Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Frontier vs Ranger - II
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hey if your truck is so powerful why did you do all those modifications to it? Not powerful enough? Or maybe it was buyer's remorse(that means it wasn't the powerful truck you thought it was)? Oh another thing, why do you go around bragging that your other ranger went 94K miles without a problem...did you not expect it to and you were suprised? That's the impression that I get, that YOU were suprised it made it so long. Plus, if it was such a great truck with no problems then why did you get rid of it? Afraid problems were coming?
The SOHC ain't gonna help YOU, Vinny. You're at the bottom of the barrel.
And thanks Vince for all those torque numbers you posted above. Too bad your truck didn't even make the list. Have fun wheezing up those cascades!
I thought I saw somebody mention that somewhere.
BTW, Ford will be the most sought after manufacturer to sue. They've got very deep pockets (when compared to other manufacturers that use those same tires).
What an incredibly sad, litigious world we live in. Not to put a damper on the unfortunate people who've lost their lives, everyone's always looking for someone to blame. From some idiot who burns themselves with hot coffee (duh) to the morons who blame the tobacco industry for giving them cancer to the baffoons who claim that gun manufacturers are responsible for people killing other people.
All of the Crew Cabs that I know of(including mine) have General Grabbers AW. But I have an SE with the 16" wheels, it's primarily the way the Crew Cab is rigged here even the XE has the 16" wheels. I don't know about the other models. I think that the 2wd models have the Firestones.
An older couple had a cabin somewhere as a vacation home. They continually had break-ins. Their stuff would be either vandalized or stolen. After the police weren't able to help them, they set up a booby-trap. They used a 4-10 shotgun set up with some bird shot. Their booby-trap did end up working and shot an intruder. The intruder then turned around and sued the owners of the cabin. Finally, the intruder ended up owning their cabin as it was the couple's only way of paying off the punitive damages.
And, this is true. I was shocked to say the least when we discussed it in law class.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/080900/Worldandnation/Recall_of_tires_due_t.shtml
Lets see.
Ford 4.0l 160HP/225ft/lbs of torque
Ford 4.0 SOHC 205HP/240ft/lbs of torque
Nissan 3.3 170HP and 200ft/lbs of torque
Nissan 3.3 SC has 210HP/245ft/lbs of torque.
Ford doesn't need to bandaid its engines in order to meet the competition. Their normally aspirated engines to the job! LOL!!
The normally aspirated 3.3 has a 10HP advantage, wow, 10HP for such a high tech engine!LOL.. For about $200 worth of mods I'm sure my HP now matches yours in my Ranger..
No buyers remorse here whatsoever, I put on a K&N kit and a chip, thats it!
Am thinking of doing dual exhaust here in the next month or so...
You guys just can't stand it, a Ford owner who loves his truck, has had great reliability, quality and performance from Ford. The Frontier is no threat to Ranger whatsoever. The 2001's arrive in a matter of months. I'm sure someone will do a comparison between these two trucks. Can't wait to see the Frontier get smoked!
RE: your band aid comments...I noticed how you keep saying that about the 3.3L but, you conviently don't acknowedge that Ford used S/C on the T-bird and the F-150. I know, I know makes you look stupid right? That's ok we all already know that you are, trust me YOU can't hide it! Let's see how Ford 'Bandaids' those tires!LOL
Go ahead start back-peddaling or repeating the same 3 posts you've been putting up here for the last 18 months. Have some creativity!
Signed.
A Ford Ranger owner who is happy with his second Ranger and knows the facts! Nissan owners hate me because I popped their bubble! LOL..
Since Vince just wants to talk about torque, I will sit back and enjoy my Nissan CC. Go ahead Vince keep spewing torque talk and LOL's. I have owned both a Ranger and a Nissan, and I know which is far superior.
I think it just looks more conservative, with an identity copied from the ford big trucks which was borrowed slightly from the dodge ram, they really should have just evolved the current style. Well at least they addresed some of the problems with the suspension etc. Maybe they fixed the "spotty reliability" and poor suspension edmunds was talking about too.
I'm just glad I got to see your post before they deleted it. I wish I had saved it.
This brings up a question. What's going on with the '02 Rangers, as they are a complete redesign? Will they all look like the '01 models with the slight redesign or something else?
When in the HELL is the rumored SVT Ranger gonna come out?!?
Keep it coming boys.. Enjoy your weak 3.3's and keep up the patting each other on your backs to beef up your ego's. LOL!
The new 2001 Ranger with its new SOHC 4.0 will continue the domination of the RAnger!!
mmc? I haven't seen you around for a while. I notice you are still jumping around from room to room trying to get someone to go up against your superior 4-runner? Heck, even Nissan came out with an engine (3.5) that kills your 4-runner in every performance category...
Vince: You continually call the supercharger on the new CC a band-aid??? Why then do you need to put a new chip, K&N filter, and dual exhaust on your P.O.S. ranger??? Is this not a band aid?? My Nissan CC has no mods, and it performs great on and off road.
Have you spent any time reading the long term ranger test yet?? Ya, I know, you will just keep ignoring this question. Go hide kitty. Meow LOL.
Since Vince won't comment on the Edmunds long term ranger test (1998 4x4) here are some gems from the recent monthly updates:
"It didn't take long for Wardlaw to regret his decision to drive the Ranger for a month."
"The seats are horrendously uncomfortable, offering zero support for legs and back. The grippy fabric can, at times, hold your body in odd seating positions as it clings tenaciously to your clothing. What this truck needs is a good, six-way power driver's seat with firmer padding."
"Wardlaw reported that the truck's five-speed transmission was shifting harshly, particularly when engaging reverse or when futzing along in rush-hour traffic on hot days, and once, when coasting down a steep freeway descent and selecting the overdrive-off function, the tranny freewheeled, offering no engine braking and dropping revs to idle level. Not good, especially considering the fact that this truck has already had its drive shaft yoke lubed under warranty, and hasn't been used for towing or moving heavy payloads."
"And then there is the noise issue that started to wear on them. This is not a quiet, comfy pickup. It's loud on the inside - tire noise and engine roar and wind buffeting"
"Memmer had difficulty getting used to the rough ride -- bouncy along on the freeway wasn't so fun, especially with an engine that Memmer thought was noisy and "sounded like a diesel," and was "gutless off the line in the lower range." He thought for sure the Ranger had a four-cylinder, until he opened the hood and saw six spark plug wires and "4.0" emblazoned on the engine. "It's obviously geared lower than a passenger car, for towing and load-carrying."
"Complaints abounded for the seatbacks this month, which were called, "the worst seats I've ever sat in." Scott warns that if you didn't have back problems before you rode in the Ranger, you'd have them in a matter of weeks. Memmer attributes this to the bulge in the lower lumbar region, in addition to the foam rubber that is "soft and spongy."
These are all direct quotes from Edmunds. This only covers a few of the monthly updates in 2000. Sorry Vince, I don't have enough time to go back and copy the numerous complaints they've had since the long term test started in 1998.
But then again, who cares. The Ranger has more torque than my Frontier, and thats all that matters. LOL, Meow, meow.
Show us the Dyno test results done on your engine since you put the K&N filter in...Oh by the way I just installed my K&N fitercharger tonight myself(got it from 4 wheel parts in calif.) So even if you do get 10hp you only equal the stock 3.3L(what does that say about YOUR engine if you have to spend extra $$$ to equal the "weakest" 6cyl engine?)but not mine. BUT, I'm sure we don't get an extra 10hp maybe 2 or 3 horsepower...don't believe the hype. I bought mine for the durability and better filteration. BUt I can see your still looking for the 'sandman'. nite nite kitty!
OK, yeah right, its awfully funny how all of the sudden you went and bought a K&N air charger kit.. Hmmm.....
Keep on trying to convince yourselfs the 3.3 is what it really isn't.. Face it, its the weakest V6 on the market today..
Wrong, I did Dyno my truck with both the chip and the K&N air charger kit installed. It Dyno'd at 181HP. I took it to a racing place and the guy did look at me kind of funny wanting to know why I wanted to Dyno a Ranger 4x4. He used an intertia type system.
One thing I will admit, Rangers with A/C get crappy MPG. Mine drops a good 2-3mpg with the A/C running.. So, I only turn on the A/C if the weather gets hotter than about 85 or so..
Sorry that you did not like my direct quotes from the Edmunds Ranger test. Yah, all of the quotes are negative, but take a look at the review and you will find that edmunds had very little positive to say about it.
Sorry to hear that your ranger gets crappy MPG with the A/C on. My weak little CC has the A/C almost constanly here is So. Cal, and it has very little impact on MPG or power. 10,000 miles on her now with absolutely no problems, rattles or anything.
Since I formerly owned a Ranger, I have some objective experience to compare these trucks. You, Vince, on the otherhand, have maybe only test driven a frontier. Your subjective judgement is based strictly on all the B.S. stats that you pull out of your [non-permissible content removed]. I know what a piece of crap my 1997 Ranger was. By 10,000 miles it had numerous rattles and had been back for warranty repairs five times. Enjoy your torque while I enjoy my ride.
Frontier SC: SC is a bandaid because normally aspirated the 3.3 is weaker than the SOHC 4.0
SOHC 4.0 Ranger: Putting a chip or high flow filter, etc is not a bandaid, because it's already more powerful than the normally aspirated 3.3.
This principle is the same for any two engine comparisons. Thats why putting a SC on a Ford is not a bandaid to Vince.
This is the word of Vince, Amen.
Actually, we are lucky that Vince is a one man show. No one agrees with his amusing rhetoric, not even the Ford dealer who fixes his truck!!
Vince, what color Rangers (2) should I buy to replace my Frontier CC?? I was thinking of Charcoal gray. This color would hide any burn marks in case my new Rangers self ignite. Or maybe turd brown would be a better color? It would then match the quality of a Ford Ranger. Dig deep little kitty. Meow, meow.
He has to bandaid his truck to make it equal to the 3.3L.