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 AND Toyota Tacoma AND others

2

Comments

  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    My question is this: did the other tests also make the news with headlines of "XXX recieves worst rollover rating", which is what happened here in TX.
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    I'm not sure about the publicity. The only place I heard about the Tacoma is here, and my first reaction was to check it out at the government website. But you know the "news" media scrutinizes this stuff for shock value. Who would be shocked by a bad rating on Fords and Chevys. Those companies are routinely trashed, often unjustly, so they are not a great target. (Although I have to admit they made a lot of advertising money when the Ford Explorer story was hot.)
    I wouldn't let it bother me too much. If Toyota misses a few sales, perhaps they will develop a bit of humility, and that would be a good thing.
  • maxlessmaxless Posts: 9
    I have read Town Hall with interest for quite some time. It appears to be a good move based on the fact I was informed I will be losing my company car that I have had for the past +8 years. Currently it is a 2000 Nissan Maxima so it hurts even worse. The dilemma - what to get for a new vehicle. At least I still have a job. I live in Minnesota and own a 16' aluminum fishing boat (1000 lbs.)and just built a house so plenty of upcoming home/yard projects. Married with two children under the age of 4. Would a Tacoma DC be a good choice for all around vehicle and if so, do I really need the 4WD? I grew up driving a '70 Chevy 2WD and with a little sand in the back end, never once had problems with snow. I like the DC Prerunner due to cost. However, worried about pulling out the boat on steep boat ramps. What about a used 4x4? Sorry for the long message.
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    I don't think you must have a 4x4, but you at least want limited slip differential. In the south you cannot find that on a Tacoma without the TRD package. I don't know about Minnesota.
    If you liked your Nissan, why don't you have a look at Frontier. The price is better, and I have learned the hard way that there is nothing special about a Toyota.
    Another consideration. Bigger trucks do better on the snow, and the rebates are huge right now. A Silverado extended cab is cheaper than a double cab Tacoma, and it has more passenger space, more comfortable seats, more cargo capacity, more towing capacity. . . just more. To top it off, the big Chevy gets better mileage. Of course, you will spend more for upkeep on larger trucks.
    Just about any vehicle you buy these days can be disappointing, so maybe the one thing you can control is how much you pay for how much you get. With Toyota, you pay more and get less, but many people feel that the Toy gives them peace of mind, and that is worth something too. It hasn't worked out that way for me, but I am a one time Toyota owner and had no experience at the time when they built thier reputation.
    If you just gotta have a Toyota, your mind is already made up. However, you can find a lot of good alternatives out there.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I've spent 6 hours wrenching with another TTORA member, and lifted the Taco some more. I'm now running OME 882s with a Downey 2.5" AAL. CVs didn't look all that bad after 882s, but we put a diff drop on it just for the heck of it. Riding high and looking good!
  • rlafaver, they are putting limited slips on Tacomas now? I thought they just offered a locker with the TRD?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    There have not been LSDs in Tacomas.....up to 2002, if anyone mentioned an LSD, it was a misprint. I highly doubt Toyota would change something this major in 2003.
    I'm going to the Takeover (annual TTORA event) up in Gilmer, TX, this weekend, so I'll have some pix.
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    I guess I eroneously call them all "limited slip", but you are right about the TRD, it is a LOCK. I think the driver has to push a button for that, and I think it disengages automatically at 10mph, or something like that.
    When I bought mine I looked at every available 2wd non-Pre in the area and could not find anything. LSD is pretty common on the S-10 V6 2wd, and it might be common on Pre-Runners, even here. I did not check on those because the only one I ever drove did some damage to my knee when I got in without considering the height of the bloody thing. No way would I give cash money for one.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    PERIOD. And the locker, once locked, is on for the duration.
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    I checked and you are right. LSD is not available on ANY Tacoma, just as one cannot buy a non-Pre 2wd automatic with a V6. How strange is that?
    God, I wish I had bought a Ranger, but we must rejoice in our blessings, and in my case that blessing is a great 4 cylinder engine.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Posts: 1,653
    Don't know if they make them any more, but I believe that the Tacoma S-Runner came with a limited slip.

    -james
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    They still make it, though I don't know if it is still called S-runner. It is a 2wd non-Pre with a V6 and manual 5 speed. It comes with 16" alloy wheels, but the specs don't show it having limited slip.
    It doesn't have the payload of the 4-cyl xtracab non-Pre, but control is probably pretty good with those low profile tires.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Posts: 1,653
    I imagine the reduced payload is due to the special (lowered) suspension. It also comes with F&R swaybars.

    -james
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    A lot of the problem is the tires. they are 235-55-16, which has a lower payload rating than the standard 205-75-15. I don't know why they use the 55 profile because a 235-60-16 is the same rolling circumference as the standard tires and has a higher payload rating. I have looked at getting some Borbet 16" rims, but if I do I will use the 60 profile tires.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Toyota just got 2nd best in vehicle dependability study (after Porsche) for 2003 by JD Powers.
    Ford was......I got tired of reading down the list :)
    They also scored Tacoma the best in compact pickup.

    F-150 got the best in fullsize, though, beating Tundra.
  • But scorp, at least the Ranger didn't receive the lowest rollover rating... :)
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    so they haven't tested it :)
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    They didn't ask me. I think that once you have complained to Boss Hogg Toyota they drop you from the surveys. Makes for a better score, I guess.
  • ebbgreatdaneebbgreatdane Posts: 278
    Anyone installed the RevTek lift for their Taco?

    What shocks did you go with?

    btw - after 2+ years it's nice to be back. Good thing I remembered my password.

    : /

    jp
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    just nice to see someone who knows how to spell "receive"- thats all.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Is that the spacer lift? If so, you can go with stock struts upfront, and put something like Rancho 5000 (which a lot of people find stiff), ES3000 (same thing as RS5K) or RS9K, which are adjustable. Really depends on your budget.
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    The other night I was watching a program on one of the educational channels and the new Ford F-150 was featured. I forgot how many improvements Ford made to the new design, but one of the improvements mentioned was the placement of the rear shock absorbers. They were moved towards the ends of the axle because Ford claims this arrangement is more effective than the old design with the shocks closer to the pumpkin.

    Check it out if you don't believe me. Just curious as to what your thoughts might be...

    Ouch!!!
  • Ford did a great job with the redesign. Looks like an awesome truck to me.

    unless you were trying to stir up old arguments where you were bashing the Ranger for shock mounts that hung below the axle. You called it a serious flaw, and the rest of us didn't care just like the door lock knobs that recessed into the door panel.

    Nice to have you back Pluto, but let's not traverse down the old beaten path. If you play nice with others, we may actually have this topic survive, otherwise you will have us shut down again.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    actually, the whole truck is like 4 inches wider. it makes better sense to do this now. what's your point? yeah i know tacoma has shocks outward. are you saying ford is engineering trucks now with a tacoma in one eye and a mouse in the other? ford could have built the new f150 with a mono-shock rear-end, and it would still end up being the world's best selling brand.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    it would still be the worlds best selling brand. But don't you find something wrong with that??? I sure do. You just disproved your "Ranger must be better cuz there are more sold theory." Don't get me wrong, the new F-150 might be my next vehicle, I love em. But you can bet your bottom dollar Im gonna hate having it just cuz its one of about 500000000000000000000. Not trying to stir something up, your last sentence just seemed a little questionable as far as bragging of Ford.??? You kinda made them sound alot like McDonalds and Sams Choice soft drinks.
  • As discussed before, how can anything be best because it is the best selling? That is reversing cause and effect. The correct order would be "Ford makes great trucks, thus they are the best selling."

    It'll always sound wrong or be confusing, if stated the other way around.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    is saying that Ford makes great trucks despite the fact that they *use a mono-shock setup*. That is saying NOTHING BUT "Fords are best selling, thus they make great trucks." That was my one and only point.

    Its all pointless now.

    I was just callin his bluff on what I assume to be a joke or mistaken finger motion. You guys have a good evening.
  • nra1871nra1871 Posts: 26
    Did I read correctly that the new F150 has no manual transmisssion option at all?
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    midnight_caballo:

    "you were bashing the Ranger for shock mounts that hung below the axle. You called it a serious flaw, and the rest of us didn't care"

    >>Anybody who four-wheels would certainly care. But you readily admit you don't off-road. Just because you don't, you shouldn't assume nobody else offroads either and wouldn't care.

    In other words, don't speak for others.

    Besides, we're not discussing shocks that hang below the axle. We're discussing the placement of the shock itself. Nice little diversion there...

    According to my theory, placing the shock absorbers closer to the axle ends (a la Toyota) was more effective than placing them towards the axle center (a la Ford). You vehemently disagreed. Now your beloved Ford has just made this improvement to their new F-150, saying this arrangement is more effective. How can you explain that?

    I simply brought this up because, being interested in automotive technology like myself, I thought you would find it interesting (especially since it directly relates to something we discussed in depth earlier).

    Plus, I just wanted to see if you could admit you were wrong. Nope....

    *tbundy*:

    "the whole truck is like 4 inches wider. it makes better sense to do this now. "

    >>Oh, so what you're saying is Ford has to add 4 inches to a full-size truck to accomplish what Toyota did with a compact truck?

    That's what I thought, too.
  • Let's get a hand count on those who care about shock placement on the F-150 and if I ever disagreed with Pluto. Who has the official scoreboard?

    Honestly I do not recall anything but you going on and on about the shock absorbers mounting points that hang below the axles. I don't recall my "vehement disagreement" with shocks placed further outwards from the differential. Maybe I did, but I did not come back after a several month haitus from edmunds to bring up old topics. Even so, who cares? I brought back this topic for all the regulars to join in a discussion about their trucks. Not to tally up points on old and pointless debates.

    Do you try to add something beneficial to this conversation, or are you just trying to proove something?
  • You're right. From what I have seen, no manual in the 2004 F-150. They do have 2 different 4 speed automatics, however.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I just hope Toyota doesn't wuss out and phase out manual transmissions from their trucks. They did it with the DoubleCab Taco, though.

    I always find it ironic when I see a parked hotrod, but when I look inside, I see auto tranny.
  • stevekstevek Posts: 362
  • stevekstevek Posts: 362
    I own a Ranger, however if you add the Chevy and GMC trucks together Ford may not have the claim of best selling trucks. GM reports them as a separate line, although they are not
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    Unless a person worships a particular manufacturer, I don't think it matters. The only one I care about is the one I own, and the only one that shapes my opinion is the one I own.
    Deals on Fords are far, far better than deals on Toyotas. There are a lot more Fords to choose from on the lots. Fords have a far wider range of options and colors available on "in-stock" vehicles. People generally buy from stock, so is there any wonder Ford sells more? (a lot more)
    As for which is better, I don't know. I own a Tacoma, and there are a few things about it I really don't like, but if it lasts as long as everyone claims I will be happy. It now sports Recaro seats because the human back isn't made correctly for a Toyota seat. On the other hand, it's a 4 banger and it runs like a scalded ape. It handles like a dream. On balance, I like it so far, but I don't recommend it to people who ask.
    I think the Ranger is probably a better deal for the money. But no matter which you chose, if you get a bad one you'll cry like a bambino.
  • tadaohtadaoh Posts: 2
    Good evening, I came to this board in search of information on the new Honda Truck that is supposed to be out soon. Anybody know of it? I am interested in picking up a small reliable truck, and I am very happy with my current Accord.

    Also, I've noticed some bickering and silly statements. What is up with this?

    "Anybody who four-wheels would certainly care. But you readily admit you don't off-road. Just because you don't, you shouldn't assume nobody else offroads either and wouldn't care."

    I don't believe any off roading Ranger owners have much problems with their rear shocks. Otherwise you would see them complain.

    "In other words, don't speak for others."

    One could say the same thing to you.

    "According to my theory, placing the shock absorbers closer to the axle ends (a la Toyota) was more effective"

    Your theory? What are you an engineer that came up with the whole idea?

    "I simply brought this up because, being interested in automotive technology like myself, I thought you would find it interesting (especially since it directly relates to something we discussed in depth earlier).

    Plus, I just wanted to see if you could admit you were wrong. Nope...."

    You realized you just contradicted yourself.

    "Oh, so what you're saying is Ford has to add 4 inches to a full-size truck to accomplish what Toyota did with a compact truck?

    That's what I thought, too."

    Please explain what you mean, I don't see your point or correlation between four inches and a Toyota. I think he just stated the new Ford truck is 4 inches wider, and then somehow it is because Ford is copying Toyota? I'm confused. You sound like a politician or goverment employee.

    "Unless a person worships a particular manufacturer, I don't think it matters. The only one I care about is the one I own, and the only one that shapes my opinion is the one I own."

    I find these words probably the truest ones yet spoken in these messages.

    "I always find it ironic when I see a parked hotrod, but when I look inside, I see auto tranny."

    What is wrong with that? Automatic transmission technology, (especially sports shift auto's) are getting better each year. There is less power loss in manual transmissions, but that is a small fraction. What I would like to see is a paddle shifter behind the wheel, F1 style.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    You are wanting a Honda (emphasis on the manufacturer) pickup and just jump right into this convo about two very capable trucks and start telling people how to act. If you want help, my advice is to not try to be such a mommy figure. You proved in some of your statements that you could use as much truck knowledge as you can get (excuse this blunt truth). No one minds helping you but come on, this stuff is not meant to be a political debate, we are all just having a little fun, lighten up a little. Ok, ok, lighten up ALOT.
  • tadaoh, if only you knew how close you are!

    Also, here are some links that may help you on your quest for information:
    http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/2005/honda/preview.html
    http://www.esquirehonda.com/pdfs/hondatruck.pdf
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    I had very bad luck with Honda cars, two of them, so I can't get exited about a Honda truck. But I'm sure it will be a good one. On the other hand, if you are looking for reliability, I think there are several engines around that can serve you well. The Toyota 4 cylinder engine is supposed to be bulletproof, and the way mine has performed so far I can't argue the point. It feels good. I got 230K miles out of a Chevy V6, and the engine was still running like new, but the rest of it was ready for the bone heap.
    As for a Honda, you might want to wait until you can sit in that bad boy and get a price quote before you get truck fever. Tacomas have been around for a while, so they have to get consideration. But both are Japanese designs, so both qualify you to be a genuine riceneck. The Chevy or Ford gets you in the redneck club, which is pretty much the same thing.
    What you might want to do is decide which way you wish to come down on the internet. I've noticed different styles from the Ford and Toyota guys in this string, so you can see which team you want to be on before you buy. Both teams have enforcers and both have finesse guys, but the attitude is totally different. I can't see how Honda and Toyota guys could have a lively conversation. I mean, what are they going to say?
  • plutoniousplutonious Posts: 799
    Why do you want a hand-count? The argument was between you and I, that's it. Just because you were proven wrong doesn't mean you can't learn something beneficial. We don't expect you to be infallible like the pope, you know.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Im a redneck that drives a Yota, your confusing people now -- be careful...

    LOL, just kiddin man. ;)
  • I just don't understand how you can bring up old business and count it as a victory. Actually the previous exchanges of words on any topic relating to shock absorbers are both convoluted and confusing. You can think you proved me wrong, but I just think it's all a bunch of misunderstandings and mostly miscommunication. Generally you don't understand what points I try to make, and they are often ignored or misconstrued. If you do respond, they are typically addressing the wrong issues (re: 90 degree v6's vibration, or me defending the choice of rear shock mounts and you enlarging the subject to angled vs. vertical shock placement, etc) You know this, and I see the games you play. Even if they are in jest, you know you are trying for some type of moral victory. So just consider yourself the victor by any count (like you need my input to consider this) and move on, please.
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    Check your neck, saddaddy. You might find some little rice plants in there.
    And midnight, what is that flag beside the pluto person's name? Just curious, but not enough to look it up.
  • If you're from a different country, it'll show that nation's flag there. Pluto is hispanic, and that is the flag of mexico.
  • h0udinih0udini Posts: 118
    absorber debate that happenened a long time ago? I seem to remember some bickering relating to the Tacoma's rear shock placement, as compared to the Ranger's. Of course, pluto favored the Tacoma's design with the shocks placed at the axle ends, while stang favored the Ranger's with its shocks placed towards the rear differential. I'm no enginner, but I am mechanically inclined, and I would think having the shock absorbers closest to the wheel would be the best arrangement. Distancing the shock from the wheel by placing it further away along the axle doesn't make much sense. Sounds like a packaging compromise to me. You have to admit, the redesigned F-150 seems to support pluto's "theory," whatever that was. I must have missed that one.

    I don't want to get in the middle of this between you guys, but I for one do not recall any mentioning of angled versus vertical shock placement or shocks hanging below axles. Maybe somebody is intentionally trying to confuse and convolute the issue to save face. And I don't see the relevance in pointing out one's race or occupation in these discussions, which has happened several times now.

    And tadoah, I find it odd somebody would register themselves in Town Hall and their very first (and only) post was written against pluto just to agree with stang's statements. Sounds like somebody is trying to confuse and convolute the issue with multiple identities, too.

    I personally like both Toyota and Ford trucks, though they both have their strong and weak points. If Ford is adapting some of the Toyota's strong points into their new design, what's wrong with that? I say quit arguing and be glad competing manufacturers are improving the trucks we buy.
  • This one covers it:
    midnight_stang "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Nov 28, 2001 8:18pm

    midnight_stang "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Dec 13, 2001 11:29am
    plutonious "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Nov 30, 2001 11:44pm
    midnight_stang "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Nov 30, 2001 9:46am

    and finally to quote pluto:
    "Basically, you guys are saying it doesn't matter that the shocks protrude below the rear axle because they're no lower than the bottom of the differential."
    plutonious "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Nov 30, 2001 12:00pm

    Yes Basically that was what I was saying, but who cares now. You and Houdini are on your own tangent. Reach your own conclusions, for what we said back then isn't what you bring up now.

    Also, you would think that strictly vertical shocks would be best, and they may well be. However, none of you are engineers. Period. You do not know if it was more important in that design to fight horizontal axle movement vs vertical movement. You cannot even begin to compute the weighted leverage at any multitude of tests a automotive designer may contemplate when deciding where and how to mount shock absorbers. GENERALLY speaking, you are probably right, that vertical shocks are better than angled ones. But you have NO CLUE how or why the ford engineers designed the Ranger (and Toyota the 4-runner) with such shocks.

    It's a F-150 design change (nothing to do with Rangers, Tacoma's, etc), and pluto brought it up solely to throw it into my face.

    Again. Let the subject rest, it's old, and tired, and quite frankly pointless.

    P.S. H0udini, welcome back to the forum (after your 5 month hiatus of zero posts). You seem to read everything here, but not claim to understand much, but yet you comment on it all. Now who is "trying to confuse and convolute".
  • Seems the whole topic has taken a different tone and attitude. If I would pick a date, I would say somewhere around June 30th. Anybody else notice this?
  • h0udinih0udini Posts: 118
    nothing do with any shock absorber debate, but like you say, who really cares?

    Maybe what's more important is the fact you continually have to mention the race and occupation of certain posters. What conclustions should be drawn regarding your character and credibility? I'd especially like to hear what you have to say about federal employees...but then again, that doesn't have anything to do with this topic, does it?
  • tadaohtadaoh Posts: 2
    Tim, I am sorry if I acted out of turn. I thought you guys were all about putting each other down. I did not want to be a mommy figure as you put it but I thought I made some good points. Oh Well it already appears to be a big political debate to me.

    Michael, thanks for the links, but I was hoping for something more concrete like interior plans or numbers on mile per gallon, and et cetera. I hope we can get something more concrete, as my interest is piqued.

    Roy, I am not too brand loyal that I would just buy a Honda truck if they made one. I just had heard that there was one in the works, and wanted to know all I could about it first. I just would like something cheap and reliable to put some miles on, and maybe put to use during the weekend chores (aka the Honey-do list). I would think it would be similar to the odyssey in more aspects than one. Those links above seem to indicate the same. I was also considering a non-full size truck as I don't need to tow anything. Just the occasional home depot trip, or pick up whatever the Mrs. thinks we need next. I am still open to suggestions and input but essentially I just want a cheap reliable and low maintenance vehicle. I hope to talk to you more in the future about this.

    Grant, Like I said to Tim, I am sorry if I stepped on your toes too. I didn't mean to butt in and this is second post so I'm trying! Can you elaborate more on the Toyota strong points that are now in Ford trucks? If this is the case, then Ford is looking better and better because I thought the Toyota was the more refined, although expensive of the two. Also I am not interested in the F-150, like I told Roy, just the ranger as I don't want the full size.
This discussion has been closed.