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



  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    A V6 XtraCab Tundra weights more than 4K lbs...of course you spanked it. And I do pass people like that, I really don't like getting stuck behind grandma-on-her-way-to-Sunday-church drivers :)
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    yahoo has the taco xtra cab at 3540 lbs. ranger at 4002lbs. hmmmmm.
  • footpoundsfootpounds Posts: 22
    I really don't want to inject myself into this little arguement BUT you are quoting a TACOMA weight, tbunder1 while the original post was discussing a TUNDRA.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Uh uh, so according to Yahoo, Tacomas ARE made of tin, while Rangers are made of real steel! Hehe, how's life, tbundy?

    Btw, the # quoted for Taco is accurate. It's the Ford they are misquoting.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i know what is being discussed here. but basically, a tundra is REALLY just a tacoma with a bigger body. it uses all tacoma underpinnings. this is why it is not considered a 'full-size' truck by real truck people.

    scorp- doing fine here. jeep's holding up well with no problems. how do you know yahoo is wrong? i knew that the weight of the ranger was more than the tacoma months ago, but no one would believe me. all that stuff i said about thin metal and larger frame and axles is true about ranger. that adds up to more weight. you should be happy your truck is light. that way that puny 3.4 doesn't have to work as hard since it is down on torque.
  • footpoundsfootpounds Posts: 22
    Arnold Schwarzenegger is REALLY just Danny Devito with a bigger body. This is all starting to fall into place for me now!
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    We know where that's going.
    Actually, I could not even find Ranger curb weight on't that nice. They list things like legroom and cupholder size (j/k), but not curb weight of the vehicle.
    No problems with Taco here. Going on 27K miles now, about to put 3" of lift on it.
  • dchinndchinn Posts: 64
    How does your Ranger handle? For a 4x2 that sits up like a 4x4, are you gentle on your turns? Does the rear want to give out & slide around? I'm having problem w/ my cornering or when my tire contacts a slick lane marker when my Ranger wants to snake on me.
  • stevekstevek Posts: 362
    weigh around @2850 lbs (accoding to the registration)
  • That will be nice if I average 6-7,000 miles a year, but sadly I am building a home that will be finished Dec/Jan and is about 30 minutes farther away from my work. Fine by me, I was getting tired of doing oil changes by the 3 month interval instead of the 3,000 mile.
    My truck handles very well on turns. I typically make right hand turns at 20mph or lower, and that places me in the middle of 2nd gear nicely. The only problems I have with traction is when it's wet out. The rear end is so light, I have to start out real easy. I have a manual, so it's realy easy to break them loose if I want to.
    Edmunds also says my curb weight should be 3085. I'm 200 pounds, and about another 50 pounds in audio and other random items.
    Still if the Tundra driver didn't drive like an butt, have the sticker "UNF*NLVBL" on his backside, I might have ignored him.

    I put the asterick in so PF_Flyer wouldn't freak.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    that may be true, but someone is welcome to try and find even one case of a Tundras *underpinnings* (admittedly borrowed from the Tacos) failing. That will tell you how overbuilt the drivetrain of the Tacoma is.

    Since everyone is here Ill give an update. My tacoma is proving to be WAY too dang small. It has just gotten the dash rattle which is easy to stop and more than acceptable after 30k miles. And that is my only beef. The engine runs unbelievably good - and I don't even think the tranny is broken in good yet. Still, I am counting down the days that I can buy a bigger truck -- and I will never look at another truck or SUV that has the word "compact" anywhere near the title, unless Im rich enough to buy one to leave at the deer camp.

    I mean I have an ext cab but still needed room -- so I got a toolbox. Now the bed isn't big enough for jack. The thing runs like a scalded ape and is so much fun to drive because its soo nimble compared to fulls sizers. Dilemmas. Oh and since we are talking about racin -- I ate up a new Ram single cab that had v8 badging from a stop to about 80 mph when we both slowed down.
  • I hear you saddaddy, everytime the girlfriend gets into my truck all I hear is "I should have gotten a extended cab". I personally am fine with the regular cab, even if the subwoofer box makes things a little tight. But one thing I don't understand, and it may just be me personally, is why not keep the vehicles for as long as you can. Once I get my Ranger paid off, I hope to pick up either a motor cycle or maybe some type of 'project car' to restore/build up. I know you guys are all about having a high resell value on your vehicle, but I am all about not having a truck payment and being able to have cheap, reliable transportation for many years to come.

    Anyways I am finally moving out of an apartment and into a brand new house being built. Should be moved in next January.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Houses are where its at anyways. No lack of room there!!!
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    giving a Tacoma the worst rollover rating in the batch of vehicles it tested!?!? I'm sure Tacoma did better than all the sedans and few "low to the ground" SUVs they have tested.

    Now, without sarcasm, what exactly is NHTSA smoking?
    Testing 1 pickup with a bunch of cars, and of course it makes headlines b/c "Toyota Tacoma got the worst rollover rating".
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    I'm not so sure bigger will be more satisfying. I know the big extra cab trucks are roomy, like the Silverado, but they have drawbacks. Although they sit up nice, they don't handle well in traffic. And they can be a b*tch to park. Then there is the matter of sky-high gas (Tundra owners, don't cry).
    A Tacoma xtracab with a L4 beats them hands down in the city, and mine rides decent on the highway too, although I had to scrap the factory seats to make it that way.
    I have a snap on cover on the bed, so I can throw stuff in there when I need to and I can pop it off for hauling plants and things when I need to. And when I build up too much stuff in the cab, I throw something away.
    Still, I understand where you are coming from, and the big boys really don't cost much more.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I know scorpio, I was gonna post that but you beat me to it. Kinda unfair when they take one truck -- let it be a high riding, compact, with close to the best ground clearance in its class -- and put it against cars and crossover SUVS. Then on top of that, they post all over the internet and news channels on TV just this phrase, "Toyota Tacoma gets worst rollover rating in NHTSA test." How gay is that!

    Oh well, I couldn't care less, cuz anyone with any sense would realize what I biased test it was. I mean I didn't even see any vehicles with a rollover rating of less than 4 and the Taco got a big fat 2. Hehe, kinda funny to me.

    And rlafaver -- yup, you just about summed up the whole dilemma in one paragraph. I agree totally -- it just comes down to what is more important, and after owning a full size for awhile, I might very well be singing a different tune.
  • Last I checked the 4x4 Rangers had a 2 star roll over rating too. But hey, that doesn't matter since the "Tacoma got the worst rating in the test" hehe.

    I could be in marketing.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Must have been a slow news day here in TX (who cares about a hurricane)....of course, they had the "New NHTSA ratings are out" newstory and guess what was the first bullet item?
    Toyota might just want to send an angry letter, b/c this certainly doesn't help. How many people are going to go to NHTSA site and actually LOOK through the entire list to find out "Oh...are there any other pickups tested?" I'm sure there's some kind of legal case here.
  • rlafaverrlafaver Posts: 70
    The NHTSA results discussed here are for the fourth group tested for 2003 and was for the Tacoma 4x4, not the 4x2 non-Pre. In earlier test groups the Ranger and Mazda 4x4's got the same rating of 2. The Frontier and S10 4x4's got a rating of 3. But surprise, the Ford F150 4x4 got a 2. These vehicles boast ground clearance and are not made for high-speed turns, so there's probably no reason to feel slighted. For instance, the S-10 4x4 has less ground clearance than a Tacoma 4x4, so the S-10 is probably better handling in turns, and the Tacoma is better to jump stumps. I guess it's just a matter of what you want from the truck.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    if they had tested a S-10 ZR2 with ground clearance similar to that of the Ranger/Tacoma it would have gotten a 2 as well, if not worse. Same with the Frontier -- its really short.
  • 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.
This discussion has been closed.