TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI

plutonious

like obyone and quad waiting around the Chevy dealership's service department over 4 months saying their Chevy Lemonados are the best! I'm getting one today!!!

obyone

LMAO!! I remember when people use to associate empty aluminum beer and soda cans with Japanese made vehicles. I guess Toyota still uses them on their Tacomas.....one star side impact....must be those empty bud cans.....hehe

tbunder

one's opinion is just that. let everyone have them. im sure there are lots of ranger owners who think the same thing about their truck who think saving initial cash on vehicle purchase is well worth it. the ranger will go just as long as any toyota when taken care of identically. everyone has good experieneces with a toyota, some have bad ones. its the same for every make. lets spread the love. yo

sc0rpi0

Very mature.
And F150 is made of paper, so what?

wsnoble

midnight_stang

I recommend more rum in the egg nog for EVERYBODY!

wsnoble

Something to consider...

Toyota is doing 0% or 3 models to increase market share in 3 very largly profitable areas.

1)Small econo 2) SUV 3) Big trucks

The Big 3 and others are doing 0% across the board to maintain sales.

I think in the long run (Next Year) Toyota will not have the same "Delayed loss" problems the other will have.

Keep an eye on Honda and Toyota. They never give things away (0% - 5years etc etc) becaus etehy keep there inventory inline with demand...

Just my .02

Cheers
-wsn

obyone

You incorrectly posted:

"Toyota is doing 0% or 3 models to increase market share in 3 very largly profitable areas.

1)Small econo 2) SUV 3) Big trucks

Please explain 3) Big trucks

Which one could that be?

Scorpio-

I see that you're fond of bud..........

Can't forget Pluto-

If you install some chromed stainless steel nerf bars....it could save you're life while driving that painted bud can.....lmao.

tbunder

scorpio- i understand that the F150 didn't do as well as the toyota tundra in the iihs tests, but what do you have to say about the tundra and tacoma doing a lot more poorly than both the ranger and F150, which both received five stars in the nhtsa's tests? the iihs just tests frontal impact of ONE side of the truck's front. the nhtsa tests side and frontal collisions. and this is a more accurate test of how strong the truck is. in a head-on collision, rarely do you see half of each vehicle hitting each other, its usually a full-on head on, or a broadside. hardly ever do people smash half of their trucks into a solid rock wall that doesn't give. check out my link to the nhtsa for the proof of what i just said. and note that i do know the iihs results of the f150. but notice that toyota isn't advertising their tundra with the nhtsa's results. people probably wouldn't buy them. ford doesn't care either way, their trucks sell themselves.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/NCAP/Cars/2001Pkup.html

quadrunner500

http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl_4wd_pickup.htm

sc0rpi0

shiny nerf bars are for showoffs. They don't serve any purpose except let everyone know that you are an idiot who likes to waste money on shiny purposeless things. I wouldnt waste $250 on something like that. I'd spend that money on rocksliders instead, which actually do have a purpose or two.
And no, I don't like budweiser. But I do like my Tacoma.

tbunder

but i dont understand that site's graph. maybe im dumb, but i did take statistics. and one thing i learned is that if a graph isn't easy to read, its hard to take in the data. this is what i think this graph is like. whats the 100? and what if a vehicle is over that? also, this graph really doesn't prove much, because it is just a report of loss of vehicles, not how they perform in a crash. of course the ranger will have a larger loss, since there are substantially more of them on the road than toyota has trucks.

maybe this is the site you should have or meant to post. but please note, the overall score of the ranger and tacoma are exactly the same. not so in the nhtsa's tests. in this test, the ranger ev vehicle received five stars across.

http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_smpickup.htm

tbunder

what if one puts on black bars? lmao
and what if you drive an f150 with factory 17's on it, or a super-duty which sits up so high you can't get into it? idiots too?

sc0rpi0

This talk about safety ratings is not going to end, mainly because we have two sources of information that provide different conclusions. So, obviously, each side is going to choose the best source of info, and a heated arguement will follow (see previous messages for references).
It's not that F150 didnt do as well in the iihs as Tundra, it's that F150 totally sucked. The one point you stressed in the Tacoma vs. Ranger safety rating was that Ranger got a grade higher head and heck rating. Well, F150 got as bad as it gets.
An offside crash test has its advantages over the head-on or T-bone collision. It stresses different areas of the vehicle, like the front. When you are in a head-on collision, the crumble resistance of your truck is higher because the impact area is much higher.
I happened to be in an offset crash about a year and half ago. I guess I'm just one of the lucky ones who ran into the "special case".

midnight_stang

Those bars also can turn the door-dingers into door dingees. (I.E. Instead of hitting your sheet metal, their door just hits solid steel bar!) Really would depend on the vehicle make and model though.

Besides how else is the Toyota Gnome supposed to get in the truck without a little help?

saddaddy

Hey, its been awhile since i posted and i must say that my catchup reading of this board has been good. It seems that things have settled down a little. Tbunder, its good to have you back - things were boring while you were gone and it seems that the newer you is really adding alot to this discussion. Some of our Toyota fellas could stand to follow suit. Just one thing that I have read that I would like to clear up. Some still think that the Taco locker can only be driven below 5mph. NO NO NO. Not trying to flame anyone, but for all those prospective buyers who are just reading this discussion -- the locker can only be ENGAGED at or below 5mph. Once engaged you can drive regularly (and then slow to under 5mph to disengage it, of course). Oh, and just to prove that Im not Scorpio, i have a set of those sissy chrome nerf bars on my tacoma. I don't use em but I think they look great. Although right now they are caked in mudddddd. OH YEAH, this rain has things pretty sloppy. Lovin it baby. Take it EZ everyone.

obyone

A tech at the Chevy dealer had a '97 Tacoma. He was tboned at an intersection. He personally told me that his nerfs saved his life and that he was out of work for 7 months due to spinal and leg injuries. Guess what he drives now? A '00 2500 Silverado. He also installed nerfs on it.

You can write this off as heresay cause it don't matter to me....actually this should matter to Pluto. I never knew about the one star side impact rating of the Tacoma when the tech told me about his accident. I read about it later and it made sense as to why he said the nerfs saved his life.

Pluto-

Do you have nerf bars installed on yours?

wsnoble

Your right I did make a mistake...

It should have been 0% "ON" 3 models...

Or were you just trying to be clever with your "Big Truck" comment?

If it makes you feel better, Toyota is targeting market share on F150's and other "entry" full size models.

Hope that helps

Cheers
-wsn

eagle63

"A tech at the Chevy dealer had a '97 Tacoma. "

-anyone else see the irony here?

smgilles

I wasn't going to say anything, but I think you hit the nail on the head:)

sc0rpi0

It's been my impression from talking to various people that nerf bars are out there for looks. And you can step on them when your truck is really tall. Considering Tacoma, they are there for looks. I don't know how a nerf bar would save someone, considering that
1. it's level to the frame, so it really adds no real protection for the side, especially if the other vehicle is an SUV or a truck.
2. Nerf bars easily damage. Thats the reason why offroaders don't use them, and use rocksliders instead. Seems that a bar that bends when you slide on the rocks wouldnt help against a moving body: the energy of impact is too high.

Care to elaborate more on this life-saving?

As to my comment about idiots putting shiny useless things on the truck: we were talking about Tacoma. Nerf bar is useless on a Tacoma, because truck height is just right, for someone to get in comfortably. If the truck is lifted, then you really have no use for nerf bars.
But I guess I overlooked the "I'll damage your door instead" use of them.

tbunder

not all nerfs are level to the frame. my ranger bars bolts to the body, and so do super-duty and f150 trucks. now these are the ford nerf bars, but since the mounts are already there, id suspect that the aftermarket people would make theirs to just bolt on there as well, instead of making people drill into the frames.

regarding the safety issue- i DID acknowledge the tacoma and ranger receiving the same scores in the iihs results. i also acknoledged the f150 receiving poor results in the iihs results. but what about the tacoma AND tundra receiving much worse results than both ranger and f150 in the nhtsa results? tacoma was also noted for probable pelvic injury from side impacts, hence its poor side impact ratings. a nerf bar mounted to the frame will take some of this impact id suspect, thus eliminating some of the force taken to the door and driver. is this not logic?

also, a good operator can navigate such that he/she won't damage the nerf bars. rock climbing, i can see where damage would be inevitable, but anything other than hardcore rock crawling they can be safe to have on if you know what you're doing.

tbunder

this is a little off topic, but is this not one of the nicest trucks you've laid eyes upon? im hoping to pick one of these babies up in the new year.

http://www.classifieds2000.com/cgi-cls/ad.exe?P1+C15+A281+R504806292+Q256266313

allknowing

I have to differ with the conclusion that the off-set crash test only applies in special cases. I believe that its quite the opposite as there are rarely clean full frontal impacts. People tend to attempt to steer out of the way rather than simply plow into another vehicle straight on. In fact, I've never seen an accident where the entine front of both vehicles involved in an accident took the full force of the impact like in NHTSA tests. That's why many don't feel that crash tests are necessarily relevant to real life conditions. As for side impact accidents, they are much rarer that frontal impacts by anyones statistics.

tbunder

this is a little off topic, but is this not one of the nicest trucks you've laid eyes upon? im hoping to pick one of these babies up in the new year.

http://www.classifieds2000.com/cgi-cls/ad.exe?P1+C15+A281+R504806292+Q256266313

quadrunner500

It has nice wheels, nice decal on the fender, nice color, overall looks pretty nice, gets 5 stars from NTHSA, #1 seller, but Pssst...(whispering in your ear)...friends don't let friends drive Fords. If you want a date for the dance, you need to wear a bowtie!

obyone

eagle63

I'm not sure what you drive as your profile says an explorer. That being the case, do you have Firestones?

smgilles-

Everyone is entitled to making a mistake. The tech, realizing the error of his ways quickly bought a 2500 Silverado figuring he was lucky the first time....maybe wouldn't be so lucky the next...especially being in another Tacoma.

obyone

I only relate the story told to me by the tech. I suspect that it must be the truth in HIS eyes regardless of the logic you imply. Course, if you had the same experience to share......................................

mr620

Pretty good obyone, you had been comparing the 1500 silverado to a tacoma in other threads, and now this to a 2500 silverado. At this rate, your next post will be comparing tacoma to a kenworth. Thanks for speaking on tacoma so highly.

obyone

I'm not comparing anything. It would be unreasonable to compare anything fullsized to anything Toyota. It would, shall we say, an exercise in futility.

If in your opinion, you believe that I've been comparing, I recommend that you reread my posts as I've only posted for the benefit of Pluto and have not done any comparisons.

eagle63

No, I ditched my firestones about a year ago and picked up some 31" BFG AT KO's. They fit just right in a '95 -'00 explorer without any lift. Fortunately, ford/firestone picked up the tab.

plutonious

statements with a grain of salt. Afterall, what does his comparing Tacomas to Chevy 1500s and 2500s say about his intelligence and credibility? More importantly, doesn't the fact that he has admitted his Lemonado spends a third of the year at the shop for repairs, yet continually preaches his Chevy's superiority and Toyota's inferiority say volumes about his intelligence and credibility?

Oh, well, severe cases of buyer's remorse/jealousy can cause one to do irrational things...

759397

for tbunder to tell me how a Lincoln LS will run circles around any BMW of the same price from about 50 posts ago. Granted it's off topic but I find it really humorous.

kg11

The Taco to a full sized half-ton? Before I got the 2500HD I used to tow my ski-boat with the std cab V6 Taco.Boat&trailer=4000lb,Snug-top camper 300lb,owner installed rear bucket-seats w/mounting hardware 150lb,2 teenagers in back 250lb.From Fresno,ca to Lake Shasta @65mph.When I decided I needed a bigger boat(6700lb)I didn't consider ANY half-ton trucks.
kip

allknowing

The link didn't work when I tried it. What kind of truck was in the pic.?

tbunder

i stated that a lincoln ls would run circles around SOME BMW's of its price range. not any bmw. the standard bmw only makes 175 horses. the ls would no doubt smoke this. the 3.0 gets it by a nudge but is still down on power to the lincolns technically advanced dinky V8, but just barely. if you can find evidence where this is not accurate, show me. with the lincoln equipped with the special performance shift option, its a hard buggy to beat. if you want me to go more in debt about this, i can.

tbunder

it was a brand new '02 F150 supercab in awesome silver with the FX4 off-road package. the one that comes with Rancho shocks from the factory. pretty trick imo.

obyone

Your logic is flawed. Always will be when mixed with emotions. The evidence lies with your decision to keep your Taco with its one star side impact rating. Why would someone knowingly do this is beyond me. Care to explain why you enjoy driving something that the Toyota could not or did not want to address publicly? Must have been a PR nightmare for them and sent someone packing down the road.

You should also reread my posts as I don't compare our trucks. That would be unfair as I don't have a one star side impact rating...in fact no one other than you does.....LMFAO!!!!

tbunder

come on now. everyone grab hands and sing kum-by-yah. spread the love. and if you have a prosthesis due to a side impact in a tacoma, that's fine too. hehe. just a joke now. )

smgilles

Get a life and go preach your BS to the Chevy Knockers. If I wanted to read your pointless dribble I would come to your forum. I know you are going to say Pluto is in yours, well you know what? Rise about it! PLEASE! It gets old watching you guys go in circles about nothing. I think it's time to agree to disagree.

759397

not that I really want to derail this thread....then again it's not the first time. To see the comparison look no further than our own Edmunds. The LS 0-60 7.2 secs vs. 330 6.7 secs, 1/4 mile LS 15.5 vs. 330 15.1 secs. Slalom LS 61.6 mph vs 62.8 mph for the 330. LS 17 mpg overall vs. 21 mpg overall for the 330. Price LS $39,450 vs. $39,735 for the 330.

I will say the LS is bigger though.

My point is not to crap on an LS, a decent car in its own right, but your statement that it will run circles around a BMW in its price range is a little inaccurate to say the least seeing as how the numbers don't lie. Plus the editors found plenty to complain about with the creaks and groans and poor gap tolerances.

Good effort from Ford but not quite "running circles" around anything quite yet.

allknowing

That is a nice looking truck. If you plan to be off road a lot, however, a full size truck is not the way to go in my opinion. I had a full size Chevy 4X4 and it was uncomfortable and too big to maneuver in a lot of areas. It looked good on the street and had a lot of room though.

759397

I was wondering the same thing about full size trucks off road. It is really practical to think you can fit a Tundra or F-150 in the same places as a Tacoma and Ranger. Since there isn't a heck of a lot of "open" land to off road around eastern MA I have no "real" experience with that.

kg11

That was the CA lic plate on a friend's lifted F150 a few years ago.My Taco is the second best off-road vehicle I've owned.First was a 47 Jeep.By contrast,My '01 sierra 2500HD will never be on a jeep trail.It won't fit between the rocks and trees.
kip

eagle63

The FX4 F150 does look pretty rad. When it comes to 1/2 tons, the F150 is definitely my favorite.

cpousnr

Given you and in fairness, others, have complained that the Ranger has shock mounts that are a couple of inches below the axle, if a person gets and axle truss to protect the differential assembly, is that a dis-advantage off-road? After all, it would have the truss hanging down on a line from the differential bottom up to the break plate. It would hang down maybe 2 inches. . .

Just wondering. You do know what an axle truss is, right? Protects the bottom of the differential and helps aid in combating twisting of the axle...it would be something you might consider running off the beaten path thru the tall grass. . .

BTW, just turned over 52,000 on my 99 XLT, running fine. . .

obyone

What's the problem? Did I strike a nerve? LMAO!! You made a comment....

#3222 of 3248 eagle by smgilles Dec 18, 2001 (07:31 pm)
I wasn't going to say anything, but I think you hit the nail on the head:)

I responded in kind:

smgilles-

Everyone is entitled to making a mistake. The tech, realizing the error of his ways quickly bought a 2500 Silverado figuring he was lucky the first time....maybe wouldn't be so lucky the next...especially being in another Tacoma.

Now you have your feathers all ruffled? Certainly not blaming me are you? Like mine, your comments aren't appreciated either....don't like it? don't read it.....simple. Throw a rock, expect one back. Simple isn't it?

tbunder

good point. i have done some very thorough research since i posted that pic. i have found that in '03, the F150 and Ranger will be extensively redone. that said, the ranger is supposed to be getting an optional V8 and to be the size of the new explorer. i would assume the v8 will be the 4.6. f150 is a different story. i dont know how they could redo that since it was just reworked in '97. but i have decided to drive my ranger through the summer, and wait til september when the '03's are out, hopefully by then, the ranger will have a crew cab available. supposedly a new "colorado" s10 will be out too. the site i visited said nothing of a new tacoma for '03. of course ill put my ranger up for sale, but only for a killing. kbb on it is $23685. i dont owe near that. if someone wanted to buy it, i would sell it, but im not gonna try hard. maybe a for sale sign only. later

plutonious

First off, I agreed a while back to not post on the Chevy and Ford threads, and I have kept my word. I have tried to contain the debate between obyone and myself exclusively on one thread - the best ride/mpg thread...

Sometimes, I think obyone's objective is to degrade every Toyota thread so that it is discontinued. All these Toyota threads, where everybody is as happy as a lark, really irritate him because of the terrible experience he has had with his Chevy.

Now to get back to the subject...full size 4x4 trucks vs. compacts. All I can say is that one of the lamest, yet most surprisingly capable 4x4 I've ever been in was a friend's 1987 Suzuki Samurai. This vehicle's ability to get to places nobody else could was due much more to its miniscule size and light weight than sheer power. Small vehicles allow you to turn around on a trail once it becomes impassible. The bigger the vehicle, the more likely it is you will have to go back down the entire trail in REVERSE because you don't have the space to turn around. Believe me, that's no fun.

tbunder

i agree with pluto. a friend of mine also has one of those suzuki's. he can drive that thing nearly everywhere. he actually rolls it for fun, since he has a bar in it. engine is bulletproof as well.