Well, keep your tires to the proper pressure, do not worry too much about them. Data I have seen indicates most of the tires that failed were very under pressure or very over pressure.
I was just at Firestone for replacement of a CV boot on my son's Celica. They are ticked at the media for basically false info on the tires.
Run any tire over/under pressure at highway speeds your asking for trouble.
I live in Aurora, a 'burb to the South East of Denver.
I never said I saw Firestones on Tacomas. I copied that tire info directly from the Firestone web site. I do recall seeing a Tacoma on network news as part of their article on the faulty tires.
BTW- Toyota is no different from any other manufacturer when it comes to hiding problems with their vehicles. None of them want to admit problems until forced to, usually when the media finds out and exposes them to the light.
We'll probably never uncover the "truth", but here's an exerpt from an article in this morning's Denver Post:
"The Washington Post reported Sunday that six former Decatur plant workers claim questionable quality control procedures were used at the plant in the mid-1990s.
The workers said, among other things, that employees punctured bubbles in tires to conceal flaws that should have caused the tires to be scrapped. Two workers said that to meet tough production quotas, the inspection of finished tires was nearly nonexistent."
It seems as if your 2wd Ranger is at least 156 lbs more then any 2wd Ranger made. How can you be so sure it is a 2wd when it does not say so and the test weights are those of the 4wd models?
Edmunds front page:Somehow, pickup trucks are less offensive than SUVs. Perhaps it's because there's a still-existent inherent utility to pickups that is antithetical to the glorified station wagons that many urban dwellers appropriate for daily transport (to the detriment of others). One uses pickups to haul the spoils of a shopping rampage from the Home Depot, not the anniversary sale at Brooks Brothers.
Compact pickups don't serve the transportation needs of family or bodyguards, except in South America where the Ford Ranger is offered in a four-door crew-cab configuration. The bed is meant to haul stuff around, whether you're a Joad or an Arkie buck lining the bed of his Ford with Astroturf for youthful shenanigans (ah, Mr. Clinton, how we'll miss you), not mollycoddle you in comfort.
We know that's why we felt the need to lease one for our long-term fleet—our 1998 Ranger has served us well, despite a spotted history of reliability due to a clunky transmission that tended to freewheel and a squeaky, aged suspension.
Since its introduction in 1982 as a 1983 model, the Ford Ranger has dominated the compact pickup truck segment, holding the title of sales leader since 1987. Last year, Ford sold nearly 350,000 of these popular trucks, accounting for one out of every three compact trucks purchased, outselling the Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, the Mazda B-Series (pretty much a twin of the Ranger), the GMC Sonoma and the Chevy S-10. According to marketing folks, the Ranger appeals to a younger crowd, the first-time buyers who appreciate a good deal as well as a myriad of configurations to customize their vehicle.
And a rainbow of flavors abounds for this compact truck. The Ranger is available in Regular or SuperCab configurations, with the SuperCab comprising 60 percent of sales. No, they haven't altered the less-than-accommodating fold-down rear seats (One editor recounted a tale of how he drove to a restaurant with his ex and her current flame in the rear. Not that he harbors any resentment, mind you, but it amused him to see said current flame all scrunched up). If you opt for the Regular Cab, you get a choice of the regular 6- or the longer 7-foot box. You can also choose from the Flareside or Styleside, but we maintain that the Flareside not only reduces bed size but makes the truck look bottom-heavy.
The 2001 Ranger can be equipped with a 4.0-liter SOHC V6 engine (the same one found in the ubiquitous Ford Explorer) that increases horsepower by 29 percent to 207, and torque to 238 foot-pounds at 3,000 rpm, over the previous 160-horse pushrod V6. The 3.0-liter V6 powerplant, which produces 150 horsepower with 185 foot-pounds of twisting force, is still available, as is the 2.5-liter inline four with 119 horsepower and 146 foot-pounds of torque. In the fall, an all-new inline four will be introduced.
Trim choices include the base level XL with the inline four and the fancier XLT that gets you A/C and a stereo system with CD. Whereas the previous Ranger had only rear-wheel ABS as standard, all Rangers now have four-wheel ABS. If you opt for the XLT 4WD, aluminum wheels and front tow hooks will be yours, as well as a revised fascia in the form of a raised hood so as to evoke its handsome bigger brother, the F-Series. You also have the option of getting a mesh grille.
The Ranger Edge, a new trim level, gets you a monochromatic exterior; rather than the chrome bumper and gray plastic wheel fenders, you get body-colored adornments that go a long way toward making the Ranger look sportier. You also get a bed rail (reviews were mixed on this one, as it decreases load capacity), larger wheels and tires, tow hooks, and the aforementioned grille, as well as a standard 3.0-liter V6. The real advantage of the Edge is that you opt for the 2WD configuration if you don't need 4WD capabilities, don't want to pay the extra premium, or feel that the truck already weighs too much, but still provides the added ride height of the 4WD; rather than 6.7 inches, it provides 7.4 inches of ground clearance.
We also got a sneak peek at an off-road package that will be available in the fall. Though it has yet to be named or priced (sources predict that it'll be around $2000), it will include cosmetic alterations such as bucket seats, additional grab handles on the A-pillars, aluminum wheels, chrome tow hooks in the front, a retro-cool gearshift handle with an eight-ball shift knob, and an easy-to-operate manual transfer case. Its underpinnings are tuned for off-roading adventures with Biltstein shocks, a Torsen limited-slip differential, a heavy-duty rear axle that's 20 percent stronger than in the regular 4WD Ranger, skid plates, and a higher effort of steering (a boon for keeping the truck true on its course when bounding over the path less traveled).
And for all you audiophiles, the Ranger Tremor package, available in the SuperCab configuration, will offer a 560-watt Pioneer stereo system with subwoofers built into the floor behind the front seats, and six other speakers dotting the interior landscape. The aftermarket-grade system will be available in the spring of 2001.
Auditory issues seemed to be foremost in the engineers' minds as they introduced the 2001 model. One aspect that they took into special consideration was the exhaust burble. As the press kit states, "the right kind of sound is viewed positively by consumers." As trite as it may seem, they're right. Auto weenies always prefer deep tenors of, say, the V8 in a Dodge Dakota over the tinny racket of the V6 in an Isuzu Hombre. Yes, trucks will almost always make more noise than a car. But we can't believe that even a die-hard truck enthusiast would enjoy a raucous idle; thus it would be safe to say that the less screechy noise an engine makes, the better. The Ranger folks also addressed NVH issues by tuning the engine mounts so as to reduce vibrations and installing an insulation blanket under the hood. The result is noticeable and appreciated—compared to our long-termer, the exhaust note is much more sonorous, and nary a rattle emitted from inside the cabin.
We drove the 4.0-liter configuration at a press intro in Reno, Nev. We're happy to tell you that the SOHC V6 is a vast improvement over the unrefined pushrod motor, with smoother power delivery and greater oomph in acceleration. Downshifts were a tad sludgy, and we felt that the tranny shifted at a too-high 5,200 rpm. Turns out that the Ranger now incorporates "adaptive shift technology" that gauges the type of driver you are; the more aggressive, the later it'll shift. Nice, but we always get a little skeptical when a vehicle does stuff "automatic-like."
Rectified, also, was its rambunctious, tail-waggin' nature; on the whole, the 2001 version seemed more composed. Ford revised the suspension by tweaking the stabilizer bar rates, spring rates and shock tuning, and the improved ride quality was duly felt and appreciated. Although we've learned to forgive our bouncy long-termer that becomes somewhat unnerved after hitting a bump or taking a speedy corner, we prefer the more stable ride of the 2001 version.
Steering was more responsive on-road than in our long-termer, although the Ford folks stated that there have been no alterations to the steering gear; the models we drove were missing the discernable on-center dead spot. Great for on-road driving, a little disadvantageous for dirt-trekking. While on our way to the off-road course, we had to traverse a 10-mile bumpy dirt road. We left the tranny in Drive and the 4WD-High mode switched on, but the too-eager steering had us constantly correcting wheel position. Then the journalists were let loose on a dirt course constructed on a "ranch" in the middle of Nowheresville (nowhere being in the desert east of Reno). Wild horses galloped, random herds of cattle magically materialized. The off-road package truck really showed an advantage as compared to the regular 4WD, with greater suspension articulation, stiffer shocks for a good rebound rate and the aforementioned higher steering rate.
The interior remains the same, with utility in mind. We were impressed by the fit and finish, and although it looked the same as in our long-termer, everything seemed more tightly screwed in. Ford had yet to address the comfort of the front seats, one of our biggest complaints. A seat height adjuster isn't even available as an option, and when asked why they had not addressed this issue, an engineer replied the seats were designed for optimal comfort for a wide variety of sizes, but we contend that when it comes to driving positions, one size definitely does not fit all.
What they did work on were some dealer-installed options for the bed, like a cool bed extender that was simple in its design and operation—flip it in to create a safe haven for otherwise itinerant groceries. Drop the tailgate and flip it out to increase the capacity of your bed by 4 cubic feet. Another bright idea is the ingenious tonneau cover with a hardtop that folds in the middle, so that when you have tall items to transport, you can just flip one side over, rather than an unwieldy one-piece that you have to disassemble altogether.
With the aggressively handsome looks and the excellent V8 of the Dodge Dakota snapping at its heels, Ford needs to further expand its line to include a more-powerful Ranger. We're hoping that this will be the case with the complete redesign, due in 2002. Meanwhile, the pilfered engine and purty new colors will keep our idle hands occupied.
Test drive 50 different vehicles yourself at Edmund's auto show, which will be touring the U.S. in the summer of 2000. (More
Just prior to servicing the vehicle, 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.
So, we trundled off to Santa Monica Ford to meet Roland Gomes, with whom we had an 8:15 a.m. appointment. We wanted Gomes to check out our transmission, as well as try to cure a slight pull to the right, fix a dead dash power point, install a new driver's side mirror and perform a 30,000-mile service.
We arrived five minutes late, after a phone conversation with a dealership customer assistance person from whom extracting information about the service center's exact location was akin to coaxing David Schwimmer to accept less than $700,000 per episode. The place was packed. There was nowhere for our ride to park, as real estate is precious in this seaside city.
During the 10 minutes we waited for Gomes to assist us, standing in the sun next to the Ranger, three other service writers offered to help until they learned that Wardlaw had an appointment with someone specific, at which point they disappeared. Neil Chirico, our resident online service advisor and ex-service writer for a Ford dealership, explained that this was most likely because the service writers at Santa Monica Ford worked on commission. Frankly, we'd prefer salaried service writers, for two reasons. First, we would have been assisted sooner. Second, they are less likely to try to sell us service that we don't need.
Standing in the Ford dealership's driveway was entertaining. One burly employee who swaggered like a has-been high-school football star who had guzzled 100 too many Miller Lites grumbled to a customer, "You need a ride, or what?" in reference to the impending departure of the service shuttle. Another commented to a customer, who indicated she was off work that week, that he was "off mentally" but was physically on the job. Confidence-inspiring commentary, no? Sure hope the techs weren't thinking the same thing.
When Roland was finally able to help us, he did an admirably thorough job, even checking to see if any recalls were outstanding on our Ranger and offering to sell me an extended warranty that would include coverage for the transmission. Ah yes, the joys of working with people on commission. Once he learned we were turning the truck in at lease end, he dropped the sales pitch. After photocopying my notes and the page from the manual detailing the 30K services we wished to be performed, we were on our way, assured that we'd get a call soon to tell us what was wrong with the transmission.
A week passed. Finally, we called Gomes to inquire about the status of the Ranger. "Oh yes, I was going to call you this morning," Gomes claimed. He said the mechanics couldn't duplicate the transmission thunking and clunking or freewheeling we observed. He blamed the Firestone Wilderness tires for the pull to the right (which the Ranger had also suffered more than a year prior). He blamed Wardlaw's wife for blowing the power point with some accessory other than the cell phone and radar detector that Wardlaw uses on a regular basis. The driver's side mirror was replaced, and we had the truck fully serviced.
"So, the truck's ready right now?"
"Yessir. I'll run the paperwork over to the cashier right away."
Four hours later, the cashier didn't have the paperwork, and we needed to wait for a bit while Gomes explained the service and charges while the cashier totaled the bill. The driver's side mirror was $312, including a labor charge of $102. The front-end alignment ran us $68, but didn't completely cure the pull to the right, because of a tire defect that Gomes said was covered under Firestone's warranty. The 30,000-mile service was $105.28, which included an oil and filter change, coolant check, a new air-cleaner filter ($42.71 installed), and a brake system check. According to the manual, we should have received a complete cooling system inspection, which our paperwork didn't reflect. According to Gomes, we needed a tire rotation, which they performed free of charge, and rightly so, since the rims were pulled for the brake inspection anyway. Throw tax and "miscellaneous charges" into the equation, and the total cost was $500.88.
Our impression of service at Santa Monica Ford is less than favorable. From the moment we arrived to drop the Ranger off, things began running behind schedule. Service advisors ignored us because we suspect it was a commission shop, our writer kept us waiting, and they kept the truck for a week, failing to call us to provide an update on progress. Finally, the paperwork wasn't ready when we were, despite an assurance that it would be. Plus, Gomes seemed utterly frazzled on both occasions that we interacted with him.
We have a few suggestions for Santa Monica Ford. First, put the service writers on salary to get customers in and out of the shop as quickly as possible. Second, fire that dope who asked a woman "if she needed a ride, or what?" Third, remind employees that service people who are "off mentally" impress nobody. Fourth, have the service writers do what they say they will do, whether it means calling with an update on progress or getting the paperwork delivered to the cashier when it's promised.
Our time with the Ranger is almost up, and we want to know what you think about Ford's compact pickup. Please send us commentary on your 1998-2000 Ford Ranger, along with your name, city and state, and tell us why you like or dislike your truck. Contact us at djg@edmunds.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Current Odometer: 29,711 Best Fuel Economy: 17.9 mpg Worst Fuel Economy: 12.9 mpg Body Damage: $329.33 (new driver's side mirror) Maintenance Costs: $177.55 (front-end alignment and 30,000-mile service) Problems: Pulling to the right, thunking and clunking transmission that freewheeled in OD-off mode one time, dead dash power point.
you want proff its a 2wd ranger.. OK In the 1999 test: look at the grill. the 4wd grills have two prominent verticle rails. this pic has the standard 2WD grill. in the 2000 test: Look at the wheels. They are the seven spoke styled steel wheel that are ONLY available on 2wd models. and once again look at the grill. Std 2wd grill (chromed out in the xlt) that truck is almost an exact duplicate of my truck. a 2WD truck
Whatever the trim is on the test vehicle, the weight given is of a 4wd vehicle. There is not a 2wd ranger made that weighs that much. I would say the weight is a much better indicator then trim level on a vehicle whose only purpose was to be destroyed.
i recognize my own truck... It is a 2wd Ranger.. it has nothing to do with trim levels, it is How ford makes thier 2wd and 4wd trucks look different.
2nd: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov./ncap/cars/1999Pkup.html notice how the trucks on this list are identified: 1999 Ford Ranger 1999 GMC Sonoma Extended Cab 1999 Mazda B-Series Pickup 2-DR. 1999 Nissan Frontier 1999 Nissan Frontier <<<<< Extended Cab 4x4 <<<<< 1999 Toyota Tacoma Extended Cab
I don't think that it's a question of a "fair and equal" test. The trucks aren't competing against each other. It's just simulating how the truck may hold up in an accident. That's why it would be nice if they tested a 4x4 Tacoma to see if there is a difference with the std. truck.
I think the crash test was an excellen example that fords are built tough. Even 2wd fords have more ground clearence cause they were built to work. If u try putting 2000 pounds of rock in a tacoma, it will scrape the ground, but a ranger will haul it away with little problem. Fords were built with durability first, quality second. That's why toyota's last a little bit longer, but u almost never see them on a ranch. Instead of fighting over which one is better, ford and toyota should just cooporate. Ford can show toyota how to make a real truck and toyota can show ford how to get the real trucks to last a bit longer. That solves just about everyone's problems.
Ummm, we are supposed to be debating the uh, ranger and tacoma. So far all i have found are a bunch of complaints about some tires made for an explorer. What do explorer tires have to do with rangers??? Does the fact that someone at ford made a bad decision about which tires to put on an suv make the ranger a worse truck??? Statements like this simply cannot be made. Anyone who says that toyota is better then ford because it lasts longer is lying, put any toyota and a ford f-350 in a crash derby agaist each other and see which one lasts longer and has fewer problems. Ford definetely wins. And that tundra commercial really gets on my nerves "have we gone too far or have others not gone far enough". I can not see what they mean by that. The tundra has the least powerfull v8, the smalles cab, and the least towing capabilitly of all the 1/2 ton trucks. If u ask me, toyota needs to go a little bit farther. But the debates are endless and it all comes down to personal taste anyways.
Then put that f350 in a "crash derby" with a bulldozer and guess what would come out on top What does that have to do with anything? That has less relevence to this topic then the tire discussion.
Yur correct, it has nothing to do with the topic, but it proves that u cant compare entire brands against each other. So just stick to rangers and tacomas
Those profound arguments make me want to run out and buy another Ranger right away, even if the tires blow up. I'm going to check out the 2001 bulldozer first though.
Yeah, i think i will go out and buy an inferior ford ranger and enter it in the crash-n-burn test with the bulldozer. You must be that ford salesman (guitardude) that tries to sell you on the so called durability and safety of a ford vehicle. I will take the bulldozer with the off-road package please!!!!
About twice a month I load my Ranger with about a ton of water, haul it about 14 miles then drive around for about 3 hr with it in the truck.
No problem, does not strain the truck at all
Then, just for fun, I sometimes take it 4 wheeling on the way home.
I DO have this noisy squeek in the front door, perhaps I need to write a TSB?
Or
just spray some WD40 in the hinge.
You know, I have heard commets from the "other" side about the low shocks on the Ranger. Well, while I was under it recently, looking for routing for power wires to power the winch from the rear receiver, I took a look.
I have never hit the rear shock mount. Some of scrapes on the skid plates and some on the frame but none on the shock mounts.
That's right. my ranger has been loaded full with dirt, rocks, etc, for the past 16 years!!!! and it's still running. another note for all u laughing about the bulldozer. It's a ford that hauls the bulldozer to the crash derby, not a toyota.
I was reading back, far back. Yur right, tacoma is a premium package and u do have to pay more for it. But it's not worth the 10 grand extra u spend for the smoother ride. Go back in time to... lets say '96. Buy a fully decked out ttb ranger and fully decked out tacoma. With the money u save from buying the ranger, $500 will buy u sway bar disconnects and long link radius arms. Those simple upgrades will give u flex a tacoma can only dream about. Then, buy a new set of better tires. With the $8000 u still have left, u can easily afford to drop in some true american power. Something like a ford 460. The swap can most likely be done with less then 5 grand. So, in the end, for the same price as a stock tacoma, u can get an incredibly superior vehicle, and still have money left over for a lift kit. Besides, anyone who is serious about 4wheeling will modify their vehicles anyways.
hate to bust yur bubble, but toyota does not use dana axles. They use toyota axles. And rangers use dana 28 or dana 35 front axles, but in the rear the old ones had ford 7.5" axles and '89 and up used ford 8.8" axles, which are just as strong as a dana 44.
Very good mviglianco1. You cleared up more misinformation very quickly.
guitardude? Where are you getting your figures that a 4x4 tacoma costs $10,000 more that a similar equipped 4x4 Ranger? When I got mine the difference was about $2000.
when trying to make a decision on what truck you want go out and compare prices. guitardude where are you getting this $10,000 difference? First, there was no option on the ranger for 31-inch tires like on the tacoma. Second, if you wanted air-conditioning in your truck you will have to pay a higher amount for the ranger. I think it was $100 more than for on the tacoma. One big expense is the dealer prep cost. Just more money in the dealers pocket! That charge is ridiculous and the consumer should not pay this extra fee. The ranger off-road package came to about $1100 difference. It also has to do with where you live too.
It's so obvious guitardude is a Toy owner and is trying to make Ranger owners look really stupid. 460's in Rangers....$10,000 difference.......... bulldozers.......LMAO!!!! This guy's is a riot!
Guitardude, How much is it going to cost you to reinforce that Ranger C-frame? Your right about flex...the frame! If you nine-hole a 460 in the Ranger you may only have three tires touching afterwards
Ok, 10k is a little exagerated. Modvptnl, no, i am not a toy owner. I hate toys and that would be the very last vehicle i would ever buy. There is a big diffrence in cost between a fully loaded tacoma and a fully loaded ranger. Last i checked, rangers didn't get much higher then 24k, tacoma's get into 30k. If u disagree, prove me wrong. I dont care. A 460 ranger would need new axles, driveshafts, and transmission. But i think it would come out cheaper then a tacoma. And if the diffrence in price is only 2k like allkowing says, that 2k will still be enough for a bodylift, 31" or 33" tires, and the simple ttb modifications that would make it far better then a tacoma.
I think the 99' rangers definetely beat the tacoma's in styling, but I woud never buy one for a 4x4. The only think to do with a torsion bar IFS is to trash it, and do a solid axle swap. So anyone who has anything bad to say about the current ranger, i agree with them. Except for the 4liter 6. It has more power than any toyota truck. mahiama, i'm not sure about the bent frame from a 460, i've never seen anyone do it before, i've seen 351 swaps, and others, but never a 460, but it could probably be done.
Oh I'm sure it would fit. Another thing is gear swaps if you throw 33" tire or maybe even if you throw 31"'s on there. I have to tell you though, body lifts look like amature night and certainly don't help you make a better 4x4 with any truck it's purely wheel well clearence so you can put bigger tires on. It doesn't help with suspension at all in fact if not correctly installed decreases steering and other things. I don't know if you own a Ranger or not but it seems that the Ranger owners here and at other topics always talk about the $ they save not buying the Taco and could use it to make the Ranger as good a 4x4. But after doing all the mods needed you're right back to the price of the Taco. Still don't have the frame strength of the Taco or even the lesser priced Nissan. So what you really have is the different styling, there's nothing wrong with that at all, it's just that in the end you really don't save money, right? I think that from what I've seen from the 2001 models so far(Nissan,Tacoma a.k.a the mud fish or the Dakota)the ranger beats them by far in styling but in '99 and '00 my vote goes to the Taco and maybe the Nissan...love the fender flares, that "wide body look"
I think you are quite mistaken or misinformed. 30K for a Tacoma? You could get a 4x4 v6 limited TRD at a bad price and add a TRD supercharger, TRD headers and a nice topper and maybe pay 30K with installation. When I was looking at the Ranger and Tacoma before I got my 2000 Tacoma the list price for two comparably equipped trucks were within 1K. Ford must come down more then Toyota because I realize that Toyotas cost more but your figures are absolutely absurd, almost like you are making them up.
What is this crap about frame strength? If the Ranger has a weaker frame then why does it fare better than both the Toyota and Nissan in crashtests? www.crashtest.com, www.carpoint.msn.com and even right here at Edmunds rate the Ranger better in crashtests. Love that strong frame bull...... Its no secret Tacoma's are far pricier than Ford Rangers. In 1998 I did the math. My Ranger loaded was 19.6K, a comparably equipped Tacoma was about 22.6K. This was a non-TRD Tacoma at that! So far I have added P265x75xR16 all terrain 8ply tires, nerfbars, Linex, chipped, K&N aircharger kit, rockguards to the front end area and I am still ahead of what a Tacoma would have cost...
The frame has little to do with a side impact. An impact will most likely strike above the frame unless the truck sits high like a 4wd. Come on vince you are smarter then that.
Vince look under your truck..."C-frame boy" Don't give him credit, mviglianco, he may not be smart enough to understand the concept. I'm mean we're talking about someone who has put bigger tires on his truck but, doesn't replace the gears, rather he takes the 'cheap' way out by falling victim to air cleaners and chip 'claims'. Hey, by the way where's the exhust system? If you increase the intake you have to increase the outflow...your doing no good, you haven't helped that 'weak' 160hp 4.0L at all! Oh sorry, Vince that you aren't happy with the power that you loose when you turn your A/C on!
Mah, you don't even understand Torque, because Nissans don't have any!! LOL. Torque my friend is what makes a real truck. Look it up, Now find HP/Torque curve and read on.... RAnger stomps your Frontier, now live with it.. And there is going to be more of an [non-permissible content removed] whippin in the coming months when the 4.0 SOHC Ranger debuts.. normally aspirated, no bandaids like the SC that Nissan had to do in order to compete against NORMALLY ASPIRATED engines.. LOL!!!
You mean band-aids like K&N air filter, chip, 265's but, you forgot the biggest band-aid of them all...your exhaust! All that input means nothing if it has nowhere to go! Don't get mad that your 4.0L produces only 160hp...it's not as bad as you think, well maybe it is!
DETROIT — At least three people have died and four have been injured in vehicles with recalled Firestone tires since the recall began. Feeling the pressure, Ford Motor says it has decided to stop production at three truck plants so it can take 70,000 tires intended for new vehicles and use them as replacements. Only 500,000 of the 6.5 million have been changed so far. Ford plants in Minnesota, New Jersey and Missouri will close from Aug. 28 to Sept. 8 so the 15-inch tires they would have used can be sent to dealers and installed on existing Ford and Mercury SUVs and pickups. Bridgestone/Firestone is also planning airlift an unspecified number of tires from Japan to help fill the demand for replacement tires. Still, as millions drive around nerve-racked and inconvenienced, the Center for Auto Safety sued Ford to widen the scope of its recall.
More people die despite recall SUV drivers carry fear as constant passenger
Hay, git over the tires already. EXPLORERS, not RANGERS!!!! Vince is right, look back at any year ranger and they all have more torque then a same year tacoma. I got a 2.8l 6cyl ranger. It's not huge, but in '84 tacoma's didn't even come with 6's. And yes, i am talking about fully loaded trd supercharged tacoma's against loaded rangers. the diffrence is at least 3k, minimum!!! For all of u questioning the ranger flex, check out this pic. It's an explorer but explorers share the same front ttb as rangers. All it took for this much flex was sway bar disconnects and longlink radius arms. Goto www.explorer4x4.com and look for "zimmerman's" explorer. U will be amazed.
Tacoma was not around in the 80's, introduce in 95.5 model.
Also, the only Ranger v8 conversion I know of is to a 5 liter. That is fairly common. I would think anything else would not fit or there would be issues with wireing harness. So there are no easy conversions to a 351 or a 460 engine. That would have to be a very trick truck, basically a Ranger body on another frame. Doubt you will ever see that.
So spoog, no further information on a Toyota Dana differentials? Is that because it uses a Toyota 8 inch in the rear and a Toyota 7.5 inch in the front?
The Ranger has the Dana 7.5 inch differential setup on the front, Ford 7.5 or 8.8 inch on the rear.
Glad you recognize quality in a differential setup, too bad the Toyota more than likely does not use Dana in the Tacoma.
Hey BTW, nice posts on the Explorer, too bad it is not Ranger related. Over/under inflation is the one main factor that is common on the failure of the Firestone tires, and, the fact the majority of the tires were made at a plant in Ill. at a time that plant was on STRIKE. Hmmm now union workers would not put people at risk by creating shoddy tires, to get a larger strike settlement package would they? Hmmm could be a factor. . .
Goodyear put the under inflation issue to rest yesterday if you read the news. Goodyear claims that excuse is bunk and 26 psi in the tires would not result in a problem. They also stated that they have had no problems with tires at that pressure.
Comments
I was just at Firestone for replacement of a CV boot on my son's Celica. They are ticked at the media for basically false info on the tires.
Run any tire over/under pressure at highway speeds your asking for trouble.
Remember, the failure rate is under 1% (0.003)
I never said I saw Firestones on Tacomas. I copied that tire info directly from the Firestone web site. I do recall seeing a Tacoma on network news as part of their article on the faulty tires.
BTW- Toyota is no different from any other manufacturer when it comes to hiding problems with their vehicles. None of them want to admit problems until forced to, usually when the media finds out and exposes them to the light.
"The Washington Post reported Sunday that six former Decatur plant workers claim questionable quality control procedures were used at the
plant in the mid-1990s.
The workers said, among other things, that employees punctured bubbles in tires to conceal flaws that should have caused the tires to be scrapped. Two workers said that to meet tough production quotas, the inspection of finished tires was nearly nonexistent."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov./ncap/cars/710.html
2000 ext cab test once again a 2wd ranger
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov./ncap/cars/1461.html
2wd tacoma
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov./ncap/cars/819.html
the test was fair and equal."
"2wd Ranger Supercab that the Govt test lab used,
it was white as I recall, and rather beat up on the
drivers side. . ."
Hmmm? Thats odd, how can those 2wd Rangers with test weights of 3612 and 3543 lbs weigh more then the:
2wd x-cab xlt 3210 lbs (Edmunds)
link: http://edmunds.com/newtrucks/2000/ford/ranger/xlt2wdsupercabsb.html
xlt supercab 2wd 3387 lb (Carpoint)
link: http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Specifications/Ford/Ranger/2000.asp
It seems as if your 2wd Ranger is at least 156 lbs more then any 2wd Ranger made. How can you be so sure it is a 2wd when it does not say so and the test weights are those of the 4wd models?
Compact pickups don't serve the transportation needs of family or bodyguards, except in South America where the Ford Ranger is offered in a four-door crew-cab configuration. The bed is meant to haul stuff around, whether you're a Joad or an Arkie buck lining the bed of his Ford with Astroturf for youthful shenanigans (ah, Mr. Clinton, how we'll miss you), not mollycoddle you in comfort.
We know that's why we felt the need to lease one for our long-term fleet—our 1998 Ranger has served us well, despite a spotted history of reliability due to a clunky transmission that tended to freewheel and a squeaky, aged suspension.
Since its introduction in 1982 as a 1983 model, the Ford Ranger has dominated the compact pickup truck segment, holding the title of sales leader since 1987. Last year, Ford sold nearly 350,000 of these popular trucks, accounting for one out of every three compact trucks purchased, outselling the Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, the Mazda B-Series (pretty much a twin of the Ranger), the GMC Sonoma and the Chevy S-10. According to marketing folks, the Ranger appeals to a younger crowd, the first-time buyers who appreciate a good deal as well as a myriad of configurations to customize their vehicle.
And a rainbow of flavors abounds for this compact truck. The Ranger is available in Regular or SuperCab configurations, with the SuperCab comprising 60 percent of sales. No, they haven't altered the less-than-accommodating fold-down rear seats (One editor recounted a tale of how he drove to a restaurant with his ex and her current flame in the rear. Not that he harbors any resentment, mind you, but it amused him to see said current flame all scrunched up). If you opt for the Regular Cab, you get a choice of the regular 6- or the longer 7-foot box. You can also choose from the Flareside or Styleside, but we maintain that the Flareside not only reduces bed size but makes the truck look bottom-heavy.
The 2001 Ranger can be equipped with a 4.0-liter SOHC V6 engine (the same one found in the ubiquitous Ford Explorer) that increases horsepower by 29 percent to 207, and torque to 238 foot-pounds at 3,000 rpm, over the previous 160-horse pushrod V6. The 3.0-liter V6 powerplant, which produces 150 horsepower with 185 foot-pounds of twisting force, is still available, as is the 2.5-liter inline four with 119 horsepower and 146 foot-pounds of torque. In the fall, an all-new inline four will be introduced.
Trim choices include the base level XL with the inline four and the fancier XLT that gets you A/C and a stereo system with CD. Whereas the previous Ranger had only rear-wheel ABS as standard, all Rangers now have four-wheel ABS. If you opt for the XLT 4WD, aluminum wheels and front tow hooks will be yours, as well as a revised fascia in the form of a raised hood so as to evoke its handsome bigger brother, the F-Series. You also have the option of getting a mesh grille.
The Ranger Edge, a new trim level, gets you a monochromatic exterior; rather than the chrome bumper and gray plastic wheel fenders, you get body-colored adornments that go a long way toward making the Ranger look sportier. You also get a bed rail (reviews were mixed on this one, as it decreases load capacity), larger wheels and tires, tow hooks, and the aforementioned grille, as well as a standard 3.0-liter V6. The real advantage of the Edge is that you opt for the 2WD configuration if you don't need 4WD capabilities, don't want to pay the extra premium, or feel that the truck already weighs too much, but still provides the added ride height of the 4WD; rather than 6.7 inches, it provides 7.4 inches of ground clearance.
We also got a sneak peek at an off-road package that will be available in the fall. Though it has yet to be named or priced (sources predict that it'll be around $2000), it will include cosmetic alterations such as bucket seats, additional grab handles on the A-pillars, aluminum wheels, chrome tow hooks in the front, a retro-cool gearshift handle with an eight-ball shift knob, and an easy-to-operate manual transfer case. Its underpinnings are tuned for off-roading adventures with Biltstein shocks, a Torsen limited-slip differential, a heavy-duty rear axle that's 20 percent stronger than in the regular 4WD Ranger, skid plates, and a higher effort of steering (a boon for keeping the truck true on its course when bounding over the path less traveled).
And for all you audiophiles, the Ranger Tremor package, available in the SuperCab configuration, will offer a 560-watt Pioneer stereo system with subwoofers built into the floor behind the front seats, and six other speakers dotting the interior landscape. The aftermarket-grade system will be available in the spring of 2001.
Auditory issues seemed to be foremost in the engineers' minds as they introduced the 2001 model. One aspect that they took into special consideration was the exhaust burble. As the press kit states, "the right kind of sound is viewed positively by consumers." As trite as it may seem, they're right. Auto weenies always prefer deep tenors of, say, the V8 in a Dodge Dakota over the tinny racket of the V6 in an Isuzu Hombre. Yes, trucks will almost always make more noise than a car. But we can't believe that even a die-hard truck enthusiast would enjoy a raucous idle; thus it would be safe to say that the less screechy noise an engine makes, the better. The Ranger folks also addressed NVH issues by tuning the engine mounts so as to reduce vibrations and installing an insulation blanket under the hood. The result is noticeable and appreciated—compared to our long-termer, the exhaust note is much more sonorous, and nary a rattle emitted from inside the cabin.
We drove the 4.0-liter configuration at a press intro in Reno, Nev. We're happy to tell you that the SOHC V6 is a vast improvement over the unrefined pushrod motor, with smoother power delivery and greater oomph in acceleration. Downshifts were a tad sludgy, and we felt that the tranny shifted at a too-high 5,200 rpm. Turns out that the Ranger now incorporates "adaptive shift technology" that gauges the type of driver you are; the more aggressive, the later it'll shift. Nice, but we always get a little skeptical when a vehicle does stuff "automatic-like."
Rectified, also, was its rambunctious, tail-waggin' nature; on the whole, the 2001 version seemed more composed. Ford revised the suspension by tweaking the stabilizer bar rates, spring rates and shock tuning, and the improved ride quality was duly felt and appreciated. Although we've learned to forgive our bouncy long-termer that becomes somewhat unnerved after hitting a bump or taking a speedy corner, we prefer the more stable ride of the 2001 version.
Steering was more responsive on-road than in our long-termer, although the Ford folks stated that there have been no alterations to the steering gear; the models we drove were missing the discernable on-center dead spot. Great for on-road driving, a little disadvantageous for dirt-trekking. While on our way to the off-road course, we had to traverse a 10-mile bumpy dirt road. We left the tranny in Drive and the 4WD-High mode switched on, but the too-eager steering had us constantly correcting wheel position. Then the journalists were let loose on a dirt course constructed on a "ranch" in the middle of Nowheresville (nowhere being in the desert east of Reno). Wild horses galloped, random herds of cattle magically materialized. The off-road package truck really showed an advantage as compared to the regular 4WD, with greater suspension articulation, stiffer shocks for a good rebound rate and the aforementioned higher steering rate.
The interior remains the same, with utility in mind. We were impressed by the fit and finish, and although it looked the same as in our long-termer, everything seemed more tightly screwed in. Ford had yet to address the comfort of the front seats, one of our biggest complaints. A seat height adjuster isn't even available as an option, and when asked why they had not addressed this issue, an engineer replied the seats were designed for optimal comfort for a wide variety of sizes, but we contend that when it comes to driving positions, one size definitely does not fit all.
What they did work on were some dealer-installed options for the bed, like a cool bed extender that was simple in its design and operation—flip it in to create a safe haven for otherwise itinerant groceries. Drop the tailgate and flip it out to increase the capacity of your bed by 4 cubic feet. Another bright idea is the ingenious tonneau cover with a hardtop that folds in the middle, so that when you have tall items to transport, you can just flip one side over, rather than an unwieldy one-piece that you have to disassemble altogether.
With the aggressively handsome looks and the excellent V8 of the Dodge Dakota snapping at its heels, Ford needs to further expand its line to include a more-powerful Ranger. We're hoping that this will be the case with the complete redesign, due in 2002. Meanwhile, the pilfered engine and purty new colors will keep our idle hands occupied.
Test drive 50 different vehicles yourself at Edmund's auto show, which will be touring the U.S. in the summer of 2000. (More
The "offroad package" doesn't add much either, although I dig the look of the throwback shifter.
The suspension is STILL the same one found on the current ranger. OUCH.
One plus was the beefed up rear end. Toyota has always used DANA rear ends(which are the best in the business, PERIOD. Jeep uses them as well).
Looks like the steering problems are stil the same as well.
I think Edmunds has been turned off on the Ranger ever since the numerous problems their long term test vehicle had.
So, we trundled off to Santa Monica Ford to meet Roland Gomes, with whom we had an 8:15 a.m. appointment. We wanted Gomes to check out our transmission, as well as try to cure a slight pull to the right, fix a dead dash power point, install a new driver's side mirror and perform a 30,000-mile service.
We arrived five minutes late, after a phone conversation with a dealership customer assistance person from whom extracting information about the service center's exact location was akin to coaxing David Schwimmer to accept less than $700,000 per episode. The place was packed. There was nowhere for our ride to park, as real estate is precious in this seaside city.
During the 10 minutes we waited for Gomes to assist us, standing in the sun next to the Ranger, three other service writers offered to help until they learned that Wardlaw had an appointment with someone specific, at which point they disappeared. Neil Chirico, our resident online service advisor and ex-service writer for a Ford dealership, explained that this was most likely because the service writers at Santa Monica Ford worked on commission. Frankly, we'd prefer salaried service writers, for two reasons. First, we would have been assisted sooner. Second, they are less likely to try to sell us service that we don't need.
Standing in the Ford dealership's driveway was entertaining. One burly employee who swaggered like a has-been high-school football star who had guzzled 100 too many Miller Lites grumbled to a customer, "You need a ride, or what?" in reference to the impending departure of the service shuttle. Another commented to a customer, who indicated she was off work that week, that he was "off mentally" but was physically on the job. Confidence-inspiring commentary, no? Sure hope the techs weren't thinking the same thing.
When Roland was finally able to help us, he did an admirably thorough job, even checking to see if any recalls were outstanding on our Ranger and offering to sell me an extended warranty that would include coverage for the transmission. Ah yes, the joys of working with people on commission. Once he learned we were turning the truck in at lease end, he dropped the sales pitch. After photocopying my notes and the page from the manual detailing the 30K services we wished to be performed, we were on our way, assured that we'd get a call soon to tell us what was wrong with the transmission.
A week passed. Finally, we called Gomes to inquire about the status of the Ranger. "Oh yes, I was going to call you this morning," Gomes claimed. He said the mechanics couldn't duplicate the transmission thunking and clunking or freewheeling we observed. He blamed the Firestone Wilderness tires for the pull to the right (which the Ranger had also suffered more than a year prior). He blamed Wardlaw's wife for blowing the power point with some accessory other than the cell phone and radar detector that Wardlaw uses on a regular basis. The driver's side mirror was replaced, and we had the truck fully serviced.
"So, the truck's ready right now?"
"Yessir. I'll run the paperwork over to the cashier right away."
Four hours later, the cashier didn't have the paperwork, and we needed to wait for a bit while Gomes explained the service and charges while the cashier totaled the bill. The driver's side mirror was $312, including a labor charge of $102. The front-end alignment ran us $68, but didn't completely cure the pull to the right, because of a tire defect that Gomes said was covered under Firestone's warranty. The 30,000-mile service was $105.28, which included an oil and filter change, coolant check, a new air-cleaner filter ($42.71 installed), and a brake system check. According to the manual, we should have received a complete cooling system inspection, which our paperwork didn't reflect. According to Gomes, we needed a tire rotation, which they performed free of charge, and rightly so, since the rims were pulled for the brake inspection anyway. Throw tax and "miscellaneous charges" into the equation, and the total cost was $500.88.
Our impression of service at Santa Monica Ford is less than favorable. From the moment we arrived to drop the Ranger off, things began running behind schedule. Service advisors ignored us because we suspect it was a commission shop, our writer kept us waiting, and they kept the truck for a week, failing to call us to provide an update on progress. Finally, the paperwork wasn't ready when we were, despite an assurance that it would be. Plus, Gomes seemed utterly frazzled on both occasions that we interacted with him.
We have a few suggestions for Santa Monica Ford. First, put the service writers on salary to get customers in and out of the shop as quickly as possible. Second, fire that dope who asked a woman "if she needed a ride, or what?" Third, remind employees that service people who are "off mentally" impress nobody. Fourth, have the service writers do what they say they will do, whether it means calling with an update on progress or getting the paperwork delivered to the cashier when it's promised.
Our time with the Ranger is almost up, and we want to know what you think about Ford's compact pickup. Please send us commentary on your 1998-2000 Ford Ranger, along with your name, city and state, and tell us why you like or dislike your truck. Contact us at djg@edmunds.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Current Odometer: 29,711
Best Fuel Economy: 17.9 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 12.9 mpg
Body Damage: $329.33 (new driver's side mirror)
Maintenance Costs: $177.55 (front-end alignment and 30,000-mile service)
Problems: Pulling to the right, thunking and clunking transmission that freewheeled in OD-off mode one time, dead dash power point.
Edmunds
In the 1999 test: look at the grill. the 4wd grills have two prominent verticle rails. this pic has the standard 2WD grill.
in the 2000 test: Look at the wheels. They are the seven spoke styled steel wheel that are ONLY available on 2wd models. and once again look at the grill. Std 2wd grill (chromed out in the xlt) that truck is almost an exact duplicate of my truck. a 2WD truck
the test is FAIR and EQUAL.
2nd:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov./ncap/cars/1999Pkup.html
notice how the trucks on this list are identified:
1999 Ford Ranger
1999 GMC Sonoma
Extended Cab
1999 Mazda B-Series
Pickup 2-DR.
1999 Nissan Frontier
1999 Nissan Frontier <<<<<
Extended Cab 4x4 <<<<<
1999 Toyota Tacoma
Extended Cab
See how they IDENTIFY the 4wd model.
FAIR and Equal test
No problem, does not strain the truck at all
Then, just for fun, I sometimes take it 4 wheeling on the way home.
I DO have this noisy squeek in the front door, perhaps I need to write a TSB?
Or
just spray some WD40 in the hinge.
You know, I have heard commets from the "other" side about the low shocks on the Ranger. Well, while I was under it recently, looking for routing for power wires to power the winch from the rear receiver, I took a look.
I have never hit the rear shock mount. Some of scrapes on the skid plates and some on the frame but none on the shock mounts.
One plus was the beefed up rear end. Toyota has
always used DANA rear ends(which are the best in
the business, PERIOD. Jeep uses them as well"
Well, the Ford Ranger has always had the Dana rearends.
My 99 has a Dana 35 in the front with a 7.5 inch ring gear. Not sure about the rear, trying to find that out, but it is an 8.8 inch ring.
Glad you LIKE the same differental, a Dana, that Ford uses. . .
Dana, 35, Dana 44, Dana 28?
Look Here!
guitardude? Where are you getting your figures that a 4x4 tacoma costs $10,000 more that a similar equipped 4x4 Ranger? When I got mine the difference was about $2000.
God, at least I hope that's the case!!!
How much is it going to cost you to reinforce that Ranger C-frame? Your right about flex...the frame! If you nine-hole a 460 in the Ranger you may only have three tires touching afterwards
I don't know if you own a Ranger or not but it seems that the Ranger owners here and at other topics always talk about the $ they save not buying the Taco and could use it to make the Ranger as good a 4x4. But after doing all the mods needed you're right back to the price of the Taco. Still don't have the frame strength of the Taco or even the lesser priced Nissan. So what you really have is the different styling, there's nothing wrong with that at all, it's just that in the end you really don't save money, right?
I think that from what I've seen from the 2001 models so far(Nissan,Tacoma a.k.a the mud fish or the Dakota)the ranger beats them by far in styling but in '99 and '00 my vote goes to the Taco and maybe the Nissan...love the fender flares, that "wide body look"
Its no secret Tacoma's are far pricier than Ford Rangers. In 1998 I did the math. My Ranger loaded was 19.6K, a comparably equipped Tacoma was about 22.6K. This was a non-TRD Tacoma at that! So far I have added P265x75xR16 all terrain 8ply tires, nerfbars, Linex, chipped, K&N aircharger kit, rockguards to the front end area and I am still ahead of what a Tacoma would have cost...
Does anyone here have an A.R.E shell? I just ordered the Z-Series Saturday and am curious if anyone has any opinions.
Don't give him credit, mviglianco, he may not be smart enough to understand the concept. I'm mean we're talking about someone who has put bigger tires on his truck but, doesn't replace the gears, rather he takes the 'cheap' way out by falling victim to air cleaners and chip 'claims'. Hey, by the way where's the exhust system? If you increase the intake you have to increase the outflow...your doing no good, you haven't helped that 'weak' 160hp 4.0L at all! Oh sorry, Vince that you aren't happy with the power that you loose when you turn your A/C on!
For more information
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/ma1.htm#tires
DETROIT — At least three people have died and four have been injured in vehicles with recalled Firestone tires since the recall began. Feeling the pressure, Ford Motor says it has decided to stop production at three truck plants so it can take 70,000 tires intended for new vehicles and use them as replacements. Only 500,000 of the 6.5 million have been changed so far. Ford plants in Minnesota, New Jersey and Missouri will close from Aug. 28 to Sept. 8 so the 15-inch tires they would have used can be sent to dealers and installed on existing Ford and Mercury SUVs and pickups. Bridgestone/Firestone is also planning airlift an unspecified number of tires from Japan to help fill the demand for replacement tires. Still, as millions drive around nerve-racked and inconvenienced, the Center for Auto Safety sued Ford to widen the scope of its recall.
More people die despite recall
SUV drivers carry fear as constant passenger
You get cut corners and get 60 dead people because some greedy slob at Ford wanted to save a few bucks.
WHAT A PROUD COMPANY
http://www.explorer4x4.com/zims.htm
I just got back from a trio to Calif. Notice a fair number of Tacoma's with the Wilderness AT.
What is the deal with that?
Tacoma was not around in the 80's, introduce in 95.5 model.
Also, the only Ranger v8 conversion I know of is to a 5 liter. That is fairly common. I would think anything else would not fit or there would be issues with wireing harness. So there are no easy conversions to a 351 or a 460 engine. That would have to be a very trick truck, basically a Ranger body on another frame. Doubt you will ever see that.
So spoog, no further information on a Toyota Dana
differentials? Is that because it uses a Toyota 8 inch in the rear and a Toyota 7.5 inch in the front?
The Ranger has the
Dana 7.5 inch differential setup
on the front, Ford 7.5 or 8.8 inch on the rear.
Glad you recognize quality in a differential setup, too bad the Toyota more than likely does not use Dana in the Tacoma.
Hey BTW, nice posts on the Explorer, too bad it is not Ranger related. Over/under inflation is the one main factor that is common on the failure of the Firestone tires, and, the fact the majority of the tires were made at a plant in Ill. at a time that plant was on STRIKE. Hmmm now union workers would not put people at risk by creating shoddy tires, to get a larger strike settlement package would they? Hmmm could be a factor. . .