Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - V

cpousnr

Think you missed my point.

The bottom end Tacoma 4X4, as measured by me, has a ground clearance of about 6.5 inches. The bottom end Ranger has 7.4 inches by the book. Mine is measured at just under 10 inches minimum clearance at the differential. Also add to my comments, if you match the automatic with the 3.4 engine, that vehicle would be at a serious disadvantage against my Ranger 5 speed manual.

I was not talking about the TRD version with a manual transmission.

It is not a case of what I THINK my Ranger can do, it is the facts of what I KNOW my Ranger has done.

I am just being honest when I say that the only Tacoma's I have seen where I have been are parked at the bottom of the trail with an ATV trailer attached. I have met the owners on thier ATV's up the trails.

Rigged is not the word I would use for the test. I do not discount the Peterson or the Four Wheeler reviews at face value however, I do submit that the information in the Four Wheeler article did not discribe my Ranger's capabilities. And there are better equipped Ranges than mine(I speak of one having a 4.10 differential). But that was my CHOICE. I had a better selection to CHOOSE from in the Ranger line as compared to the Tacoma.

You speak of suspension. You do realize that BOTH trucks have an Independent Front Suspension, not rated as the best for off-road. Ranger uses Torsion Bars, Tacoma springs on the front. Now rear suspension there is a bit of an edge on Tacoma with the stock progressive springs. However, all they do is level the load in the back so you do not sag down.

Also, you DO realize that the Bilestein shocks on the Tacoma are NOT the one's you would get from a 4X4 store as aftermarket? They are made for Toyota and are SMALLER than the ones sold aftermarket. I will look for the article where I found that info. The pictures I was showed a Toyota logo on the shocks.

spoog

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

YOu claim to be an avid offroader. Well, you bought the wrong truck.

Anyone else notice a pattern here? Cspounser buys the cheap land with no trees on it, and then turns around and buys the cheaper truck........

Why not get the best compact truck, and the cheap land, or the best land and the cheapest truck?

Things are what they are Cspounser. You can't "pretend" these things are something they are not. Thats exaclty what your doing with your Ranger.

joetrinkley1

Tacoma is better no ifs ands or buts, why would you even attempt to say it's not? a ford!! hehe

joetrinkley1

a ford!

xena1a

Spoog -

I was dismayed at your comment about Cpousnr's property. It was not only unwarranted, but mean spirited as well. As a fellow property owner in the same area, I can attest to the fact that there is nothing "cheap" about his land. To refer to it in that manner is uncalled for. To "dis" the man for his choice in trucks is one thing. However, I feel you owe Cpousnr an apology for the derogatory comment you made about his land...

trent

Cpousnr's $4 or $5k investment in land vs. putting that money in a truck is a smart move. From his comments it sounds like the Ranger does everything and more than he needs.

cthompson21

Joe, thanks for showing up and bringing some really well thought out material to the discussion. What happened? Did Jr. High let out early today?


CP: I only wish I had the $$$ laying around to purchase some land. Are you planning on building a cabin up there eventually?

cthompson21

You claim to have bought your truck for its off-road prowess, and you live in the great, flat state of IL? Now that's funny!

About all that's here are bean fields and corn fields.

I finally figured out why you're so avid about this "Ranger vs. Tacoma" topic. You're trying to somehow justify to yourself spending the extra $8,500 on your truck than I and other ranger owners spent on our trucks (my loaded 4x4 was $18,500 and I'd assume a loaded supercharged Tacoma to be about $27,000).

Wow! That's one hell of a chunk of change!

allknowing

I've been reading this forum for two months or so and a few things never seen to be mentioned. My wife has a Ford Explorer and I just got Toyota Tacoma. I bought the Toyota Tacoma for several reasons but mainly one big one. The Toyota looks a lot better!!!! The Ranger is a nice Truck and will be even better when they add the SOHC 4.0 engine (which we have in the Explorer now and is a strong engine). For now, however, the Toyota's V6 engine is much stronger than the Ranger and, as I said before, the looks of the Toyota has no comparison in my opinion. I traded in a primo Nissan 300ZX to get the Tacoma and I think I'm getting more compliments on my truck than I did for the car. Toyota was smart enough to lift the body and install bigger tires stock than you can get on a Ford. The TRD package, in spite of those here that I guess have never driven a TRD Tacoma, allows this truck to handle amazingly for a truck sitting this high or any truck for that matter. As far as the crash tests, they bothered me a bit at first too. In front impacts, which most collisions are, the Toyota is pretty much the same as the Ranger. The side impacts are not as good but a 4 X 4 or a PreRunner is so much higher than the standard truck, that most cars from the side would hit the frame which is bound to reduce the impact to the passenger area. I also checked the death and injury statistics between the two trucks and found them to be about the same or maybe less on the Toyota so that must mean something. It could be that there are less Toyotas out there but it certainly doen't make the Toyota a "coffin". The ranger is a nice truck but some of us will pay a little more for looks too.

modvptnl

Of all the factual data that has been spewed here for months and all the personal opinions your take on looks has to be the single most opinionated view of them all. I'm glad you like the way it looks but there are many people who have the opposite view also.

The bottom line is the Ranger will do 80% or more of what a Tacoma will do off road and for 3 or 4 thousand dollars I guarantee I can make a Ranger out run a Tacoma off road if one chooses to do so. The fact remains that the majority of people don't beat their trucks so Ford chose not to offer a TRD type package and instead let the consumer tailor their truck to his or hers own needs.

scottssss

and i get 60 or so posts.... this place is slowing down ..

Allknowing..
at last just an honest oppionion, you got the truck you wanted and that is all that matters... and i agree the Fully optioned TRD tacoma looks better than a ranger..

cthompson21

First, looks are subjective. Everyone has different tastes. I didn't care for the '93 to '97 ranger, and I thought the previous rangers looked much better. I think that the '98 to '00 4x4 rangers look very good. I don't care for the 4x2 versions too much (except the flaresides when you add a cap, a rollpan, and some other cosmetic mods). The wheels look too small, and they're lacking the fender flares, which are a great styling touch to the truck. Also, the ranger is receiving some degree of redesign along with the SOHC 4.0L for the 2001 model year available this summer.

I think that the 4x4 TRD Tacomas look great, but the 4x2 Tacomas look absolutely terrible. But, I guess this is all my opinion, so it only matters to me.

Second, about the safety thing. Are you going to choose who hits you, what they're driving, and where they impact you? I'm not about to play the game of statistics when it comes to my own, my wife's, or anybody else's life who happens to be riding with me. People don't make vehicle safety enough of a factor when purchasing a vehicle. And, this is in the wake of the SUV explosion where we have big, cumbersome, unaware 5,000+ SUV's roaming the streets in ever-increasing numbers. I also don't buy into the argument that the 4x4 is going to somehow behave differently in a crash than a 4x2. Three more inches of ground clearance is somehow going to lessen the impact of a 3,000+ pound vehicle??? Besides, it seems that SUVs are the majority of culprits T-boning others these days due to their increased stopping distances and lesser maneuverability (when compared to cars).

Anyways, enjoy your truck. It sounds like you're extremely pleased with it, and that's what is important.

-C

scape2

Some claim the Tacoma has come down in price. In todays paper I decided to take a look at the Trucks on add. Tacoma 4x4 2.7 5spd 17,977! Ranger XLT 3.0 5spd 15,888!! Optioned the same, both had A/C, pwr, 4x4, AM/FM CD. Oh, by the way, this dealer had 1 Tacoma at this price, The Ford had 6! Choice, isn't it nice.
Looks are purely subjective. I own a 1998 Ranger XLT 4x4 Supercab in the stepside box. I get comments on how my Ranger looks great quite often.
I have given Toyota the kudos for putting on real offroad tires and have scourned Ford for not even offering 31" or 265 tires for the Ranger. I can tell you, when you put a larger tire on the Ranger the look of the Ranger changes, the stance of the truck looks much more aggressive.
Spoog, well you messed up dissing CP like that, lost a lot of face in this room. And once again you lecture someone who has actually proven he uses his truck as a truck, not a race car. And all this coming from someone who lives in one of the flatest states in the union, Illinois. Like those bumps spoog? LOL!
Love the Cascade Mountain range! In my Ranger!
See you in the hills.

allknowing

Interesting points, however, if you think that the Ranger can be hit in the side by a 5,000+ pound SUV without hurting the occupants you're being pretty optimistic. The crash tests, from my understanding , are done with aprox. equal weight vehicles or simulations. I also see many here talk about the 3 inch difference between the 4X4 and the standard Tacoma. I've been side by side with a Std. 4X2 and the difference is more like 6 inches which, as I stated before, puts the frame in a better position to absorb some of the impact. Too bad we don't have actual test results to settle the issue.
Also to the other respondents: I agree that looks are subjective. I wanted a truck that was high, handled well with plenty of power, and came with decent sized tires for off-road or the street. I personally think that the Ranger is also a nice looking truck that would probably look just as good as the Tacoma TRD with these features. The problem is that if I added these features with Aftermarket parts: 1)It would cost as much or more than the Tacoma. 2)It would take a lot of work and time 3)It possibly would void the warrantee.

Anyway, once again thanks for the feedback. I appreciate other viewpoints.

cthompson21

I get your point. There are so many factors in a vehicle crash. A Tacoma probably has better crash survivability than just about any small car, and it might perform better or worse than a Ranger in different circumstances.

To me, crash tests are similar to reviews. They're really only good for pointing out major flaws or strengths. In the middle, there's just too much to deal with and be objective. It's just that 1 star rating for side impacts has got to say something. Something is invading the passenger compartment with a 40% chance of fatality. Maybe the test was a one-time fluke. Maybe there's a major problem. Maybe there's a simple problem like installing a 3" piece of steel. Who knows? In any case, I'm sure that Toyota is looking into it and the Tacoma should perform better in its next side impact test.

I don't believe ride heigth to be as much of a factor as some would believe. Something has to absorb all of that energy. Merely placing the vehicle's frame higher off the ground will not make it absorb less energy. But, maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? You're not going to able to simulate real life conditions in a laboratory.

cthompson21

The price difference is about 3,000 between comparatively equipped trucks. You can add bilstein's and some bigger tires for less than a grand, and no warranties (except the parts replaced) will be voided (the aftermarket parts will have their own warranties.

I believe the LSD to be a better choice over the locker, unless you do any serious hard-core off-roading. So, to me that's a plus.

For the 2001 models, the ranger will have more power at 205hp and 235ft/lbs than the Tacoma. Currently, you can do about $500 worth of mods to be around 190hp and 260ft/lbs of torque (cat-back, superchip, & custom air intake-KKM or K&N FIPK). As far as the mods affecting warranties, the jury is still out. I've heard of people having no problems and others having problems with dealers refusing service. I guess it all comes down to the service department. All of these mods are simple bolt-ons, which are easy for a novice to do in a few hours.

So, I guess I'm left with about $1500 to play with. Maybe a really nice stereo system? Maybe a nice cap or lid? Or a bedliner? A hitch too? How about some headers and a hi-flow cat? That's half the price of a BBK Instacharger. A suspension and body lift? Heavy-duty offroad bits for the suspension? That Alpine navigation system for $1300 looks really cool...

Decisions, decisions. Damn! I love trucks!

smcpherr

Just remember, the higher your vehicle off the ground, the better your chance of a rollover is. Not too much advantage having the frame absorb more energy if it gonna cause your truck to flip over and slide down the road. I've done that. Its no fun.

judas

when you buy tires that are taller than stock they're almost always wider. I saw a lifted ranger running 35x9.50's the other day, rollover waiting to happen.

devil1

I had a '95 Tacoma and my friend had a '98 Ranger, mine was 4x4 and his was 4x2 both 4 bangers and both standard cabs. There was no comparison. The Tacoma had more power, was better looking, faster, chics liked it more, and definately above all more reliable. He was always in the shop for minor repairs, and then later for major repairs. The dealers were also dicks to him. Something kept rattling under the truck, and he would get it fixed and it would start back up. finally they told him that someone has been going under your truck and stealing some screws from underneath. they said that was what was causing the vibration. what a joke!!!

anyway, the tacoma was far better. i like the ranger's new beefy front end though, but tacoma will have a beefier front next year.

cpousnr

Again, it is a matter of choice.

I WANTED a piece of land mostly flat, with minimum trees and a killer view at a reasonable price.

I got that.

I laugh all the way to the bank. Have been offered 175% of what I paid for it in Dec. 98.

I did not want many trees as there are restrictions placed on felling trees for placing houses. That limits where you can put a house.

I ALSO am planning to go solar for electric to stay off the grid to avoid a $7,000 hookup fee for electric. Have to stay off the grid for at least the next 8 years as all I would be doing now is reimbursing the guy from Kansas that has the huge house accross the street (he only lives there in the summer, winters in Kansas) for HIS running the power down the road. So no trees fits that bill fine.

Plus I have had people say the view is stunning.

Wanna see again? http://members.aol.com/Cpousnr/wcprop1.jpg

Those are 50-60 ft Ponderosa Pines about 25-30 feet from the property, blocking the view of the neighbor. My Ponderosa pines are on the other side of the property. I admit they are only 7-8 feet tall but there are plenty of trees around.

Think solar will work ok there, 300 days a year sunshine? How often does the sun shine in ILL? Oh see mountains like that eveyday except on picture post cards?

cpousnr

is where we are planning to put the house.

It will do. . .

cpousnr

8^)~

spoog

My point was you always settle for less.


Why not get one thing of high quality for a change?

I will be looking at acreage in Pagosa Springs this summer. Maybe even east of the pass in near South Fork.

So far the property I have selected to look at is 1/2 mile from the divide and completely wooded save for a small meadow. The asking price is 85k$, but I feel it is worth the extra money.

It very close to a fine trout stream.



Yes Illinois is not as prett as SW Colorado. But the people here are very cool and progressive.

I figure I would stay where the money is and then bolt, so I can afford a nice piece of land. I already have a very sweet truck.........

allknowing

I'm afraid that the Tacoma TRD package is a bit more than a set of Bilsteins and bigger tires. The suspension is modified quite a bit which makes the TRD the best handling truck I've ever driven (although a bit rougher than the Ranger or a std. Tacoma). To get the Ranger's suspension modified to a point of being similar to the TRD may cost a bit more than you think. I'm also not sure that 31x10.5's could fit on a Ranger properly without a body lift. I tried putting tires about that size on an older Ford and they rubbed the body occasionally. Anyway, the suspension was mainly what I was referring to when I questioned whether the Mods' would affect the warrantee. Modifying a truck's suspension is not something I would enjoy doing either.

Smcpherr: You're right-The rollover risk is something to always keep in mind.

cpousnr

85K for 35 acres is a bit high but like I told you before, do not know how prices are in that neck of the woods, per se. I just remember there were a great deal of Texan's in the area of Creede and north of there. Plus you loose the views when you are in the view. That is why I live central in Denver vs over on the west side. You loose the views.

cpousnr

Well, if you look at my picture at the URL I left, that is a Ranger with 31X10.5X15 inch BF Goodrich AT KO's, no lift.

I am within 1 inch of the clearance of the Tacoma TRD. In most cases, less than 1/2 inch. Mod cost was $525 at Discount tires.

Now in regard to suspension, you are correct but I have read that the shocks are not the same size as the Bilstines offered for aftermarket. I intend to add Rancho RS5000 or RS9000 shocks somewhere around 35K on my Ranger, cost $40-65 each depending on the model.

Progressive springs can be added to a Ranger for about $145 and the load capacity difference is maybe at best, 150lb for an option 2 Ranger vs Tacoma.

Now to ask the question. TRD's do not sell for $18K do they? That is what a Renger equipped with equivelent TRD equipment would run, about.

cthompson21

Per Toyota, the TRD package is:

TRD Off-Road Package: aluminum alloy wheels with 31" x 10.5" Goodyear tires, performance off-road suspension, Bilstein® gas shock absorbers, black fender flares, tachometer, TRD graphics and locking rear differential (aluminum alloy wheels, color-keyed fender flares and tachometer standard on Tacoma Limited)

What exactly do they mean by "performance off-road suspension"? I'd assume that you get some stiffer springs and anti-roll bars and maybe some other slight tuning/stiffening. If there were any major changes, Toyota would definately say so.

"Performance handling" is definately not something I would consider when buying or using a truck. Have you driven and semblance of a sportscar lately? Cars can readily be had for thousands less than 20K that would make any truck look like a cumbersome oaf.

I do believe that 31s would fit. My 4x4 has pleanty of clearance in the wheel wells. In any case, I'm staying away from suspension mods and concentrating on comfort, asthetics, and performance/economy gains. I've got a lot left to do with that $3000!!!

cpousnr

The April issue of Consumer Reports is out, the auto issue.

My 99 Ranger was selected, again, a "Recommended Buy" only preceeded by the Dodge Dakota. Ranger and Mazda were followed by Chevy S10, GMC Sonoma and last, the Tacoma with a rating of "fair". I guess Nissan did not make the cut as it is not listed.

cpousnr

99 Ranger 4X4
full red circles(that is the best) 10
half red circles(next best rating) 4


99 Toyota Tacoma (did not have the 4X4)
Full red circles 14

So very good and very close between the two.

allknowing

I can't win with you can I? The TRD package includes progressive-rate front coil springs, modified camber rear leaf springs, and a larger than Std. front stabilizer bar. Handling is a factor to some of us. I can appreciate a machine designed to be fun both off-road and on rather than having to crawl up curved freeway ramps because body tilt may cause loss of control. A better handling vehicle can often help you avoid an accident which is notable considering the fact that safety seems to concern you. Your Ranger is no less a great truck because of my opinion. I just appreciate what Toyota has accomplished with the TRD Tacoma.

allknowing

If you can get an TRD equivalent ranger for 18K it certainly isn't a 4x4, unless it's a real stripper (I checked the prices at cardirect.com). If it's a 2 wheel drive you're talking about then yes you can get a new, very well equipped, 2 wheel drive TRD Tacoma PreRunner for a little more than 18K if you shop around.

cpousnr

First, you seem very satisfied with your Tacoma and as has been stated before, great that your happy.

TRD equivelent more than likely was a bad choice of words. While I will not say the Ranger suspension is exactly like the TRD, it is an ok suspension. My only point was that it is my intent to add the Rancho shocks to improve what I have. The payload option 2 on a Ranger is only 150 or so lb less than a Tacoma. And as mine sits, it is very close to the Tacoma in clearance.

The Goodyear tires, while better than the Firestones on Ranger, are not what I would choose for a good 4X4. But they more than likely run quiet and that sells trucks.

Spoog will surly disagree but my Ranger works quite nicely when I take it out to the 4X trails in the Rockies.

My 31 inch tires do not rub at all. Ford changed the suspension sometime in the late 90's such that 31 inch tires will fit.

The post I had before on Consumer Reports basically supports most of what has been said here. The Ranger is a good vehicle, quality and reliability is good and improving. Owners of Tacoma report few problems with their vehicles. Worst rating for a Tacoma was 96 where the engine problems existed. Worst for Ranger is in that same time frame with brakes and electrical issues (like door switches and wiper motors.

Again, good luck with your truck and it surely will give years of service to you.

The reason I threw out the 18K figure, that is about what a well equipped Ranger runs. My Ranger ran $17.4K and with what I have added it is maybe high 18's low 19's. However, I financed the whole thing for 2.9% thru Ford. If I had not taken the low interest, the vehicle would have cost $16.4K out the door. All I really had to add was the skidplates and larger tires to put me where I am today(the bed cover, bed liner, and bug screen have no effect on what it does off road.

Again, enjoy, good to hear some positive comments from a Tacoma owner.

cthompson21

There is no "win". Everything is subjective and opinion in here. That is what makes it interesting.

My Ranger was 18,500. It is a '98 4x4 with every option except x-cab and LSD. I took the 3.9% APR over 60 months in lue (sp?) of the $1500 cash back. So, it could have been had for $17,000 cash. Try getting a loaded Tacoma V6 4x4 in the lower twenties. There are also some other factors involved (how late in the model year, inflation, etc...).

cthompson21

So, the performance off-road suspension is just what I assumed, stiffer springs, stiffer shocks, and a bigger anti-roll bar.

I'm not bagging on it or anything. I'm just saying that it's a small step up from the Taco's regular 4x4 suspension. They just stiffen her up and slap on the TRD sticker (and add the locker and swap the tires in addition to a few styling changes).

For carving up twisty roads and shooting down freeway on/off ramps, I leave that to my SVT Contour (when I can wrestle it away from my wife). The Ranger is actually not that bad either. Handling in tight spaces also far exceeds my expectations. And, braking is suprisingly good for such a heavy vehicle with rear drums (I suspect ABS has a LOT to do with this).

wsnoble

Nice Land! Great Photo!

-wsn

devil1

I got rid of my Tacoma because I was an idiot. I wanted a trunk and a backseatb, so I completely changed cars to the Eclipse. My Tacoma was raised 3" with 33" Tires and was great except the tires were slightly to big for the body lift and they rubbed quite a bit when I made a U-turn. Also the A/C broke when I lifted the truck (Not Tooyota's fault, but body lifts tend to screw things up). I miss my Tacoma everyday, but I still like my eclipse. Now I am debating between a new 4 Door Tundra (Since I now have a baby), or the Tundra or the F-150. I think the 4-Door Tundra may do the trick for me.

I like Fords, though. I usually buy import, but if I were to buy American definately the Ford would be my pick in trucks. I like the Ranger and the F-150, and they are more reliable on the average than Chevy and Dodge.

How do you like your Ranger??

cthompson21

Talk about a U-turn. From a jacked up 4x4 Taco to a pocket rocket Mitsu Eclipse? That must have been a shock to the system.

The Tundra sounds like the truck for you. A Ranger Supercab probably wouldn't be big enough. I don't believe that a babyseat would fit on one of the back seats (could try though). An ex-cab F150 would also be a good choice. Just test drive, test drive, and test drive to find the best truck for you. The Quad-cab Dakota is looking really tempting especially with Chrysler's new 4.7L V8. If only they could make it more reliable and charge less for it...

If you go Ranger, wait 'till 2001 for the SOHC V6. Definately a big jump from the OHV 4.0. The 3.0 is ONLY good with the manual. The 5-speed auto works very well with the bigger V6. Next year's manual tranny is at least partially new for the SOHC 4.0.

I really enjoy my Ranger. My only gripe would be cab space, should have gotten an ext-cab. But, I can live with it. Torque is great. I can pull over 2000lbs and not even know that I'm towing unless I look in the rearview mirror. More HP is almost always be better, and that will be improved in 2001. It's comfortable and has very good ergonomics. Everything has worked flawlessly for the past 20K miles since I bought it in the summer of '98. The OHV 4.0 is a bit of a noisy engine, but if I wanted refinement I would have bought a Bimmer or Lexus. The 5-speed automatic tranny really keeps the engine in the meaty part of its torque/hp range.

Good luck on whatever you decide to purchase.

scape2

20 posts in less than 24hours! This room is cooking again.
TRD package, My friend owns one as all of you that have been here a while know. He even stated that the extra 3K wasn't really worth it. He didn't really need it. A Normal 4x4 TAcoma would have suited his needs just fine. The locker is a nice add on, but is so limited in its everyday use.
I paid 19.6K for my Ranger absolutely loaded. It is a 1998 XLT 4x4 Supercab, stepside 4.0 5psd, A/C, cruise, tilt, 4whl ABS, tow package, offroad pkg, P265x75R16's, CD, alarm, remote entry, pwr windows, locks, rearwindow slider, and more. When pricing in 1998 a Tacoma with the same options would have ran me about 23K+. It is no secret option for option Tacoma's are thousands more than Rangers. I have upgraded tires, added a K&N aircharger kit, chipped it, spray in bed liner, bug guard and am still thousands of dollars ahead of a Tacoma.

mviglianco1

3K is way too much for the TRD package. If you pay that much you have done something wrong. It lists for 1600 and that is what I paid for it

wsnoble

If your 'Friend' paid 3k for the TRD package he is an idiot! The MSRP is only $1600, and nobody pays MSRP...

-wsn

mrpenguin20

Vince8,
Did you get your '98 Ranger new or used? If you got it new with all that equipment you got a good deal.

spoog

Cthompy writes:


"There is no "win". Everything is subjective and
opinion in here. That is what makes it
interesting."


Wrong. There is no "win" concerning looks, comfort ect, but there is a WIN concerning handling, performance figures, horsepower, torque, offroading suspensions, offroad and onroad testing, crash testing, ect.

It is fact the Tacoma handles better offroad than a Ranger. It is fact the Tacoma beats the ranger in every single performance category. It is fact the Tacoma has a higher resale value. It is fact the Tacoma has better reliability ratings than the Ranger. IT is fact Ford does not instill ANY offroad design philodophy into the Ranger. It is fact the TRD is a pretty big step up from the stock Tacoma suspension. It is fact the Ranger is cheaper. It is fact the 4x4 Ranger is safer than a 4x 2 tacoma in side impact crashes.


See, there ARE "wins" in this forum. It's just that some people REFUSE to acknowledge them. Now when you are talking looks, comfort, and value to YOU for what you use the truck for, THEN you are talking subjective and opinion.

spoog

Alright Cspounser I apologize for ripping on your land and calling you "cheap". A certain poster was right, it was mean spirited.

It is some nice land with a great view. Those are the "Cristo's" right?

cthompson21

You still don't get it. Do you? I feel like I'm beating a dead horse with a wrecking ball. Information just won't sink in past your 1/2" thick plate of cranial bone.

If you can somehow quantify something, then you can discern which is better than the other.

-Handling- How do you suppose we quantify that? It all comes down to preference.

-Suspensions (off or on road)- What the hell are you talking about? See "Handling"

-Higher Resale Value- Almost, but not quite. Are you planning on trading or selling outright? If you pay more for one than another, you'd probably get more for it when resold. There are so many other variables to consider that it is pointless (supply vs. demand, geographic area, quantity/location of dealerships, and on and on). Why would YOU be so concerned with resale value anyways? I thought your truck was supposed to last one billion, trillion miles. It never crossed my mind when I bought my truck, as it's a truck, not an investment.

-Tests- HA! That's funny! They're only the most subjective matter that have ever been discussed. Somehow, they always turn up as your only argument too...

-Reliability- How can you quantify which is type of failure is worse? I'd personally rather have a truck with a few minor defects than a truck with a single major defect. Well, I haven't had either so far.



And on to things where there's actually a "winner":

-Engine ratings (horsepower and torque)
-Acceleration times (0-60 and 1/4 mile in the US)
-Skid-pad g-force
-Slalom
-Cost
-Number (but not severity) of defects
-Safety (to a limited extent due to many factors)




I'll give you a little hint here. If people discuss and argue about something, it is SUBJECTIVE.

Class dismissed! Go about your business!

trent

When I was truck shopping six months ago a Toyota prerunner ext cab well equipped TRD was 21K and that was the best price I could get between two dealers here.
A Ranger 4x4 ext cab xlt, 4.0 auto, limited slip, off road package, 4 door, convenience group was 21k before $500 rebate and .9% financing. The finace charge on my loan was $137.71
The 4x4 Toyota ext cab was around 4k more that the Ranger before taking finance into cosideration.

cpousnr

No problem spoog, you were just being you. However, where in Ill. does land appreciate 75% in a bit over two years? You just kinda left yourself open for shots on Ill. Yes that is the Sangre's and there ar 4 14,000 ft peaks in the picture to the left(south) side, Humbolt, Crestone Needle, Crestone Peak and Kit Carson peak.

How many acres you looking at over on the western slope? With what you said, sounds nice. There is a real problem with snow this year. The Sangre's are reporting 41-47% of normal at this time.

Cthompson:
Well, you have to leave the Denver area if you want reasonable land. Lady I work with bought 6.5 acres over south of Parker for 8K maybe 7 years ago. She was offered 140K late last year.
Yes I know mine basically just has 100 2-4ft seedlings but if I can keep the deer away from them they will grow. There are a few trees to the east. Plus like I said, am planning a Sante Fe type spanish style house with solar in mind.

Trent:
Good deal my man! I got the 2.9% financing and my loan interest over 4 years will be $1,100. That was a good deal from Ford for financing.

wsn:
Thanks, but it has been dry here this year. Many do not like the lack of humidity but once you get use to it, you do not want to leave.

allknowing

Sounds like you have a nice truck too. I almost got a Ranger myself but decided on the Tacoma because a few features appealed to me. I'm impressed with Ford too and certainly wouldn't mind owning a Ranger also.

spoog

"Sorry spoog.. Land in Vail Is virtually impossible
to come by, we cant even talk in terms of acreage
bc thetre are no acres left in vail to be had, Vail
and Aspen are the only two places in the world
where a 1970's 2 bedroom condo can sell for a
million bucks."



I thought we were talking land, not finished homes on land.

And of course land in Vail is hard to come by. Most of the land is public National Forest that THANKFULLY cannot be developed or sold to private individuals.

THANK you MR. Roosevelt, Thank you, THANK YOU.

hindsite

Nice pic of the land in your earlier post. I have been thinking about moving west anywhere from Colorado to Montana. The current real estate value here in my area is high and may be a good time to sell. BTW that 85K for 35 acres sounds like a bargain to me.

Getting back to pickup trucks. Why does Mazda offer a better warranty than Ford?

cthompson21

It sounds like you're gonna have a real nice setup. I'll bet you've got some nice hunting out there too.

I'll probably get something up in the North Woods of Wisconsin. You can get about 5 wooded acres with a couple hundred feet of lake frontage for less than 30K nowadays. Snowmobiling all winter, boating/swimming/fishing all summer. Gotta love that. I'll make my money here in Chicago and then take off when the getting's good.