Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - VII



  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    MSNBC Poll as of 7/11/00

    Do you support the Forest Service draft policy on
    'roadless' areas?

    * 11241 responses

    Yes, it's a fair compromise 11%

    No, it doesn't go far enough 12%

    No, it goes too far 77%
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    First of all, the USFS has made a statement that they have received over 1 MILLION comments in favor of the plan, and around 100,000 in opposition.

    "of the existing roads in Nat. forests will be
    decommissioned or placed in a non-maintained state,
    that means not maintained by Govt or private
    off-road groups.

    In excess of 300,000 miles of current roads in
    National forests will be

    Wrong. PLease provide your source Cspounser.

    Again, where are you getting this info from? IT is COMPLETELY erronious.

    IT's high time you went to the SOURCE for your information:

    This is the U.S. Forest Services Roadless Initiative HOMEPAGE.

    It has over 10 GIGS of information on the plan for you to download. If you have Adobe Reader(you can download it for free) you can view it ALL.

    I have looked at the Colorado maps, up close and personal, and I have looked at the Roadless Areas.

    Here is a direct quote from the Q and A page:

    "Does the proposal ban off-road vehicles from roadless areas?

    No. Off-road vehicle use is not prohibited under the proposed rule. Under the procedures of the proposed rule, off-highway vehicle use would be addressed through future local planning processes. "

    Again Cspousner, I STRONGLY suggest you get your information from middle of the road sources and from the actual PLANNERS homepage instead of using special interest pages for sources.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "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"

    The animals will "suffer"? What are you talking about? Animals that live in wilderness areas do just fine without roads. How will the animals "suffer"? Also, wildlife populations are much more balanced in roadless areas than they are in defragmented habitat.

    How will the trees spread pine beetles? The NUMBER ONE CAUSE of pine beetles in healthy forests is ROADS. Non-native plants ,parasites and bugs hitch their way in on quads, jeeps, trucks and on non-native animals such as cows and sheep.

    IN fact, the BEST defense for invasive species is NO ROADS AT ALL. OUr healthiest forest are in our roadless areas.

    LArge, uninterrupted patches of old growth is natures defense against invasive species.

    When you start logging away all the old trees, and leave only young ones, you lower the FORESTS RESISTANCE to disease because the trees don't develop their resistance to these invasive species until they are more mature. THE SAME THING APPLIES TO FIRE cspounser.

    Tell me......where did you study ecology at? Propaganda-R-us?

    As for your job theory, it has been proven again and again that roadless areas benefit economies far more than resource extraction, not to mention that it is a far more sustainable and CONSISTENT form of economy.

    I will provide a link if you wish. IT was a very in depth study by a economics professor from the University of Montana.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Furthermore, the USFS currently has an 8 billion dollar maintenance backlog on the National Forest roads. All these years Cspounser, you and I have been PAYING for the roads in our national forests so PRIVATE timber compnaies can purchase our timber below cost. We then ALSO flip the bill for the environmental clean up costs, and the ENORMOUS bills for continued maintenance of the roads.

    It has come to this Cspounser-

    The USFS simply cannot afford to maintain it's roads any more. Therefore, it makes NO SENSE environmentally or economically to build more roads into roadless areas when we can't even afford to maintain the roads we ALREADY have.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    If you LOOK at the maps YOU provided, look at colorado, click on the Rio Grande forest, you will SEE the dark brown areas, which CLEARLY indicate "...NO NEW ROADS...NO MAINTAINING EXISTING ROADS..." on dark brown area is Hayden pass.
    I TALKED to people in Villa Grove, the base of Hayden, it WILL NOT BE MAINTAINED with the intent to CLOSE THAT PASS.

    The data YOU provided, SAYS that any dark brown area on the map is ADDITIONS to the unroaded area and ANY existing road in that area is to be decommissioned and no new building.

    When you go to the actual proposal, it LISTS the number of sq acres that will be made into "...unroaded..." status. The proposal STATES very CLEARLY a REDEFINITION of unroaded area DOWN FROM 5000 acres to 1000 acres, allowing them to CLOSE EXISTING ROADS.

    Get it clear spoog:
    ROADS WILL CLOSE. A LARGE number of Forest roads. They are doing it by redefining inventoried roadless areas and listing existing roads as decommissioned or no longer maintained.

    the Federal Union members of the workers in the National Forests overwhelmingly REJECTED the proposal and refer to loosing NUMERIOUS jobs.

    You spoog are incorrect.

    I do not disagree regarding the spending issue and would support no new roads and allowing 4 Wheel drive clubs to maintain existing roads. However, that is not the proposal.

    Soon, very soon, the only roads in National Forests will be those flat, entry roads leading to the overpriced camp sites. And that legacy is on your shoulders spoog.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    the figures are 300,000+ miles of existing roads in National Forests, equal to in excess or 70% of the existing roads

    Read data from your own posts, not just the misleading title pages.

    TAHT is where I get my information.

    Also, the determination of what areas close is TAKEN OUT of the hands of the local forest service personnel and put in the hands of Govt. scientists.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    the figures are 300,000+ miles of existing roads in National Forests, equal to in excess or 70% of the existing roads

    Read data from your own posts, not just the misleading title pages.

    THAT is where I get my information, the actual proposal and the data you provided.

    Also, the determination of what areas close is TAKEN OUT of the hands of the local forest service personnel and put in the hands of Govt. scientists.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well I do post honestly here, so will identify this issue.

    After beating the Ranger up on 4 passes of soon to be closed for good Sangre passes, I passed 30,000 miles. Took it in for the 30 K service. I was asked if there were any other issues. I had 2 times missed a shift from 2nd to 3rd while passing at high speeds, so told them about it, thinking MAYBE I bent something or due to the very rough Hayden pass, I shook something loose.

    Well, got a call back, the tranny 2nd 3rd gear syncro needs to be replace. There is an updated, improved design. All work under warrenty, no cost to me except the vehicle needs to be kept 2 more days.

    So there is bad and good news, depending on how you look at it. Yes, the syncro is flakey. I say that because normal regular speed shifting is fine, just happened twice while passing 4,000rpm passing vehicles. But, Ford is replacing it with an improved syncro, indicating they they are always looking to improve thier product.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    At 30,081 miles my brakes are within specs and not in need of replacement. The vehicle was inspected top to bottom and with the exception that my front mount for the KKM filter has broken (maybe because of taking it out and beating it against mountains?) it is in PERFECT condition.

    Does not use a drop of oil or any fluid. There was one minor leak at the xfer case due to a twisted vent tube, but that was fixed. The engine DOES NOT exhibit ANY of the conditions for the supposed marble noise and it, the engine, was built prior to 10/99 as that is when the vehicle was built.

    It climbs steep, 30-40 degree 4X4 roads, such that are left, like a mountain goat.

    The engine runs very strong, and I have never had to clean the MAS.

    To date, the wiper switch has been replaced, a GEM module too for the intermittent wiper recall, one door interlock switch as the door ajar light stayed on, the twisted xfer case vent, could have knocked it a bit and now the syncro issue, not really a major issue to me, but if they will replace it while it is in for service, that is to the good for me.

    I really like the truck and feel quite confident it will keep up or exceed any Tacoma in the area of 4 wheel driving.

    Accept your offer a hundred or so posts back of offroading when you come to colorado. We can go together over Hayden and talk with the people of Villa Grove about the roadless issue. You can see for yourself the deterioration of a former fine 4 wheel drive pass as they try to close it
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "I really like the truck and feel quite confident
    it will keep up or exceed any Tacoma in the area of
    4 wheel driving."

    What? Are you kidding me? lol!!!!!!!!!! has been proven over and over and over again that the Tacoma is a superior offroader to the Ranger in every facet.

    Please quit daydreaming.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I guess it's all how you want to look at things. From my perspective you have had a hell of a lot of problems for a truck with 30,000 miles, taken off road or not. Particularly the fact that they're replacing the syncro with a better one, as you put it, under warranty. They must have had a bad design to start with in my opinion. If I start having as many problems as you I'll dump my wife's Ford and it will be our last. I'm glad that you're happy, but I'd rather have a reliable truck that doesn't have to sit in the shop over and over with only 30,000 miles on it.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I may have sounded harsh but even my 85 Chevy 4x4
    Didn't have that may problems and I drove it pretty hard too.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    so you think a $10 door sensor, a $78 wiper switch and $30 module, and the syncro are right up there with replacement of the 3.4 liter head gasket, if you happen to catch the gasket before the engine lunches?

    I do not think I studdred.

    Bring that bad boy on over for some real challenges rather than cow fields, however,


    I have been there, done it alreadey, and backed it up with pictures.

    You have done neither.

    While on the subject, explain to the forum the advantages of a supercharger when the MOST you can drive up a 30% grade or down the other side is maybe 5 mph, max?

    To go any faster bounces you off a thousand foot drop off.

    Oh!, thats right, you play in cow pastures. . .
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    I have ALWAYS backed up my claims, you have not.

    I have ALWAYS presented or at least looked at both sides, you have not.

    I will take sections from YOUR posts and SHOW you where the data can be found that SUPPORT my findings regarding the roadless issue.

    I have TALKED to people effected and who will loose their livelyhood by this bad idea.

    I have SEEN and posted the resolution by union Forest Service Workers expressing thier opinion that the plan is exstream radical ideas not based on any fact and will cost a significant number of jobs.

    I have BEEN on Hayden pass and SEEN 1st hand the serious deterioration of that beautiful pass by neglect and the serious safety areas that, may, I hope not, injure someone, you have not.

    And I accepted your offer to wheel, was going to show you the serious areas I just spoke of and you just shoot off at the mouth again.

    I seriously doubt you are in anyway an off-roader as you obviously did not read into any detail what this plan will do to destroy the sport of off-roading AND you often state things about 4 wheeling that you say you do off-road that defy logic and could only result in your vehicle departing the established road.

    Again spoog I will cite directly from your posted data and show you exactly where 23% of the esisting roaded area of the Rio Grande NF will revert back to the wild. Now it just so happens the majority of that area is south of Gunnison, prime elk hunting country which results in the outfitters and guides livelyhood being effected. They were told to sell the 4 wheelers and 4x4's and buy horses and or other pack animals if they wanted to stay in business.

    You see spoog, that is the difference between researching an issue and just blowing in the wind of an issue.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    The SOHC 4L isn't like the Toyota's 3.4L. It still retains the torque of the OHV 4L at low rpm (well almost, it's about 200rpm different).

    The SOHC 4L feels like the OHV 4L off the line. It builds revs much quicker and produces more usable horsepower at higher rpm.
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    Settle down guys!

    I have a tidbit of info that may be of interest to both of you. Check this out.....

    I have access to a set of USFS maps of all the Colorado NFs from the early 1970s, and also from the mid 1980s. One thing is very clear from studying these maps and comparing them to current maps: THE USFS HAS BEEN CLOSING ROADS FOR YEARS! On every new edition published, they quietly "delete" roads from the maps. You can't four-wheel on a road that you don't know about. What I don't know is WHY they have been doing this. I suspect they just don't want to maintain these roads. Who knows???

    Using my maps from the mid-80s, I have gone four-wheeling several times in the last two years and found roads, that appear open on the maps, that had been completely closed by the USFS, complete with logs, rocks and signs indicating they are "no longer open to four-wheeled vehicles". There's usually a small gap that allows horses and motorcycles (huh?) access to these roads.

    Any comments????
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    But have you driven both back to back? I have (drove my 4Runner to the Ford dealer, took the Explorer out for about 30-40 min and drove home). Like I said, they are almost identical in everyday driving conditions. So I repeat, if the Toyota 3.4 is underpowered, so is the Ford SOHC.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    I guess you really don't get it , do you?

    Four Wheeler had THIS to say about the TRD Tacoma-

    " The Tacoma TRD handled the rough stuff better than any vehicle we have driven".

    If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know WHAT does. WAKE UP , YOU ARE DELLUSIONAL!!!!!

    1. Better ground clearance
    2. Locking rear differential
    3. 6 lug nuts on wheels
    4. High quality, heavy duty brakes
    5. Higher standard payload
    6. clutch start cancel switch
    7. Standard skid plates for fuel tank and front
    8. Better gear ratio
    9. FAR better offroading suspension(perhaps the most important aspect)

    Four wheeler:

    "The Tacoma TRD was chosen over the Ranger UNANIMOUSLY"


    " The Tacoma is the premier offroad pickup, eating the competition alive in terms of durability and offroad performance"

    Four Wheeler-

    " THe Tacoma won every single test in the performance category against the Ranger"

    Four wheeler-

    " The ranger suspenion is geared for highway travel, sacrificing offroad ability"

    Throw in GENEROUS amounts of HP and torque due to my charger, and you have a truck that would make your little grocery getter "whoopty-doo(four wheeler quote).

    LOL. Cspounser, you are just totally dellusional man.

    As for the corn fields...I prefer not to offroad in them. I have a cabin in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan that I offroad near (canadian shield country).

    As for the raod closures, you STILL don't get it, do you?

    ORV's will still be permitted in the areas. Specialized JEEP trails will still be allowed.


    And to answer someone elses question, the USFS currently has an 8 BILLION dollar maintenance backlog for it's national forest roads. 8 BILLION!!!!!!

    So if some roads get closed, it is due to economics. To leave roads open and to not maintain them is not only dangerous, but environmentally irresponsible as unmaintained roads lead to landslides and erosion of streams.

    The Roadless Initiative makes sense in many ways.

    Why build new roads into roadless areas when we can't even afford to maintain the roads we already have? IT makes no sense environmentally or economically.


    Established Jeep Trails WILL STAY. They will now be in areas that are protected from new road contruction.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224

    Ban on U.S. forest roads draws record public outcry

    Updated 4:02 PM ET July 11, 2000
    By Shanida Smith
    WASHINGTON, July 11 (Reuters) - A Clinton administration plan to ban new roads for mining, logging and other traffic in many U.S. Forests has sparked a record 500,000 comments from the public, with most either backing the proposal or saying it doesn't go far enough to protect the environment.

    The administration announced a plan in May to safeguard 43 million acres of pristine national forests for hiking, bird watching, cross country skiing, horseback riding, hunting, fishing and other nature activities.

    The U.S. Forest Service proposal would affect about one-fourth of the total 192 million acres in the national forest system.

    The proposal, which is expected to be finalized in December, drew an unprecedented number of letters, e-mails and faxes.

    "A record number of citizens have participated in the public comment period for the Forest Service's roadless plan, expressing their overwhelming support for protecting the remaining roadless areas from roads and logging," Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat, told reporters on Tuesday.

    The outpouring of letters surpassed other high-profile rulemakings by federal agencies, including U.S. Agriculture Department's plan for organic food labels last year and the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of cigarettes in 1996.

    The road ban proposal is drawing criticisms from all sides.

    The American Forest & Paper Association, a trade group, contends that roadbuilding is necessary to provide forest access for recreation and fire prevention. Also, some Americans need to reach their privately-owned land using roads.

    Lawmakers in western states that are home to large forest areas have also criticized the proposal for failing to seek congressional input.

    Meanwhile, some environmental advocates and even religious groups say that it does not go far enough to protect virgin U.S. land.

    "The current plan is not acceptable, as it contains loopholes big enough to drive a logging truck through," said Gene Karpinski, executive director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

    Hinchey said that while the proposal aims to protect the forests, it is inadequate because it does not protect the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the nation's largest national forest.

    "By excluding the Tongass and allowing continued logging in the roadless areas, the president is passing up an historic opportunity to protect our national treasures," Hinchey said.

    The Clinton administration proposal would allow continued logging in roadless areas by helicopters and cable systems. About 300 million board feet of timber sales planned for the next five years would be prevented by the road-building ban, according to the Wilderness Society.

    The public comment period for the proposal ends on Monday.

    More than 380,000 miles of roads already exist in American national forests and many of the roads are badly in need of repair, according to the Clinton administration. The proposed ban would apply to large parcels of forest land that do not have roads because of their rugged terrain or environmental sensitivity.

  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    you didn't notice a difference between the 4runner and the explorer? were you drunk? :) I've driven my friend's 4runner (granted it's a few years old) and it doesn't compare to my explorer for acceleration. the explorer will do 0-60 about a second and a half faster. -now I admit, 0-60 contests are kinda irrelevant for trucks and SUV's, but still....
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    cpousnr - I was just trying to get a reaction from you Buddy. In reality though, I hate having to take a vehicle to the dealer for any reason, particularly in the first five years. I guess I got spoiled with my 300ZX which didn't give me any reason to take it to the dealer in the almost ten years I owned it.

    mmcbride1 & eagle63 - I have the opportunity to drive a 4.0 Explorer often and in normal driving you really can't tell much of a difference with the Ford 4.0 and the Toyota V6. Under hard acceleration though, you can feel the extra torque in the Ford yet it isn't overwhelming. If that engine is put into a lighter Ranger, however, I'm sure that the difference will be more apparent. As far as the Explore being 1.5 seconds faster 0-60, I doubt it. Both the V6 Tacoma and the 4.0 Explorer Sport had 0-60 times of about 8.5 - 9.0 seconds in the tests I've read. The Tacoma is certainly not the slug some here try to portray, and has more than adequate power. The Ford 4.0 V6 on the other hand, not only has a torque advantage, but it also seem to distribute the torque more evenly through the RPM range that the Toyota V6.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Maybe I should take the road closing situation more seriously but I've been hearing this stuff for years and California is a big state with a lot of trails. I've yet to see any areas I frequent shut down but I'll check those links when I get a chance. Also not that I put "seem" instead of "seems" in my last post. Hard to believe that I made a mistake again. Sometimes I'm not as allknowing as others.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I mean "Note" that I put.......
    I give up for the night.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    from my trip out of Central City. Think the elevation was a bit over 10,000 ft here.

    The pictures of the 3 trucks is Mike's 89 2.9 L on the left and Kurt's 87 2.9L on the right.
    Kurt's truck has 180,000+ on the original engine and went up the hills real well. He has 4.56 gears which help quite a bit.

    As you can see, Rangers do quite well off-road. The side view of my truck is in the middle of a whoop de do that shows a bit of articulation.

    The pics from the Hayden and Medano trip go in tomorrow for developing.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    I sort of thought that!. I did not take it personal. Nor do I disagree that on the average a Toyota may require less service. But, being an owner/repairer of 2 87 Celica's and my sons 95 P/U, them Toyota parts are not cheap when they are needed.
    Just understand, it shifts fine normally. But if they offer a replacement to an improved syncro, at least I get a free change of fluid and they will replace the rubber plugs on top too!

    In regard to the off-road issue, looks likd a lot of area being closed in Los Padres NF out of San Bernadino. Just check the map that shows the new areas with no construction/re-construction, compare to a forest service map or topo, and see for yourself the end result. The goal is closure of all the good trails.

    Now, pack animals/horses will be allowed in.
    What do pack animals carry in thier stomach and deposit in thier droppings?

    Seeds, non local seeds of weeds etc. That will spread plants that should not be there.

    Also, pack animals/horses with thier hoofs will dig ruts much worse than a 4X4 that is not driven to the point of spinning tires.

    Any true environmentalist and avid off-roader should be outraged at what is going to happen to the off-road trails by executive order. Not even the feelings of congress seem to matter on this issue.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    will be pine beetles. Closing the areas and outright refusal to allow ANY, I repeat ANY motorized vehicles, helo's, ATV's, chain saws etc will perpetuate the spread of that beetle.

    Because that is what that unroaded plan states.

    No motorized vehicles/equipement, period. Only horses etc and as I told you, they will spread the plants that are not native to the area.

    Still sound like a good deal, close 3/4 of the trails, perpetuate disease and fire and spread non native plants?
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "As you can see, Rangers do quite well off-road. "

    Where was the "offroad"? From what i saw, you were on a road the entire time. Where's the mud?
    Where's the big rocks? Where's the steep ascents and declines?
  • meredithmeredith Member Posts: 575
    Ladies and Gentlemen....

    this is the PICKUPS Forum. While I can certainly sympathize with the concern over the possible loss of off road driving opportunities, this is a Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER Topic. Let's keep to the topic material. Further political tirades will be deleted.

    Front Porch Philosopher
    SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Ok will post others tonight.

    I did tell you that the pictures of Haden were going in for developing today?

    Did you not listen?
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    CENTRAL CITY AREA, not Hayden.

    I was very clear that the side picture of my Ranger was in the middle of an area of whoop dee do's of sufficient difficulty to scrape my front receiver 1 inch into the first hill. Guess your missing the articulation. . .
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    As I and allknowing said, in a drag race the Ford is marginally faster (about .5 sec, not 1.5 sec.), but in everyday driving they are almost identical. Either your friend's 4Runner is the previous generation (pre-1996) or it is in your head. My 4Runner is a 1998. Like I said, a good portion of the Ford's power advantage is lost due to the Explorer weighing almost 300 lb more than the 4Runner (Eddie Bauer V6 4WD vs. SR5 4WD). And the current Ranger weighs about 200 lb. more than the Tacoma (Ranger supercab 4WD vs. Tacoma Xtracab 4WD). Will the Ranger be faster? Probably. But not by more than .3-.5 sec 0-60.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Would Edmunds be open to another board strictly on the closure issue?

    SUV's and other offroad vehicles are soundly represented here on the Edumnds boards and it would be great to get the pros and cons out and available.

    I would hazard a guess that, unless you stumble on it, you may not even know the issue exists until you try to go up a newly closed road.

    Is that agreeable?
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    With all due respect and honesty, I had a beat up old subaru wagon follow my 88 toyota up stuff rougher and steaper then that up near Grayson Highlands in Virgina. That looks like some fun and beauiful territory but doesn't seem like a true test of a 4x4 vehicle. Again, I am not trying to be argumentative, just making an observation.
  • danny25danny25 Member Posts: 119
    In the summer 2000 issue of Open Road magazine they test the Explorer, Pathfinder(with the new 3.5L), and the 4Runner. In 0-60 the Explorer did the best, 8.2, 1.2 seconds ahead of the 4Runner, 9.4, and it even beat the Pathfinder at 8.4. And the 4Runner was the lightest of the bunch at 3975 lbs.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I have driven the SOHC 4L Explorer (my dad's, I took it on a road trip to WI) and my 4L Ranger back to back (no 4Runner, though).

    Even with the weight advantage of a few hundred pounds to my Ranger and the mods I've performed worth close to 30hp and 30ft/lbs of torque, I'd say that the these vehicles are just about dead even now.

    The Cammer should be a fun engine in a Ranger. You should be able to bump it up to around 240hp and 265ft/lbs of torque with about $500. And, you'd get better gas milage to boot.
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    Look here at Edmunds. It gives the Explorer a .5 sec advantage. Other reviews I have seen have been right around there, too.
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    Pics looked pretty mild to me in regards to off-road ability.
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    Did anyone see the "Four Wheeler," magazine in which the Tacoma 4x4 was the best value for a compact truck?
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Is this a new article or are you referring to spoog's favorite 1998 article? All of us Tacoma owners know that we have the best value anyway.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Some reviews place the Tacoma a second faster than the 4.0 Explorer. got a 0-60 time of 8.0 seconds with their 1999 V6 Tacoma PreRunner and a slower time of 8.7 seconds in their 1999 4.0L V6 Explorer. The 2000 4x4 Eddie Bauer 4.0L V6 had an even slower time of 9.0 seconds. I have to agree with mmcbride1 that they aren't much different or we wouldn't see this disparity in results (differences in which is faster).
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Just to prevent a few comments that I anticipate, the same site got a 0-60 time of 8.3 seconds in their 4X4 Tacoma. I shouldn't have used a PreRunner as an illustration before. In all fairness to you eagle63, the 4Runner results were slower than the Explorer, at least at that site.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    No did not see the Four Wheeler article you talk about but I do have the issue that lists the "10 best. . ." and Ford Ranger was listed as the best value. That was about 6-7 months ago and I posted it on one of these boards.

    Perhaps the east cost version of the mag is different than the Rocky mtn issue. . .
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    You should be home now, hope you enjoyed the trips over Medano and Hayden.

    As there are some Tacoma owners that do not seem to think Hayden was that rough, what were your opinions? BTW, when i went over it the next day, stopped at that sandwich shop near the road to the pass. That pass is being decomissioned and that is why it was so rough.

    Also, if you get any good pics back of the rough areas, email them to me and I will put them up on my site, ok? I THINK I got one of that first switchback where the big rock was that we had to go around, but my pics just went in to Seattle Film. Also, if you would email me your home address will send you copies of the pics that contain your Mazda. I get duplicates on every roll and the one off Greenhorn peak is very good, shows the valley real well, and your truck.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "The one of my Ranger articulated was 3 deep holes
    about 3+ feet deep and just a bit more that the
    length of the Ranger apart. "

    Come on...this is a huge exageration.

    As for it being 10,500 feet? So what? All that matters is how rough of terrain and conditions you are in. I have seen areas in my truck at 1,000 feet that are MUCH rougher than those pics you displayed.
  • meredithmeredith Member Posts: 575
    The political aspects of road closings in....

    national forests would probably be acceptable in News and Views. I might let it go here as a "stand alone." But NOT in the middle of something else.

    Front Porch Philosopher
    SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Thank you very much for responding. Those terms are fair.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well I guess I should have gotten a picture of the area prior to entering the dips. I did manage to hit two skid plates going through that short area. Also, as you have been told before, a GOOD 4 wheeler looks at the area, picks the path best to take advantage of any lift the tires provide and then SLOWLY goes through. Not exactly the type of travel that would require a supercharger.

    BTW you never responded to my question as to what advantage there is to a charger when normally you only are going 5mph and maybe 2000rpm max.
    You just use the charger to spin the tires and destroy trails?

    Now I never said this area was like MOAB, however, the area generally required a speed not to exceed 5-7mph unless you want to spin off rocks etc from your tires. Also, travel is narrow enough to allow only one vehicle at a time. And yes, the three Rangers did have to stop near the top to wait for 2 Jeeps to back up and yes the Jeeps had a more difficult time over the same area than our Rangers.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Give me the credit that at least I offer to POST pictures of areas rather than TALK about areas.

    I would have rated the area above Central City to be a class 2 trail, the book said moderate, with maybe a few spots of class 3. But went up their mainly for the views of St. Mary's alice and the 20+ mile views from the top. However 4 wheel low was required most of the way, shifting to 2nd or 3rd depending on the contour.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    I understand your point but if there is anything I am it is honest and I truely believe that the trail we went up was rougher then your picture appears to show. I know your Ranger could take rougher terrain than that. I wish I did have some pictures but I have never been one to take them, I always look at them once and then realize they dont do the original justice, which I am assuming to be the case with your pictures.

    I once went on a ride with three jeeps (cj7, cj5, and a stock early 90's Wrangler) to Uwharrie Recrational Area (basicly a redneck playground in one of if not the oldest mtn ranges in on the continent, just hills now though). You may think I am crazy but we all went up this incline that I swear had to have been close to 55 degrees if not more. I thought there was no way, being a firm believer in gravity, that it was possible and about soiled myself when we pulled it off, including the stock Wrangler. I find if difficult to beieve although I do not doubt your judgement that they had a more difficult time then the pickups. I did not have my old truck yet at this time and know it would have been impossible o pull off the same stunt considering the departure angles.
This discussion has been closed.