Are you an EV owner who has received a shockingly high quote for repairs? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by Friday, May 26 for more details.
Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - VII
This discussion has been closed.
You just lost whatever credibility you had....again.
I have 26K original miles on my brakes.. I will check them this weekend...
BTW Since you have a Ranger I guess it would be in your interest to check them out.
down a bit especially when your foot is on the gas.
Is that a form of a locker"
Built Ford Tough. . .since Mazda is a rebadged Ford. . .
On the seats, well, differing opinions, however, you may remember that Consumer Reports and Edmunds rates the Tacoma seats worse than Ranger's. But depends on what your use to. If you drive a BMW, yep the Ranger seats would seem hard.
Man, hit by a train doing 79 mph and you walk away from it. . .
That is one tough truck. . .
The niggling little problems I've had already with the Mazda/Ford are causing me to think again. I hope this is not an expensive "oops" for me. I can't afford lessons like this. I didn't have any thoughts like this with less than 3000 miles on any of my Toyota products.
All I'm really wanting is a wish for good luck from the group...
There is no proof that the Taco 4x4 with do any worse than the Ranger in the side impact test. Can you provide a link that directly indicates that the 4x4 Taco and not the 2wd Taco is not crash worthy? Talk is cheap . . . now lets see the proof.
"Well, a large amount of the test of that Ranger is
in LA where brakes are used a lot. . .also
explains the low mpg."
As opposed to Chicago, where the breaks aren't used! lol!
skid plates. Those are all standard in the Taco."
Why pay for something you don't want/need?
I still don't understand the "this or that comes standard" argument. It seems quite the opposite to me.
I'd rather be able to pick and choose each individual option to customize the truck that best fits my needs. Throwing everything together in a bundle is not better. You're still paying for each option. This is the reason I didn't buy the Mazda B-Series truck, as its option choices are limited to packages. I wasn't able to configure one to my exact preferences.
I still don't understand the "this or that comes
standard" argument. It seems quite the opposite to
I'd rather be able to pick and choose each
individual option to customize the truck that best
fits my needs. Throwing everything together in a
bundle is not better. You're still paying for each
option. This is the reason I didn't buy the Mazda
B-Series truck, as its option choices are limited
to packages. I wasn't able to configure one to my
exact preferences. "
This says alot about the design philosophy of the company. Toyota won't sell a 4x4 without standard skid plates and a good payload.
It speaks volumes.
Exactly. It says:
Pay us! You don't want it? We don't care! Pay us anyways!
Of course, reasoning is useless with someone who paid 27K for a "performance" truck that can't even outrun many "family" vehicles costing thousands less.
But, you're right. It just isn't quite practical.
It's almost there for me. It would easily tow my sleds. Winter driving wouldn't be too bad with some snows and a few hundred lbs in the bed (it's already got the traction-lok LSD). It's just the mpg and jump in insurance that would get me. Plus, no matter how good a 2wd truck is, it's just never gonna be better in snow and the like than a 4wd truck.
"Of course, reasoning is useless with someone who
paid 27K for a "performance" truck that can't even
outrun many "family" vehicles costing thousands
I paid 24 for my truck, and it IS a performance truck that will take any other stock pickup OFFROAD.
It is a serious, serious, performance MACHINE.
--Spoog, you won't take a ZR2 offroad. It too is a serious performance machine.
If Toyota V6's are underpowered, so are Ford's. Period.
The current OHV 4L has pleanty of torque at very low rpm. However, it lacks upper end horsepower. The SOHC engine has the low end and adds the high end.
Just been reading how a large number of current 4X4 trails will be closed soon with this roadless initiative.
23 % of the existing 4X4 roads in the Rio Grande National Forest in Colo will close including most in the La Gratia area. Hayden pass is not now maintained with the goal to put it back to nature. Too bad, a great, challenging 10,700 ft pass, used by Indians and settlers on the western expansion. Wonder how many 4 wheelers will have accidents, get injured or worse until then.
I took the Ranger over Hayden twice this weekend, and twice over Medano. Very loose shale on the west approach, about a 35-45 degree climb, going around boulders. On the east, very uneven loose rocks, water damage not being repaired. An ATV flipped in front of me when it got sideways coming up towards me. Me and the other drivers of Ranges behind me pulled it off him.
Hayden is going to claim a life in this un-needed effort to reclaim a trail that has been used for hundreds of years.
Medano will not close, but the sand area, 8 miles from the bottom of the pass to the Sand Dunes park will be closed. So effectively, you travel the pass, then you have to go back over it.
Didn't someone on here say no existing roads would be closed?
That is not true.
Police were saying its locker may have engaged at 40-50 mph and spun it off the road.
If you happen to be on US 85 through Villa Grove Colo, stop at the sandwich shop near the Amoco gas station, talk to the outfitter that is being put out of business due to the closure of Hayden pass and the La Gratia area. I talked to him before I traversed Hayden.
Also, due to the fact that the Forest Service is NOT, I repeat NOT maintaining Hayden, and WILL NOT, I repeat WILL NOT allow ANYONE to maintain it, TRY and negotiate that pass. It is very bad and getting worse. Eroded road where water water is cutting it. The map you posted befor if you click on the area of Hayden, VERY CLEARLY states it is part of the 23% of the Rio Grande NF that will become unroaded.
Read the fine print of a cause before you champion it. You are loosing 60 million acres of land currently open to off-road vehicles, be it a TRD or a Ranger. The current roads WILL NOT BE MAINTAINED and are intended to be RETURNED TO NATURE.
Again, read all the fine print before you champion a cause.
And ORV's WILL be permitted in the roadless areas, plain and simple. The USFS Roadless Deiss clarifies that.
And for what it's worth, Roadless areas and intact, pristine ecosystems bring in far more dollars than logging or other extractive activities. NOt to mention they can be SUSTAINED.
LEts look at i t realistically Cspousner, instead of reading the "facts" from the logging-mining backed Blue Ribbon Coalition(if you like, I will provide you a link FOMR THEIR SITE showing exactly what their goals are).
How can we "lose access" in an area that never had roads in it to began with? lol.
In excess of 300,000 miles of current roads in National forests will be
You said no roads would be closed.
I said access will be denined unless, like Hayden pass, you are willing to walk 5 miles accross sage fields, then 8 miles up, with a 3000+ft elev change to 10,700 ft high, over paths falling off the mountain due to erosion and over the boulders blocking your path.
For hundreds of years these trails were maitained and used by our great-great grandfathers, Indians and current hunters/outdoorsmen.
The animals will suffer due to no regulation by hunting, trees will spread pine beetles and die out and thousands will be put out of a livelyhood.
All gone, over 70% of the access roads closed. With rare exception, the only roads open will be to low level campsites, the class 1 no challenge dirt roads.
Read the data, overlay the maps you provided with your favorite 4X4 trails and SEE they will be closed.
I did, and they will be closed.