Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Ford Ranger AND Toyota Tacoma AND others
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
I'm going to the Takeover (annual TTORA event) up in Gilmer, TX, this weekend, so I'll have some pix.
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.
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.
-james
It doesn't have the payload of the 4-cyl xtracab non-Pre, but control is probably pretty good with those low profile tires.
-james
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.
What shocks did you go with?
btw - after 2+ years it's nice to be back. Good thing I remembered my password.
: /
jp
Check it out if you don't believe me. Just curious as to what your thoughts might be...
Ouch!!!
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.
It'll always sound wrong or be confusing, if stated the other way around.
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.
"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.
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?
I always find it ironic when I see a parked hotrod, but when I look inside, I see auto tranny.
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.
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.
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
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?
LOL, just kiddin man.
And midnight, what is that flag beside the pluto person's name? Just curious, but not enough to look it up.
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.
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".
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?
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.