I thought the stars on a scale from 1 to 5 were the death rates. Something like 5 stars = 10% chance of a fatality, 1 star = 60% or more chance of a fatality. From everything I've seen the Ranger scored 4 or more stars.
You must be talking about a different site. At crashtest.com, the graph rating in by colored squares. The Ranger has a black square for Death rate in years 91 - 97. The 98 - 00 Rangers aren't rated yet due to lack of data. The black square is the lowest possible mark and denotes much higher than average death rates for that type of vehicle. That's why the I stated in the past how ridiculous it is for the Ranger fanatics to keep bringing up the side impact rating of the Tacoma while the Ranger has a much higher death rate. It could be partly related to the age of the driver among other things but that is debatable. Bottom line, if these guys are really as concerned about safety as they say they should dump the Ranger and get a full size truck.
The ranger does score well in the impact tests. There is some reason though that more fatalities occur in the Ranger. The simulated crash tests don't show everything.
Wheres the pictures? still waiting still waiting still waiting still waiting still waiting still waiting still waiting still waiting still waiting still waiting still waiting still waiting enough's enough ante up.BTW JD Powers rates the Dakota truck of the year does that make it better than the ranger and tacoma.
It's kind of interesting when you say that the Tacoma has a better death rate than the Ranger even though they DON'T actually RATE the Tacoma.
Hmmm....
If you're curious about what is meant by death rate:
"The relative death rates are good indicators of how insurers will set rates for different vehicles. Insurance companies price coverage by dividing a market into different types of risks based on claims experience and related costs of providing insurance coverage. Not surprisingly, 2-seat sports cars, turbocharged or V-8 musclecars, convertibles, mini-cars, light pick-ups and small sport utility vehicles (SUVs) have much higher death-related expenses, collision repairs, and medical bills."
If you take a look, you'll see that the Chevy, Nissan, Dodge, and clone pickups also all receive the poor rating. I'd hardly seeing the Tacoma doing any better especially considering something like the estimated 60% chance of a fatality when involved in a side impact.
I do agree that test results don't simulate all of the conditions of the real world. But, they probably point out significant flaws in the vehicle's design.
It seems as if there's some flaw in the Tacoma's side impact protection. All ratings I've seen, even crashtest.com, have given it their lowest mark.
If you want a safer vehicle, ya gotta go bigger. There's a definite correlation between crash survivability and vehicle mass.
It was from that site that spoog always points to for the hundreds and hundreds of Ranger TSB's. Footnote, he IGNORES the facts that in the years 95-00 there were MORE Tacomas RECALLED and MORE Tacoma RECALL notices than for the Ranger. And since there are only half as many Tacomas built as Rangers, you have a 50% or GREATER chance of getting your Tacoma recalled vs a Ranger.
Anyway, to the crashtest info from the US Gov., I do not recall the figures exactly but the injury index for Ranger was: LESS THAN HALF OF THE INDEX FOR TACOMA. Conclusion, you are MUCH more likely to sustain an injury in a Tacoma vs a Ranger.
A Ranger frame is at least 2 inches larger up and down compared to Tacoma.(I have measured both) Ranger doors are thicker an much heavier than Tacoma. The Ranger out weighs the Tacoma by about 500 lb.
Ranger is a more solid vehicle than Tacoma.
I will find the links I refered to and repost them.
I have to agree that you are getting robbed to pay that much for the taco. I paid right at that for my 2000 TRD v6 ext. cab 4x4 fully loaded with the new model supercharger installed. That's one of the main things that swayed me. Like was said earlier, 80-90% of my driving is highway and the extra boost is very nice to have under highway conditions. You need to shop around. I know prices vary from place to place, so maybe they are just higher where you are.
CT - Remember CT I have both vehicles. The insurance on my Tacoma, which is two years newer, is only about 9 dollars more than the Ford. I don't think that my insurance company, on of the biggest in the country by the way, has evidence that the Toyota has a higher injury or death rate. Since the Tacoma is newer, It seems that the contrary is true or it would cost more. The side impact is a problem with the Tacoma but a majority of accidents do not involve side collisions (according to the NHTSA and other's websites). In front collisions the Tacoma is rated the same as the Ranger which is why it still gets an acceptable rating. I feel confident to say that they don't rate the Tacoma on death rate, just as they don't rate the 98-2000 Rangers, because there is no sufficient evidence that it is above or below average. If the data was there they would post it. For some reason fatalities occur more frequently in a Ranger than other vehicles of similar type including the Tacoma. Just to keep it fair, this could of course be related to other factors than the integrity of the vehicle like the age of the driver etc.
cpouser- I'm sorry but I don't see how you come up with a statement that the Ranger is a more solid vehicle than a Tacoma. Seems that if it was, it would bounce and rattle like the the Ranger when I take it off road. The doors don't even sound as solid, but I'll grant you that Rangers do better in side impacts so maybe the doors are more solid. Everything else... I don't see any evidence. As far as your injury figures , I need some proof of that so I'd like to see your post. I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm a natural skeptic without hard evidence and It would be interesting to see those links. Anyway, even if the injury rate is higher in a Tacoma, once again the death rate apparently is higher.
Excuse me CT but I missed one thing that you were saying. You're right that the death rate is also marked poor on other makes than the Ranger. It's late and my mind was drifting. I was under the impression that it was averaging a class of vehicles. I'll stand corrected and you have a good point. It is still interesting that my insurance company seems to feel that the Ranger is no less a risk than my Tacoma though. I'l bet that statisticly Tacomas are involved in less accidents with injurys. Statistics don't always mean that much in the real world but they do mean a lot to insurance companies.
Well, sorry yours rattles, mine does not. But perhaps a heavier door with time has a tendancy to rattle. . .
Looke here is the link, compare for yourself. Unlike others I really do not like to rehash all the details of what I have already posted. You get hurt alot more in a Tacoma.
106/145 in bold red is a lot higher than 50/81. That was thoracic injury factors for first Tacom then Ranger. High is not good.
then follow the directions and select the make/mode/year or search by year.
The Ranger has 8 frame cross members, the Tacoma 5 for the long bed version.
the Rangers frmae rails, measured in the wheel well be me. are about 2 inches longer top to bottom than Tacoma.
The Ranger rear differential is an 8.8 inch, the Tacoma is at best an 8 inch. When Ranger went to the 8.8 from a 7.5 inch differential, the claim was a 35% stronger differential. The 8.8 is used on Fords big line of trucks, F150, 250.
The Box on the Tacoma was reported to crumple in tests by Consumer Reports, the Ranges did not. I STAND on my rails and I weigh 265-270 and have had no problems.
Consumer Reports CONSISTAINTLY chooses the Ranger over Tacoma as a Best Buy and states that the quality of the Tacoma is not what they expect from Toyota. This pertains to 95-99 Tacoma, Do not know about the 2000.
The Ranger out weighs the Tacoma by a lot. Not all the weight difference can be attributed to the cast iron engine in the Ranger. But speaking of that, a total cast iron engine has a much smaller chance of warping heads than one with aluminium heads, such as is the case with Tacoma. I think I have read the Tacoma is an aluminum headed cast iron block engine. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
Just park a Ranger and Tacoma side by side and you can see the size difference.
I believe that insurance companies lump like vehicles together. So, the Taco and Ranger, both considered light trucks, should have nearly the same insurance rates.
My only point is that I'm 99% sure that the Tacoma would have the same poor rating along with all of the other compact trucks.
The site you're referring to is only potential injurys from their test results. Real accident figures don't pertain here unless I'm missing something. To say that there are more accidents or injurys from that info would only be speculation and dishonest. CT is right that it seems that most of the small trucks have an above average death rate score except the Tacoma which isn't scored for some unknown reason. I'll be open minded to the suggestion that's because there's not enough data or something. However, until someone finds evidence to the contrary, it's possible that the Tacoma driver is less likely to die in an accident for some reason. Most here pick which magazine they wish to believe, and just as you probably don't put much weight on Spoog's 4x4 magazine article, I don't have much respect for Consumer Report's car tests. My 300ZX was rated high by them in 1991 and then a few years later they complained about the same things that they praised earlier. I've never owned a car that Consumer Report didn't trash for some reason and their reasons have been totally incorrect. My 300ZX for example was rated poor for brakes because they said that they wore too quickly. I replaced the front brakes at 50,000 mi. and the rears still had 60-70% of life left when I sold it at 54,0000 miles (not too bad). Anyway, the point is that in my opinion go to a car mag. like Road & Track or Car & driver for auto reviews and leave C.R. to toasters and stuff. One more opinion of mine that you probably don't want to hear but I'll tell you anyway, don't pass me a Motor Trend article. I gave up on them after finding out that they had picked the Edsel and then the Vega as he car of the year. Those choices speak for themselves. Bottom line, it's prettyt much ludicrous for this forum to debate safty simply for the fact that we are driving small trucks. If satety is our main concern we should sell the small truck and replace it with a full size truck Anyway,thanks for your frame info as it is interesting. I personally still think that the Tacoma has a more solid ride. I'm starting a book here so we'll discuss aluminum heads later.
There you go again C, trying to rationalize away your purchase again.
The Ranger is a more "solid" truck? lol.
What about all the TSB's, ect? also, I looked at the safety recalls from 95-2000. What were you smoking? The Tacoma has LESS than the Ranger. Once again you screw up.
Please refer to the 4 wheeler Technical photos on their site:
" We like the large front disc brakes and the 6 lug nuts on the wheels"
" The Tacoma is one tough truck. And all these features are the icing on a tough truck cake. The Ranger cant be our winner, because the winner has to do everything well, ESPECIALLY OFF the highway. So our winner is-------The Toyota Tacoma"!
yeeeeeeeehawwwww!
Petersons 4wd June 99 issue:
" The Tacoma is, bar none, the best offroading stock truck made, PERIOD. It is one of the reasons why we choose it over the Ranger and Chevy".
" Unanimous decision"
" The Ranger had trouble keeping up............"
" The Tacoma handled the rough stuff better than any vehicle we have driven.............."
" The Ranger's suspension is sacrificed for highway only.............."
I tend to agree with allknowing on this one. Who cares which truck has higher or lower crashtest results. If that 's all you care about, buy a suburban. compact pickups aren't going to fare well in any crash unless it's with one of those honda electric cars or something. I too disagree with consumer reports. they don't know a damn thing about reviewing trucks. basically, if it's not a fuel efficient geo metro, they will rip the vehicle to shreds. in fact, their reviews are almost as worthless as edmund's...
I do not dispute the article posted by spoog except for a couple of facts, one of which is:
The Ranger they SAID they tested was stated as having the off-road pkg., however, the statistical data presented could ONLY have come from an auto Ranger with a 3.73 differential. The off-road pkg gives you a 4.10 differential.
Lets be clear, it was just not a very fair test conducted by Four Wheeler. The same magazine has had very favorable articles regarding the 98 Mazda which is a clone to the Ranger and has selected the Ranger XL 3.0 as one of it's top 10 best buys.
Well believe which crash test you want. The TSB data for the Tacoma suggests a higher injury rate for the Tacoma. Look at the data, a larger percentage of the Tacoma TSB's result in injury as compared to the Ranger TSB's.
Just going on facts, the posted injury factors from that site I cited and phisical measurment of the 2 vehicles by myself.
eagle63: Consumer reports runs EVERY truck on the SAME track and reports the results. Plus their input comes for consumer survey users of the product.
That means Tacoma USERS report the issues with Tacoma, not some potentially biased magazine. I trust their judgment.
cpousnr- Don't really know what Four Wheeler used as far as options on the Ranger. Once again, I like the Ranger and know that it's a very capable truck. That being said though, I still prefer the TRD and I'm in a unique position of owning both so I can see the difference on a regular basis. As far as injuries etc., don't rule out the possibility that other factors may make up and/or even improve the risk for a Tacoma driver. Maybe the braking distance is less in a Tacoma (I don't have that data) or maybe the fact that the diver sits higher gives better visibility to prevent an accident. As far as Consumer Reports, they have some goofy test criteria and their used car data seems to be based more on complaints than the overall picture. That's my opinion though.
eagle63- Thanks for the support. At least someone agrees with me once in a while. Funny though how Vince stated this conversation but hasn't been around to defend his position. At least this forum came alive again for awhile and we had some good input from everybody else.
You can rationalize it all you want. The Tacoma is the light truck that has been rated last in every bit of crash testing/surviability that I've seen.
Bam! You just got T-boned by some idiot soccer mom driving her 7000lb SUV who just blew a stop sign. Are you gonna jump out and tell her that she's violating the law of averages?
It seems to me that people just ignore safety until they have been in a serious accident. After flipping over a Blazer a couple of times and walking away with just a scratch on my head, safety, whether tested in a lab or not, is a prime concern for me when purchasing a vehicle. I've just heard too many horror stories from my uncle [who owns a body shop] about accidents and unsafe cars.
I don't think eagle63 meant it that way CT. I think his point was that we are all at a greater risk in a serious accident if we drive a small pickup rather that a larger vehicle. We're being kind of ridiculous debating which truck would fare better. I'd still rather be in my Tacoma or Ranger in an accident however, than a Geo or something equivalent.
Do you really expect me to believe that you, in your Ranger, would walk away any less hurt if a 7,000 lb SUV creamed you? Give me a break. I think that you're the one trying to rationalize the fact that you'd be dead too.
In the Thursday (5/4/2000) and the Friday (5/5/2000) editions of the Wall Street Journal there are two separate articles on Japanese, European makes of autos. The title of the one article is: Reputation for Poor Quality Still Plagues Detroit". Suddenly, quality is Problem One in Detroit again. Despite a massive overhaul of manufacturing and engineering systems over the past two decades, a spate of rankings and reports show U.S. cars and trucks lag behind the best from Japan and Europe. In the Friday article it reports: Japanese and European auto makers dominated the top spots in J.D. Power & Associates 2000 Initial Quality Study, which also found that the average rate of new-vehicle problems for Big Three U.S. brands was worse than the industry average. Both J.D. Power and the April issue of Consumer Reports rated the Tundra the top Full Size pickup
What year Ranger and what year Tacoma do you own? Must have missed the post when you said.
Well in regard to Ranger, go look at the data that Four Wheeler posts on their Truck of the Year test. They only tested Tacoma, Ranger and MAzda. The statistics for the Ranger showed a crawl ratio of something like 22.5 to 1 vs a Tacoma of 40 to 1. Now I will not go thru the math again but that lower ratio for Ranger could only have come from an automatic 3.73 geared vehicle. I showed using the math that a 5 speed stick 4.10 ratioed Ranger would have a crawl ratio of about 38 and change, statistically identical to a Tacoma TRD. I also showed that once you are out of first gear, the Ranger has a BETTER crawl ratio than the Tacoma when the Ranger has a manual trans and 4.10 differential.
I regard to Consumer Reports, been getting the mag for 20 + years. They are usually right on the money with their reports. I can tell you they were correct regarding my 94 Intrepid. Also I posted the resume of the CR Director of Auto testing. 26 years racing experience mostly European background but he is no dummy about cars. The track they use has an area for 4 wheel drive vehicles. As demanding a track or test as Four Wheeler does, no. But none the less each vehicle tested goes over the same track.
The MAIN complaint of the Tacoma from CR was: 1. Way over priced. 2. Not up to the standards they expect from Toyota.
I would submit that the price of the American cars, in general, lags European and Japaneese vehicles.
Did you notice the phrase: "...the best from Japan and Europe."
Sure you pit the reported "best" against an American producer that makes 2-3 times as many vehicles, that statement can be made.
That will never change the fact I paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,000 LESS for my vehicle ($17,400 vs $21,500 did not include your 2-3K for the charger) and still manage, dispite your contention, to take it off-road into some very challenging areas with no real problems.
You just jealous that I get to take my vehicle daily if I desire in areas with 2-3,000 feet in elevation changes while Ill. farmers corn fields where you play may changes by 2-300 feet(if your lucky)?
I see you saw the article I was talking about regarding quality. That is the same article that shows that GM and Ford(we all know the Mazda is a ford Ranger) makes better quality compact trucks than Toyota......
Why the sudden deflection to Tundra? To hide the fact your beloved Tacoma isn't on the list?
Ouch..I bet that had to hurt your pride just a little bit....
You cite JD Powers and its quality report favorable to Toyota.
However When I cite Powers ranking Ford assembly plants second only to BMW in initial quality, you said this:
spoogs post in topic 867, 651 of 658 "As for your JD powers survey, I have to laughy my a@@ off. That survery is based on WHAT customers like and dont like about their vehicle in the first 3 MONTHS!!! THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP!!! What can happen then? Thats too rich Cspousner, too rich. I quote hardcore governement authority based information, and you give us tooty-the operator "how do you like your car" sources. THe first 3 months proves nothing.THe only thing it proves is if these consumers have Buyers Remorse. I suggest you start posting some pertinent sources here Cspounsr.
Your only making yourself look desperate."
Sooo are you making yourself look desperate by citing Powers Quality reports in favor of Toyota?
First, let me say I would trust all the JD Powers reports on the face value at the time, favorable to either the Toyota or Ford vehicles.
Your inconsistent spoog and it shows very badly on this board.
Oh by the way, Tundra topics are on another board, you must have been confused and inconsistent posting here. . .
"Five stars for the F-150. But how did the Toyota Tacoma do? "Look at the difference where the top of that barrier is to the window heighth now," says Martinez. "It's hitting straight into it. It's an older design and so the pelvis loads are actually very high." Is this a potential fatal? "Yes," says Martinez. "This is a very serious and potentially fatal crash and the bottom line is that you can do better."
Hmmm very serious an potentially fatal for Tacoma.
How do all the trucks stack up? The Ford F-150,
Ford Ranger,
Dodge Dakota and
Mazda B-series
all get five stars from the government. The Nissan Frontier gets four stars. The Chevy S-10 and GMC Sonoma get three stars and
the Toyota Tacoma gets only one star.
Toyota told "Dateline" that while the Tacoma meets or exceeds all government safety standards, company engineers are evaluating why it did not score better in the side impact test."
Thanks everyone who responded to my query on seat comfort in the Tacoma. I think Vince8 also had an persuasive opinion on price (Ranger vs Tacoma). I just got a buyer service quote ($160 over invoice) for the Ranger 4WD with the 4L V6, fully loaded. It was $20.8k without tax or tags. That compares to the $22.5k quote (again without tax or tags) I got for a fully loaded Tacoma. Why will I pay $1700 more for the Tacoma? Because the Tacoma looks great and the horsepower kicks butt. What's with that goofy third door on the Ranger anyway? No one in there right mind would ask an adult passenger to sit in the back. My dog is sure to prefer the comfort of the front seat with a window to stick it nose out of. I also looked into the highway safety standards for the Tacoma at the government Web site. It rated four stars for both passenger and driver in front end collisions. The side collision data sucks but I've never been in a side collision situation in 25 years of driving so as far as I'm concerned those numbers are a non-issue. But I digress. It's a Toyota for me. Now where can I get one of those stickers of that bad little boy relieving himself on a FORD?
My point was that you can't pick and choose when and where you get hit by some dumb clod.
I just can't believe people will be so quick to dismiss a serious safety flaw because they don't believe they'll be involved in an accident.
BTW, my landlord was just T-boned last week. It caused $20,000 in damage to his 2 month old Mercury Grand Marquis. He walked away with just a few bumps and bruises.
This site says the Ranger has completely unnacceptable death rates. HMmm.....
Game, set MATCH.
I see you all slamming the Tacoma formits side impact test results. Yet I DONT see any hard date IMPLICATING this weakness in massive injuries. What I DO SEE is crashtest.com giving the Ranger a "totally unnacceptable death rate".
Chalk it up ANYWAY YOU WANT TO, but the "potential" of injury and ACTUAL DEATHS is one, big Shiny, SPANKING difference!
Admittedly, my indifference to side impact safety issues was a bit off the cuff. I intend to use the Tacoma as a weekend work truck, replacing my 1987 Ram50 pickup (Mitsubishi built but labeled as a Dodge) which incidently often is hauling 1700 pounds of limestone up to our West Virginia property (need I say more about road climb). Works great on hard pavement but it's lack of four wheel drive has got me stuck more than once on the two logging roads that meander about our woods. Hats off to our Yukon for towing. My wife thought she was pulling an untied tow rope when in fact she was pulling my 3050 pound Ram50 back onto the shale fill our developer calls a common road. The Yukon is my weekly commute vehicle and I have no doubt this tank of an SUV will fair well in front and side impact situations. As for the Tacomas low star rating on side impacts, it's an acceptable risk I am willing to assume if in fact it truely is a safety issue.
Well, I hope you never experience one of those accidents first hand. Hopefully, Toyota has rectified the flaw, as side impact hasn't been tested since the 1998 or 1999 model.
Yukons are tanks with windows. I steer well clear of them [and their like] on the road.
Unfortunately, we all have to take some sort of safety risk in any vehicle, whether it's emergency handling, emergency braking, impact worthiness, etc...
Crashtest.com doesn't even rate the Tacoma. So, what are you blabbing about?
If you'd open your eyes, you'd see that all light trucks receive the poor rating. Do you actually think the light truck rated absolutely last in crash tests by everyone is going to perform any better?
The Tacoma is a foreign vehicle with a foreign nameplate,bring one to one of my union meetings and we'll do what we've done before glue a peice of plywood to the windsheild,its really funny watching someone drive with there head out the window. Game set and match.
Comments
Hey Vince, thanks for providing the link that shows the Ranger is more dangerous in crashes!
Thanks Vince, I enjoyed your link!
Hmmm....
If you're curious about what is meant by death rate:
"The relative death rates are good indicators of how insurers will set rates for different vehicles. Insurance companies price coverage by dividing a market into different types of risks based on claims experience and related costs of providing insurance coverage. Not surprisingly, 2-seat sports cars, turbocharged or V-8 musclecars, convertibles, mini-cars, light pick-ups and small sport utility vehicles (SUVs) have much higher death-related expenses, collision repairs, and medical bills."
If you take a look, you'll see that the Chevy, Nissan, Dodge, and clone pickups also all receive the poor rating. I'd hardly seeing the Tacoma doing any better especially considering something like the estimated 60% chance of a fatality when involved in a side impact.
It seems as if there's some flaw in the Tacoma's side impact protection. All ratings I've seen, even crashtest.com, have given it their lowest mark.
If you want a safer vehicle, ya gotta go bigger. There's a definite correlation between crash survivability and vehicle mass.
Footnote, he IGNORES the facts that in the years 95-00 there were MORE Tacomas RECALLED and MORE Tacoma RECALL notices than for the Ranger. And since there are only half as many Tacomas built as Rangers, you have a 50% or GREATER chance of getting your Tacoma recalled vs a Ranger.
Anyway, to the crashtest info from the US Gov., I do not recall the figures exactly but the injury index for Ranger was:
LESS THAN HALF OF THE INDEX FOR TACOMA.
Conclusion, you are MUCH more likely to sustain an injury in a Tacoma vs a Ranger.
A Ranger frame is at least 2 inches larger up and down compared to Tacoma.(I have measured both)
Ranger doors are thicker an much heavier than Tacoma.
The Ranger out weighs the Tacoma by about 500 lb.
Ranger is a more solid vehicle than Tacoma.
I will find the links I refered to and repost them.
vic.
Since the Tacoma is newer, It seems that the contrary is true or it would cost more. The side impact is a problem with the Tacoma but a majority of accidents do not involve side collisions (according to the NHTSA and other's websites). In front collisions the Tacoma is rated the same as the Ranger which is why it still gets an acceptable rating. I feel confident to say that they don't rate the Tacoma on death rate, just as they don't rate the 98-2000 Rangers, because there is no sufficient evidence that it is above or below average. If the data was there they would post it.
For some reason fatalities occur more frequently in a Ranger than other vehicles of similar type including the Tacoma. Just to keep it fair, this could of course be related to other factors than the integrity of the vehicle like the age of the driver etc.
cpouser- I'm sorry but I don't see how you come up with a statement that the Ranger is a more solid vehicle than a Tacoma. Seems that if it was, it would bounce and rattle like the the Ranger when I take it off road. The doors don't even sound as solid, but I'll grant you that Rangers do better in side impacts so maybe the doors are more solid. Everything else... I don't see any evidence. As far as your injury figures , I need some proof of that so I'd like to see your post. I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm a natural skeptic without hard evidence and It would be interesting to see those links. Anyway, even if the injury rate is higher in a Tacoma, once again the death rate apparently is higher.
Looke here is the link, compare for yourself. Unlike others I really do not like to rehash all the details of what I have already posted. You get hurt alot more in a Tacoma.
106/145 in bold red is a lot higher than 50/81.
That was thoracic injury factors for first Tacom then Ranger. High is not good.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/
then follow the directions and select the make/mode/year or search by year.
The Ranger has 8 frame cross members, the Tacoma 5 for the long bed version.
the Rangers frmae rails, measured in the wheel well be me. are about 2 inches longer top to bottom than Tacoma.
The Ranger rear differential is an 8.8 inch, the Tacoma is at best an 8 inch. When Ranger went to the 8.8 from a 7.5 inch differential, the claim was a 35% stronger differential. The 8.8 is used on Fords big line of trucks, F150, 250.
The Box on the Tacoma was reported to crumple in tests by Consumer Reports, the Ranges did not. I STAND on my rails and I weigh 265-270 and have had no problems.
Consumer Reports CONSISTAINTLY chooses the Ranger over Tacoma as a Best Buy and states that the quality of the Tacoma is not what they expect from Toyota. This pertains to 95-99 Tacoma, Do not know about the 2000.
The Ranger out weighs the Tacoma by a lot. Not all the weight difference can be attributed to the cast iron engine in the Ranger. But speaking of that, a total cast iron engine has a much smaller chance of warping heads than one with aluminium heads, such as is the case with Tacoma. I think I have read the Tacoma is an aluminum headed cast iron block engine. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
Just park a Ranger and Tacoma side by side and you can see the size difference.
My only point is that I'm 99% sure that the Tacoma would have the same poor rating along with all of the other compact trucks.
Most here pick which magazine they wish to
believe, and just as you probably don't put much weight on Spoog's 4x4 magazine article, I don't have much respect for Consumer Report's car tests. My 300ZX was rated high by them in 1991 and then a few years later they complained about the same things that they praised earlier. I've never owned a car that Consumer Report didn't trash for some reason and their reasons have been totally incorrect. My 300ZX for example was rated poor for brakes because they said that they wore too quickly. I replaced the front brakes at 50,000 mi. and the rears still had 60-70% of life left when I sold it at 54,0000 miles (not too bad). Anyway, the point is that in my opinion go to a car mag. like Road & Track or Car & driver for auto reviews and leave C.R. to toasters and stuff. One more opinion of mine that you probably don't want to hear but I'll tell you anyway, don't pass me a Motor Trend article. I gave up on them after finding out that they had picked the Edsel and then the Vega as he car of the year. Those choices speak for themselves. Bottom line, it's prettyt much ludicrous for this forum to debate safty simply for the fact that we are driving small trucks. If satety is our main concern we should sell the small truck and replace it with a full size truck
Anyway,thanks for your frame info as it is interesting. I personally still think that the Tacoma has a more solid ride. I'm starting a book here so we'll discuss aluminum heads later.
The Ranger is a more "solid" truck? lol.
What about all the TSB's, ect? also, I looked at the safety recalls from 95-2000. What were you smoking? The Tacoma has LESS than the Ranger. Once again you screw up.
Please refer to the 4 wheeler Technical photos on their site:
" We like the large front disc brakes and the 6 lug nuts on the wheels"
" The Tacoma is one tough truck. And all these features are the icing on a tough truck cake. The Ranger cant be our winner, because the winner has to do everything well, ESPECIALLY OFF the highway. So our winner is-------The Toyota Tacoma"!
yeeeeeeeehawwwww!
Petersons 4wd June 99 issue:
" The Tacoma is, bar none, the best offroading stock truck made, PERIOD. It is one of the reasons why we choose it over the Ranger and Chevy".
" Unanimous decision"
" The Ranger had trouble keeping up............"
" The Tacoma handled the rough stuff better than any vehicle we have driven.............."
" The Ranger's suspension is sacrificed for highway only.............."
crashtest.com:
" The Ranger has unacceptable death rates"
The Ranger they SAID they tested was stated as having the off-road pkg., however, the statistical data presented could ONLY have come from an auto Ranger with a 3.73 differential. The off-road pkg gives you a 4.10 differential.
Lets be clear, it was just not a very fair test conducted by Four Wheeler. The same magazine has had very favorable articles regarding the 98 Mazda
which is a clone to the Ranger and has selected the Ranger XL 3.0 as one of it's top 10 best buys.
Well believe which crash test you want. The TSB data for the Tacoma suggests a higher injury rate for the Tacoma. Look at the data, a larger percentage of the Tacoma TSB's result in injury as compared to the Ranger TSB's.
Just going on facts, the posted injury factors from that site I cited and phisical measurment of the 2 vehicles by myself.
eagle63:
Consumer reports runs EVERY truck on the SAME track and reports the results.
Plus their input comes for consumer survey users of the product.
That means Tacoma USERS report the issues with Tacoma, not some potentially biased magazine. I trust their judgment.
You will should you be unfortunate enough to be involved in a serious accident. So will the person sitting next to you.
eagle63- Thanks for the support. At least someone agrees with me once in a while. Funny though how Vince stated this conversation but hasn't been around to defend his position. At least this forum came alive again for awhile and we had some good input from everybody else.
Bam! You just got T-boned by some idiot soccer mom driving her 7000lb SUV who just blew a stop sign. Are you gonna jump out and tell her that she's violating the law of averages?
It seems to me that people just ignore safety until they have been in a serious accident. After flipping over a Blazer a couple of times and walking away with just a scratch on my head, safety, whether tested in a lab or not, is a prime concern for me when purchasing a vehicle. I've just heard too many horror stories from my uncle [who owns a body shop] about accidents and unsafe cars.
(5/5/2000) editions of the Wall Street Journal
there are two separate articles on Japanese,
European makes of autos. The title of the one
article is: Reputation for Poor Quality Still
Plagues Detroit". Suddenly, quality is Problem One
in Detroit again. Despite a massive overhaul of
manufacturing and engineering systems over the past
two decades, a spate of rankings and reports show
U.S. cars and trucks lag behind the best from Japan
and Europe. In the Friday article it reports:
Japanese and European auto makers dominated the top
spots in J.D. Power & Associates 2000 Initial
Quality Study, which also found that the average
rate of new-vehicle problems for Big Three U.S.
brands was worse than the industry average. Both
J.D. Power and the April issue of Consumer Reports
rated the Tundra the top Full Size pickup
Well in regard to Ranger, go look at the data that Four Wheeler posts on their Truck of the Year test. They only tested Tacoma, Ranger and MAzda. The statistics for the Ranger showed a crawl ratio of something like 22.5 to 1 vs a Tacoma of 40 to 1. Now I will not go thru the math again but that lower ratio for Ranger could only have come from an automatic 3.73 geared vehicle. I showed using the math that a 5 speed stick 4.10 ratioed Ranger would have a crawl ratio of about 38 and change, statistically identical to a Tacoma TRD. I also showed that once you are out of first gear, the Ranger has a
BETTER
crawl ratio than the Tacoma when the Ranger has a manual trans and 4.10 differential.
I regard to Consumer Reports, been getting the mag for 20 + years. They are usually right on the money with their reports. I can tell you they were correct regarding my 94 Intrepid. Also I posted the resume of the CR Director of Auto testing. 26 years racing experience mostly European background but he is no dummy about cars. The track they use has an area for 4 wheel drive vehicles. As demanding a track or test as Four Wheeler does, no. But none the less each vehicle tested goes over the same track.
The MAIN complaint of the Tacoma from CR was:
1. Way over priced.
2. Not up to the standards they expect from Toyota.
Did you notice the phrase:
"...the best from Japan and Europe."
Sure you pit the reported "best" against an American producer that makes 2-3 times as many vehicles, that statement can be made.
That will never change the fact I paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,000
LESS
for my vehicle ($17,400 vs $21,500 did not include your 2-3K for the charger) and still manage, dispite your contention, to take it off-road into some very challenging areas with no real problems.
You just jealous that I get to take my vehicle daily if I desire in areas with 2-3,000 feet in elevation changes while Ill. farmers corn fields where you play may changes by 2-300 feet(if your lucky)?
Why the sudden deflection to Tundra? To hide the fact your beloved Tacoma isn't on the list?
Ouch..I bet that had to hurt your pride just a little bit....
However When I cite Powers ranking Ford assembly plants second only to BMW in initial quality, you said this:
spoogs post in topic 867, 651 of 658
"As for your JD powers survey, I have to laughy my
a@@ off. That survery is based on WHAT customers
like and dont like about their vehicle in the first 3 MONTHS!!! THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP!!!
What can happen then? Thats too rich Cspousner, too rich. I quote hardcore governement authority
based information, and you give us tooty-the
operator "how do you like your car" sources. THe
first 3 months proves nothing.THe only thing it
proves is if these consumers have Buyers Remorse.
I suggest you start posting some pertinent sources
here Cspounsr.
Your only making yourself look desperate."
Sooo are you making yourself look desperate by citing Powers Quality reports in favor of Toyota?
First, let me say I would trust all the JD Powers reports on the face value at the time, favorable to either the Toyota or Ford vehicles.
Your inconsistent spoog and it shows very badly on this board.
Oh by the way, Tundra topics are on another board, you must have been confused and inconsistent posting here. . .
"I quote hardcore governement authority based information,. . ."
Quoting JD Powers now. . .
Spoog, your a riot, very easy to catch in inconsistent data...not a challenge anymore. . .
VERY easy to catch in, well no other word for it, a lie.
"Five stars for the F-150. But how did the
Toyota Tacoma do?
"Look at the difference where the top of that barrier is to the window heighth now," says Martinez. "It's hitting straight into it. It's an older design and so the pelvis loads are actually very high."
Is this a potential fatal?
"Yes," says Martinez. "This is a very serious and potentially fatal crash and the bottom line is that you can do better."
Hmmm very serious an potentially fatal for Tacoma.
How do all the trucks stack up?
The Ford F-150,
Ford Ranger,
Dodge Dakota and
Mazda B-series
all get five stars from the government. The Nissan Frontier gets four stars. The Chevy S-10 and GMC Sonoma get three stars and
the Toyota Tacoma gets only one star.
Toyota told "Dateline" that while the Tacoma meets or exceeds all government safety standards, company engineers are evaluating why it did not score better in the side impact test."
"It's an older design and so the pelvis loads are actually very high."
So much for the forward thinking Toyota mentality.
Game, set match. . .
I just can't believe people will be so quick to dismiss a serious safety flaw because they don't believe they'll be involved in an accident.
BTW, my landlord was just T-boned last week. It caused $20,000 in damage to his 2 month old Mercury Grand Marquis. He walked away with just a few bumps and bruises.
The reason I posted that was because of the comments of the quality of the factories, and wall streets overall dissapointment with Detroit quality.
Game, set MATCH.
I see you all slamming the Tacoma formits side impact test results. Yet I DONT see any hard date IMPLICATING this weakness in massive injuries. What I DO SEE is crashtest.com giving the Ranger a "totally unnacceptable death rate".
Chalk it up ANYWAY YOU WANT TO, but the "potential" of injury and ACTUAL DEATHS is one, big Shiny, SPANKING difference!
Game, set MATCH.
Game, set MATCH
Game, set, match.
Game, set , match.
Game, set, MAtch.
Yukons are tanks with windows. I steer well clear of them [and their like] on the road.
Unfortunately, we all have to take some sort of safety risk in any vehicle, whether it's emergency handling, emergency braking, impact worthiness, etc...
If you'd open your eyes, you'd see that all light trucks receive the poor rating. Do you actually think the light truck rated absolutely last in crash tests by everyone is going to perform any better?
Stock TRD vs. Stock Off-Road Pkg?
Probably.
performance category."
Yep. And the average family car beats a Tacoma in every single performance category. Guess what? They're trucks, not race cars.
When they aren't blowing their head gaskets, I'm sure they are.
Ranger."
Well, I would sure hope so. It costs thousands more than a Ranger in the first place. It'd be pretty sad if it didn't. Wouldn't it?