• cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "Have you tried measuring the front clearance of
    the Taco verse the Ranger?"

    So what do you plan to do? You drive halfway over that 10" obstruction and then back up and go around?

    Get a clue! It's marketing glitz!
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    OK, let me go through your post step by step.
    Clutch start/cancel switch: -I'll give you this one. the ZR2 definitely doesn't have one. although I really question the usefulness, especially since I would only get an automatic, not a manual transmission.
    Locking rear diff: Yes, the ZR2 has an Eaton Grav-Lok locking rear diff that locks up to 20 mph. (not 5 mph like the tacoma's
    Suspension: Like the Tacoma, the ZR2 has a off-road tuned suspension, including 46mm Bilstein shocks.
    Class leading ground clearance: As i just posted, I went out and measured 'em last night. both were 9 1/2".
    I'm not sure what payload has to do with off-road performance spoog. for the record, though, the ZR2's actual payload is 1400, not 1000.
    If you get a chance to poke your nose under a ZR2, take a look at the drive shaft. -you'll know what heavy duty really is. it's twice the diameter of the tacoma's or ranger's. much of the driveline hardware on the ZR2 comes from the Silverado. plus you can't deny the power advantage of chevy's 4.3L engine.

    I'm sorry Spoog, but the ZR2 is every bit as equipped and capable as the Tacoma is for off-roading. my point here is not to say that the TRD is a lousy or inferior truck. -it's not, it's a great truck that is very well equipped for off-roading. but so is the ZR2. that's my point.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Think it was about 10-10 1/2 inches max on the Ranger.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    When you say "locks up to 40mph" or "locks up to 5mph", do you mean engaging or staying locked. Yes, you must be at or below 5mph to engage the TRD's locker, but it will stay locked well above 5mph. Despite whatever Vince says about this there are many Tacoma enthusiasts at's message board that have tested this.

    One thing to note about the ZR2's suspension is how the rear shock mounts extend below the axle. While they are not lower then the diff case it is something that has to be considered when trying to avoid obstacles that cannot be driven over with tires.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    \\I'm sorry Spoog, but the ZR2 is every bit as
    equipped and capable as the Tacoma is for
    off-roading. my point here is not to say that the
    TRD is a lousy or inferior truck. -it's not, it's a
    great truck that is very well equipped for
    off-roading. but so is the ZR2. that's my point. \\

    The August 99 Issue of Petersons offroad had a comparison test between the Ranger, Tacoma, and zr2.

    They chose the Tacoma as the best truck , and the best offroader.

    If you look at the Chevy, it has no skid plates, or a fuel tank plate. The rear shock mounts also extend below the axle, which is an offroading "no-no".

    I suggest you check out that 99 Petersons offroad comparison test.

    You can toss on neat features, but if the basic, inherent design is flawed for offroading, there will be problems.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Well, if spoog read something in a magazine article (or on the internet for that matter), then it must be true!

    Does that Petersen's magazine come out of your house and wash your truck too, spoog???
  • hulk66hulk66 Member Posts: 37
    What does crash test ratings mean anyway? All pickups are vulnerable from side impact crashes. Not any of them are better or safer than the other one. Logic,logic,logic.Enough with the crash study which means nothing.meaningless! let's get 1 thing straight, TACOMA is the only truck that has skid plates as standard equipment on their trucks. NOT ranger or ZR2 or frontier! One thing that puzzles me is sales. Ranger outsells tacoma because of cheaper parts to replace, less expensive truck, and there are many more ford dealers than toyota dealers around. Not many people can afford that extra $3-$4,000 extra for the quality of a tacoma truck. But they will make it up for the repairs and all the extra options they need to keep up with toyota.
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    I wouldn't believe a thing spoog posts at all,he basically all but proved he does not own a trd tacoma,if he did he would know that they only have 3 leaf springs,he LOL at the 3 springs on the Ranger and backed hindsite on the 4 leaf spring trd,if he owned one he would know they only come with 3.He's so quick at quoting other people and then coming up with some antics or magazine article.Here is another post I'm writing that is true directly from a magazine,look for a full size truck from Mazda soon and a 4 fullsize door Ranger with the 3.9L or 4.6L V8 in it.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Why the slam?

    Sorry if adding credible sources to a discussion is looked down upon. Geeze.

    Since Petersons are 4x4 experts, and the ranger, Tacoma, and zr2 went head to head in the 99 august issue, I felt it was relevant.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Crash test ratings are an indicator of either walking away from an accident or being hauled away from one, possibly in a black bag.

    Unfortunately, it usually takes a shake-up for someone to move safety up to a priority on their shopping list.

    This safety talk reminds me of a lady I worked with a few years back. She had bought a Mazda MX3 (a tiny little car for those of you who don't know) on the recommendation of her boyfriend. He said they were safer because being smaller they could avoid an accident. I said, "Bam! Someone just hit you. You just got T-boned and had absolutely no way of avoiding the collision." Needless to say, she was speechless.
  • mahimahimahimahi Member Posts: 497
    I guess it depends on what skid plates you are talking about. Because my Frontier Crew Cab comes standard with skid plates for the front diff and the fuel tank. If your talking about the tranfercase then you're right, but it really isn't necessary on the frontier. The reason is because there is a cross-member that is postitioned right across the front of the trnsfercase and under the transmission, so it will protect it just like a skid plate would. Besides the transfercase has a ground clearance of 11 3/4".

    As for the comment of spending and extra $3-4K for the Toyota "quality" over what the past Toyota trucks? Looks to like the Toyota marketing company deserves an award. To me you must have a little insecurity about paying the same amount for a compact w/v-6(with plastic bumpers)as you would for a full-size with a v-8. Even if you don't want or need a full size why would you spend as much? I've owned toyota truck and loved it eventhough I had to replace the motor at 100k miles. I have worked for toyota dealerships and have seen the problems that are associated with them. I have also worked for a Ford dealership and a Mitsubishi dealership they all have plenty of problems right off the truck! The interior of the toyota truck has to be the cheapest looking with tacked-on armrests and power window controls. How about the shallowest bed on the market. It's really sad(or stupid) that you would have to come up with a phrase such as that to justify why you paid more than the rest of us. So if YOU believe that the Taco is better good for you, but don't speak for me and why I didn't buy the Taco...because it surely wasn't because I couldn't afford it.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Why should someone pay for something if they don't want it? Should Toyota just make 4wd standard on their Tacomas?

    I, for one, only do a little light-duty off-roading and a whole lotta snow travel. Do I want/need 4wd? Yes. Do I need skidplates? No. Do I want skidplates? No.

    It's not like skidplates are a freebie either being "standard" and all. They're included in the price of the truck. You're just not given the option of whether you want them or not.

    The only option that I believe all trucks should be equipped with is 4-wheel ABS (for safety purposes). The rest is up to the individual preferences of the purchaser.

    One more thing. You're definately right about being able to get great deals on the Ranger. It's called value. You get more truck per dollar. (This is the reason that Ford sells so many of these things)
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    This isnt meant as a slam against Ford, but did anyone see the news story about how the Firestones being sold with Fords have been shown in tests to be dangerous in that they literally fall apart with the tread suddenly falling off?

    I saw the new Frontier this past weekend and all I can say is "Oh my God, what are they thinking?" Its actually worse then the new Monteros and about as ugly as the Izuzu Vehicross.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Remember, it's only relevant if it says something good about any truck but Toyota.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    For all the so called safety conscious Ranger owners out there, once again let's not forget that the Ranger has a much higher than average death rate record while the Tacoma isn't rated for some reason. Could mean that the Tacoma is much a much safer truck in spite of the side impact tests, maybe not. Either way, the high death rate is there on the Ranger so let's not imagine that it's a safe vehicle and that you guys are really concerned about safety. If you really believed and were concerned with the crash test data, you certainly wouldn't be driving a Ranger!!!!
  • theurinaltheurinal Member Posts: 11
    My Ranger is always messed up. I think I'll get a Tacoma because they never have any problems.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    I never liked Firestone tires. Had a set of FR 480's on my Caravan, three got punctures and the tread did literaly come off. I had a set of 360's on my sons Celica. They wore our in 21,000 miles, were a 45K tire and Firestone would not give me a warrenty adjustment. I go rid of the Firestones on my Ranger after 14K.

    Bad tire company.


    Will have to check my data. Am sure that the Tacoma in the Govt crash tests had a much higer injury rate than the Ranger, like 2:1 in the index quoted. That is bad.


    My brake pads have about 1/2 inch left at 31,000 miles, good for maybe 5,000 more miles. Do not know what the issue is about brakes. . .

    Also, only have a pic of my Ranger with water to the bottom of the bumper, the streams were lower in July as compared to June. However, did show you a 15 year old Ranger, 180,000 + on the original engine, with water to just below the headlights. And before you ask, no I would not go through there, that older Ranger has a 6 inch lifted suspension.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    You sound like spoog with not posting all relevant data.

    If you take a closer look, you'll see that ALL compact trucks (S10, Frontier, etc...) have the highest death rating.

    Would you actually expect the Tacoma, which has the worst crash test ratings and safety record of any of these trucks, to fare any better?

    Try using a little common sense here.

    Hmmm... Maybe they couldn't rate the Tacoma because the scale couldn't go high enough. Most likely it's due to the low numbers of Tacos out on the road.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Yeah, I saw something on the news yesterday about somebody (was it the gov?) wanting Ford to recall 3mil vehicles based on the Firejunk tires.

    Will it happen? Probably not. Ford will just pass the buck onto Firestone.
  • mahimahimahimahi Member Posts: 497
    I agree with you the new Frontier has something to be desired...I like the current body-style better. Imagine having to wax the fender flares? But how about that hidious new Taco? WOW you put a hook in the corner of that grill and you have yourself a catfish! What are the Japanese truck makers doing?
    I think I saw a pic of the new Ranger, I hope it doesn't start to look like the Explorer. I guess if I want the truck-look on my next vehicle I'm going to have to get a 1-ton :)
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    I agree with cthompson21 in that most people who buy a 4x4 truck do so for TWO primary reasons:

    1) They want to haul stuff (and don't want to dirty/destroy the inside of an expensive SUV).

    2) They want 4-wheel drive for inclement weather conditions.

    While any particular truck's off-road capabilities (clearance, etc) make for interesting debating, the majority of buyers will hardly ever take their trucks off-road on the types of trails that have been shown and discussed on this forum lately.

    Even though I'm not a Ford/Ranger advocate, I believe Ford offers the Ranger buyer a far greater spectrum of options that allow the buyer to "customize" his Ranger to suit his/her needs. Why should a buyer pay for things like skid plates if their intent is to never venture into the back country? Toyota marketing could learn a lesson form Ford in this regard. If they did, the Tacoma might be priced more competitively.

    Don't get me wrong. I like to go 4-wheeling, but only a couple of times a year. However, I feel I NEED 4-wheel drive for the periodic nasty winter weather we get here in the Denver area.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "I agree with you the new Frontier has something to
    be desired...I like the current body-style better.
    Imagine having to wax the fender flares? But how
    about that hidious new Taco? WOW you put a hook in
    the corner of that grill and you have yourself a
    catfish! "


    It's strange. It just seems that alot of the "higher ups" in the Japanese corporations are getting older, and some of them are getting senile.

    In my opinion, the current and future designs of compact pickups are taking a turn for the worse, not for the better.

    Even the full size pickups look bad now.

    Honestly, there isnt one 4x4 out there that catches my eye now. The new Landcruiser is ugly, the f150 is ugly, the Chevy Silverado is ugly. The only 4x4 I like the looks of is the Land Rovers and the regular old jeeps.

    To me, the vehicles that seem to age best with time and manage to not look outdated if kept clean and shiny would be the regualr jeeps and the Toyota pickups from 90-95.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    That was my point CT. If safety is really an issue then you guys shouldn't be driving a small truck. You can knock the Tacoma because it may make you fell better that it may, and let me highlight MAY, be a little bit safer. You still have a greater chance of being killed in a Ranger than a majority of the vehicles on the road so let's get real and admit that you're not as concerned with safety as you try to portray. It is either an acceptable risk you're willing to take, you really don't fully believe the crash test data, or you know, as most of us know, that the tests don't necessarily depict real life conditions.
  • mahimahimahimahi Member Posts: 497
    I would have to say that my favorite truck as far as style goes would have to be a '80-'83 Toyota 4x4 long or short bed(the earlier ones had the 20R motor). With a 3" suspension lift and 33" tires and 15x10 rims, oh and a roll bar. I used to have an '81 long bed just like that. I had it almost done until this woman pulled out in front of me with her Lumina Van and totaled it. I got that truck after traing a '86 Suzuki Samuri for it, ha I made out in the deal. I then raised it pulled all the stickers off of it stuck the tires and rims under it and was done with the interior and getting ready to put the roll bar on then wham the accident. My preference of these trucks are the '82-'83 'cause of the square headlights...which I was going to convert mine later. It's too bad they never made it in an extended cab version, who knows I might have one now :) The only fault I could find with this truck was as durable as that engine was it couldn't tow jack!
  • mahimahimahimahi Member Posts: 497
    I left out the FJ-40 and the late '70's and early '80's Landcruiser

    As for the current trucks the only one that I really like is the Ford SD series but, damn they're all over the place. That's one reason I kind of like my crew cab(nissan) I don't see many and when I do it's not a 4wd but, I'm sure I will.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    OF COURSE I like the fj 40's and the older Toyota's. I was just giving examples of more modern trucks that I liked.

    To me, the best looking 4x4's are:

    1. Jeep Wrangler/Cj/YJ
    2. Toyota Landcruiser, FJ 40
    3. Range Rover
    4. Land Rover, Land Rover Defender
    5. Toyota pickups 80-98
    6. Dodge Ram
    7. Toyota 4runner

    It's funny...not only do these 4x4's looks the best, but they are the best offroaders as well.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    First off, I AM concerned with safety as I "try to portray". Where would you get off saying that? You know nothing of my motives or the crash that I was in a few years back.

    Second, the Ranger is the safest vehicle that fits my needs. I despise Sport Stupidity Vehicles. I can't tow with a sport wagon. And, a full-size truck is inefficient, large, and cumbersome (for my needs).

    Third, I'm not "knocking" the Taco. Tests are just that, tests. They don't portray all real world conditions. But, they give you an idea of what might happen. A one star rating out of five indicates to me that a serious deficiency might exist.

    Fourth, you can get killed in any vehicle. A big portion of it depends on what hits you. Hence, my despisal of jumbo sport 'utes.

    Finally, if you want to write off safety, feel free. It seems that most Taco owners do. I guess you consider the risk acceptable.
  • mahimahimahimahi Member Posts: 497
    I know I'm getting off topic and by no means am I a Dodge fan but, remember the Power Wagon. That's a brawny-looking offroader! Heavy Duty too.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Thanks for the lecture, and I'm sorry that you were in a bad accident but thank God you're OK now. I guess we just see things differently because, from my perspective, you guys continue to bring up crash tests on a vehicle that's rated acceptable just like the Ranger. There's no data that I've seen, and according to my insurance company that they've seen either, that indicates that there are more deaths or injuries in a Taco vs. the Ranger. Aside from that, when you use crash test data to support your argument that also indicates that the Ranger has an unacceptable death rate, it defys logic. It's like trying to convince someone that that they'd be better off shooting themselves in the head with a rifle rather than a shotgun because tests show that a shotgun has a better chance to kill you. I'm sorry but I don't see a cedible argument here. Better off sticking with the price and value arguments.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I didn't bring up the safety point. A Taco owner said to dismiss it because he didn't feel that safety mattered. I felt the opposite, and this is a discussion forum. So, you know how it goes...

    Have you seen anything to dispute that the Ranger is not one of the (or in many cases the) safest vehicle in the compact truck class? Just curious.

    First, you discredit ANYTHING negative about the Taco in terms of safety as flawed, not the real world, it's not a 4x4, blah blah blah. Next, you want to compare the Ranger to everything else on the road. Not the Ranger vs. Taco. Not even the Ranger vs. the rest of its class. One of us is using flawed logic here, and I don't believe it's me.

    My point is that no test, rating, or whatever is gonna tell the whole story. There's some truth in each, but there's also some bias due to the testing parameters.

    To sum up the tests and everything else I've seen:
    -Compact trucks, in general, are not the safest vehicles to drive.
    -The Ranger is a class leader in safety, while the Tacoma is not.

    Take it for what it's worth. We're all at risk when we go out on the road whether we're riding a motorcyle or driving a Sherman tank.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    what are you guys smoking? the ZR2 has a full set of skid plates. let's try and pick it up a notch ok?
    -spoog, do you have a link to that august issue of peterson's? -just want to keep you honest.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    I posted the injury index for chest injury, leg injury etc based on the Govt tests. I even posted the values.

    Tacoma was much higer, sometimes double, than the Ranger.

    It was posted back maybe on the "...V..." topic board or maybe "...VI..."
    Anyway, go back and look, the data is there.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Understand that I use "you guys" in a general sense referring to Ranger owners. I responded to you because of your comments:
    "crash test ratings are an indicator of either walking away from an accident or being hauled away from one, possibly in a black bag. Unfortunately, it usually takes a shake-up for
    someone to move safety up to a priority on their
    shopping list".

    As I said there is no evidence that has been produced to back up the claim that the Ranger leads in safety other than the crash tests. In real life that has not been the case. While I would also agree that the Tacoma is not a class leader in safety, I would not agree that the Ranger is either. For small trucks the Dodge Dakota appears to lead the way with an "acceptable" Death Rate rating while the Ranger is rated the worst possible score at "poor".
    If you feel better as a result of the Ranger's crash test score that's what matters because you drive one. A Tacoma owner can feel OK also knowing that the real life safety record of the Tacoma is just as good as the Ranger, at least according to my insurance company.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    OK CP I'll check that out when I get time. I may have to eat my words. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, however, the Dakota still leads the Ranger in safety so at least don't overstate the Ranger's credentials.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I took a quick look but it could take a year to find the post. I don't know if you realize how many posts there are.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611


    Look at the bottom, the Thoracic Trauma Index Pelvis Deceleration Red is bad.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I'm not trying to be too technical or anything, but I don't personally group the Dakota with the other compacts. I think the Dakota and Tundra make up a mid-sized truck class.

    Anyways, the death rate chart is the only negative thing I've ever seen posted about the Ranger's safety. Have you seen anything else? Not so with the Taco. It seems that everything is negative.

    But, if believing that it's just as safe because of the amount of premium that you pay, then go right ahead. I guess if I was driving something with such a terrible safety record, I'd be trying to justify it too.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    I challenge you to check your weights again as you are comparing the 4wd Ranger agiainst the 2wd Tacoma.

    Here are my numbers from Carpoint for the v6 x-cab 4wd models. I would have used the numbers from the manufacturer's web site but Ford changes their site just about every month and decided not to supply specifications this time.

    Ford v6, x-cab, 4wd, auto = 3654 lb
    Toyota v6, xcab, 4wd, auto = 3460 lb
    Difference = 194lbs

    I have grown tired of endless repetitive debate, however I do like to check up on the things people post.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    This falls inline with what has been brought up before. If the comparison between the Ranger and Tacoma in the FourWheeler article is flawed because they were not equally equipped then this comparison is also not valid.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    \\-spoog, do you have a link to that august issue
    of peterson's? -just want to keep you honest. \\

    Sorry man. You are going to have to go to the local library and dig up the back issues of Petersons.

    If there was a link, don't you think I would have posted it 500 times by now?
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Mahi, looks like noone wants to bring your Joke Frontier into a real truck room. The Ranger and Tacoma are the leaders in this market. Take your weak 3.3 and run along now....back to the Nissan vs Ranger room where I can bash on you some more..:-))

    I have preached and preached to Ranger owners to drop those Firejunkers from day 1. The tires Ford puts on the Rangers are a joke if you offroad. I have read in other rooms around the net from Ranger owners that have become stranded because of the Firejunkers getting punctured so easy. I have and do still commend Toyota for putting real tires on their trucks.. I have written to Ford and complained about this issue. Hopefully for 2001 they will offer better tires, at least as an option..

    Crashtests are out all over the net. The Ranger ranks very well, Toyota has problems no doubt..

    See you in the Cascade range!. I'm going up around the Timothy lake area this weekend, Hope to see some Tacoma's out here...
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    I would like to see BFG ATs put on the TRD, I really dont like my GSAs all that much.

    cpousnr, I really dont trust any of the weight numbers, even the ones I posted. I do belive the numbers I am seeing on the Toyota site since they break it down by engine and transmission type as well as 2wd vs 4wd and cab type. I have a Ranger brochure at home wonder how detailed it gets. The numbers from Edmunds and Carpoint dont agree especially for the Ranger and you cant really compare like vehicles.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    CP- Interesting stuff but it's still only test data. I've been told by the insurance Co. that in real world incidents, the Taco doesn't statisticly have a worse record than any small truck.

    CT- you comment that the Tacoma has a terrible safety record apparently isn't true except for the test lab for whatever reason. Still no data can be produced to indicate otherwise. Your comment that it seems all the safety data on the Tacoma is negative is also only in your imagination. It's rated "Acceptable" overall in every crash test I've seen. If it makes you feel better to stretch truth and trash the Tacoma be my guest. Since the Ranger can't compete in performance or quality you have to try something.
  • hulk66hulk66 Member Posts: 37
    Gee you know common sense is lacking here. NO 4X4 TRUCK IS SAFER THAN ANY OTHER ONE!!!!!! TO ME THEY ARE ALL DEATH TRAPS FROM SIDE IMPACT!! NO TRUCK IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER TRUCK. I looked at my buddies ZR2 and it has good clearance like the tacoma but the suspension is out of date and needs a tune-up. But it is a very nice truck but can't beat tacoma. Sick of hearing these stupid safety test. If you want great protection from the side crash, get a tank.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    You're right hulk66 and I'm tired of the repetitious posts on the subject. The Tacoma could, and should do better in crash tests for sure but it is rated "Acceptable" and shouldn't be classified as Terrible by anyone in this forum. Particularly when it's rationalized that the excessive death rate is OK because all small trucks have a high death rate. It just sounds funny if you think about it.
    CT- sorry if I was getting confrontational again. I really don't want to get that way in here. I guess I'm just kind of burned out on this subject.
  • thehitcherthehitcher Member Posts: 56
    Well, I see that again you did not answer the question in my previous post. Then again this is typical Cpousnr.

    Looking at this formula for rollover the Ranger 4x4 supercab has a 33% chance to rollover.
  • mahimahimahimahi Member Posts: 497
    Ok all of a sudden your balls dropped! I'll stay out of this topic, no problem. Bring it on because in the Ranger v. Frontier topic you're the one getting slapped around just like in this topic. In fact every topic you're in it's like that. But let's be honest the real joke here is your POS 4.0L producing 160 "gerbil-wheel" HP. Meet me in the other topic your beating awaits ;)

    BTW, you better hope you run into a Tacoma out there you'll need some one to pull your dumbass out! Bring your strap, as I'm sure that's probably habit for you buy now!
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    If you, and other Tacoma owners, are so sick of discussing safety, then why keep bringing it up?

    I never said that the "excessive death rate" as you call it is "OK". I said it was representative of the class, which is unfortunate. Don't you think that I'd like any vehicle I drive to be as safe as possible?

    Do you really think I'm "bashing" the Tacoma? Do you think I would be happier if you were driving around in a more dangerous vehicle?

    Hell no!

    I'd only like people to take their heads out of their collective a$$es and consider vehicle safety as a primary concern in a vehicle purchase, no matter what they buy.

    Just turn your head and look at the person sitting in the passenger seat. In that wreck which I referred to before, my wife would have DIED had she been riding with me.

    My beef here is that a 1 star safety rating (which I believe signifies a 40% chance of fatality) surely signifies something amiss. I truly hope for the sake of you and yours that it was only bias due to testing parameters. Before purchasing a Taco (which could be a possibility for me a few years down the road, as I'm not a Ford fanatic, buy American, blah blah blah type of guy) I'd investigate the reasons behind it and make sure that Toyota has rectified the situation (if it did in fact exist).
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    What do you guys think of starting a topic
    comparing all compact trucks? Something like:

    "War of the Compact Pickups: S10 vs. Frontier vs.
    Tacoma vs. Ranger vs. B-Series vs. Hombre vs.

    Should the Dakota be included in there? Wouldn't
    it be more of a mid-size truck.

    Just think how fun it would be to get all of these
    "personalities" into one room!
This discussion has been closed.