By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Since the Tacoma and Ranger are designed more for everyday street use, I'm sure there have been compromises in each design because of that.
Just my .02
2. About the door locks: Ford is the ONLY maker that does this, and it wouldn't have been that difficult to lenghthen the knob 3/4" for folks who have a reason to not open the door to unlock it
3. You didn't know about Ford's faulty lug nuts and wouldn't acknowledge my statements on them until I found a link recalling some 81,000 Ford trucks and SUVs. I know you would like such things hushed up, but in the interest of safety, such recalls need to be made public in any way possible
4. After much debate on the Ranger's suspension, you forfeit your argument, stating "I don't know why it's like that but you still are wrong!"
You're right when you say you can't compete with me, but I did enjoy seeing you try, though - ESPECIALLY last night when you blew a gasket and starting spewing every vulgar,foul, and racial remark that you could think of in plain view of other Town Hall members (to tell you the truth, I thought you could have been a little more original and creative!).
At any rate, I'm sure the administrators at Edmunds Town Hall will deal with you accordingly. Do you really think they have no record of your postings?
You know, for a while we were actually having an intelligent conversation on suspensions, but now I see the end result of debating with you - a grown man throwing a tempter tantrum.
1. I said you can have one or the other. Not both as you thought! You showed me that Lockers can be installed on LSD's? HA. This is old news that I never contested or asked for. See posts # 2675 and 2692. You said you were learning alot about differentials just by talking to us guys. Then you ask if by installing a locker, would you give a the LSD?
2. It's not difficult or necessary. It's a security and visual measure. Can't see the knobs? Good your arm rest won't be poking you, and no one can use a coat hanger or other object to lift up the door lock stud. WHY WOULD YOU UNLOCK A DOOR WITHOUT OPENING IT? Why not just hit the power door luck button on either your alarm or door panel. Just keep the door unlocked after you first get in the car for the day. If you want to say you want the door unlocked while you are outside, just leave it unlocked as you exit the vehicle. Either way it just doesn't matter.
3. Now you just making up figures. If you really reaserched it, it was 1.7 MILLION (not your 81,000) Ford trucks and SUV's recalled for inspection of their lug nuts. How's that for covering it up? I didn't know about it originally. I'm hardly omnipotent. But I would have probably fixed it myself when I first noticed the problem. Or I would of had the dealership fix the problem (for free) over three years ago, instead of complaining about it today.
4. Not everything is an black and white argument where one must be declared a winner and the other is a loser. Who can be right when everyone is wrong? You take this debate way to seriously. I was stating why I like the Ranger's design and how I think it is more logical. I repeatedly said I'm not an expert, engineer or absolutely right. (Post 2883), I never said Tacoma's design sucked. You said the Ranger's suspension was flawed. (#2863) I said no, it's just a different approach to the same problem. I also said that any more debate would really just require a scientific study in real world conditions (post 2876)
You said all my posts on the suspension deal amounted to saving the seals? (post 2891) Where the heck do you get that?
Quit asking for me to explain or answer everything for you, because I don't think you are interested in my answer (based on my logic, my opinion or factual evidence)
5. What chu talkin' 'bout, Willis? Looking back over my posts, I see nothing racial, vulgar or foul. Are all your systems running normal?
Keep this up Pluto, and you'll be one of the only people who post on this forum. Then you can rant and rave about how good you think your Toyota is, and how much you think Ford's are stupid, flawed, or whatever (Even though you think it's not a bad truck, or line). You think you are on top of the world, but this is really a rather small insignificant slice of the automotive culture. I think you're looking for some type of personal validation, by posting on every forum you can, but of what I do not know.
stang- yes, pluto definitely has issues. i agree with you that he needs validation, why else would he post on numerous forums here at edmunds. and yes, he does make stuff up all the time, like his statements about your "racial and vulgar remarks", its his way of trying to make himself look better by downgrading others. and yes he twists everything around to try and make you look bad, like your statements about him thinking you could have a locker and an lsd at the same time. he did think that, he jus won't admit it now. same with the lug nuts. if its such a bad and unsafe thing, why didn't his company get it fixed for free like ford offered.
i think he's very hilarious myself. i set him up all the time, he's since started ignoring me. probably a good move on his part. i think ive made him look bad too many times, i mean when you say things, and then i post real numbers set out by the manufacturer, there really isn't anything he can say. the sales, safety, features, and towing and horsepower issues ive set out in the last couple days has gone by the wayside to him. i wasn't surprised to say the least. he truly is a character. hehe
ps. just looked at a new FX4 F150. totally cool truck. it barely hit $29K, and it was loaded. it did have the 4.6, but i don't need the 5.4, i don't tow anything that heavy. i do need the extra room however. i think im done with the compacts, full-size trucks (real full-size trucks) are where its at now that ive looked at them. the new F150's are way cool. later
obyone - I have no problem with ABS for the street and think that it's a good feature. In light of that though, few people understand what the ABS system does and simply believe erronously that it decreases stopping distance. On the road, particularly on a truck with an unequal weight distribution, it can save an inexperienced or panicked driver from spinning on a slippery surface and who can argue with that.
Basically, I said it makes the most sense to put the shock-absorbers towards the outside of the axle, versus towards the inside as Ford does. I then gave my reasons why I thought Toyota's arrangement was more logical, pointed out some inconsistencies with Stang's statements and actual suspension designs, and commented on how lift-kits always put the shock absorbers close to the tire.
I apologize, Stang, if my proving you wrong upset you so severely. From now on, I will try to not prove you so severely wrong, so as to prevent such a severe temper tantrum. You are in severe need of some anger management courses.
Tbunder, what can I say? You are like a 15 watt light-bulb that just won't burn out.
never hear of a tacoma owner bragging about their in-dash cd changer or remote keyless entry. or their no charge inclusion of 16" alloy wheels. why? because all of that stuff is extra.
pluto- id rather be considered a "15 watt lightbulb", than a spark from a sparkler. which is what im sure everyone on edmunds.com thinks of you. but you do go out, whenever someone offers you a challenge on facts. then, you're just like a light, you go way out. hehe
Yes you think it makes the most sense, the logical reasons, and lift kits, Blah Blah Blah. I did the same.
Here goes your "lift-kits always put the shock absorbers close to the tire" and overal superior suspension geometry argument out the window:
http://www.fly-n-hi.com/sam.htm
Here's a nice aftermarket setup with 9" Ford rear end. No dreaded mounting brackets below the rear differential, but look at them shocks!
http://www.fly-n-hi.com/samrtside.jpg
http://www.fly-n-hi.com/trucknats/ryan.html
Here's a nice v-10 F-250 with 15 inch lift.
Notice the placement of the shocks!
http://www.fly-n-hi.com/trucknats/ryanrr.jpg
http://www.fly-n-hi.com/f150.htm
F-150 with shock set-up geometry similair to Ranger. Notice the Trailmaster 4" lift kit, and the Wynjammer Blower which advertises that it does NOT void factory warranty.
http://www.fly-n-hi.com/f150rrbmp.jpg
Here's a favorite:
http://www.camburg.com/shockkits.htm
Look at the bottom. Toyota-W-Fox Race Shox? Look familair?
Here's one that I'm not sure about... Are those white things in front of the reat tires shocks? Looks a little too high up front for shocks, but maybe? http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/toyota/t4.JPG
oH Wait... I'm right, they are shocks!!! http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/toyota/t5.JPG
These shocks seem to extend well below the rear axle... Decide for yourself...
http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/toyota/t28.jpg
Check out Chevy: http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/chevy-gmc/c93.jpg
In gray if you prefer:
http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/chevy-gmc/c96.jpg
Mean Z71: http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/chevy-gmc/c79.jpg
Note angled shocks in rear:
http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/chevy-gmc/c80.jpg
Patriotic and angled shocks oh my: http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/chevy-gmc/c91.jpg
Can we say major incline, Dodge and inboard shocks(not at the ends) http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/dodge/d4.JPG
http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/dodge/d3.JPG
That ain't stock(but look at the shocks!
This is interesting:
http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/group/g20.jpg
Yes they do see the trails:
http://www.bncoffroad.com/hof/offroad/off89.jpg
SHALL I CONTINUE???
Please note I do not think the Ranger's suspension kicks all [non-permissible content removed] off-road, nor can compete with the photo's shown above. This was just an example of shocks do not have to be exactly like a Tacoma's shock to perform off-road. You can still think you are right, if you want to Pluto.
1) You flat out(mistakingly) said that when YOUR locker on YOUR toy is not being used it is a LSD. Now you're backtracking
2)I'm not understanding you trying to grasp at something so menial. On my Crew Cab the front doors will open with the doors locked. The backs won't but the knobs are easily grasped or the driver/front passenger hits the auto door locks from the front. Not sure if the Ranger is different but since you said "Ford is the only....." I had to prove you wrong again.
Since you are the self appointed suspension/design expert, can you please answer why toy bolts their skid plate to the transfer case??? If you could do this without changing the subject on what you interpret as Ford's problems, it would be appreciated.
I agree, for the Tacoma, the placement is logical..
However, the placement of the shocks on the Ranger is equally logical..
Shock location alone does not dictate how well or how poorly a suspension system will work.. As long as they are positioned in a manner where they can perform their intended duty..
The end result is that the shock dampening action on both the Ranger and the Tacoma is equally effective..
Have you ever noticed that on some vehicles, one shock is in the front of the rear axle, and the other is behind the axle. I believe the reason this was done is that someone figured out it reduced wheel hop on hard acceleration burnouts..
Does this make all other shock placements illogical? hardly, others just figured out a different way to solve the same problem..
Honda, Kawaski, Suzuki, and Yamaha MX bikes all have rear shocks that bolt to various linkages and then the swingarm. KTM has a new design where the shock is directly bolted to the swingarm.. Both ways are very different but equally effective..
If both trucks work and do their job effectively then the only real issue is do you want to pay the extra money for a tacoma over a ranger? I don't think Porsche Turbo owners argue with Ferrari 360 owners over "Look we can do the same thing and have the same features as you but you paid $60k more than me for your Ferrari". Either way they work.
By the way all the ranger fans that think Tacos can't be bought for less consider this. In 1998 we bought our V6 Extra Cab SR5 5sp larger tires (albeit mounted on 15" wheels) w/ keyless entry and alarm, bedliner and bra for $18,900. Personally I never looked back. Of course I complain about the $550 they want to charge me for my 60k service but hey whatever.
The only thing about the taco's shock placement that I think is superior to other vehicles is, as I've said before, they don't hang below the axle. Is this a big thing? no, but it's a little thing that is (I think) a nice design and is advantageous for those that do offroad.
Thanks
Same with the remote entry. I'm looking for the aftermarket security system now, so the remote entry will be included.
These things are not necessary. If you don't agree about ABS being a luxury item, fine, but this is getting to the point of ridiculousy. If you want remote entry, 6-CD changer (next you'll be talking about having a DVD player in the truck too), go get a Chrysler van. It is supposed to be a truck.
Yeah that's the ticket, they're supposed to be trucks... strip out those cloth interiors and just put in a vinyl flat bench...heck we don't need no stinkin radios, just super-glue one of them walmart clocks to the dash. And no automatic trannies, just 4 on the floor. Heck, who evem needs floors in a truck!
Truck or not, they are mostly commuter vehicles, and getting more options for the same amount of money or less is not a bad thing, contrary to what Tacoma owners like to say to make themselves feel better about having done the opposite.
A 99 Ranger, mine to be exact, with 31X10.5X15 tires measures slightly over 9.25 inches at the same point. I attribute the difference to the smaller size of the ring gear in the Tacoma.
It is like any tool, it is not how big(high clearance) you have, it is how you use it that makes all the difference.
8^)
I d o n o t c a r e f o r a n y o f t h a t s t u f f.
Clear enough? You are again trying to make your point by pretending to know what I think, and making it look like I am just burning up with desire to get all these beautiful options. I don't. I bought a truck with minimal number of accessories, because I wanted it that way. I don't want a 6-CD changer because I burn my own CDs, so I have a selection of music I want already. My CDs are right next to me, and I can put one in right away. I don't want remote entry, because it is useless for me. If I an coming out of the grocery store, and have a lot of bags, I can put one bag down to open the truck. Should I assume that you also have a remote entry key to the front door of your house (not garage), since you are so into comfort, and you may have your hands busy, or it might be raining or snowing?
By the way....how busy are your hands so you can press a button, but can't get a key out and stick it into the lock? Or does your remote entry also open up the doors of the truck for you? Because thats where it would actually be useful. Otherwise you still have to open the door yourself, and to do that, you still need to free up the hands.
If at some point in time I actually find a need for some extra accessory, I'm not going to "pay thru my a99" for them. Perhaps thats how you do it in Iowa, but thats not how I do it in Texas.
Just another creature comfort. No shame in you not wanting it, but I wouldn't pass it up!
Since you burn your own CD's, you'll probably also realize the benefit of an available MP3 player in dash. How good does it sound to you to just burn a data CD instead of converting all MP3's to WAV's and then burning? Your burner software might have the converter built in, but it is never a perfect copy, you know? All this, in addition to 7 or more hours of music on one CD.
Note: The Ford MP3 player is a single disc unit. The 6 disc in dash only plays regular CD's.
PS. With a remote entry, you can still cradle your groceries in one arm, while using your hand to open the door.
Eharri--->Nah forget the DVD, I want a LCD screen for my Playstation 2(I guess that's DVD too) in car! For the passenger of course...
It comes with wireless (infrared) headphones so the other passengers can listen to the radio or their own CD's via the stereo.
Kids are happy, kids are quiet, parents are happy. The only arguement is every 1.5 hours when they are deciding what to watch next..
I saved a decent amount by installing it myself..
Basically, I think your pictures showed trucks with stock rear axles and replaced front axles. The shock absorber placement remained the same on the stock rear axles for sake of convenience, but on the replaced front axles, an effort was made to place the shock absorbers towards the edge of the axle. This supports my "theory."
So in conclusion, the Tacoma has its shock absorbers both towards the edges of the axle with no over-hanging componets. Ranger? The exact opposite.
Somebody asked me to comment on the Toyota's skidplates not being bolted to the frame. I will agree that skid plates bolted to the frame would be a stronger design, but functionally, what is the point? If the Ranger has thicker skid plates which are bolted to the frame, yes, its skid plates are stronger. But if these skid plates were challenged by an obstacle and survived, whatever the obstacle was is likely to destroy the Ranger's unprotected, protruding rear shock absorbers that stick out like a sore thumb (which are in the same line of travel as the skid plates, I might add). In all of my years of four-wheeling and navigating the worst "streets" in Mexico on a daily basis, I have yet to bash my skid plate. At least I know that if I scrape my skid plates, I don't have to worry about ripping off one of my shock absorbers and possibly causing serious damage to my truck's rear end. So which design do you guys think is better?
Besides, I think the very name "skid plate" infers protection from dings and scrapes, not severe bashing that only plated armor could withstand.
I still don't understand why the Ranger uses shock absorbers that protrude below the rear axle. To me, this says either the wrong shock absorber (too much travel) was used for the job, or there's some problem/shortcoming in the truck's design - why can't the design be arranged to PROPERLY accomodate the shock? I'm sorry, but I don't see many non-American vehicles that have protruding shock absorbers. Obviously, many other makers have found a way to solve the protruding shock absorber problem. And this problem should have DEFINITELY been solved on a 4x4 truck, which was designed to go off-road. Toyota solved the problem, Chevy and Ford did not.
What else is there? I think I've addressed every issue here tonight. Hopefully, we will be able to have intelligent debates like this, which is what I actually enjoy.
Gee, I would say for stock suspension, IFS Short and Long arm torsion bar front end, this little baby does fairly well off-road.
Notice the flex pictures?
Rear shock placement did not seem to stop it on this run.
If it clears the differential, the shocks clear too. The shock ends do not hang down below the differential bottom. There is at least a 10 inch clearance on a Ranger equipped with 31 inch tires from the shock bottom of the shock mount to a flat surface, just about the same clearance that a Tacoma has to the bottom of it's differential.
I was just showing you how much your statement "lift-kits always put the shock absorbers close to the tire" was closer to opinion than fact.
Yes most were Ford, and Chevy, because with the majority of the Trucks on the Road being from the Big 3, what-do-ya-expect? There were Toyota's included. "You don't see many non-American vehicles that have protruding shock absorbers". I thought the Tacoma was American? Who knows why, maybe they were combating pinion lash, or desired different handling characteristics(in the Ranger).
Skid plates are like seat belts. You don't want to be using them all the time, but when they do come into need/use, you might want the best/biggest available. Just a thought.
Forget the reason why the rear shocks "protrude" below the axle. You'll never drive a Ranger, so who cares? The difference between shocks that protrude and shocks on top of the axle, is about an inch and a half. Any driver who can judge that amount of difference in obstacles must have eagle eyes. Besides any time the shock mounts come in contact with a obstacle, you're scraping the lower edge of the differential too. As a "experienced off-road" driver in the streets of Mexico, don't you try to keep your rear differential from getting scraped?
You know why the Tires are round and rotate, while the rest of the truck doesn't? Because the Tires are what are supposed to touch the ground. Use them to your advantage, and don't strattle any rocks and boulders and you'll be OK.
The lowest point on my truck is the diff - which means I have ONE low point. The lowest pointS on your Ranger is the diff AND two rear shock absorbers - which means you have THREE lowpoints. You are 300% more likely to damage one of your lowpoints.
I can't believe you guys cannot see the advantage in reducing your truck's number of lowpoints.
I've seen the Ranger's rear axle first hand and upclose. There's a MUCH bigger difference than 1.5" between the Tacoma's protruding above-the-axle shocks and the Ranger's protruding below-the-axle shocks.
You stated you have to have eagle eyes to see a 1.5" difference in an obstacle on a trail. Well, as stated, the difference is bigger than just 1.5". This also tells me that you are only accustomed to driving on cleared trails. Try driving through fields with 3' tall weeds or brush where you can't see if you're about to go over a rock or some other obstacle.
cpousnr said "if it clears the differential, it clears the shocks too." REALLY? Maybe that statement applies to something like a log that's a few feet wide of uniform height. How about a jagged rock obscured by weeds? Couldn't it hit the shock bracket and not the diff?
You know, I'm getting tired of discussing this shock thing, as you probably are. But Stang, you said something to the effect of "do your homework, find out what the shocks do and how the Tacoma's shock placement is better than the Ranger's." Maybe you should quit issuing such challenges if you aren't willing to get into a discussion, especially with your tendency to get your panties into a bind and throw tempter tantrums. You and I both know what I'm talking about.
"cpousnr said "if it clears the differential, it clears the shocks too." REALLY? Maybe that statement applies to something like a log that's a few feet wide of uniform height. How about a jagged rock obscured by weeds? Couldn't it hit the shock bracket and not the diff?"
Well, I would only hit such an obstical if I were backing up, as I would hit the lower A frame first if going forward, as would the Tacoma.
8^)
BTW in the USA, we have something called "TREAD LIGHTLY" which means you stay on the marked trail and NEVER, go off into the 3 ft. weeds. A GOOD, KOWLEDGABLE off-roader would NEVER just head out into the weeds but rather stay on the trail to minimize the impact to the enviornment.
What type of off-roader are you?
Hmm Pluto, no commnets on the FX-4? Kind of scary pictures for a Tacoma owner I would assume. Something about #2 now I would suspect. . . 8^)
Dude, you just inadvertently said all the folks down in Texas aren't "good, knowledgeable offroaders" who don't care about impacting the environment.
So much for your theory of NEVER leaving the trail and only people like myself doing such a thing.
You know, the Hummer, Jeep and Land Rover look pretty intimidating to the Tacoma too. But we all know what happened when the Tacoma went head-on with those vehicles, don't we?
you brag so much on your locker, but to a certain extent the torsen lsd works the same way. its providing traction all the time, what wheel provides this is up to the lsd. so if one wheels off the ground with a locker, the other wheel locked in will provide traction. on a ranger with the torsen lsd, if one wheel is off the ground, the other one will lock in and provide traction. so really they will cancel out in all but the most severe situations. only real situation i can see a locker working better than a lsd is if you climbed rocks, but a regular lsd would work here too, if one wheel would slip, the other would lock in. what about that FX4 anyways? is it really a ranger i hear you asking. you bet it is, and mine is just like it without the bilsteins.
about your shock theory, the shock itself does not hang below the axle. it is mounted to a welded on piece of steel which the shock mounts to. to damage this piece id suspect you'd have to really hit it on something hard and fast. if it would come into comtact with a rock at off-roading speeds, it would just slide over it and push up the suspension a little. also, the reason why front solid axles have the shocks so far out to the wheel, is cuz there is thing called the engine that would get in the way if they tried placing them in further. dont you think they would if they could? i mean, putting them in further would provide better articulation. the axle would be able to be pushed up farther, just like our ranger's rear axles. we aren't relying on the shocks limits and capabilities when one end of the axle is pushed to max articulation, the rear-end can be pushed as far as the springs let it, whereas the toyota has to wait and see how far the shock will let it go until it bottoms out. your way (and toyota's)i would assume places a limit on your rear-end's articulation capability. im curious if you can bottom your trucks rear shocks, and still have travel between your axle and bump stops. something to find out. nonetheless, i'm not pissed at you pluto.
Since I don't go trekking up any rocky roads, or rock climbing in my truck I'll never have to worry about the shocks getting damaged. If I did any rock climbing, I'd use my TIRES to climb over the rocks, instead of my straddling the obstacles with my undercarriage. Pure common sense. You seem to think it is the achilles heel of Rangers.
Leave nothing but footprints, and take nothing but Photographs. Ever hear of that? Never heard of "Texas Pinstriping" but each social culture of people can develop their own slang for their own needs. The Pinstriping term I've heard is when you go through a narrow TRAIL, and the branches on the sides close in so much they might etch your paint. If everyone drove through the wilderness like you do, there would be no wilderness left, just packed earth. Be responsible. If you like driving through 3 feet of weeks, fast enough you are concerned with rocks taking out a rear shock, you probably shouldn't be out there in the first place. Common sense?
And don't think you're getting my feathers ruffled Pluto. You keep on saying I'm throwing temper tantrums, but I'm smiling at your posts. You keep going on and on on the same stuff. Your petty arguments and derogatory demeanor does nothing to influence me, or make my temper flair. You are just an arrogant wanna-be.
Poor thing, do you need a hug?
So stang, what else do you want to discuss now?
-ok, now you're really out in left field. The Wrangler is an awesome off-roader in stock form, and once modded is unstoppable. The land rover, although it's been yuppified and gotten cushy in the last few years, is no slouch off-road either. you can still get some pretty impressive articulation on a disco. Plus, you gotta love that fact that both of these rigs still have solid front axles.
I would agree with you about the Hummer, though. -too big to go anywhere except deserts.
"I will agree that skid plates bolted to the frame would be a stronger design, but functionally, what is the point? "
The same arguement can be used for shock placement.. The end result is that both the Tacoma and Rangers suspensions work equally well.
To me, the .5 inches different in the shock mount placement is not worth getting all hung up on..
I know some people hate it when guys quote magazine articles, but I'm going to paraphrase what I read in 4x4 magazine's comparison with the Tacoma and Ranger. They ranted and raved about the Tacoma's suspension, saying of all the trucks tested, the suspension on the Tacoma was superior and easily handled any obstacle thrown up against it. I'm sorry, but I think the presented evidence indicates the Tacoma has the superior suspension. I don't have the link for the magazine article, but somebody else posted it here a while back. It was the 1998 4x4 Magazine's 4x4 truck of the year article.
Honestly, I don't know where in heck you guys get these .5" figures. GO LOOK at a Tacoma's assembly and then a Ranger's. The difference is more like 3" or 4." Heck, you can put your fist up against the portion of the shock absorber/bracket that protrudes on the Ranger. The Tacoma, maybe your thumb.
Only lately has Ford come up with a suspension that might be competitive with the Tacoma TRD - the FX4. From what I've read, its suspension has been upgraded and now includes Bilstein shocks (which have been available on the TRD Tacoma since 1998, I might add).
I guess it was Four Wheeler Magazine, not 4x4 Magazine.
Couldn't find the actual article on the comparo.
Oh, and Tbunder, I don't want to hear your argument about the magazine being biased because of Toyota ads. As you'll see, Ford has won the contest as well (but only once, not three times, and in 1993).
SOURCE Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
Oh by the way, have your ABS brakes stopped you any shorter/quicker on those gravel or snow covered roads? After all according to you, only "superman" could pump his brakes 30 times a second and stop faster than us mortals!!!
Or is it going to take wrapping yourself around a tree or telephone pole to make you acknowledge that ABS brakes don't necessarily stop you faster?
HAVE FUN WITH THIS ONE NOW, 52FARMINCHEVY!!!
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Please accept my humble apologies for hurting your feelings, or just quit acting like a girl.
allknowing--->I agree with you on the Wrangler. You can go through, around, or under most anything in a base wrangler 4x4 than just about any other vehicle. But for what they can do off-road, they suck on the highway...
pluto, FX4 gets respect from you cuz it just has Bilsteins? just priced a set, $260 for my ranger. also, just looked at your link. i hate to burst your bubble, but you gotta look at it this way.
in each year that a respected truck won this award, that SPECIFIC truck was either an all-new design or had a new specific suspension. something was new. '93 the new ranger was introduced, '94 the ZR2 was new, '97 the dakota was all new, '95 the power stroke was out, tell me, why did the ranger win in '93? i mean, toyota was around then. look at this years winner, the new '02 dodge full size ram. both tacoma and tundra were in this year's shootout, and they basically dogged both of their suspension systems. complaining about something with each. i hate to say it, but its all about being a nice publication to everyone. make one a winner sometime, and everyone is happy. and the other years, use a past winner, but dont make them the winner. just like in '97, the ZR2 was in the shootout, but didn't win. the dakota did. is the dakota better off-road than a ZR2? get real. but the dakota won '97's shootout. its all politics like ive said in the past. will i hear you bragging about the new ram from now on? after all, it won the most current test of four-wheeler of the year. i doubt it. its american made. come on, you have to see what's happening here. are you that naive?
oh yeah, ill measure my overhang on my shocks tomorrow and get back to you. but i would assume by having almost 20 more horsepower than your tacoma, that even if i did drag them in some dirt, that extra power would still propel me ahead of the tacoma. and whoever's right, if you're going that fast in 3feet tall brush, you are being very unsafe.
You still don't get it don't you. What is the purpose of ABS? All the big two trucks are coming out with it as standard, while Toyota charges extra for it. Now if it was as worthless as you say it is....why does Toyota SELL it? Go figure. DOH!!
Yes, midnight_stang, I for one did witness your deleted postings to pluto a few nights back and know exactly what he is talking about. You did a fine job displaying just the kind of "man" you really are.
Personally, I think you're having such a fit because this Mexican is making a fool of you, and I know how you feel about Mexicans from your deleted posts.
http://home.earthlink.net/~azttora/truckoftheyear.html
Oh, I forgot, such links don't exist because no comparison EVER rated the Ranger better. DOH!!!
I never said ABS was worthless. IT IS WORTHLESS IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THEIR PURPOSE, AS YOU DIDN'T. You said ABS is beneficial because it stops you faster. Wrong again, bucko, ABS actually stops slower in many cases, especially on snow and gravel.
I'm glad I pointed out to you that the purpose of ABS is to maintain control while braking because your wheels don't lock up. I'd hate to see you get into an accident because you thought your ABS would slow you faster.