offroading, resale value, and reliability.
That is why you have sucj a hard time dealing with me.
Look people....you claim the 98 4wheeler review to be "old", yet the models featured in that comparison test are EXACTLY the same as the 2000 models!!!!
The best thing that can be offered to a "versus" forum is a comparison test. I have provided TWO sources for that, 4hweeler.com( which favored the Tacoma unanimously) and Petersons offroad (print, which also chose the tacoma over the Ranger).
Now what is your problem with these sources? Both of them chose the Tacoma, 4wheeler did so UNANIMOUSLY, even when the regualr cab Ranger had the advantage in weight and wheelbase.
I have offered reliabilty PROOF and performance PROOF and offroad PROOF time and time again. It is solidly set in stone. The rpoblem with this forum is the DENIAL with which SOME of the Ranger owners seem to be in.
And Cspounser STILL will not admit he was wrong about the MAzd/Ford fiasco in Reddogs JD powers post. He just DENIES it. Once again, the main problem with this forum.
It's no surprise he is claimg to "freeze" the site after coming off an embarrasing error in Reddogs Jd post.
When many people are losing arguments, or games, or elections, they often wish the power would go out because they know they are losing or have lost the battle.
But mostly you grandstand for other peoples posted URLS.
BTW I never said from your post:
"LOL. There are no plans of turning the White River NAtional Forest into a National Park.
As for the dunes, they deserve some sort of
protection, don't they?"
The dunes are protected. The proposal is to take and almost double the area and restrict access. That includes many miles of 4 wheel drive roads, prime hunting area and prime wildlife are where the only access is to walk in for 5-10 miles.
As for the White River, same story, limited access.
Thought you might be interested as you state, at least, you like the outdoors.
But no, rather than just say "Thanks for the tips" you go off on tangent in a very caustic manner, showing you lack of age and class.
No meredith, time to shut this one down. Adnausium reposts of old articles and TSB's serve no more of a purpose.
2nd... 4wheeler magazine IS Full of TACOMA ads (including the back cover.. most expensive space) and very few ranger ads..
that and all the GLARING mistakes in the article tend to dicredit the article all together..
dont know about the peterson article bc i havnt seen it..