I have never liked the Taco's dairy-swirl front fender flares. They remind me of that big plastic ice cream cone that spins around at the Dairy Queen. But I liked the pre-2001 lookk better than than the current atrocity. Quick, get a hook. I got a grouper on the line....
Sound to me like none of us really like the current compact styling trend.
Of all the Tacoma front fascias, I like the '95 4x4 the best - strong character lines showing its lineage, purposeful but not glaring. The '01 Tacoma looks like they just fished it out of bottom of the lake.
The '01 Frontier is not much better - way too plasticky and aftermarketish. "Industrial design" to me means stainless steel and ruggedized operator swtiches. The exterior changes to the Frontier is heavily form over function - not the "function over who-cares-about form" a real industrial design ought to suggest.
Why is it that the manufacturers can nail the full-sized pickup styling dead on, but they can't hit worth a darn on the compacts?
I bed to differ. I think there are some nice looking compact trucks out there. If nothing else, there are certainly a lot of choices in this segment. I dont't agree that the Dakota looks "old". I think it looks just as aggressive and purposeful as it did when it first came out in '97. If any compact looks dated, it is the S10/Sonoma. With the exception of the ZR2, this pickup could use a major face lift. I also think the Mazda B-Series are decent looking. Very distinctive. I consider the Ranger a handsome looking truck with decent, well proportioned lines. I liked the Tacoma until they changed the grille for 2001. It seems to exaggerate that swoopy front fender look that was alluded to by Cygnusx1. The Frontier is just a little over the top for me. But I appreciate Nissan's effort. It's just not for me. I think there are many choices to be had in this market. That's good...
Tacoma S?? I had no idea Toyota was building a 2wd 3.4 supertruck of sorts.. Looks nicer without the chrome grill in my opinion. Now, lets hope we see a shootout between the Chevy Extreme, Ranger Avalanche, Toyota S, Nissan S/C 2wd... Can't wait..
The 2001 Edge models look great--too bad they finally got the look right one year before the total ground up redesign is scheduled ... at least that's what I read in one of the car or truck mags. Anyone else hear anything about the total redesign for 2002?
This is how the trucks we debate rated in the latest 2000 JD Powers Initial Quality Survey.
The 2000 problem scores show the average number of customer-reported problems within the first three months of ownership per 100 vehicles, covering 135 specific problem areas. The industry average was 154 problems.
122 Toyota Tundra 154 INDUSTRY AVERAGE 157 Chevy S-10 163 Ford Ranger 169 Toyota Tacoma 179 Nissan Frontier
Surprising where the TACOMA scored, since its such a perfect truck! LOL!
I'm just wondering if you be able to get a "real" bumper with any of the new compacts? Not a plastic cover over a metal beam, not a painted "silver" bumper. Painted isn't bad but on a truck that gets used it will only show rust...plus the paint on bumpers even if it's black doesn't last 2-3yrs before they start to fade. What ever happened to chrome bumpers that could take running over brush and not worrying about scratching them. Hell, you could even "bump" a small tree or post while backing up without worrying about scratching it or reforming it, not to mention "shattering" the paint(like with a plastic bumper). It just seems that these trucks are getting SUVish to me. Like the EDGE- painted bumpers, Frontier- plastic bumpers in the front w/silver painted ones in the rear, Taco - has front plastic w/chrome inserts. I know my CC isn't leaps and bounds better but at least it does have the last of the chrome front bumpers
This isn't obviously most people's concerns. Rather an observation from me, someone who doesn't spend all of the truck's life offroad, but I do make the ocasional trip abound while hunting in the winter. The winters here in the south aren't cold enough to kill the brush so the trails are packed full of over-growth from the summer. This over-growth consantly beats against the frontend of your truck....well you guys get the picture. In the West maybe the trails are open and "thicket" free but down here it's tight on the trails this is one of the reasons that the compact truck is a better hunting/offroad vehicle.
OOOPS, I meant Adrenalin not Avalanche. I just read a story on the Avalanche at another website and I guess I had Avalanche on the brain. Mah, I totally agree. Painted bumpers are not for me either. When I ordered my Ranger I specifically asked for NO chrome, and black bumpers. As everyone in here knows I use my truck as a truck not a sports car in the Cascade range here in the Northwest. If I would have had all that pretty chrome it would have been scratched all to he.. by now....
At first the picture of the red 2001 tacoma double cab that I saw I didnt like, but I saw a silver Double Cab TRD on the toyota site and I happen to like it a lot. On the link above in post #320 by spoog, I really do not like the rims on the 4WD, and I want to see the chrome grill on the 4WD. I guess I am either going to get a 2001 Ranger 4x4 or 2001 Tacoma 4x4, just not sure yet. I like them both. I think it's been time for Dodge to redesign their trucks. I cannot tell the difference between a Ram thats brand new or 4 years old just by looks.
From what I've heard, the Ranger will a complete redesign in '02. It does seem a little weird to go through the cost of the latest enhancements one year before a ground up redo.
We're still waiting on an SVT Ranger (aka Adrenalin). Maybe in '02 along with the redesign? Here's some older info about the Adrenalin.
There was also a little session with Ford and some Ranger guys. It sounded as if a S/C 4L or the Lincoln LS 3.9L V8 might make it into this hot Ranger. Check out the article here:
I dont know about anyone else, but the changes coming to the explorer in '02 definetely sucked bad. I dont see why they made the current change if it was only going to last one year. I am definetely hoping that they do not do what they did to the explorer to the ranger. The nissan just plain look sick. I haven't seen the new toy but i have never really liked the way they looked so i doubt my mind will change after seeing the new one. Uh, u dont want the new s-10. I've seen the way they look in mexico and they are pretty close to a camero with a bed. Not good looking, but better then the '01 nissan. Dodge has remained the exact same since '94 and it still looks good. I'm afraid they might totally screw it up. Although a change would be nice.
.7 million Ford cars, trucks recalled OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — In an unprecedented move, a state judge ordered the recall of as many as 1.7 million Ford cars and trucks Wednesday, accusing the automaker of ''concealment of a dangerous condition.''
It was the first time a judge in the United States had ordered a car recall. The order only applies to vehicles sold in California.
Superior Court Judge Michael E. Ballachey said Ford knew the vehicles were prone to stalling, especially when the engine was hot, but failed to alert consumers.
The judge, based in Alameda County, had issued a tentative ruling in August hinting he would order the recall and accusing Ford of knowing for nearly two decades that the ignition modules were ''flawed from the outset.''
Ballachey gave Ford attorneys a chance to change his mind, but his ruling Wednesday showed they had failed to sway him.
''This case was about concealment of a dangerous condition,'' Ballachey read from the bench.
Government agencies normally order recalls, but Ballachey said state law gives him the power to issue Wednesday's recall.
Ford officials disagreed, and said that even if he did have such power, ''a recall would serve no purpose because there is nothing to fix,'' Ford spokesman Jim Cain said.
The automaker already is involved in the recall of 6.5 million Firestone tires, which were standard equipment on some Ford trucks and sports utility vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating dozens of deaths possibly linked to the tires.
Wednesday's ruling was based on a class-action suit filed on behalf of 3.5 million current and former Ford owners in California. The plaintiffs claim the vehicles stall because wrongly placed ignition devices were exposed to excessive heat and stress.
Ballachey said Ford repeatedly deceived federal regulators by claiming there were no problems with its ignition devices in vehicles in the 1983-95 model years.
Ballachey wrote that Ford sold as many as 23 million vehicles prone to stalling nationwide. Similar class action suits are pending in Alabama, Maryland, Illinois, Tennessee and Washington.
''Ford has been aware, since at least 1982, that installing its TFI ignition modules on the distributors ... made them inordinately prone to failure due to exposure to excessive heat and thermal stress,'' Ballachey's ruling said.
The suit challenged Ford's placement of the thick film ignition, known as a TFI module, which regulates electric current to the spark plugs. In 300 models sold between 1983 and 1995, the module was mounted on the distributor near the engine block, where it was exposed to high temperatures.
Ford documents show the automaker was warned by an engineer that high temperatures would cause the device to fail and stall the engine, confirmed the problem in internal studies and could have moved the module to a cooler spot for an extra $4 per vehicle.
Ford has denied its TFI ignition systems were flawed, and said Wednesday it disagreed with the judge's ruling. ''The record in this case does not demonstrate a safety problem,'' Ford attorney Richard Warmer said. ''The recall is not justified by the evidence. These vehicles are safe.''
The Center for Auto Safety estimated that any California recall alone would cost Ford at least $125 million.
Ford said it does not know how much a California recall would cost. Its 1996 internal documents projected that Ford would spend nearly $300 million to fix the TFI problems nationwide for its 1994-1996 models.
The largest auto recall was in 1995, when 10 manufacturers had to fix seat belts on 8.8 million cars because the buckles sometimes failed to latch or unlatch.
The largest recall by a single automaker was in 1996, when Ford recalled about 8.7 million vehicles that had an ignition switch in the steering column because the switch caught fire in hundreds of vehicles.
After complaints from customers and dealers about stalling, Ford recalled 1.1 million 1984-85 vehicles in 1987 to repair their ignition devices.
Jeff Fazio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs who filed the class-action suit, said: ''I think it's a great day for consumers.'' '
"Finishing below industry average in alphabetical order are: Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, Eagle, GMC, Hyundai, Isuzu, Jaguar, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Plymouth, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Suzuki and Volkswagen."
Sorry buddy, no Ford truck made it into the top of the class. Toyota dominated the 5 year reliability test in all truck categories.
These are vehicles that are tested for FIVE years, not three months fresh off the factory lot. And these complaints aren't a customer survey, they are actual repairs made in the shop.
Here is a COMPLETE list of the TSB's, Defect Investigations, and Safety Recalls for the Toyota pickup, Chevy s-10, Ford Ranger, and Dodge Dakota from the years 1989-2000. Enjoy.
Defect Investigations 1989-2000
Ford Ranger - 20
Dodge Dakota- 14
Chevy S10 - 51
Toyota Tacoma - 2
Safety Recalls 1989-2000
Ford Ranger- 32
Dodge Dakota - 28
Chevyy S10 - 47
Toyota Tacoma - 6
Technical Service Bulletins 1989-2000
Ford Ranger -2,279(yes, 2,279)
Dodge Dakota- 940
Chevy S10 -448
Toyota Tacoma - 150
-------
Not all trucks are built the same, as you can plainly see.
That five year relaibility study you posted is through 1994 and DOES NOT INCLUDE the Tacoma in any way, shape or form!!!
If you can recall some of my previous posts, I have asserted on many occasions that the '89-'94 Toyota pickups were much better trucks than the Tacoma (IMHO).
Looks like the five year study shows that the '89-'94 were more reliable than the competition. What does that have to do with the Tacoma????? NOTHING!!!!!
However, the INITIAL quality survey clearly shows that the Tacoma has more "average number of customer-reported problems within the first three months of ownership per 100 vehicles, covering 135 specific problem areas" than the Ranger or even the S-10.
You like to quote facts and data. Well, there is a fact you can't deny.
He only looks at facts that support his premise. The boy must have been scare by the power in a Ford as a child, with his animosity. California is a lawyer's heaven. They probably found a judge that wasn't interested in facts either. I wonder if his web ID is spoog.
Yeah, that test was on 94 models, for five years till 99. The next 5 year result test will have the tacoma results. I would expect the samw results, as has been the case for the past 20 years.
Remember, that 3 month test was based on consumer comlaints, not actual needed shop repairs and do forth.
"Toyota now refusing to use Bridgestone/Firestone tires after discovering cracks
Toyota has informed Bridgestone/Firestone that it will no longer accept tires that fall under the Bridgestone Dueler brand name after Toyota discovered "abnormal surface cracks"; in new tires that come as standard equipment on such models as the Toyota Tundra, according to CBS affiliate WWJ News Radio in Detroit, MI. Surface cracks, if they do appear on tires, do not usually show until the near the very end of a tires life. This newly discovered problem could also lend to the argument of safety advocacy groups that quality is still an issue at Bridgestone/Firestone."
OK Toyota TRD fans your days of gloating are at an end. Just got my Truck Trend today and in it is a serious review of the new Ford Ranger. And, off to the side Ford will offer an offroad Ranger to compete with TRD!! The new Ranger will have 31" BF Goodrich all Terrain tires, on unique Alcoa Wheels. A Torsen torque-biasing gear-type differential, Bilsteins, Skidplates galore. The transfer case engages with a real lever, and both shifters have speciallly styled knobs and a heavy-duty looking base. Tow hooks are stainless steel on front and back. I quote from Truck Trend "This may be the most comprehensive off-road package offered BY ANY OE in the compact truck segment". I'm sure it will also sell for thousands less than a TRD also! Looks like Ford listened to its constumers. My wife spotted me reading the article and she said "Don't even think about it". Damn....:-( Also, Spoog, your awesome Toyota 4x4's didn't win the Neveda 2000. An American made 4x4, the Hummer finished first and second!! OOOOH what a feeling!!
Not to burst your bubble or anything, but you might want to check up on your little Ford recall. You will see that the Judge didn't have the jurisdiction to implement a recall....only the NHTSA(your favorite website!!!)can do that. Oh, by the way there has only been 6 "forced" recalls anyway, all the others have been voluntary after the administration found there to be sufficient data to support a recall. Don't be so hasty to point the finger or else everybody will think you have Neploen's Disease.
You can slap all the crap you want on the Ranger, but it still has a weak foundation. It STILL uses the highway favored suspension. That has not changed.
Bottom line is Toyota leads the class in ground clearance, offers a factory rear locker, clutch start cancel switch, TRUE offroad suspension, approach and departure angles, better crawl ratio, standard hooks, floor shifting manual transfer case with neutral position, 6 lug wheels, higher standard payload, better braking, ect.
"It comes with 31" BFG's all terrains, unique wheels, A Torsen torque biasing gear type differential, Bilsteins, Skidplates galore,"
Ooh! Skidplates galore! Something Toyota has been offering as standard since day one on their most basic 4x4's.
"The transfer case engages with a real lever "
ooh! About time! Maybe Ford is taking the steps to try and build an actual 4x4 now.
"and both shifters have specially styled knobs and heavy duty looking base "
I saw the pick of the knob's and they ARE cool looking.
Spoog, you don't get it do you? This truck will trounce a TRD in both performance, hauling, towing you name it and still cost the consumer less! Foundation? What do you mean? The Toyota has a terrible crash test rating, Yeah, real strong frame @!@! LOL>...
The Ranger still has the highway favored suspension. IT still has lower ground clearance.
Do you REALLY think a Ranger edge with a "4x4" package will outperform a TRD Tacoma offroad?
" The Trd Tacoma handled the rough stuff better than any vehicle we have driven"
-4wheeler.com
The Tacoma has higher standar payload, higher standar towing, better breaking, better acceleration, better approach and departure angles, standard skid plates underneath(even gas tank plate) on the most basic of 4x4 models, clutch start cancel switch, rear locking differential, better crawl ratio, and just a better built truck period.
U really need to do some research before u start talking away. That "highway favored" ranger suspension is almost identical to whats on the tacoma. The only difference is the differentials and the spring rates. The ranger has a stronger diff, the tacoma has a better spring rate thus giving it slightly better off-road ability. But go back to your fourwheeler, the tacoma beat a '98 ranger with the 4.0. Go back one year to '97. The ttb ranger kicked the tacomas butt. Lever actuated transfer case, manual hubs. Come on, tacoma's have never had manual hubs. Rangers have always had higher towing and payload capabilities than any toyota of the same year. My '84 ranger has lots more power and capabilites then the 4cyl toyota offered then. It's got dual gas tanks, skid plates over both of them, dual limited slips, excellent crawl ratio, manual transfer case, manual hubs, payload of over 2000lbs, and it's still stock. That's what a 4x4 should be. None of this plastic bumper crap.
I think the spoogster is talking about the torsion bar as opposed to the coil spring on the Toy. HOWEVER, the Land Cruiser, which our Toyota drone has touted as one of the best, HAS a torsion bar for it's mode of suspending the front suspension. I guess the LC is "highway biased" now.LOL!!!! Such a philosophy!!!!
Another one of your well researched comments. you stated "Rangers have always had higher towing and payload capabilities than any Toyota of the same year". Bless us with any supporting evidence of that. The Toyota has had a higher payload rating than the Ranger for years. The Ranger has some areas that rate better than the Tacoma but the payload isn't one of them. Why not start something new and research some of your comments rather than make them up. You're probably a nice guy but you get more facts mixed up than even Vince8 does.
You obviously didn't read my post. This Ranger is an optional offroad pkg Ranger. Let me say this again, The Ranger I spoke of IS AN OPTIONAL OFF ROAD PKG Ranger. I hope you understood that this time. It comes with a different suspension setup, shocks, and rear diff, tires, skidplates and more. Once again so you understand this post. THIS IS AN OPTIONAL OFF ROAD PKG for the Ranger. To make sure you understand my post. This package is designed to go head to head with the TRD package and the ZR2 package. Do you understand now? Pick up the latest Truck Trend. Bye Bye TRD!! LOL!
OPTIONAL OFF ROAD PKG for the Ranger. Is it on the option list? Again, what is the name of this Optional Off Road Pkg? Is it listed here on Edmunds? LOL!!
The highest rated Tacoma and Ranger, which are both 2wd V6 trucks, are as follows (per Carpoint, which is usually accurate):
Payload Towing
Tacoma - 1,824 5,000
Ranger - 1,660 6,060
There are also a couple of Tacomas with higher payloads of 2,069 and 1,929 which are PreRunner reg cabs and PreRunner ext-cabs, respectively. But, their towing ratings were 3,500lbs due to the 4cyl engine.
FYI, the differentiation between standard and maximum specs on the Ranger are quite simple. Standard towing reflects using a bumper mounted ball hitch, while maximum towing reflects properly equipping the truck with a Class III hitch. Standard payload is a truck without the payload pkg. Many don't want the stiffer springs and shocks as they don't need extra hauling abilities. Maximum payload is with a truck equipped with the payload pkg.
Personally, I think anyone who would load up their trucks with the maximum ratings over anything but extremely short trips is crazy. You're just asking to damage something. I'll just make a couple of 1000lb trips instead.
Also, I'd never tow something that weighed more than my truck more than a few miles. I know it's capable, but I just don't like the idea of 5000lbs pushing me down a hill. So, I guess my own comfort level sets a limit of 3000lbs or so with my truck.
I guess i dont seem to know too much about the newest rangers but mine came with a towing package that inclueded tough springs, extra radiator, 4.11 gears and more. It's had a pallet of shingles weighing more than 2000lbs loaded in it. It also pulled a boat 3 times it's size for many years. To give u an example of the size of the boat, it had an onboard chevy 350 v8 in it. There was one time that the boat pushed the truck all the way through a big intersection cause it weighed far more than the truck and it wouldn't stop. The toyota is nowhere close to a 3/4 ton truck. 3/4 ton does NOT refer to the payload capability spoog. An f-250 can hold more than 4000 lbs in the bed. I guess it should probably be called a 2 ton truck huh??? In fact, Pre-tacomas weren't even classified with rangers for quite a while. It was in a separate "mini-truck" class.
They do not give the pkg number as of yet. We have been through all this stuff already about payload and towing. The Ranger will out tow, out pull, plain out muscle the Tacoma. The Toyota clan always fails to mention the option packages available for the Ranger and how little they cost to upgrade towing or hauling capacities that will out do the Tacoma. Its called something the Toyota owners hate to hear about TORQUE. Even with its old pushrod 4.0, the Rangers Torque/HP curve is better than the high tech 3.4 of Toyota. And now with a new SOHC 4.0 here the battle of HP/Torque curves gets even dimmer for Toyota boys. Nice try spoog. Strike 3!! I agree with the statement that even though these compact trucks are rated at 5K or more for towing or whichever, it sure not wise to go the max.
I dont know what the actuall torque of my truck is, but it has quite a bit of power. My truck came with a big steel towing bumper, not a little chrome or plastic thing. It had enough power to bend the bumper and 2" ball. It's because it's frequently used to tow a 16ft trailer full of dirt or gravel about 20 miles. The truck bumper is quite a bit higher then the trailer hitch so the trailer attempts to pull the bumper down. My truck has also pulled all sizes of trucks out of mud several times at construction sites.
The Tacoma has higher standar payload, higher standar towing, better breaking, better acceleration, better approach and departure angles, standard skid plates underneath(even gas tank plate) on the most basic of 4x4 models, clutch start cancel switch, rear locking differential, better crawl ratio, and just a better built truck period.
So, what you're saying is that it breaks better? J/K, couldn't resist!
Comments
because it doesn't have all that chrome....BUT, not much better.
Of all the Tacoma front fascias, I like the '95 4x4 the best - strong character lines showing its lineage, purposeful but not glaring. The '01 Tacoma looks like they just fished it out of bottom of the lake.
The '01 Frontier is not much better - way too plasticky and aftermarketish. "Industrial design" to me means stainless steel and ruggedized operator swtiches. The exterior changes to the Frontier is heavily form over function - not the "function over who-cares-about form" a real industrial design ought to suggest.
Why is it that the manufacturers can nail the full-sized pickup styling dead on, but they can't hit worth a darn on the compacts?
looking truck with decent, well proportioned lines. I liked the Tacoma until they changed the grille for 2001. It seems to exaggerate that swoopy front fender look that was alluded to by Cygnusx1. The Frontier is just a little over the top for me. But I appreciate Nissan's effort. It's just not for me. I think there are many choices to be had in this market. That's good...
Now, lets hope we see a shootout between the Chevy Extreme, Ranger Avalanche, Toyota S, Nissan S/C 2wd... Can't wait..
Best looking 4x4? Jeep Wrangler or Land Rover Discovery.
The 2000 problem scores show the average number
of customer-reported problems within the first three months of ownership per 100 vehicles, covering 135 specific problem areas. The industry average was 154 problems.
122 Toyota Tundra
154 INDUSTRY AVERAGE
157 Chevy S-10
163 Ford Ranger
169 Toyota Tacoma
179 Nissan Frontier
Surprising where the TACOMA scored, since its such a perfect truck! LOL!
See the entire list at www.auto.com
This isn't obviously most people's concerns. Rather an observation from me, someone who doesn't spend all of the truck's life offroad, but I do make the ocasional trip abound while hunting in the winter. The winters here in the south aren't cold enough to kill the brush so the trails are packed full of over-growth from the summer. This over-growth consantly beats against the frontend of your truck....well you guys get the picture. In the West maybe the trails are open and "thicket" free but down here it's tight on the trails this is one of the reasons that the compact truck is a better hunting/offroad vehicle.
Mah, I totally agree. Painted bumpers are not for me either. When I ordered my Ranger I specifically asked for NO chrome, and black bumpers. As everyone in here knows I use my truck as a truck not a sports car in the Cascade range here in the Northwest. If I would have had all that pretty chrome it would have been scratched all to he.. by now....
We're still waiting on an SVT Ranger (aka Adrenalin). Maybe in '02 along with the redesign? Here's some older info about the Adrenalin.
http://www.blueovalnews.com/ranger_adrenalin.htm
There was also a little session with Ford and some Ranger guys. It sounded as if a S/C 4L or the Lincoln LS 3.9L V8 might make it into this hot Ranger. Check out the article here:
http://www.fordranger.com/RangerProgram.html
.7 million Ford cars, trucks recalled
OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — In an unprecedented move, a state judge ordered the recall of as many as 1.7 million Ford cars and trucks Wednesday, accusing the automaker of ''concealment of a dangerous condition.''
It was the first time a judge in the United States had ordered a car recall. The order only applies to vehicles sold in California.
Superior Court Judge Michael E. Ballachey said Ford knew the vehicles were prone to stalling, especially when the engine was hot, but failed to alert consumers.
The judge, based in Alameda County, had issued a tentative ruling in August hinting he would order the recall and accusing Ford of knowing for nearly two decades that the ignition modules were ''flawed from the outset.''
Ballachey gave Ford attorneys a chance to change his mind, but his ruling Wednesday showed they had failed to sway him.
''This case was about concealment of a dangerous condition,'' Ballachey read from the bench.
Government agencies normally order recalls, but Ballachey said state law gives him the power to issue Wednesday's recall.
Ford officials disagreed, and said that even if he did have such power, ''a recall would serve no purpose because there is nothing to fix,'' Ford spokesman Jim Cain said.
The automaker already is involved in the recall of 6.5 million Firestone tires, which were standard equipment on some Ford trucks and sports utility vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating dozens of deaths possibly linked to the tires.
Wednesday's ruling was based on a class-action suit filed on behalf of 3.5 million current and former Ford owners in California. The plaintiffs claim the vehicles stall because wrongly placed ignition devices were exposed to excessive heat and stress.
Ballachey said Ford repeatedly deceived federal regulators by claiming there were no problems with its ignition devices in vehicles in the 1983-95 model years.
Ballachey wrote that Ford sold as many as 23 million vehicles prone to stalling nationwide. Similar class action suits are pending in Alabama, Maryland, Illinois, Tennessee and Washington.
''Ford has been aware, since at least 1982, that installing its TFI ignition modules on the distributors ... made them inordinately prone to failure due to exposure to excessive heat and thermal stress,'' Ballachey's ruling said.
The suit challenged Ford's placement of the thick film ignition, known as a TFI module, which regulates electric current to the spark plugs. In 300 models sold between 1983 and 1995, the module was mounted on the distributor near the engine block, where it was exposed to high temperatures.
Ford documents show the automaker was warned by an engineer that high temperatures would cause the device to fail and stall the engine, confirmed the problem in internal studies and could have moved the module to a cooler spot for an extra $4 per vehicle.
Ford has denied its TFI ignition systems were flawed, and said Wednesday it disagreed with the judge's ruling.
''The record in this case does not demonstrate a safety problem,'' Ford attorney Richard Warmer said. ''The recall is not justified by the evidence. These vehicles are safe.''
The Center for Auto Safety estimated that any California recall alone would cost Ford at least $125 million.
Ford said it does not know how much a California recall would cost. Its 1996 internal documents projected that Ford would spend nearly $300 million to fix the TFI problems nationwide for its 1994-1996 models.
The largest auto recall was in 1995, when 10 manufacturers had to fix seat belts on 8.8 million cars because the buckles sometimes failed to latch or unlatch.
The largest recall by a single automaker was in 1996, when Ford recalled about 8.7 million vehicles that had an ignition switch in the steering column because the switch caught fire in hundreds of vehicles.
After complaints from customers and dealers about stalling, Ford recalled 1.1 million 1984-85 vehicles in 1987 to repair their ignition devices.
Jeff Fazio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs who filed the class-action suit, said: ''I think it's a great day for consumers.'' '
That 3 month quality study sure is nice, but lets take a look at JD powers long term FIVE year reliability STUDY, shall we?
http://www.jdpa.com/studies/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=292&CatID=1
"Finishing below industry average in alphabetical order are: Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, Eagle, GMC, Hyundai, Isuzu, Jaguar, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Plymouth, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Suzuki and Volkswagen."
Sorry buddy, no Ford truck made it into the top of the class. Toyota dominated the 5 year reliability test in all truck categories.
These are vehicles that are tested for FIVE years, not three months fresh off the factory lot.
And these complaints aren't a customer survey, they are actual repairs made in the shop.
You mess with the bull, you get the horns.
"
Defect Investigations 1989-2000
Ford Ranger - 20
Dodge Dakota- 14
Chevy S10 - 51
Toyota Tacoma - 2
Safety Recalls 1989-2000
Ford Ranger- 32
Dodge Dakota - 28
Chevyy S10 - 47
Toyota Tacoma - 6
Technical Service Bulletins 1989-2000
Ford Ranger -2,279(yes, 2,279)
Dodge Dakota- 940
Chevy S10 -448
Toyota Tacoma - 150
-------
Not all trucks are built the same, as you can plainly see.
Here is the hard link:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
If you can recall some of my previous posts, I have asserted on many occasions that the '89-'94 Toyota pickups were much better trucks than the Tacoma (IMHO).
Looks like the five year study shows that the '89-'94 were more reliable than the competition. What does that have to do with the Tacoma????? NOTHING!!!!!
However, the INITIAL quality survey clearly shows that the Tacoma has more "average number of customer-reported problems within the first three months of ownership per 100 vehicles, covering 135 specific problem areas" than the Ranger or even the S-10.
You like to quote facts and data. Well, there is a fact you can't deny.
Remember, that 3 month test was based on consumer comlaints, not actual needed shop repairs and do forth.
tires after discovering cracks
Toyota has informed Bridgestone/Firestone that it
will no longer accept tires that fall under the
Bridgestone Dueler brand name after Toyota
discovered "abnormal surface cracks"; in new tires
that come as standard equipment on such models as
the Toyota Tundra, according to CBS affiliate WWJ
News Radio in Detroit, MI. Surface cracks, if they do appear on tires, do not usually show until the near the very end of a tires life. This newly discovered problem could also lend to the argument of safety advocacy groups that quality is still an issue at Bridgestone/Firestone."
Has it been a little slow in here lately?
[img]http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/sleep.gif[/img]
Also, Spoog, your awesome Toyota 4x4's didn't win the Neveda 2000. An American made 4x4, the Hummer finished first and second!! OOOOH what a feeling!!
but it still has a weak foundation. It STILL uses
the highway favored suspension. That has not
changed.
Bottom line is Toyota leads the class in ground
clearance, offers a factory rear locker, clutch
start cancel switch, TRUE offroad suspension,
approach and departure angles, better crawl ratio,
standard hooks, floor shifting manual transfer
case with neutral position, 6 lug wheels, higher
standard payload, better braking, ect.
"It comes
with 31" BFG's all terrains, unique wheels, A
Torsen torque biasing gear type differential,
Bilsteins, Skidplates galore,"
Ooh! Skidplates galore! Something Toyota has been
offering as standard since day one on their most
basic 4x4's.
"The transfer case
engages with a real lever "
ooh! About time! Maybe Ford is taking the steps to
try and build an actual 4x4 now.
"and both shifters have
specially styled knobs and heavy duty looking base
"
I saw the pick of the knob's and they ARE cool
looking.
Do you get it yet man?
The Ranger still has the highway favored suspension. IT still has lower ground clearance.
Do you REALLY think a Ranger edge with a "4x4" package will outperform a TRD Tacoma offroad?
" The Trd Tacoma handled the rough stuff better than any vehicle we have driven"
-4wheeler.com
The Tacoma has higher standar payload, higher standar towing, better breaking, better acceleration, better approach and departure angles, standard skid plates underneath(even gas tank plate) on the most basic of 4x4 models, clutch start cancel switch, rear locking differential, better crawl ratio, and just a better built truck period.
tacoma's have never had manual hubs."
All basic tacomas have manual hubs.
\\ Rangers have
always had higher towing and payload capabilities
than any toyota of the same year. \\
Nope.
Standard payload
2000 Ranger = 1,100 pounds
2000 Tacoma = 1500 pounds
Guitar dude, you just don't seem to get it. The Tacoma is rated as 3/4 ton truck. IT has ALWAYS had a higher payload than the Ranger.
IN fact, in the 4wheeler test, they had 16 sand bags in the Ranger and Mazda, and 18 in the Tacoma while tested.
Guitare Dude-
Your alright, but your facts are wrong.
Payload Towing
Tacoma - 1,824 5,000
Ranger - 1,660 6,060
There are also a couple of Tacomas with higher payloads of 2,069 and 1,929 which are PreRunner reg cabs and PreRunner ext-cabs, respectively. But, their towing ratings were 3,500lbs due to the 4cyl engine.
FYI, the differentiation between standard and maximum specs on the Ranger are quite simple. Standard towing reflects using a bumper mounted ball hitch, while maximum towing reflects properly equipping the truck with a Class III hitch. Standard payload is a truck without the payload pkg. Many don't want the stiffer springs and shocks as they don't need extra hauling abilities. Maximum payload is with a truck equipped with the payload pkg.
Personally, I think anyone who would load up their trucks with the maximum ratings over anything but extremely short trips is crazy. You're just asking to damage something. I'll just make a couple of 1000lb trips instead.
Also, I'd never tow something that weighed more than my truck more than a few miles. I know it's capable, but I just don't like the idea of 5000lbs pushing me down a hill. So, I guess my own comfort level sets a limit of 3000lbs or so with my truck.
yeah, sure.....
My 4cyl. Frontier may be rated at 5000lbs towing, but I needed to tow that much I would have bought a 1/2-ton full size.
I can understand the HP/torque and 0-60 performance bragging rights, but tow/haul pissing contests are a little silly for a mini truck.
The toyota is nowhere close to a 3/4 ton truck. 3/4 ton does NOT refer to the payload capability spoog. An f-250 can hold more than 4000 lbs in the bed. I guess it should probably be called a 2 ton truck huh??? In fact, Pre-tacomas weren't even classified with rangers for quite a while. It was in a separate "mini-truck" class.
I agree with the statement that even though these compact trucks are rated at 5K or more for towing or whichever, it sure not wise to go the max.
standar towing, better breaking, better
acceleration, better approach and departure angles,
standard skid plates underneath(even gas tank
plate) on the most basic of 4x4 models, clutch
start cancel switch, rear locking differential,
better crawl ratio, and just a better built truck
period.
So, what you're saying is that it breaks better? J/K, couldn't resist!