By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Too bad it got recalled more than a 95 Ranger. . .
And you tell me your going to take your 29K+ leased 4-runner into places I have been with my Ranger? No way, unless you want to buy that 4-runner of course.
CP, looks like you have been burning the late night oil. Where did you pull all this information from? Sounds like the Toyota gang is laying low from that barrage.
Well, I had my first problem with my Ranger today while up on the West side of MT Hood. I hit a rather large rut a bit to fast and somehow cracked my mudguard@!, Damn. I guess this makes my Ranger a piece of junk now, unfit for offroading. LOL.
And spoog is doing a good job at ducking the request for pics of his so called TRD SC TAcoma. Its been about 7 days now and no response. I also noticed he stopped with the NHSTA stuff when CP nailed him with the avalache of data against the TAcoma!
See you in the hills.
Someone had mentioned proportionality in an earlier post. I suppose that you are referring to axioms of probabiltiy, probability distribution,or maybe hypergeometric distribution There are many variables involved and all things being equal there are acceptable failure rates. Toyota generally has had a lower failure rate.
About TTORA I am a member of a chapter. I have been at the meets and they do have guest unless it is a all Taco event. Realistically no one cares if it is a Ford or Jeep. They are there just to have fun and comradely.
What relevance does pictures have in this topic? It serves only to verify and to give the viewer an image.
Recalls are not all that bad. It shows a company is in tune to issues with their products. It might point to the methods of testing being a bit weak in certain areas however. I regard to some of the Ford TSB issues, I would think they should increase their review of sub-contractors and increase sample rates of subs products. I know for a fact that the intermittent wiper issue was caused by a flaky GEM module and Ford has since replaced the GEM module with a different kind, perhaps different supplier.
Though it has been savaged by some on this board, Consumer Reports asks in survey's for this kind of information. When my next survey comes I will check yes in the section that would cover wiper problems.
There is suppose to be a nice article in the March Foru Wheeler on a Ranger. Anyone seen it?
I work with an on -line Ranger off-road club, Rough Rangers, and when the club meets for a road trip, wherever in the USA, all types of vehicles are welcome.
Comraderly should have been camaraderie. Bed bugs do bite I guess.
Now for some other news regarding my Taco. I notice that the parking brake light sticks. I suppose there is ice or snow hung up on the cable.
I suppose when it warms up it will be back to normal.
I understand that your engine basically stops wearing when you change. On Rangerstation.com MANY people run synthetic with no reported problems. Reports of engines running in excess or 200K have been stated there. I WOULD keep with the manufacturers filters at least until the warrenty period is up.
It looks REAL thin when you put it in but it works real well. I have been TOLD that you can run it on 10K changes, some say 20K, as long as you change filters every 5K. I MIGHT do that after warrenty, but I do not know.
Look for sales and stock up.
Some disagree with me but I would wait until 10K for an engine breakin is complete.
Frequency in changing the oil & filter (every 3K like clockwork) is the key to engine longevity. If there was some "magical" type of oil that would go 25K miles between changings, manufacturers and everyone else on earth would use it.
Finally, most engine wear occurs on start up and the first few minutes an engine is being run. Whether mineral or synthetic, the oil is in the oil pan at that time, and it takes a minute or two for it to completely circulate through the engine.
However, I have heard that synthetics in the tranny and rear end help. But, the improvement experienced may possibly be duplicated by just changing the fluid.
thanx
Well, you could look at the junk yards for a 98 and up totaled truck. I think they are basically the same. But they may be rare.
Try posting off the boards http://www.homestead.com/therangerstation/index.htmlon
or one of it's sub boards. MAYBE someone has converted their's to a tube grill and you can get the old grill cheap. There is a classified section on that board. There is a guy trying to find a grill for an Explorer.
Or,
JC Whitney has a Ford only truck catalog and they have replacement grills but I THINK they are the tube type.
OR,
Go to a 4X place that stocks those type of grills, tubes, and see if they have an old grill or can refer you to someone who has had a custom grill replacement and still may have the old one.
If you change your own oil and drive 20k/year you'll spend around $80/year more for synthetics and a high end filter than the conventional stuff. Seems like a small price to pay for your investment.
Hey Toyotaman4, only need to hit post once.
And you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree. And with rhetoric like that you'll be kicked off Edmunds any time now.
The only thing I am aware of to get skunk out is Tomato juice. I guess you may have to just leave the Tundra outside in the Rain/snow for a while.
I have read all these postings so far...but am confused about what is needed to tow... I would like a 4 wheel drive.....?
What is the weight of what you want to tow? That may determine what vehicle to get.
That elk I talked about was on S. Santa Fe just south of Denver. I have never, even in Rocky Mt Nat. Park, seen an elk that big. Maybe 1100 lb and the rack stuck out of the back of an S-10 by maybe 2 or so feet, so the rack was 7-8 feet tip to tip. And the S10 bed was almost down on the springs. A friend of mine was trying to salvage it when the state took it.
I would have to point you towards the Dodge Dakota or Tundra (mid size trucks) with their V8's to tow any considerable amount. Just my opinion on safety.
I had mentioned in an earlier post a parent of a child on the YMCA basketball I coach bought an Explorer Sport Trac. I spoke with him a little more about it. I guess he ordered it and they are now available on the showroom floors of many Ford dealerships. Production was actually bumped up to the beginning of January sometime.
CP, I bet the "State representative" took it for himself, wanna bet? Noone in their right mind would let an Elk like that go to waste.
I have a motorhome....I want to tow a vehicle behind it.....I want that vehicle to be a small
truck....ranger or tacoma. What is a good choice??
I want to tow it straight on ( all wheels on the ground and turning)not on a car dolly. I think I have to have a manual transmission to do this. I also want to have the 4x4 ....after all I do live in Montana....any suggestions would be helpful.
Yes you would want the manual. Either would work for you, here are a few of the differences:
1. Ranger heavier by maybe 400 lb.
2. Tacoma has more hp engine.
3. Both perform very well off-road, reviews give Ranger a bit of an edge on road, it, Ranger has independent front suspension and torsion bars vs IFS and springs on Tacoma.
4. On the Ranger 4X, 4 wheel ABS standard, option on Tacoma.
5. Tacoma has an optional off-road pkg which includes a locking differential, without it it has an open rearend. Ranger has a limited slip differential with it's off-road pkg.
6. Tacoma is about $2-3,000 more expensive, in general.
7. Both have recieved good reviews from different sources. Consumer Reports (CR)list Ranger as a Best Buy, Four Wheeler likes the performance of the Tacoma.
8. CR says Ranger is more comfortable seating.
9. Tacoma extracab seats face forward, Rangers side to side.
10. General price range Tacoma $20K+, Ranger 18K+ for generally equal equipped.
11. Ranger 4.0 is desired engine, Tacoma 3.4 is desired engine.
12. Many people upgrade tires on Ranger to 31X10.5X15 ore 265X16 for extra height, Tacoma TRD has 31's standard.
Test drive them both and decide for yourself and see if you can take them 4 wheeling a bit.
Ranger got 5 stars in side impact govt crash testing, Tacoma got 1 star. You would walk away from a 30mph side impact crash in a ranger. One way or another you more than likely would be carried away in a Tacoma side impact crash.
I own a 99 Ranger XLT 4X4 with the 4.0L engine. Have 24,000 miles since last Jan. Love it.
This is a good site for Ranger information.
Can a Tacoma person provide info for Tacomas"
ALSO!!!!!!
How can I tell what differential my sons 94 Toy has? Any codes to cross over like on a Ranger?
For all you Toyota Fans
Watched a show on TV tonight called "Wild Things", on USA. One of those checking out animals in the jungle shows. Ask me what they were driving? Also later on a show the Animal Planet about "Vets in the Wild" helping animals again guess what was the ride of choice?
GIVE UP?
Answers:
A) Toyota club cab pickup/Tacoma, readly available outside the US for years.
Not alot of Rangers and Expeditions on the tube tonight....
My .02
-wsn
Ranger a bit of an edge on road, it, Ranger has
independent front suspension and torsion bars vs
IFS and springs on Tacoma."
Come on Cspounser...get real.
Have you not been paying attention to this entie thread? Seriously.....have you been paying attention? review AFTER review has claimed the superiority of Tacom offroad .s locker, TRD supsension, ect all make it EVERY MAGAZINEschoice for an offroading pickup. You have not been paying attention.
Im sorry people, but this is just plain lousy. This argument has been going on forever, simply because some folks refuse to admit the facts.
I think it's time some of us grew up and started accepting other peoples points when they have been solidly proven.
Tacoma's offroading SUPERIORITY has been proven again and again. Even your lovely Carpoint review admits this. Both vehicles DO NOT perform well off road, only ONE does, and that is the Tacoma.
As for on road superiority, PEtersons AND 4wheeler rated the tacoma better. In FACT, the tacoma beat the Ranger in EVERY SINGLE PERFORMANCE rated category, including braking, handling, accelration, ect.
www.4wheeler.com
pickup of the year 98(same models)
Ask a good representation of diferent owners and you'll get a good feel for the problems that are inherent in that brand and issues that seem to plague it.
For my opinion, I love my Toyota pickup and the only thing which bothered me about it was the radio died at about 120,000 mile. They need to make radios that last as long as the pickup.
Spoog, let me answer your question.
Consumer Reports, Edmunds and other reports CONSISTAINTLY have rated the ride of the Ranger a bit better, maybe because of the torsion bars, and that the off-road is basically the same, all things considered. Here you are again with your two year old article, riddled with errors regarding the Ranger, trying to cite it as the word of the 4 wheel God.
Tell you what, I have heard of and article in Four Wheeler March issue that has something in it regarding a Ranger. BTW, I TOLD you that an article in Four Wheeler was VERY FAVORABLE to the Mazda 4000, a Ranger clone and you ignored it.
So, for the record, I cite, Consumer Reports, Edmunds AND Four Wheeler magazine for their positive articles on Ranger, and you cite:
ONE!!!!!!!!!!
YOU spoog REFUSE to answer questions and admit that YOUR TACOMA has had MORE recalls than the Ranger. By YOUR definition, not mine, that makes it a worse vehicle.
Montana, test drive them both, pick which fits your budget and needs.
wsn:
Thats funny, the segment I saw on Animal Planet this Sunday, the one where they were shooting darts at Zebra to capture them, they where using F150 Fords. . .
I can SHOW you on my Ranger web site where my Ranger has been, the tops of 10,000 ft class 3-4 4 wheel drive trails in the Rockies. Spoog cannot/will not show you where his has been.
Notice I gave you some observations and comparisons, spoog launched a tiraid against me and one 2 year old article on a biased test rather than offer his observations.
Any Ranger person on this board can point out many of the incorrect statements on that article regarding the Ranger.
Cost wise the Ranger will cost you less option for option, insurance wise also. You will survive a crash in the Ranger also, when comparing to the Tacoma.
The 3.0 is a stronger engine when comparing base engines. The 3.0 has 152HP and 195ft/lbs of torque. Vs the 2.7 at 150HP and 177ft/lbs of torque. Granted they are close, but Torque counts in a truck, you need every bit you can get.
All I can say is test drive! Heck in todays paper they have 2000 Ranger XLT's 4x4's 3.0 5spds for 13,888! No way are you going to touch a Tacoma like optioned for anything less than 17K.
What I refer to Montana is the test that spoog talks about. It first described an off-road Ranger with a 4.10 ratio differential then presented statistics from a Ranger with a 3.73 ratio differential, not as good for off-road. Also, the Ranger used in their test was an automatic against a manual equipped TRD(TRD adds a locker rear-end, Billistine shock upgrades, stiffer off-road suspension and a few other goodied) optioned Tacoma. Tacoma excelled as compared to Ranger in all of the tests, however, it was not a very fair test.
Anyway, your best bet is to test drive both. Tacoma will accelerate a bit faster, Ranger should handle on streets/highways a bit better.
Ranger 4.0Liter engines get their max torque at a lower rpm, 2,700 vs Tacoma getting it's at 3,600 rpm, so you do not have to wind Ranger up as much for max power. But a Ranger will not beat Tacoma racing out of stoplights (spoogs favorite sport, by his own admission).
Thanks for the Tacoma site mvi.
Can anyone answer my question on the differential codes if they exist for Toyota and where I could find them?
From this website and other sites I now realize I
am a member of a very large "club" of people that
have been financial fleeced by Ford Motor Company
for transmission repairs. Has anyone received any
reimbursement, or partial payment from Ford, if so
please tell me the steps you took. I have a 1995
ford truck with just under 60,000 miles on it. It is
a 6 cylinder automatic. I paid $2,100 for a new
transmission on 12/1/99. It has been back into the
shop 4 times since 12/1/99 and one time they
charged be another $300 for a PCM (power control
module). I would like to pass along
to you the information I have collected from local
independent transmission shops. Apparently Ford has
many weak transmissions but the 6 cylinder ones
for many model years have the highest
frequency of problems because the transmission used
is a A4LD or the electronic version 4R44E. The
"LD" stands for light duty and it was originally
used and designed for use in 4 cylinder Mustangs
and Mercur cars. The transmission works okay for
its intended use but is a very poor choice for a
heavier vehicle. Too much work for it
and it wears out. Too much torque. These were the
comments I heard over and over again by non-ford
mechanics. The mechanics I spoke too said it is
very common for these transmission to get less than
60,000. Doesn't the consumer have the right to
expect a reasonable and customary life span from a
MAJOR and very costly component? I guess Ford
doesn't think so. The poor choice of using 4
cylinder designed light duty transmissions in
6 cylender models have provided built-in income streams in
the Ford service departments. I've gotten to know
the checkout cashier at my dealership and she told
me they replace these transmission "all the
time". "
Interesting...anyone know about transmissions?
The Ranger is an old truck on an old platform built in old factories. If any of you have ever been to the Elizabeth Assembly plant (NJ) that builds some of these Rangers, you'd be surprised any of them ran. It's a junkpile of a factory that Ford is trying to mothball.
The Tacoma is built in a modern plant, using modern build techonology, and a modern platform. It is meticulously assembled when compared to the Rangers (especially in Elizabeth), which is part of the reliablity debate again...so....
The Ranger and Tacoma should be compared when Ford debutes the new Ranger in 2002 (I think), with new engines and, I believe, a revised platform. Untill that time, it's hard to compare what is a rehashed mid-80s design with a more modern blueprint. The Tacoma has better engines (read more civil, more environmentally friendly, similarly powerful) now, but when the new Ford inlines come out, Toyota may be set on its heels. Inline technology is much smoother, and sometimes more powerful than V-x technology, which is a main reason that BMW uses I-6s as their 3-series engines.
Thanks for reading...
Drew
CONSISTAINTLY have rated the ride of the Ranger a
bit better, '"
It's too bad 4 wheeler and Petersons offroad don't think so.
"maybe because of the torsion bars, and
that the off-road is basically the same, all things
considered. "
Offroading is the same? what????? Have you EVEN been paying attention these past 3000 posts?
What is going on with you? Not only is the offroading not the same, but Toyota simply offers INCREDIBLEfeatures that Ford just doesn't.
If you think the offroading is the same, you are really in denial:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/ptoty.html
"Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.
Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running.
As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.
It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.
Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year. "
Hmmmm....a OFFROAD magazine with a VERY COMPREHENSIVE test.........choosing the Tacoma UNANIMOUSLY!!! UNAMNIMOUSLY!!!! Wooohoooooo!
LEts not also forget the MAzda b400 was ALSO in that test, and was ECLIPSED by the Tacoma.
"Tell you what, I have heard of and article in Four
Wheeler March issue that has something in it
regarding a Ranger. BTW, I TOLD you that an article
in Four Wheeler was VERY FAVORABLE to the Mazda
4000, a Ranger clone and you ignored it."
I didn't ignore it. It was in the head to head review with the Ranger and Tacoma. f course, it STILL finished FAR behind the Tacoma, but at least the Mazda beat the Ranger. You messed up again Cspounser. The Mazda you are speaking of IS IN my 4wheelr comparison test:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/
But of course, it didnt get one vote, because the Tacoma was A unanimous decision. See, what that means is that the many testers at 4wheeler felt the tAcoma was SO goo offroad and on, that the other trucks, Ranger and Mazda, didn't even DESERVE ON VOTE.
Also, please note this quote from 4wheeler :
" The tacoma beat the Ranger in mazda in every single performance related category, including braking, handling, acceleration, ect."
OH, and Cspounser....it would be nice if you could find an actual head to head comparison test for the Ranger and Tacoma. THESE kinds of tests are the REAL way to see which is better. Sure, the single reviews of Tacomas and Rangers are nice, nbut the HEAD TO HEAD reviews are PRICELESS to this discussion. They are so much more inforamtive and telling in the "ranger vs tacoma" debate.
I have provided TWO head to head source, 4wheeler.com and Petersons June offroad print mag that ALOS chose the Tacoma over the Ranger.
I suggest everyone check out that pickup of the year stats and photos and info. It is so very telling.
This is just like the time Ford was using escort and taurus brakes for their Rangers , f150's , and vans!!!!!
I'll give you a little magazine tidbit about performance numbers too. Last year C&D did a little article about the best handling car in America. It had a Vette, Viper, Ferarri, Porsche 911, Acura NSX, BMW M3, and a couple more near exotics which I can't remember. Guess which one was chosen as the best handling car. Yup, it was the BMW M3 (a sedan version no less, 4 doors and 240hp), and it didn't win a single performance category... Hmmm, go figure... According to your logic the Viper should have won because it put up the highest skid-pad numbers and 0-60 times. Yeah right.
Regardless of where it was built, I am actually very impressed with its quality. The only rattle is from the sliding rear window latch, should I have the music turned up too loud. Beyond that, good quality build materials and a nice tight finish. Oh yeah, the 4.0 engine is a little noisy, but that has been the case since they've first been produced. The 5-speed auto tranny and 4wd have also worked flawlessly over the last 2 years.
I have heard that the GM I6's should be out pretty soon. The I6 and V12 are the only 2 naturally balanced (super smooth) production engines. V6's have 1st and 2nd order imbalances. Propulsion technology should be rather interesting over the next few years. I'm predicting hydrogen internal combustion engines electrically supercharged with a separate hydrogen fuel cell producing the power to operate the rest of the car's gadgets (A/C, heat, PS, PB, PW, PDL, etc...). Oh, don't forget about regenerative braking. You'll get the performance of today's engines with great hydrogen mileage and only an emission of water. By the way, this would be liquid hydrogen in cryogenic tanks. BMW has already implemented this new technology on some of their fleet vehicles.
This is the website on the Ranger Station. You will notice that for the automatic transmissions, the A4LD was in the 1983 to 1994 Ranger/Mazda. In those years, this class of truck was a very light duty truck, as was the Toyota (I owned a 1981 Toy P/U and speak from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE) and Mazda, Nissan, Chevy/GMC (S-10 class) all were light duty. Into the 90's the vehicles got more popular and used for more types of driving. Yes, perhaps Ford was a bit late in changing, however, the
FACT
is, the transmission in the current Ranger/Mazda IS NOT the one to which you refer.
Can you tell me what transmission was in the 1983-94 Toyota pickup? Was it used in other cars too?
The 1997 Ranger introduced a brand new (you DID see the words "brand new", did you not?) design for a 5 speed automatic, the 5R55E.
While your input is appreciated, however, balance the posts. Start by answering the question:
When did Toyota LAST develop a transmission for a vehicle that was not used in another vehicle? Did the Tacoma share the transmission from the older pre-95 small p/u? Remember, my son has a 94 and it will be real easy for me to check.
Lastly, when will Toyota OFFER, let alone equip a Tacoma with a 5 speed automatic? I ask because the BEST I see here:
http://www.edmunds.com/newtrucks/2000/toyota/tacoma/basev64wdxtracab.html
is a 4 speed automatic.
Whats the matter, Toyota cannot keep up with modern technology like Ford's 5 speed automatic?
Oh, 5 speeds to match the 5 star side impact crash testing I guess. . .
What I would SUGGEST you do redd doggie is go back and research your facts a BIT more and do us the favor of at LEAST backing up your comments with a URL.
My Ranger was made in the Twin Cities plant in Minn. I will research that plant and get back to you.
In regard to the Tacoma plant, it is in Fremont California and is an old Chevy plant. Well, since you know so much, tell me how old is the Fremont Tacoma plant and what was made there before Tacoma?
Before you answer, understand I personally know 3 people who work there as my wife is from Fremont and I was stationed at Moffet Field accross the bay. I use to race a 1969 Dodge 383cid 365hp car at Fremont Drag Strip.
So take your best shot, and try and answer the questions, ok?
http://www.ford-truck.com/news/news71.html
This article above, dated 12 Jan 2000 tells of the plans for Ford to offer "rollover sensors" on it's SUV's:
"During the 2001 model year, Ford will offer optional new rollover sensors and inflatable side curtains on its SUVs. This breakthrough is made possible by the latest inflatable curtain technologies as well as advanced sensors that measure the amount of horizontal vehicle "roll" or tilt. The roll information is processed by a central control module that can trigger necessary rollover curtain bags in a fraction of a second - as quickly as 130 milliseconds.
The side curtain air bags will deploy through the SUV's headliner trim, helping to protect passengers in both the front- and second-row seats."
"The curtain air bags are designed to remain inflated for up to six seconds - approximately the time it takes an average vehicle to roll over a few times. The new air bags will have fixed attachment points at the front and rear ends of the curtain to help prevent occupants from being thrown out of the vehicle during rollovers.
The new inflatable curtain system also will help reduce the risk of head injuries for SUV occupants involved in side impacts."
Soooo this will be offered in Toyota when?
Oh, I see, it is not even in the concept for Toyota yet.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/ranger6181/page3
bought a 2000 tacoma extracab v6 4x4 with every option they could put on it. So far so good, I really like it. I think its awesome looking and a blast to drive. Plenty of power for my needs right now. I do not plan on taking it straight up hills or anything like that...but,It sure looks good going down the road !! I guess I am the "typical" girl....looks are more important than all the technical stuff you guys talk about...I don't understand it anyway.
Enjoy, there is a lot to see in the hills.
Where did you get those photos? www.Redneck.com?
lol. look at those goons driving those rigs.
hahahah those pictures are a joke. They don't show the Ranger going through the same whole the Toyota did. In fact, they show the Ranger in totally EASY situations, not even covering a third of the wheels. If you look at the picture, the Toyota is almost covered up to its back tire.
The mud all around it is very watery, like a puddle. In the Ranger pick, there is barely an water splashing up at all. If this Ranger was going through the whole the Toyota did, it was CERTAINLY not on the same day or in the same conditions. Either the Ranger was stuck in that photo, or it was going through the same hole but not an as watery hole.. If that hole was as watery as when the Toyota was in it, the Ranger would SURELY be kicking up some high water if it were moving at all. NIce try. This is just more propoganda from the "good ole boyz club".
lol. What a hilarious redneck site.