So your wife's ford is in the shop alot and you pull away in your nice dandy Toyota... I could just as easily tell you about my friend who has put several thousand dollars into his own Tacoma for suspension and engine work while my nice shiny 66,000 mile Ranger has required almost nothing more than regular scheduled 5000 mile maitnenance stops and replacement of normal wear and tear items. What do you mean by quality? Do you mean by that mechanical reliability? Because we could all spend all day talking about the Toyota we once owned that went a million miles without trouble and the Ford that was nothing but a headache, or vice versa, but we can't over generalize based upon this data. I could also refer to the head gasket problem or refer you to Tundra and Tacoma problem rooms on this site, where some of the same Toyota owners who act like their trucks are perfect and Trash domestics in Ford and Chevy rooms whisper back and fourth quietly about problems with their trucks while hoping Ford, Chevy, and Dodge owners don't show up and sarcastically say "Toyota? Problem? I can't believe it!"If you're talking about magazine and consumer data, which data would that be? The last consumer reports article, which criticized the Tacoma's ride, handling, flimsy and easily dentable cargo bed, and uncomfortable interior? I thought that one was especially funny... Heavy cargo acctually dented the back of the bed AND the cab wall? Sorry Toyota people, but I like having a truck that isn't made out of tin cans.
I will continue to love my Ford, and I am sure you will continue to pat yourself on the back for having bought into that 'Toyota quality' mantra, where the Tacoma is god's own truck and us domestic owners got duped. There is no point in arguing with you because it's human nature that when you plunk down big bucks for any new car or truck you don't want to hear others tell you that it may not be the very best thing out there, but I personally beleive that all automakers make good trucks that break down sometimes, and the best any of us can do is to buy what we like and take good care of it. ed
I'm an ex-Ranger owner. It was an 89' Ranger that I gave to my dad when I hit 200k miles on it. I experienced few problems with the truck, and the minor problem that did occur was after 170K miles, (fuel pressure regulator). The body has no rust, engine runs great, interior is still solid with no squeeks. Dad still uses it every day on the farm.. The only reason I gave it away was so I could upgrade to a SuperDuty because I needed a larger vehicle..
You made some very general statements such as " In the area of quality Ford simply has a long way to go to compare with To(y)ota". In this case I would like to see your numbers on that? There have been alot of spirited discussions on the Tundra vs Chevy, but the Tundra experts seem to avoid comparing to the F150. (probably should discuss that in big3 vs Tundra discussion instead of here).
I'm sure Toyota makes quality vehciles including the Tacoma. Just as Ford makes quality vehicles as well. Your statements don't 'drive me crazy'. I'm just looking for 'objective' statements that are based in facts..
\\You made some very general statements such as " In the area of quality Ford simply has a long way to go to compare with To(y)ota".\\
Bess- you may as well just leave this discussion. IT is so clear you are entirely in over your head. Follow this discussion from POST ONE and you will see data backing up this statement time and time again. HEre are a few examples:
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
-------
So there you have it. All data is factual, and very telling. This is NOT "subjective".
A trucks reliability and build quality is NOT "subjective".
Not all trucks are built the same, as you can plainly see.
TSB's and consumer 'dot' reports... what more do you need? It's funny that Spoog is concentrating on those 'dot' reports now, and not on consumer reports 'articles' like Tacoma owners usually do. I think it's even funnier that they say CR swears by that truck when actually the magazine had very little that was good to say about it. Unless of course you count all the red dots, which I pay little attention to anyway because the dots are always redder on the newer model trucks just because they are newer and haven't had a chance to develop problems yet.
But I am talking about 'articles'. that's right, actual, written words, in which the magazine cites the Ranger as being a better all around truck. In fact, the best attribute... no, scratch that, almost the ONLY GOOD attribute of the Tacoma that they mention is the engine, which, I must admit, made more horsepower, but not more torque, than the Ranger up until the 2001 redesign. But now we have the new 4.0, which easily trumps the Tacoma in all measurements. Now I suppose that that 3.4 liter V6 is no longer their claim to fame, since the Chevy engine beats it for torque and the Ranger engine beats it in Torque and Horsepower, Tacoma owners will have to settle for repeating this blind, subjective 'quality' mantra without specifically mentioning what exactly that means. I personally think some people never stopped thinking of the admittedly mediocre clunkers Detroit turned out in the 70's and eighties that initially drove them to imports. But now that Detroit has caught up and any difference in quality is negligible, they are still stuck in the last decade and don't want to shatter the myth of import superiority that now causes them to pay price premiums for foreign vehicles from manufacturers who are now charging extra for a name.
One of those rooms where Toyota owners quietly whisper back and fourth about annoying problems hoping they won't get caught red handed by domestic owners. You'll hear about things like frying clutches at 9,000 miles and clunking sounds when brakes are applied. Or how about the guy who's been turned off to all Toyotas by his experiences with his Tacoma. I know, I know, not that long of a thread yet, but I think Toyota owners get too embarassed to mention problems here because domestic owners will get revenge after having taken so much grief over every single little squeak and ratttle they mention. So they save them for Toyota only sites where the domestic owners tired of hearing 'problem? You should have bought a Toyota, we don't have problems!' would burst their arrogant bubbles. Or maybe these aren't actual Tacoma owners but insecure Ford Ranger owners trying to create the ILLUSION that Tacoma's aren't perfect... or maybe these aren't really problems at all... after all, we know Tacomas never have problems... maybe they are only imaginary... Spoog, you've gotta go to this room and talk some sense into all these Tacoma owners and let them know they must be mistaken.
by the way, also notice I found no reason to interrupt their discussion and mention my perfectly running, problem free, 6 year old, 66,000 mile Ranger, which has never made any thunks or thuds or squealing sounds. But I guess i must just be imagining my truck since it's not possible for a Ford to be so high in quality and trouble free.
sorry, don't mean to take up all the space. But I just noticed a Tacoma owner talking about how he feels the need for about 50 more horsepower for towing in the mountains. I'm sure he must have meant torque, as all Tacoma owners must know that that's the most important measure for towing and that horsepower is actually just a derivative of torque. And I'm sure he also knows the easiest thing to do to get more torque is to trade for a Ranger or an S10.
--- perfectly running, problem free, 6 year old, 66,000 mile Ranger, which has never made any thunks or thuds or squealing sounds. But I guess i must just be imagining my truck since it's not possible for a Ford to be so high in quality and trouble free.
If spoog can repeat TSB's over and over, I think I'll just keep cutting and pasting that same paragraph.
I do not consider your comments offensive, and understand you are trying to generate spirited conversation.
No problem!
In my posts, the last ones, you I am sure will sense my vailed suggestion that the higher incident of injury in TSB reports may support the lower "star" rating by the govt. for Tacoma's in accidents.
spoog: Denver papers reported today that regarding a 6,000 acre land swap in NW Colorado, last minute deal with BLM that
closed areas to off-roading
and other activities. No discussion with the state before doing this.
Sooo, you still think no areas are being closed to Tacoma and Ranger 4X4's?
Take that hook out of you mouth that has been there for 8 years?
I've seen your data. I've found several problems with the 'facts' you present. I've also shown that at many of the numbers you give do not take the number of sales into account when they should. Your 'saftey recall' numbers from 1989-2000 include the Ranger and Tacoma.. The ranger was in production every one of those years.. When did Toyota start calling their truck the Tacoma?
It is also clear that your numbers above only refer to Ford Ranger which is only one model of Ford vehicles.. So thats why I questioned how someone could make a 'generalized' statement saying Ford doesn't have as good as quality as Toyota..
I agree that build quality is not 'subjective', however it is clear from the reports on NHSTA that many of the issues were 'subjective', and had nothing to do with build quality..
This is also the case with TSB's.. Ford uses the TSB process to help effectivly communicate information to their dealerships.. Many are not in response to a particular problem and have nothing to do with build quality. (one example is a TSB that indicates that Ford will be recommending 10w-30 in engines)..
You can throw numbers around, but if you don't know what those numbers represent, then they are meaningless.
I'm not claiming that Toyota has worse quality than Ford, I'm not claiming that the Ranger has worse quality that Tacoma. I'm simply stating that the numbers you give do not tell the whole story.
Spoog said, "Bess- you may as well just leave this discussion. IT is so clear you are entirely in over your head. Follow this discussion from POST ONE and you will see data backing up this statement time and time again."
Actually, you only need to follow this discussion from post #303 since this is the only data spoog has ever posted. He's right about the "time and time again" though.
Bess- you can't use logic against spoog, he's just a little kid!
That makes things a little more clear.. I find it interesting to just discuss the facts and opinions of people, and try not to comment on the individuals themselves.. I found it amusing as I was asked to leave the discussion because I'm 'in over my head'..
of other Ranger owners in here other than myself. Ranger owners who have had great reliability and quality from their Rangers. The Ranger hasn't stayed number 1 for no reason at all. The Tacoma has been around now for about 5 years with no sign of even coming within 50,000 units. Your going to tell over 300,000 Ranger owners they chose the wrong truck?!! LOL. You have it in for me because I have popped that "Toyota is god" bubble of yours many times and you don't like it. You paid too much for your perceived reliability advantage, and the TRD is a joke for the everyday truck user. The Ranger is the best value and the best bang for your buck. And now that it has the 4.0 SOHC the bragging rights of power are over for you. And another person brings in the HP/Torque curve issue! Enjoy your sticker!
If people want to pay the extra money for a Tacoma, thats ok.
If people want to save some money they can buy a Ranger.
You, I and others can document some very good experiences with Rangers. That is our job here. . .
spoog's job is to post TSB's, ignoring the significance of the Tacoma ones, and post the Four Wheeler truck of the year story. . .
BTW, had the Ranger in for alignment and got my new replacement spare tire. A brand new Wilderness AT that replace the older ATX limited use one that was recalled. Only thing is, it is still a 235 tire, need to get a 31 inch spare rack in the bed.
Anyone know if the new Ranger put a larger spare tire onboard?
allknowing: The tweaks and comments from here are not intended to be vindictive. . .
it's our assumption that pickups are made and bought, at some point, to do work. That's why we run our PTOTY test on the track and trail, with beds loaded and unloaded--and separate from sport-utilities, which we regard as primarily made to carry people and their gear.
After weighing each truck at a commercial scale, we subtract that amount from the factory-rated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) to arrive at an actual maximum payload number. We run track testing with truck beds both empty and with half their calculated payload, this year using 35-pound bags of landscaping rock. In this case, the Ford and Mazda each ran with 16 bags, the Toyota with 18. We think it's valuable to see how each truck performs when carrying a load; that's why they have a bed. For a significant portion of the rest of the test, we run the trucks at half maximum payload. This also allows us to see how mileage is affected, as well as how the engine and chassis react. At each stage of our test, drivers rotated from truck to truck during a variety of terrain changes--recording comments and scoring each truck as they go.
In the end, each tester scores each truck in 38 different categories with "Mechanical" accounting for 25 percent of the book total; "Trail Performance" accounting for 30 percent; "Highway Performance" 20 percent; "Interior" 15 percent; and "Exterior" 10 percent. Each logbook accounts for 80 percent of overall scoring, with the remaining 20 percent centered around our nine "Empirical" tests you'll find in chart form: Ground Clearance, Noise at 55 mph, Payload, and so forth.
Finally, we've printed point totals so readers may weight their own "paper test," awarding points for those aspects of a truck they find most valuable. Some may appreciate interior or highway feel more than we have. Change the percentages around and choose your own winner. Of course, that certainly won't be as much fun (or difficult) as running around the countryside with a group of brand new four-bys.
Ford's 4.0-liter overhead-valve V-6 gave our Regular Cab Ranger plenty of off-the-line motivation with 168 lb.-ft. of rear-wheel torque at 2500 rpm. Mazda's 3.0-liter/five-speed manual transmission gave the Regular Cab B-truck the slowest 0-60 time, but the best fuel economy of the group. Although the middle-sized V-6 of the group, the Toyota 3.4-liter DOHC 24-valve V-6 pulled all the way through the torque curve like most small-blocks.
The Ford five-lug 8.8-inch rearend comes standard with the 4.0-lite/five-speed auto combo. Leaf springs and 3.73:1 axle gears are rated to carry 1,180 pounds. Mazda's 7.5-inch rearend is standard with the 3.0-liter V-6. Not surprisingly, our ride-quality vastly improved with 12 bags of landscape rock in the compact's bed. Toyota's TRD Tacoma comes with the only factory offered rear locking differential on any (full-size or compact) pickup. We found it a huge asset for trail adventures. FORD & MAZDA TOYOTA
Ford's new compact frontend uses F-150-style short- and long-arm IFS, with torsion bars. The setup offers big gains on pavement--but not without trail sacrifices.
The new Pulse-Vacuum Hub (PVH) used exclusively on compact Fords and Mazdas allows for true in-cab-controlled shift-on-the-fly capability.
Toyota's double A-arm/coilover frontend handles pavement cornering and trail flex with equal skill. We like the six-lug axles and big-caliper front discs.
Following in the footsteps of its close relative, the '98 Ranger adopted many of the mechanical modifications incorporated into the Explorer two years earlier. Among the biggest changes include an entirely new double A-arm front suspension with light-duty torsion bars. The new IFS, combined with an all-new rack-and-pinion steering setup (which offers its own steering fluid cooler), won high praises from our testers over our 800-mile test. Specifically, the Ranger scor ed well in Highway Performance categories that centered around maneuverability and long-distance cruising. Testers noted the new steering proved especially quick to react in tight-chicane situations. No doubt about it: This new Ranger out-handles, out-ste ers and out-corners any Ranger before. By a mile.
We would characterize the drivetrain, specifically the transmission, as biased for highway performance as well. All 4.0-liter Rangers (and Mazdas, for that matter) ordered without the manual tranny get the first five-speed automatic transmission offer ed for any pickup. Our testers split over the need and/or usefulness of a mileage-biased transmission geared for empty-load flatland running. Those in favor noted the nearly seamless transitions from one gear to the next, and how the transmission itself c ould, if the vehicle was driven right--no jackrabbit leadfoot starts--tack on another 50,000 miles of life to the engine.
On the trail, we found the automatic transmission to be a double-edged sword. The smoothness of the First-to-Second shift, combined with the inherent low-end grunt of the engine, was almost enough to overcome the taller gearing. And in the end, voting followed individual preferences for manuals versus automatics. Two testers noted both the manual transmissions (Mazda and Toyota) felt more "in control" on the twisty low-range trails of Truckhaven, where face-down compression braking was very helpful o n steep-trail crawling. In low-range, our automatic Ranger offered a rather delicate 22.8:1 crawl ratio (First x axle gear x low-range); the Mazda and Toyota offered 34.4:1 and 40.4:1 gearing, respectively.
Likewise, where the stiffened front suspension cleanly handled all paved-road obstacles thrown in its path, the Ford IFS had trouble keeping up with the broken terrain of dry washes, hill climbs, and washboards. Admittedly, it is a rare vehicle that c an manage all the extremes with equal aplomb, but several testers commented that the Ford liked to spring a little bit quicker (and hop higher) off the rolling whoop-de-doos. For the most part, we found the sacrificed off-highway capability to be greater than the gained on-highway performance, and for that reason it didn't score well in the parts of our test that are most heavily-weighted; however, that isn't to say testers weren't squabbling among themselves to get into the Ranger for the highway drives up the mountain.
Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up.
Like any good four wheeler, we found the Ford Ranger could do several things quite well, scoring highly in On-Road Ride and Handling and Interior Comfort. To us, the new Ranger is a nice-looking, comfortable truck that is easy to drive and easy to own . And it's made in plants with a reputation for quality. But the Pickup Truck of the Year has to do it all pretty damn well, and it has to be great off-highway. And so we introduce our 1998 winner.
Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.
Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running. As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.
It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.
Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year.
What are the actual sales #'s from 1989 to 2000,you say there are a lot of tsb"s but isn't the Tacoma outsold during that time period at close to a 10 to 1 ratio just from the Ranger,I don't care what you say but if you sell 10 of one thing and 1 of another you are more than likely to have more problems.
I understand spoog's pattern now... prove him wrong on one aspect of the truck, and he shifts the focus of the argument without answering by reposting either TSB's or some magazine article. He still hasn't said anything about all the trouble free Rangers we have actual proof of or the toublesome Toyotas that owners quitly whisper back and fourth about in Tacoma and Tundra problem rooms. But one lesson I learned long ago comes to mind once again. He who brags does so to mask his own insecurities. He who is confident without being presumptuous or obnoxious is secure with themselves, or in this case, in their choice of a truck, and feels no need to put down anyone else. ed
" The Ranger suspension is tuned for highway use only"
- fourwheeler.com
" The Tacoma is rated to carry more payload, so we
put more sandbags in the bed"
-fourwheeler.com
" The Toyota compact pickup is the most rock solid, bulletproof pickup ever made"
- Petersons Offroad
" Without a doubt, the toyota pickup line is the toughest,most durable 4x4 line ever assembled"
-Offroad Africa
Hey guys, guess what trucks they use in the Himalayas, at around 20,000 feet? Thats right, Landcrusers and Toyota pickups. You see.....there just aren't any service shops 20,ooo feet up in the Himalayas. Oh yeah.
Vince - no I don't have it in for you and I never thought Toyota was God. I have just been pointing out that you twist facts, say goofy things and exhibit all the traits of what most call a Bozo. That's all. Aside from that you may be a nice guy.
CP - HA, I'll try to take everything personally from here on then.
barlitz - The Ranger definitely outsells the Tacoma but I think 10 to 1 is a bit out of a stretch. I believe it averages in the area of 2 to 3 to 1. If it were 10 to 1 from 1989, most of the people in this country would be driving a Ranger.
(I now regret asking where spoog was all this time)
Hey spoog, how's that 1998 PTOTY article doing? still taped to your bathroom wall? Do you have any recent articles that herald the TRD? or are you going to hang on to that 3 year old one forever?
Rember, in the TSB number spoog gave, he was counting ranger number from 1989. But the Tacoma didn't come into production until years after that.. So if you count the total number of Rangers sold from 89 through 2000, compared to Tacoma in that time period, it will be a difference larger than 2.2 to 1.. (I didn't add up the numbers, but its feasible it could be 10:1).
btw: i noticed in the 3 year old article that spoog posted, that they noted the Ranger was made in a plant that had a good reputation for quality.. I didn't see them mentioned that for Toyota..
was picked apart 3 rooms back, meaning last year sometime. It has so many inconsistencies, bad data, confilicting remarks it will make your head spin. He also keeps forgetting the 6K price tag difference between the Ranger and the Tacoma TRD! The locker is a waste of money and people are finding this out. This TRD sticker is what over 90 percent of the people are after. I would be willing to bet most don't even know how or when to engage or use a locker. I travel the net and have come across many Toyota owners who have no clue that their axles are normally open, the locker can only engage in 4low! The locker is so specialized its useless!! LOL!! The know nothing about the crash test data either. Seeing many new Rangers popping up now in my area. Ford is offering special financing, right along with Toyota. I saw an Offroad Ranger in dark blue. The guy had very tastfully painted 4.0 SOHC down the side by the 4x4 sticker, added nerf bars and thank god some BFG's in what looked like to be about a 31". I am seeing conflicting numbers on the 0-60 times for the new 4.0. Anywhere from about 8.2- 8.7!
I didn't price them.. Yep, for 6k you could buy a real locker for the rear end, and other hardened 'off road' accessories that would make the TRD look like a... well... you know..
Vince- I just knoticed that the difference between the Tacoma (in your world) and the Ranger is now 6K. Since that figure is allready magnified by 2 to 3 times why not just say that the Tacoma is $100,000 more than the Ranger. No one believes anything you say anyway.
Good morning.. i am about to start looking for a truck ( i have godd 5-6 month before i can actually buy one) i do want to get a 4x4 and was looking at the tacoma's TRD package.. but i am a bit confused.. with the package the price jumps up about 4000-5000... and if all it is is just flares and shocks.. i am not too crazy about the flares.. so if all it is is just better shocks.. whould it not be cheaper to buy some and have them installed elsewhere?
it might sound naive but i am not quite sure what the trd package is..
One of my posts was cancelled so I guess I have to be nicer to you. Anyway, thanks for enlightening us that we only bought the TRD for the sticker rather than the better tires, better suspension and shocks, of course the locker, and the bedliner that most got with the package. I know a few that removed their sticker which is sad now that we know that the sticker was what they really wanted all along. Keep up these great revelations as they're really helping us.
I'd try a different dealer my friend as it sounds like they're ripping you off. The TRD package invoice on my 2000 Tacoma was, if I remember correctly, $1,500. I paid $1,200 extra for it and it included a bedliner, improved suspension and shocks, locking rear end, better tires, fender flares and vince's favorite, the sticker. The improved off-road ride as well as the much better cornering ability was more than worth it to me.
Thats for 2000 if you went through each year all the way back to 1989,it would be close to 10 to 1 total.You can get the same info at www.pickuptruck.com
Went to the pickuptruck.com site, but could not find any direct info on total production numbers. I would be happy to do the math and post the "facts". Could you please give me a better/different link????
about the TRD package. They all have these prices of 20-22K for a TRD. Yet in the past when I visited the Toyota dealers prices START at about 24K on up to 26K? Hmm... just doesn't add up. If you read the article in 1998 the TRD was 6K more than the RAnger by the way.. The TRD comes with Bilstein shocks and springs, a locker, fender flares. This bedliner thing? I don't see? The Toyota crowd won't tell you the locker can only be engaged in 4low and at very low speeds, if I remember right about 5-10mph is what Toyota recommends? Otherwise the rear end is OPEN. A locker is good for serious offroading. I ask again, tell me who is going to take a 24K truck into these places a locker is going to get its full use? A locker is only good for straight away acceleration, don't try to make severe turns with your locker engaged.. you will be sorry. This package can be had aftermarket for far less than what Toyota charges you to have this sticker on your truck. The Toyota crowd also won't tell you that a locker is useless for towing, pulling, hauling, what a truck is made for. The Nissan offers a limited slip rearend. Much more practical for the everyday user. Toyota doesn't offer a limited slip. Anymore questions? fire away@!
If that info on sales is available it would be interesting to see. If your 10 to 1 sales figures are correct, it would put about 10% of the US population driving Rangers which would be quite an accomplishment for Ford. If you look as just adults, it would put approximately 16% of licensed drivers in a Ranger.
I'm not sure where you get 10% or 16% from, but I'm thinking with a time span of 10+ years, it might be hard to calculate the actual number of folks who 'currently' own a vehicle. There are also fleet sales involved.
I sometimes wonder with so many new vehicles in general being sold each year, where do all the old ones end up?
Also, in my neighborhood consisting of about 30 or 40 homes, I know of 4 Rangers in driveways, maybe more.. At my workplace, my department of 20 folks, there are 3 Rangers.. I'm not claiming that 10% of folks out here own Rangers, but there really seem to be alot of them around..
What I am saying is if you were to add up the # of Rangers sold from 1989 to 2000, and then add up the # of Tacomas sold from 89 to 2000, I'm sure the Ranger outsold them at close to a 10 to 1 ratio. Ranger YTD sales 312582 down 5.3% from last year,Tacoma 134168 YTD down 7.9% from last year.Dodge Dakota up 27% from last year.Nov 99 Ranger 19806,Tacoma 10068.Those are the only #'s I could find at www.pickuptruck.com. Go to the news section on the front page,if you search their archives you may be able to go back a few years.
From what I've seen, Tacoma sales have averaged in the area of 200,000 in the last few years. Assuming that has been the same back to 1989, and barlitz's 10 to 1 theory is correct, that would put Ranger sales at about 22,000,000 in that same time frame. I'll assume that most of them are still on the road, though many will be with a second or third owner. That would be approximately 8% of the US population excluding dual ownership, etc., (I rounded to 10%). The 16% number is an estimate assuming that half of the current 280,000,000 population are licensed adults. Could be the case but, gut feel, I think the number may be more like 3 to 1 rather than 10 to 1.
can shake your head all you want or put me down all you want. But.. I notice you don't dispute what I say because deep down inside you know its the truth about the TRD package. As I have said over and over and will continue to say and enlighten people across the net....:-) The TRD package isn't all its cut up to be... No allknowing, I don't wish I had a locker. A locker would hinder my pulling, hauling, towing capability. Besides, I wouldn't like having an open axle, as in the Toyota, or one wheel spinning away.. as in the Toyota.. I educated myself before buying. The Ranger, Nissan, Chevy whichever offer limited slip differentials that are much more useful to the everyday user. Tell me how you tow a boat or trailer with that locker engaged at 45mph? You can't....
If you say so. I personally really like the TRD package and would have probably paid more than the $1,200 I paid for it. When my wife and I go off-road we take my truck rather than her Ford because we both like the way it rides on rough terrain better. I also personally prefer the way it corners and it amazes me that a a truck can take corners like it does, without body lean or tire slippage, every time I drive it. The non-TRD Tacoma rides more like the Ranger, which is not bad, but not as good as the TRD to me. May I also make an observation that I've never seen you enlighten anyone except in your own imagination. If you disagree I don't really care, however, don't fool yourself into thinking you know our preferences or that your opinions mean much to us.
So what you are saying is that you can't tow with a open rearend????...how ridiculous.I think you are taking this LSD thing way too far,you make it sound like the truck is useless without it and thats just foolish.
just know the facts. The Facts of offroading. I have been doing it for many years now. A locker is wonderful for those who rock climb or do severe offroading. A limited slip fits the majority of peoples needs. Man, you guys hate it when there are valid points against the Tacoma TRD. When someone who does know what they are talking about steps on that "Toyota is god" bubble you guys hate it! Allknowing, yes, I may bounce around a bit more.. but my Ranger can go anywhere your TRD can! You make it sound as if you live in the Rocky Mountains and have to commute through rough terrain to get to work... LOL!
Check out the March 2001 Automobile magazine, page 39.
Toyota admits to measuring ground clearances and cargo volume DIFFERENTLY from Ford, Chevy, Dodge, et al.
Toyota measures from the lowest SPRUNG point on their vehicles (running gear & undercarriage, EXCEPT axles).
All others measure from the lowest UNSPRUNG point on their vehicles (YES, the axles!).
Obviously, this results in an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Now we know for SURE that cpousnr's measurements are as close as we will get to an apples-to-apples comparison and shows that the REAL difference between the two is minimal, not the blatant "misinformation" provided by Toyota.
Get out your measuring tapes and check for yourselves.
Caveat Emptor!
BTW- I subscribe to Automobile, so you might have a wait before copies show up at your local store.
Worked with a plumber today who owns a tacoma,he had put a supercharger in his truck, asked him if it was a trd,his exact words the trd package is a ripoff nothing more than a ls rear end for a lot of money.He also said truck was okay and was more interested in my truck than his own,He is trading in for a fullsize Chevy 4x4 extend a cab,one more thing, my coworker has a 00 dakota extend a cab already in shop for tranny slipping only 5000 miles,but he does love the 4.7 engine.These are honest and true stories.
Thats what he meant an expensive LS if you want to call it that.He had nothing bad to say about the Tacoma just that the trd was an expensive option.Thats all god you taco owners are as defensive as the Baltimore Ravens, speaking of the superbowl I was lucky enough to get 0-0 in a $20.00 square.
"Thats all god you taco owners are as defensive as the Baltimore Ravens"???? What does that mean? In response to your comment, I don't think that $1,200 is very expensive for the TRD package personally for all that I got.
Comments
I will continue to love my Ford, and I am sure you will continue to pat yourself on the back for having bought into that 'Toyota quality' mantra, where the Tacoma is god's own truck and us domestic owners got duped. There is no point in arguing with you because it's human nature that when you plunk down big bucks for any new car or truck you don't want to hear others tell you that it may not be the very best thing out there, but I personally beleive that all automakers make good trucks that break down sometimes, and the best any of us can do is to buy what we like and take good care of it.
ed
The only reason I gave it away was so I could upgrade to a SuperDuty because I needed a larger vehicle..
You made some very general statements such as " In the area of quality Ford simply has a long way to go to compare with To(y)ota".
In this case I would like to see your numbers on that? There have been alot of spirited discussions on the Tundra vs Chevy, but the Tundra experts seem to avoid comparing to the F150. (probably should discuss that in big3 vs Tundra discussion instead of here).
I'm sure Toyota makes quality vehciles including the Tacoma. Just as Ford makes quality vehicles as well. Your statements don't 'drive me crazy'. I'm just looking for 'objective' statements that are based in facts..
Bess- you may as well just leave this discussion. IT is so clear you are entirely in over your head. Follow this discussion from POST ONE and you will see data backing up this statement time and time again. HEre are a few examples:
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
-------
So there you have it. All data is factual, and very telling. This is NOT "subjective".
A trucks reliability and build quality is NOT "subjective".
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
" Offroad,.the ranger rattles like a diamondback "
-Edmunds.com
" If you are planning on buying a used Ranger, plan to take one for a very,very long test drive"
--Edmunds.com
Toyota trucks always finish ahead of every other truck maker in JD powers long term quality tests.
Toyota trucks always finish ahead in quality in Consumer Reports "black dot/red dot" comparisons...
bla blah and on and on and on.
Ford makes sub-quality products. Wake up and smell the coffee.
But I am talking about 'articles'. that's right, actual, written words, in which the magazine cites the Ranger as being a better all around truck. In fact, the best attribute... no, scratch that, almost the ONLY GOOD attribute of the Tacoma that they mention is the engine, which, I must admit, made more horsepower, but not more torque, than the Ranger up until the 2001 redesign. But now we have the new 4.0, which easily trumps the Tacoma in all measurements. Now I suppose that that 3.4 liter V6 is no longer their claim to fame, since the Chevy engine beats it for torque and the Ranger engine beats it in Torque and Horsepower, Tacoma owners will have to settle for repeating this blind, subjective 'quality' mantra without specifically mentioning what exactly that means. I personally think some people never stopped thinking of the admittedly mediocre clunkers Detroit turned out in the 70's and eighties that initially drove them to imports. But now that Detroit has caught up and any difference in quality is negligible, they are still stuck in the last decade and don't want to shatter the myth of import superiority that now causes them to pay price premiums for foreign vehicles from manufacturers who are now charging extra for a name.
by the way, also notice I found no reason to interrupt their discussion and mention my perfectly running, problem free, 6 year old, 66,000 mile Ranger, which has never made any thunks or thuds or squealing sounds. But I guess i must just be imagining my truck since it's not possible for a Ford to be so high in quality and trouble free.
--- perfectly running, problem free, 6 year old, 66,000 mile Ranger, which has never made any thunks or thuds or squealing sounds. But I guess i must just be imagining my truck since it's not possible for a Ford to be so high in quality and trouble free.
If spoog can repeat TSB's over and over, I think I'll just keep cutting and pasting that same paragraph.
No problem!
In my posts, the last ones, you I am sure will sense my vailed suggestion that the higher incident of injury in TSB reports may support the lower "star" rating by the govt. for Tacoma's in accidents.
spoog:
Denver papers reported today that regarding a 6,000 acre land swap in NW Colorado, last minute deal with BLM that
closed areas to off-roading
and other activities. No discussion with the state before doing this.
Sooo, you still think no areas are being closed
to Tacoma and Ranger 4X4's?
Take that hook out of you mouth that has been there for 8 years?
Your 'saftey recall' numbers from 1989-2000 include the Ranger and Tacoma..
The ranger was in production every one of those years.. When did Toyota start calling their truck the Tacoma?
It is also clear that your numbers above only refer to Ford Ranger which is only one model of Ford vehicles.. So thats why I questioned how someone could make a 'generalized' statement saying Ford doesn't have as good as quality as Toyota..
I agree that build quality is not 'subjective', however it is clear from the reports on NHSTA that many of the issues were 'subjective', and had nothing to do with build quality..
This is also the case with TSB's.. Ford uses the TSB process to help effectivly communicate information to their dealerships.. Many are not in response to a particular problem and have nothing to do with build quality. (one example is a TSB that indicates that Ford will be recommending 10w-30 in engines)..
You can throw numbers around, but if you don't know what those numbers represent, then they are meaningless.
I'm not claiming that Toyota has worse quality than Ford, I'm not claiming that the Ranger has worse quality that Tacoma. I'm simply stating that the numbers you give do not tell the whole story.
Actually, you only need to follow this discussion from post #303 since this is the only data spoog has ever posted. He's right about the "time and time again" though.
Bess- you can't use logic against spoog, he's just a little kid!
I found it amusing as I was asked to leave the discussion because I'm 'in over my head'..
You have it in for me because I have popped that "Toyota is god" bubble of yours many times and you don't like it. You paid too much for your perceived reliability advantage, and the TRD is a joke for the everyday truck user. The Ranger is the best value and the best bang for your buck. And now that it has the 4.0 SOHC the bragging rights of power are over for you.
And another person brings in the HP/Torque curve issue! Enjoy your sticker!
http://www.fordranger.com/offroad/78305.html
here is what you will find with mileage for Ranger owners:
325,000Km
227,000 miles
265,000 miles
108,000 miles
210,000 miles
242,000 miles
184,000 miles
200,000 miles
You see, some people get some longevity out of thier Rangers.
If people want to save some money they can buy a Ranger.
You, I and others can document some very good experiences with Rangers. That is our job here. . .
spoog's job is to post TSB's, ignoring the significance of the Tacoma ones, and post the Four Wheeler truck of the year story. . .
BTW, had the Ranger in for alignment and got my new replacement spare tire. A brand new Wilderness AT that replace the older ATX limited use one that was recalled. Only thing is, it is still a 235 tire, need to get a 31 inch spare rack in the bed.
Anyone know if the new Ranger put a larger spare tire onboard?
allknowing:
The tweaks and comments from here are not intended to be vindictive. . .
After weighing each truck at a commercial scale, we subtract that amount from the factory-rated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) to arrive at an actual maximum payload number. We run track testing with truck beds both empty and with half their calculated payload, this year using 35-pound bags of landscaping rock. In this case, the Ford and Mazda each ran with 16 bags, the Toyota with 18. We think it's valuable to see how each truck performs when carrying a load; that's why they have a bed. For a significant portion of the rest of the test, we run the trucks at half maximum payload. This also allows us to see how mileage is affected, as well as how the engine and chassis react.
At each stage of our test, drivers rotated from truck to truck during a variety of terrain changes--recording comments and scoring each truck as they go.
In the end, each tester scores each truck in 38 different categories with "Mechanical" accounting for 25 percent of the book total;
"Trail Performance" accounting for 30 percent; "Highway Performance" 20 percent; "Interior" 15 percent; and "Exterior" 10 percent. Each logbook accounts for 80 percent of overall scoring, with the remaining 20 percent centered around our nine "Empirical" tests you'll find in chart form: Ground Clearance, Noise at 55 mph, Payload, and so forth.
Finally, we've printed point totals so readers may weight their own "paper test," awarding points for those aspects of a truck they find most valuable. Some may appreciate interior or highway feel more than we have. Change the percentages around and choose your own winner. Of course, that certainly won't be as much fun (or difficult) as running around the countryside with a group of brand new four-bys.
The Ford five-lug 8.8-inch rearend comes standard with the 4.0-lite/five-speed auto combo. Leaf springs and 3.73:1 axle gears are rated to carry 1,180 pounds. Mazda's 7.5-inch rearend is standard with the 3.0-liter V-6. Not surprisingly, our ride-quality vastly improved with 12 bags of landscape rock in the compact's bed.
Toyota's TRD Tacoma comes with the only factory offered rear locking differential on any (full-size or compact) pickup. We found it a huge asset for trail adventures.
FORD & MAZDA TOYOTA
Ford's new compact frontend uses F-150-style short- and long-arm IFS, with torsion bars. The setup offers big gains on pavement--but not without trail sacrifices.
The new Pulse-Vacuum Hub (PVH) used exclusively on compact Fords and Mazdas allows for true in-cab-controlled shift-on-the-fly capability.
Toyota's double A-arm/coilover frontend handles pavement cornering and trail flex with equal skill. We like the six-lug axles and big-caliper front discs.
We would characterize the drivetrain, specifically the transmission, as biased for highway performance as well. All 4.0-liter Rangers (and Mazdas, for that matter) ordered without the manual tranny get the first five-speed automatic transmission offer ed for any pickup. Our testers split over the need and/or usefulness of a mileage-biased transmission geared for empty-load flatland running. Those in favor noted the nearly seamless transitions from one gear to the next, and how the transmission itself c ould, if the vehicle was driven right--no jackrabbit leadfoot starts--tack on another 50,000 miles of life to the engine.
On the trail, we found the automatic transmission to be a double-edged sword. The smoothness of the First-to-Second shift, combined with the inherent low-end grunt of the engine, was almost enough to overcome the taller gearing. And in the end, voting followed individual preferences for manuals versus automatics. Two testers noted both the manual transmissions (Mazda and Toyota) felt more "in control" on the twisty low-range trails of Truckhaven, where face-down compression braking was very helpful o n steep-trail crawling. In low-range, our automatic Ranger offered a rather delicate 22.8:1 crawl ratio (First x axle gear x low-range); the Mazda and Toyota offered 34.4:1 and 40.4:1 gearing, respectively.
Likewise, where the stiffened front suspension cleanly handled all paved-road obstacles thrown in its path, the Ford IFS had trouble keeping up with the broken terrain of dry washes, hill climbs, and washboards. Admittedly, it is a rare vehicle that c an manage all the extremes with equal aplomb, but several testers commented that the Ford liked to spring a little bit quicker (and hop higher) off the rolling whoop-de-doos. For the most part, we found the sacrificed off-highway capability to be greater than the gained on-highway performance, and for that reason it didn't score well in the parts of our test that are most heavily-weighted; however, that isn't to say testers weren't squabbling among themselves to get into the Ranger for the highway drives up the mountain.
Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up.
Like any good four wheeler, we found the Ford Ranger could do several things quite well, scoring highly in On-Road Ride and Handling and Interior Comfort. To us, the new Ranger is a nice-looking, comfortable truck that is easy to drive and easy to own . And it's made in plants with a reputation for quality. But the Pickup Truck of the Year has to do it all pretty damn well, and it has to be great off-highway. And so we introduce our 1998 winner.
Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.
Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running.
As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.
It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.
Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year.
--Fourwheeler.com
" The Tacoma TRD handled the rough stuff better than any other truck we have driven"
--Fourhweeler.com
" The Ranger rattles like a diamondback offroad"
-Edmunds.com
" IF your buying a used ranger, take it for a very,very long test drive"
-Edmunds.com
ed
- fourwheeler.com
" The Tacoma is rated to carry more payload, so we
put more sandbags in the bed"
-fourwheeler.com
" The Toyota compact pickup is the most rock solid, bulletproof pickup ever made"
- Petersons Offroad
" Without a doubt, the toyota pickup line is the toughest,most durable 4x4 line ever assembled"
-Offroad Africa
Hey guys, guess what trucks they use in the Himalayas, at around 20,000 feet? Thats right, Landcrusers and Toyota pickups. You see.....there just aren't any service shops 20,ooo feet up in the Himalayas. Oh yeah.
http://www.lieblweb.com/tacoma/VA052700B/MVC-047B.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/P000513A/MVC-002.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/P000513A/MVC-005.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/P000513B/MVC-023B.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/P000513C/MVC-010C.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/P000513C/MVC-014C.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/P000513C/MVC-015C.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/P000513C/MVC-025C.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/P000513E/MVC-008E.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/P000513E/MVC-009E.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/tacoma/S000930A/MVC-859F.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/tacoma/GWNF000902A/027.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/tacoma/GWNF000902A/028.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/tacoma/GWNF000902A/021.JPG
http://www.lieblweb.com/tacoma/GWNF000902B/035.JPG
CP - HA, I'll try to take everything personally from here on then.
barlitz - The Ranger definitely outsells the Tacoma but I think 10 to 1 is a bit out of a stretch. I believe it averages in the area of 2 to 3 to 1. If it were 10 to 1 from 1989, most of the people in this country would be driving a Ranger.
http://www.ai-online.com/
2000 Ford Ranger = 330,175
2000 Totota Tacoma = 147, 295
Ranger outsold Tacoma 2.24:1 in 2000.
Hey spoog, how's that 1998 PTOTY article doing? still taped to your bathroom wall? Do you have any recent articles that herald the TRD? or are you going to hang on to that 3 year old one forever?
btw: i noticed in the 3 year old article that spoog posted, that they noted the Ranger was made in a plant that had a good reputation for quality.. I didn't see them mentioned that for Toyota..
The locker is a waste of money and people are finding this out. This TRD sticker is what over 90 percent of the people are after. I would be willing to bet most don't even know how or when to engage or use a locker. I travel the net and have come across many Toyota owners who have no clue that their axles are normally open, the locker can only engage in 4low! The locker is so specialized its useless!! LOL!! The know nothing about the crash test data either.
Seeing many new Rangers popping up now in my area. Ford is offering special financing, right along with Toyota. I saw an Offroad Ranger in dark blue. The guy had very tastfully painted 4.0 SOHC down the side by the 4x4 sticker, added nerf bars and thank god some BFG's in what looked like to be about a 31".
I am seeing conflicting numbers on the 0-60 times for the new 4.0. Anywhere from about 8.2- 8.7!
it might sound naive but i am not quite sure what the trd package is..
thanks for your help
Both the Ranger and the Toyota compact pickup TSB counts were from a full 10 years for each vehicle.
Are you saying the locking rear diff on the Tacoma isn't a real one? lol. Didnt you read Four wheelers rave review of it?
If you read the article in 1998 the TRD was 6K more than the RAnger by the way..
The TRD comes with Bilstein shocks and springs, a locker, fender flares. This bedliner thing? I don't see?
The Toyota crowd won't tell you the locker can only be engaged in 4low and at very low speeds, if I remember right about 5-10mph is what Toyota recommends? Otherwise the rear end is OPEN. A locker is good for serious offroading. I ask again, tell me who is going to take a 24K truck into these places a locker is going to get its full use? A locker is only good for straight away acceleration, don't try to make severe turns with your locker engaged.. you will be sorry. This package can be had aftermarket for far less than what Toyota charges you to have this sticker on your truck.
The Toyota crowd also won't tell you that a locker is useless for towing, pulling, hauling, what a truck is made for.
The Nissan offers a limited slip rearend. Much more practical for the everyday user. Toyota doesn't offer a limited slip.
Anymore questions? fire away@!
I sometimes wonder with so many new vehicles in general being sold each year, where do all the old ones end up?
Also, in my neighborhood consisting of about 30 or 40 homes, I know of 4 Rangers in driveways, maybe more.. At my workplace, my department of 20 folks, there are 3 Rangers..
I'm not claiming that 10% of folks out here own Rangers, but there really seem to be alot of them around..
No allknowing, I don't wish I had a locker. A locker would hinder my pulling, hauling, towing capability. Besides, I wouldn't like having an open axle, as in the Toyota, or one wheel spinning away.. as in the Toyota.. I educated myself before buying. The Ranger, Nissan, Chevy whichever offer limited slip differentials that are much more useful to the everyday user. Tell me how you tow a boat or trailer with that locker engaged at 45mph? You can't....
Allknowing, yes, I may bounce around a bit more.. but my Ranger can go anywhere your TRD can! You make it sound as if you live in the Rocky Mountains and have to commute through rough terrain to get to work... LOL!
Toyota admits to measuring ground clearances and cargo volume DIFFERENTLY from Ford, Chevy, Dodge, et al.
Toyota measures from the lowest SPRUNG point on their vehicles (running gear & undercarriage, EXCEPT axles).
All others measure from the lowest UNSPRUNG point on their vehicles (YES, the axles!).
Obviously, this results in an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Now we know for SURE that cpousnr's measurements are as close as we will get to an apples-to-apples comparison and shows that the REAL difference between the two is minimal, not the blatant "misinformation" provided by Toyota.
Get out your measuring tapes and check for yourselves.
Caveat Emptor!
BTW- I subscribe to Automobile, so you might have a wait before copies show up at your local store.
- Fourwheeler.com
" The Ranger rattled like a diamondback offroad"
- Edmunds.com
" If buying a used Ranger, take it for a very,very long test drive"
-Edmunds.com
" The Tacoma has a higher payload than the Ranger, therefore we put more weight in the bed"
- Fourwheeler.com
" OF all the 4x4's, we vote Fords 'most likely to break on heavy trails"
-Edmunds.com
In response to your comment, I don't think that $1,200 is very expensive for the TRD package personally for all that I got.