Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Ford Ranger vs Toyota Tacoma

123457

Comments

  • Motor trend used to say the Ranger would get a redesign in 2004, but now it says 2005 or 2006. Obviously the f-150 takes priority. Until then, the Ranger may sink as low as previous years Tacoma Sales. But is that really so bad? :)
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    It's not bad, but they've been delaying the redesign several times now. Makes one wonder what is going on inside Ford, all those recalls, lawsuits, restructuring and so on.

    I can see why 92mph governor is bad. I've hit 90+ on more than few occasions on the freeway, driving normally. It's kind of surprising that Ford would put a governor at 92mph.....crappy tires?
  • But it is not always the case. I have Goodyear Wrangler AT/S (came standard on Edges), which I would hardly describe as crappy tires. The 92 mph govenor is probably due to the 4.10 rear gear than anything else

    Delays in the redesign? Are you certain we want to take 3rd party comments on as official Ford dates? What if motor trend is wrong? It's kinda of hard to wonder what Ford is thinking, as we are truck owners, and they are a major manufacturing company. I would think their agenda and plans are a bit out of our enthusiast grasp. But believe what you will.

    Another item to keep in mind is the upcoming redesigns of all the major competitors. Why not keep the best selling make/model around a little longer and work longer on the redesign. That would introduce the new truck after all the other makes are a year or two old. I would rather hold my trump card till the very end, than use it before everyone plays theirs. Besides, if it is not broken, do not fix it.

    Recalls? Haven't seen one yet. For 2002, the only recall was the FX4 differential.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I think it's the tires.
    I have 4.10 gears on my Tacoma, and I think speed governor is set to 112mph.

    You're right, all we're doing is speculating about when next Ford will be coming out. And if they are taking longer to redesign Ranger, I really hope it is NOT going to end up like other late Ford models such as Escape and Focus, which have set nearly record-breaking number of recalls their first year.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    speed government is related solely to the tire speed ratings. Not sure, just what I have heard.

    As far as the Escape and Focus, scorpio -- I hear ya. Car and Driver rated them both in their 10 Best (maybe not the escape, don't remember). Focus was in the 10 Best in at least its first two years, and yet it still came with tons of problems. I absolutely hate when car makers do that - not saying that Toyota never will - but you get what I'm saying. Some people think that initial quality is everything, but to me it is only about 10% of the whole pie, if that. I think true truck owners should feel the same way.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    image

    Thats the new f-150, this is a pic from edmunds own site, so that i don't get into trouble.
  • And they are speed rated Q, or 99 MPH. I guess the 92 MPH was just to compensate for that. Oh well, it's not like I will be doing that too often, maybe a couple of times a year.

    About the recalls, some would say that is an issue. Most Ford owners I talk to say they got the call, got it checked out or replaced, and went on their happy little way.

    While I had my tint, step bars and security system installed, they loaned me a ford focus sedan. 4 door with 5 on the floor, and it was quick a nice driving vehicle. It handled exceptionally well, and the little 4 banger with stick was quite peppy. More fun to drive than an Accord (auto). I definitely recommend taking one for a test drive just to see what it is all about.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    There's a limit to my patience. If I drop 21K on a truck and have to come in 5-10 times to do recalls, I'll be very pissed off. I'm single, my Tacoma is my daily driver, and I just don't like to be stuck without a car. Luckly dealership is reasonably close by where I work so I can take a shuttle, but it is still a hassle.
    I'm sorry, but I think Ford owners just don't have any choice, or have simply gotten used to a high # of recalls. It should not be happening.
  • It has better styling, more room in the Explorer Sport Trac crew cab version, and a larger bed. Shouldn't the Explorer Sport Trac be in this comoparison?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    What're you talking about?
    Explorer SportTrac is not a Ranger DoubleCab. If you think it is, great. Then you have to compare it against Tacoma DoubleCab, which is the same underneath as Xtracab, just with shorter bed. Can you say the same for Explorer SportTrac? Just how much is shared between Ranger and Explorer?
  • last time I tried to write a message, it would not take.

    Heh, I spent 14 thousand, and my only downtime has been when I get extra equipment installed. Never had been without a loaner. For a fairly cheap truck, it feels very solid and performs wonderfully. However you would have to agree that nothing new has come up concerning recalls, or else some toyota fan would have posted it by now. :) Anyway, it is still too early to affirm, but looks like that is mostly in the past.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Its not Ranger sport track. I rest my case. Besides if I was a Ford man I would not claim it.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    The recalls I brought up usually apply to 1st or 2nd year models or redesigns. True, there haven't been any recent Ford recalls and lets hope it stays that way, I'm sure Ford does not need another multi-million vehicle recall. Let us just hope that with all the delays Ford engineers actually finish the next vehicle before releasing it, b/c it seems to me that they just throw a bunch of parts together, call marketing and say "it's ready, we'll work out all the bugs as we sell it".
  • Saddaddy:


    Found your comments interesting.

    The 4-Runner and Tundra are built on the same base. Up until this year, the Tacoma and the old 4-Runner were built on the same base. The older version 4-Runner offered the 3.4 V-6 as it's gold-standard for many years. The engine is sound, but the 3.4 will not adequately power the larger 4-Runner; hence, the need for the 4.0.


    The Tundra offers as standard the 3.4 litre engine: http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/tundra/specs/tundra_specs.html


    This is the same 190 horse motor they put into the Tacoma. In the Tacoma it is an excellent choice. But in the Tundra...who could pull a boat, load it with rock, or put the family in it and go for a drive in the mountains--with a 3.4 six?


    How many 3.4 litre 6-cylinder Tundras have you seen?


    So the need for a 4.0 litre makes more sense for a Tundra and not the Tacoma. Probably since most Tundras sold are the 4.7's Toyota hasn't seen fit to change that over to offer the 4.0 as standard in Tundras yet. But don't be surprised if they do.


    My point: the 4-Runner is evolving. And it isn't Taco-sized like it has been since its inception.


     4-Runner Engines:

     4.0-liter DOHC 24-valve EFI VVT-i V61

    245 hp @ 5,200 rpm

    282 lb.-ft. @ 3,800 rpm

     

    4.7-liter DOHC 32-valve EFI V8

    235 hp @ 4,800 rpm

    320 lb.-ft. @ 3,400 rpm

  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Tacoma is also getting a redesign.
    It makes sense for it to get a bigger V6: Tundra is not at risk of being cannibalized by Tacoma sales b/c it has the V8.
    Tundra could get a 4.0L V6 as well as the base engine, but not next year. Doesn't make any sense: engine would have to have been designed to fit Tundra to begin with, and we would have seen it this year.

    4Runner is evolving, that's fine. Toyota is simply waiting until next year to introduce the new Tacoma. Maybe waiting to fix up any potential problems before releasing Taco?
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    What you said makes perfect sense. You just have to remember one thing - the 4-runner was the first of the Toyota money makers to get a major change this go-round. Just wait until the Tacoma and Tundra get their facelifts, and then we can make more accurate evaluations of what should be powered by what and what is "underpowered."

    Rest assured, the next Tacoma will be more like the 03 4-runner than the current Tacoma is, whether this is good or bad remains to be seen.

    Thanks for your input, and don't be a stranger.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    looks like my predictions as of november are off. we'll have to see how december unfolds. but really, i find it amusing that you sat somewhere and searched for my statement JUST so you could say 'told you so', or 'you were wrong, haha'. hilarious. don't you have anything better to do? what i find interesting is that the avalanche sales are up like 82% and the ram is also up. every other truck in the top ten is down in sales. lol, the tacoma is still like 70,000 units behind ranger in sales. that's alot of trucks for an alleged 4.0 toyota engine to make up for. time will tell, but i highly doubt ford loses the #1 spot in compact/mid-size sales. even without a re-design, ford trucks will always outsell the competition. this will not change. from the F-series to rangers to explorers. they butter ford's bread. right now, im just loving my #1 selling liberty. it's 'like a rock'.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    simply because dealers are selling them about $10k under retail. In all honesty, there have been dealers around here that are selling $32k Avs for $23 or $24k. It is crazy. Chevy saw what people really thought of the Avalanche its first year out and realized what they must do to sell them, and they did it. All the guys around here that were driving 97 Z71s and looking to uprgrade went to shop and saw that they could get an Assalanche for 7-grand less than a new silverado and set, "Why not. I'll just have to block out all the screams of how ugly this beast is." I don't know about the rest of the country, but thats how it has gone here -- all year long ads for dirt cheap avalanches and I said to myself what was going to end up happening in sales 6 months ago and it was right as we see now.

    As for the new Rams, not a clue what in the world people are thinking to buy one of these things. They rival the avalanches in ugliness. I do kinda like the new HDs just because I know a mean truck when I see one.

    I used to love Chevy and GMC 1/2 ton trucks, but since they changed to front end on them for the 03 model year I can't stand em. Im sure this is a style that will not grow on me a bit and I am pretty hacked off with GM. So now I guess if I was going to buy a full size it would have to be a ford, by process of elimination. I also saw an 03 F-250 PSD FX4 yesterday, WOW. I could drive one of those.
  • Like predictions, the one who makes them gets that warm fuzzy feeling when they are right. If they are wrong? Well that typically gets swept under the carpet.

    I too would believe that if Tacoma is enlarged and receives a larger engine, it would hurt Tundra's already small sales. Many just want a larger toyota truck, and want to tow a bit more than the current Tacoma can. I don't think it will be much, but I will bet that the Tundra sales will drop if the Tacoma gets the new 4.0l and a increase in size. It just makes sense. Hopefully not too many people only want or need a small compact toyota truck. Time will tell.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    You've dug up past posts too, so don't you have anything better to do?

    As far as Avalance and Ram sales being up: I can't think of any reason why Avalance would be selling well other than what saddaddy wrote.
    Ram: it's new, it's redesigned, it's got a big engine and 20" rims. I guess enough people like that. I wonder about the quality though. Once again, 10/100 sounds like a great idea on paper, but Dodge just may have bitten off more than it could chew when trannies and engines start failing few years down the road.

    Ranger vs Tacoma: I tell you what....about a year and a half ago you were saying "Ranger outsells Tacoma by hundreds of thousands". Now it's down to 70K. So what if Tacoma does not outsell Ranger right away. The way things are going, it'll eventually get there. I agree that chances of Tacoma outselling Ranger are slim: enough people think that Ranger is made in USA and don't want to buy any of the "[non-permissible content removed] cr*p", I guess it makes them feel patriotic. For that reason alone, in rural areas, Ford/Chevy/GM will always rule. Ford needs to seriously think about how they build cars and rethink their strategies, b/c while Ford is closing down plants, Toyota is opening new ones. That 70K sales advantage may disappear in few years.
  • Lexus entered the luxury car market in the US, the Cadillac and Lincoln boys were making the same arguments as *tbundy* is doing here: Lexus is no good, they're made of tin, Cadillac and Lincoln sell "hundreds of thousands more"....blah blah blah. We all know what happened - Lexus displaced Cadillac and Lincoln in just 10 years and is now the most popular luxury car in the US.

    Of course, this is just a rehash of what happened with the compact and family sedan too. The Corolla and Camry eventually took the US market over as well.

    And now history is repeating itself with the truck market, only this time the going is going to be tough, because the truck is an American icon whose owners are intensely brand loyal (some would say ignorant, too, which is what the truck makers are banking on - just look at those stupid cowboy Chevy commercials...). Scorpio was exactly right when he said "enough people think that Ranger is made in USA and don't want to buy any of the "[non-permissible content removed] cr*p", I guess it makes them feel patriotic. For that reason alone, in rural areas, Ford/Chevy/GM will always rule" Right on. Ignorant hicks make up a large part of the pick-up consumer base, and nowhere is this more evident than in Texas, which leads the nation in pick-up sales (no offense, Scorpio). It always makes me laugh when I inform these shocked folks their Dodge Ram was made in Saltillo, MX or their Chevy has an Isuzu engine in it. They are truly stupid and clueless, and maybe illiterate too, as the window sticker/maroney states this information.

    Speaking of the Dodge Ram, people are obviously buying the thing simply because of styling. The Magnum 4.7 is weaker than the Tundra's 4.7, and the Ram weighs much more. It is a poor working truck platform, and is one of the worst gas guzzlers out there. I suppose the fact the Ram has a good back seat with four doors has a lot to do with its sales success. But what's that say? People want a stylish truck with 20" rims they can use as a car. I'm sure it'll be a huge success in Texas...
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    the debate in the last few posts: I will bet anyone here that Toyota's CEOs and board of directors sleeps much more easily at night than those that work for Ford.

    I wouldn't mind Toyota staying right where its at as far as sales. I hate driving the same truck as 50% of other truck owners on the road. Also, we see how quality (as a whole)has been going for the sales leading big 3 -- down, down, down. Thats not to say that any Ford owners here have trucks that won't last 200k miles or none of the Yota owners have a lemon, just as a whole. Thats just my opinion.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Everybody driving the same truck is part of the reason why we lift our trucks. It enables us to go further than stocks, but also a 6" TM lifted truck with 35s is a head-turner and a chick magnet :)
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    my ranger was built in minnesota. GUARANTEE it had more american parts on it that any toyota does.
    and to compare dodge's ram to a tiny tundra is totally hilarious. pluto, care to post all tundra engines and compare their outputs to all engines available in the new ram? you take the smallest engine for the ram (one that you can get in a jeep and a dakota) and say "it is weaker than the tundra's 4.7, and it weighs more, blah blah. what you are really saying is that the tundra, in all it's glory is more powerful than the ram's weakest engine. is that something to brag about? you do it with the ford's and their engines too. it's not our fault toyota only offers one V8 for their tundra. the tundra is the truck that is being used as a car my man. don't forget, you can still get dana solids on the dodge 2500's. any sfa's on tundra? or any toyota for that matter? LOL

    as far as the avalanche sales, i have a hard time believing sad's theory. they've just now came out with an avalanche with no plastic cladding. this will help sales. ford may have closed some plants, but it is still #1 across the board.

    the focus is now the world's #1 selling car, and the taurus/sable is america's #1 selling car. explorer is #1 as well. maybe those mexicans have something down there. hehe
  • "you take the smallest engine for the ram (one that you can get in a jeep and a dakota) and say "it is weaker than the tundra's 4.7, and it weighs more"

    Actually, the smallest available engine in the Ram isn't their 4.7. It's a V6. And the Magnum 4.7 is underpowered and guzzles more gas than the Tundra's 4.7. Do your homework. The Ram with the 4.7 is the most popular configuration, and it's a poor work platform. It sells because people want a stylish truck they can use as a car.

    "the tundra is the truck that is being used as a car my man"

    Assuming this is true, I wouldn't even care. Americans demand plush trucks and use them as cars. This situation has been cultivated from the demand for these trucks, and the Big 3's willingness to deliver. Trucks have been used as cars long before the Tundra was ever introduced. The truck-used-as-cars market was created by Americans, not Toyota. Toyota simply jumped on the bandwagon to make money like everybody else.

    Same thing as the SUV market - people buying luxury 4x4 vehicles that will never leave the pavement. But you wouldn't want to go there, would you? Kind of describes you, eh?
  • I love this chat area!!

    I will admit, the new 5.7 Hemi in the Dodge HD's is a sweet engine!! My friend just bought a 2003 2500 Crew Cab and it is definately a sweet truck!

    I just don't have the nerve to tell him he will have to replace the tranny every 30,000 miles. Poor guy!! :-(

    Obi
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Lets take a look at #1, shall we?

    Focus: http://alldata.com/TSB/19/00195079.html

    Oh yeah, that's gold. Granted, that was the first year, but you can see why some people just don't trust Ford. Also, take a look at carpoint user reviews of 2003 Focus. It may sell the most, but you get what you pay for.


    Taurus: I think there is a religion of Taurus haters on the net. I couldn't find the website, but I know it's there. Again, look at recall #. Look on carpoint for reviews of 2002 Taurus.

    Camry eater? I don't think so.


    As far as trucks being used as cars: Next time you go to a grocery store, pay attention and look how many trucks are in the parking lot. Then see how many are dirty. How many have signs that they are being used as trucks.

    Also take a look at how many 4x4 SUVs there are. Check to see what kind of tires they have.

    Why? Because majority of trucks/SUVs you'll see are in nearly perfect condition. No dirt, street tires, brush guards, running boards...aka street queens. And guess what? They are not just Toyota. Exploders, Chevy Silverados, Rams....oh yeah, how many new Rams do you actually see hauling stuff? How many SUVs/trucks have a hitch?

  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    but just adding to the conversation...

    Why were SUVs even invented? The answer: so folks could use trucks like cars.
    Why were SUTs invented? See where Im goin. Pluto was exactly right, to say that even half the trucks bought are used for trucking is a gross falsehood.

    Now, I will say this. IMO the Tundra is not in the same league as the Silverado, Ram, and F-150. No, the tundra is smaller. It is a little more well built, judging from an 02 Silverado I drive alot. But if you need a brute of a 1/2 ton truck, don't stop by the Toyota lot. However, I think a tundra would fit me better than any truck on the market right now. The sweetest V8 on the market as far as pep, smoothness, and more than a useful amount of power in working range of RPMs. Its big enough to have plenty of interior room, but still VERY VERY agile and easy to park. I would really sing their praises if the didn't have a pricetag that belongs on a bigger truck. If they were cheaper, they would be the perfect truck for me right now. Just my opinion.
  • However people buying a truck just to get to work do not care if the Toyota engine is slightly more powerful. The engine comes second to what's around it. 240 Dodge vs 245 Toyota HP? 300 Dodge vs 315 Toyota Torque? Making a mountain out of a anthill?

    Care to explain to me how 5 extra horsepower and 15 extra torque make the Dodge a poor work vehicle? Then we introduce the 2500 and 3500, and the 5.7 or 5.9l engines, and then you dissappear for a while... I just don't see how you can say the Tundra is the best truck available, when the big 3 offer trucks the Tundra can only wish to be.
  • How many Dodges, Fords, or GMs are configured as 3/4 or full ton pickups? Most are 1/2 ton like the Tundra, and the Tundra doesn't even try to compete in any other arena right now, so why even bring them into the picture? From what I've seen, the F150 doesn't have ANY more room in the rear seats than the Tundra has, but I'll give you that it is wider by a pretty large margin. You CAN equip it with larger engines, but how many people do? Most people don't drive a V6 Tundra, and neither do they the V6 models of the full-size trucks built by domestics. Similarly, Domestics don't sell most of their trucks with the largest engines either. So compare apples and apples instead of trying to take an example out of thin air to prove a point.

    The Tundra has done what it intended to do. It has gained a foothold in the fullsize truck market from those who don't need the biggest truck out there. They sell enough of them to make a profit and when the new design comes out, they'll improve their market share once again like when they moved from the T100 to the Tundra. Toyota doesn't take the market by storm, just slowly, methodically and effectively.

    Just my $.02

    Ken
  • " 240 Dodge vs 245 Toyota HP? 300 Dodge vs 315 Toyota Torque? Making a mountain out of a anthill?..Care to explain to me how 5 extra horsepower and 15 extra torque make the Dodge a poor work vehicle?."

    The small difference in output in these engines is almost exactly equal to those between the Tacoma's and Ranger's, as *tbundy* has been repeating since he's existed here. Has *tbundy* been making a mountain out of an anthill too? You've never popped in here telling us so. Or are you just BIASED???

    Don't worry, you don't have to answer that. Actions speak louder than words.

    "I just don't see how you can say the Tundra is the best truck available"

    Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said that - that's simply your flawed intrepretation of this discussion. I've stated numerous times I think the best working truck is the Ford Power-stroke diesels. Since people are always saying the Tundra is a poor work truck, it follows that the Ram, with an even weaker engine, is a poor work truck also.

    We can argue about this topic until the sun goes super-nova, midnight_caballo. If the Tundra's weak, then so is a 4.6 F-150, or 4.8 Silverado, or 4.7 Ram. We all know it, and that's why you start comparing 3/4 and 1 ton trucks to the Tundra.

    Bye bye.
  • You take things so personally. I was not trying to be biased, but I do target a known instigator, those known to lack respect. (i.e. midnight caballo, my name is based on my race car, which if you called my mustang a horse, I wouldn't be very happy with you.)

    Work trucks must be customizable. I'll say the Tundra is a good work truck when I see a flatbed version. Because Toyota does not offer one, you can only cry foul play when we try to compare the offerings of the Big 3.

    As far as comparing apples to apples, the difference between the 3.4l and the ford 4.0l does have a slightly larger difference in output. Also when you compare the v6 overall power, the Ford 4.0l has 8.9% more horsepower and 8.1% more torque vs Toyota 3.4, compared to the Toyota 4.7l 2% horsepower difference and 5% torque increase compared to the Dodge 4.7.

    So 9%/8% has a greater significance to me that 2%/5% in two vehicles that you state are weak. So that only goes to say that your 3.4l is weak compared to the Ford 4.0l. And if you do not consider your Toyota's engine weak, how can you claim that it is weak in a Dodge? Using your logic the Tacoma is a weaker work vehicle than the Ranger, as much as the Ram is to the Tundra.

    The Big 3 base engines may be 2-5% weaker than a tundra's v8, but if you can't bring out the larger engines available, then why do you even try to form an opinion based on the pickups themselves? You don't think the SVT Cobra is a weak sports car, when the base engine is a 3.8l v6? You can state that the majority are sold with the smallest v8 installed, but if you are talking work trucks, not daily drivers, your statement holds no water as to what is weak, because the smallest v8 is not for work trucks. Unless you consider the Tundra a work truck.

    So the Tundra can only outsell the Avalanche... What does this tell us?
  • "You take things so personally. I was not trying to be biased, but I do target a known instigator, those known to lack respect."

    It's hard to take these accusations seriously from somebody who throws online temper tantrums (promptly deleted, of course) and sends hate-mail. Talk about taking things personally...

    I've said before that I think the Ford PSDs are the best work trucks around. I personally don't consider any of the 1/2 tons with the base V8 serious work trucks. When you compare the Tundra to its PEERS, its performance and capabilites are on par with the others.

    It's just plain asinine to compare trucks that aren't equipped the same. Your insistence on doing so makes you, well, you know...

    If you want to complain about the Tundra's lack of options, fine, that's a valid point - I will concede that. But if you're going to call the Tundra weak, then you should be unbiased and consistent and label all the other Big 3 base V8 models weak(er) too. But you don't and therein lies the problem.

    Quit acting like the Tundra was intended to take on the heavy duties and failed miserably. Like every other truck, it was designed and built for its intended application - in this case, a light duty truck. If your requirements call for a heavy duty truck, the Tundra and the Big 3 base V8 models aren't going to work, because they weren't built for those kinds of applications. There's nothing wrong with the Tundra. People are just upset Toyota doesn't offer a heavy-duty version of one. In fact, what many consider "faults" with the truck others find a virtue, like the smaller size which makes it more maneuverable and practical for certain locales.

    If the Tundra can't fulfill your needs, that doesn't make it a bad truck. It simply means you're looking as the wrong class of trucks for what your intentions are.

    So you see, all the "problems" you "see" with myself and Toyota Tundras are simply the result of your skewed perception of reality. There's nothing wrong with Tundras, and you really can't label people as "instigators lacking respect" simply because they have different opinions.

    And I never meant "midnight_caballo" to be lacking in respect. It could be worse - how does "midnight_burro" sound?
  • The manufacturers seem to be stumbling all over themselves to create a "nitch" market with all the different versions, engines, options, striping, Led Zepplin soundbeds, and stupid commercials (I hate that Chevy commericial with the steers that stand-in with mouth agape when the "man" parks his Chevy "rig.") How many suburbanites envision themselves as ranch hands haulin' cattle?


    And what is with the Avalanche's "armadillo" skins of plastic hangin' all over the sides? That rig is "butt-ugly!"


    Have you guys seen the Chevy Cheyenne? Colorado?

    And have any of you attended the 2003 Car show?


    It doesn't come to St. Louis until the end of January.....The Edward-Jones Dome didn't want to interfere with the Rams in the playoffs...We used to hold our car show the second or third week of January. Man we gotta hire a front line to block for our offense! We lost three quarterbacks this year. And wait until you see who quarterbacks on Monday Night Football against San Francisco!

  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    "And what is with the Avalanche's "armadillo" skins of plastic hangin' all over the sides? That rig is "butt-ugly!"

    It looks like a big ugly piece of tupperware. You have to really wonder what goes through someone's mind when they decide to buy that thing.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    OWNED. YOU JUST WERE.

    if the F150 isn't considered a work truck, why does it offer optional payload and gvwr packages? also, why does it offer two V8's? around here, everyone has either an F150 or silverado to do their contracting work. the big bosses drive SD's. the tundra is weak. how can you compare it to the other full-sizers when in reality, it has tacoma underpinnings? i dont feel like it, but please list payload capacities, tow ratings, inside dimensions, etc. make sure you take into account what is available to the average joe when going down the options list. what about that 5.4 anyway? how close is the most powerful engine in tundra to the 5.4 in power/torque? don't want to go there? not surprised. around here anyway, every F150 on the lot has the 5.4 in it, it's only like a $750 option and doesn't get much worse mileage. you always seem to put up a convincing argument, but comparing the tundra to any other domestic full-size, it just doesn't have any validity. helper springs on tundra? i wonder why. what is the payload of a tacoma? hehe
  • It's funny to see a regular visitor to edmunds start have to resort to non-sequitor comments concerning tantrums, hate mail, etc. That is neither here, nor there, (nor ever happened), and it doesn't belong in a car related discussion. As Sergeant Friday would say, "Just the Facts, Ma'am".

    Good for you in seeing that the Ford Diesels are the best work trucks around. I also don't consider any of the base v8's real work trucks either. I didn't know we were arguing that point. After that you seem to miss my point. I never contested that a "base" v8 was a work truck. I was only building on your statements that if the Dodge 4.7l v8 was weak compared to the Tundra v8, then by your logic, the Tacoma is weaker (if crunching numbers) that the Ranger. That line of statements was an attempt to trigger a line of thought in you to think that maybe 2-5% isn't all that much. If it was, then you just conceded your Tacoma was underpowered, which I believe is not the case.

    P: "If the Tundra can't fulfill your needs, that doesn't make it a bad truck."
    If the Dodge has 2% less horsepower, that doesn't make it a bad truck either. Some people think a Tundra is butt ugly. Others don't, and appreciate it's record of reliability and want the most power(in the base engines). Looking at the sales figures, I can only guess which group is in the majority. That's really the only point I was trying to make.

    P: "all the 'problems' you 'see' with myself and Toyota Tundras are simply the result of your skewed perception of reality. There's nothing wrong with Tundras, and you really can't label people as 'instigators lacking respect' simply because they have different opinions."

    So you believe I have a skewed perception of reality? Do you still believe you are not lacking in the respect department? I only bring light to that in the hopes that you see how hypocrite it is, and maybe just stick to trucks?
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,292
    This personal beef is ancient history and you guys need to keep it off of the boards. It comes up in EVERY XXX vs Toyota topic and it never changes. Nobody has changed their mind yet, and I doubt that repeating the beatings is going to get them to this time. If you can't back off of it, the topic will be shut down.


    Agree to disagree and move on please.


    PF Flyer
    Host
    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

    Edmunds Moderator

    Silver 2012 Nissan Versa Hatchback & White 2019 Nissan Rogue S

    Need some roadside assistance? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Just purchased or leased a vehicle? Write your own vehicle review

  • "if the F150 isn't considered a work truck, why..."

    >>Don't pass your blanket statement along as being mine. I said BASE V8 F-150s aren't work trucks, and others here feel the same way. That fact negates everything else you said.
  • "I was only building on your statements that if the Dodge 4.7l v8 was weak compared to the Tundra v8, then by your logic, the Tacoma is weaker (if crunching numbers) that the Ranger."

    >>Then I will take your example a step further and compare your 3.0 Ranger to my 3.4 Tacoma and call it weaker. What's that you say? It's not right to compare trucks that aren't equipped the same? Exactly.

    "If the Dodge has 2% less horsepower, that doesn't make it a bad truck either. Some people think a Tundra is butt ugly."

    >>The Dodge not only has less horsepower, but it weighs much more and guzzles gas like no tomorrow. Then throw in the undeniable fact Dodge makes the worst transmissions on the market and VIOLA - you have a poor work truck (in my opinion). One more thing - how many work trucks do you see with 20" chrome rims and low-profile tires?

    "Looking at the sales figures, I can only guess which group is in the majority."

    >>As far as sales figures go, they mean absolutely nothing to me. If there were as many Tundras available for sale as F-150s or Rams and people weren't buying the Tundras, then you might have a point. Fact is Toyota makes Tundras in just one plant with limited production capabilities, and they sell what they make. In comparison, the Big 3 don't sell everything they make and must rely on profit-breaking killer sales incentives (or, as in Dodge's case, lengthened warranties to alleviate justified concerns of poor reliability) to sell. In this case, production capability dictates Tundra sales, not the "worthiness" of the truck, as you would like us to believe.

    >>And the majority of people who buy a truck will never use it to their potential. I find it refreshing that there's a realistic segment of the population that looks at some of these trucks and say to themselves "I don't need this huge, gas guzzling thing that's a chore to drive..." Remember how you said we shouldn't place so much importance on our trucks' off-roading capability because most of us will never leave the pavement? Why don't you feel the same way regarding these trucks' towing and hauling abilities? Most people aren't going to use them for towing and hauling, and that's a fact.

    "So you believe I have a skewed perception of reality? Do you still believe you are not lacking in the respect department?"

    >>YES, I do. And I also believe you either have a severe case of selective amnesia or lack the backbone to acknowledge your actions, especially those relating to the temper tantrums and hate-mail. But at least you learned along the way a thing or two about shock absorbers and posting copyrighted pictures.

    >>Respect. Didn't they ever teach you have to give it to receive it?
  • Ok, pluto, this debate is getting silly. Care to bring out your other persona Yoda, the one who appeared and accused me falsely of copyrighted pictures? That's right, falsely. And what about shock absorbers? You have yet to provide proof that they are a major design flaw in a Ranger. That was just a rediculously long debate about nothing. I said they pose no problem, you said there were a major design issue. It's all a dead and moot issue. All you can say is they hang low on the rear axle. Must be quite a problem for the people "you find refreshing, because they don't want something huge, or to go offroad with".

    How's that Limited slip in your Toyota doing, Pluto? You know, the Limited slip differential you said that engages whenever you don't have your locker locked? Or the Limited slip that is available on a Tacoma(not). If you state you have to give respect to receive it, when have you followed your own rule? So I ask you again Pluto, stick to trucks, because this is not a popularity contest, and there will be no winners if this mud slinging continues.

    Comparing the 3.4l to a 3.0l, well, why not compare it to the 2.3l? You can bring up all kinds of comparisons, but realistically you are selling one side short. Because an auto manufacturer offers more options than the other, that should not be considered a "unfair". Hopefully someday Toyota will expand it's niche marketing, you know offering trucks that can do work, or just a grocery getter.

    Nobody said the F-150 (4.6) makes the perfect work truck. However the new 6.0l Diesel SD would kick butt! Even the 5.4l that is a very popular option throws your point out the window.

    While I don't see many "work trucks" with 20 inch rims, I do see plenty of street trucks, and plenty of work trucks. Many people buy trucks just to dress them up, and stock 20" rims may be valuable to them. I personally don't care for that much flash, but others do, and again, the available options only diversify the amount of consumers who will buy the truck. I would say the majority are just daily drivers, but about 20-30% are used for hauling. Maybe 10-15% of street trucks with the flashy rims, lowered suspension, etc. Whatever floats their boat. The only analogy is that each owner will find what meets their needs, and the more options available make it easier to find a truck that meets their needs.

    In retrospect, doesn't this all appear to be a Us vs Them debate?
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i like how you didn't even reply to anything i said to you. nice flag waving. we all know it's hard to keep up with domestic truck offerings, but you at least could have tried.

    regarding those 20" rims on ram 1500's, care to list a comparison against payload and towing between a ram with 20's and a tundra with it's best whatever tires? i'd love to see just how wimpy those 20" rims are and the tires that wrap around them. please, back up your statement with some facts. ill be waiting.

    and stooping so low to comparing your 3.4 to a little 3.0 is now your new lowest point. i was surprised to see you had to do that. that's pretty pathetic.

    also, still waiting on your comments about the 5.4 against the only engine available in tundra. and the spec comparison between f150 and tundra in the payload and towing departments with the best available equipment.
    we know you're squirming, and it's hilarious.

    facts man, facts. you started this whole debate. back it up with something other than blanket statements like the 20" tires and wheels on rams being flashy and all that.
  • Reading your last post, particularly the last paragraph, would lead one to believe you embrace diversity and options when it comes to pick-up trucks. Well, the Tundra only adds to the diversity and options available to consumers, offering people a very reliable and for some, a more practical, refined alternative to the Big 3 offerings, yet you certainly don't embrace it. Why can't you practice what you preach and accept the Tundra as that, instead of constantly comparing it to something it wasn't even designed to compete against and declaring it a failure? How can we ever consider you credible when your actions run contrary to your stated beliefs and intentions?

    If Ford offered a truck exactly like the Tundra, you would declare it a glaring success and yet another example of how Ford offers another pick-up option for us.

    Your statements about the copyrighted picture debacle are nothing short of pure lunacy, plain and simple. Now I'm accused of having multiple personas? Please, midnight_caballo - I take great pride in proving you wrong, and I wouldn't want to share the spoils with other fictitious members. Numerous times myself and others began to point you to YOUR posts which had copyrighted pictures (only after you made such a stink about mine, of course), only to find said posts had disappeared (a phenomena quite common when it comes to you and your postings...). As always, you simply blamed the moderator for deleting them. Don't you think the moderator would have deleted them on his own when they were first posted, rather than having to be directed to them later by the whistle-blowers??? You just don't add up, midnight_caballo.

    The shock absorber debate was an intelligent, technical discussion that went to hell after you were defeated and threw a temper tantrum that was promptly deleted. If the debate was truly "ridiculous and about nothing" why did you take it so seriously? While you deny the temper tantrum took place, why then did other members who witnessed it comment on it?

    While you like to point out the limited-slip incident, I find it amusing that out of my hundreds of posts I've made since I've been a member, that's my ONLY mistake you can bring up. At least I didn't go back and delete the post and say I never posted it, or blame the moderator for deleting it, LOL.

    I actually think you're a pretty intelligent guy, midnight_caballo, and find it worth my while debating with you. I wouldn't invest the same amount of time and effort in my postings directed at *tbunder,* however, because I think he's a 15 watt bulb not worth the energy consumption to debate with. But you must simply learn to admit mistakes when you make them, and become more tolerant of those whose opinions differ from yours.
  • What does all of that fairy tale nonsense have to do with these trucks? I'm suprised you didn't include something about me kicking some kittens too.

    It must of taken you a long time to type all that too... :)

    Signed your master of all Conspiracy...
    Midnight_stang.
  • I'm on work time, not my own time. And I'm hardly surprised you don't/can't address the issues I've brought up.
  • You didn't answer my question. What does this have to do with trucks? If you want a response, are you sure you want the answer? You have brought up these so called mistakes of mine over and over again, yet I have replied and said my peace in the past. We all know the root of your claims are false. Nobody has validated your claims, because it's off-topic and false.

    And tell me again, how does saddaddy's pictures of tacoma's and F-150's get deleted too, if I just deleted anything you thought was incriminating against myself. My links were from non-copywrighted pages, your TEXT was very clearly not. Isn't it silly to accuse me falsely what you are truly guilty of?

    Signed again, Your master of Conspiracy, the shadowy figure in the grassy knoll,
    Midnight_Stang.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    The tundra doesn't even want to compete with the trucks you put it up against.

    And tbunder, not trying to start ANYTHING here, but, what is wrong with someone (I don't know who, I didn't read everything) comparing the 3.4L to the "little 3.0L." You sit there and compare the 3.4L to the 4.0L all day and I will to. If I did my math correct, the 3.4 is much closer in size to th e 3.0 than the 4.0. Whats the deal? Seems fair to me.
  • Is Plutonious always this argumentative? I wasn't around to witness any previous mistakes, yet I wouldn't like to argue about meaningless issues.
    To add to the engine comparison, the 3.4l can also be compared to the ford's 4 cylinder extended cab. Still I would also have to compare Toyota's little 4 cylinder would not hold up to the larger v6 found in the Ranger.
  • Hello, I came to this forum to read up about what everybody thought about these two trucks. I am also interested in a Nissan frontier or s10 possibly. What do you guys recommend based on your experiences? I am looking for a economical vehicle that is safe, reliable, and doesn't break my piggy bank.
  • Of course, I am going to recommend the Tacoma. In four cylinder form, it is not only economical and affordable, but as "bullet-proof" as you can get. Toyota's four cylinders are what earned them their reputation for reliability and durability.

    You will probably save a little if you buy a Ranger, especially with their never-ending sales incentives (that alone should raise your eyebrow). But remember, if you buy an extended warranty plan (the Tacoma already has a lengthy warranty) and you sell the truck (which you will someday), the difference in purchase price is going to be trivial. I encourage you to read the classifieds in your area and compare the prices of used Rangers and Tacomas.

    You will find people who swear by their Rangers, and you will find an equal number who curse theirs. Just peruse these forums and you'll see. That's because Ford quality is hit or miss. Individual owners, reliability surveys, used-car price guides, etc. unanimously point to the Tacoma as being the better vehicle. All the anectodal tales by the Ranger guys will not change this fact.

    Bottom line - Toyota is noted for quality, Ford advertises it (Quality is job #1...).
This discussion has been closed.