Guess I'm not to swift..eh. Thanks for explaining grade. I don't remember any one saying from the factory the Ranger is better than Toyota, not even Vince. Even though the Toy may be a better off-roader stock it still needs a lot of improvement depending on the terrain. Out here in the Nevada desert I would say both trucks would suck at high speed pre-running in their stock configurations. That fact is, and I've stated it before, is there are many aftermarket companies that cater to both trucks ie: Camburg, Fabtech, Auto Fab, Superlift, Rancho etc. In fact an off road mag within the last month replaced the Toys "wimpy" front suspension with a coil over set up. Their quote not mine. My point being that the Toyotas aren't the end all of off roading either. in fact I don't think Jeeps are all that hot in the type of offroading I do. While I don't really want to be as fanatical as Vince or Spoog(Which you're starting to become) I will guarantee you I could take the difference in price of the two trucks and create a desert runner Ranger that would destroy a Toyota. It's sort of funny how you guys love that front end so much when the purists were quite upset when Toy went from the solid front axle to the "car-like" independent front end. In fact it's a popular swap to put a solid axle underneath a late model Toy. It is enjoyable watching these posts but it seems the same things are being said over and over again. I guess that's why WWII was brought in to stir the pot.
mod: The "purist" on Ranger sites also do not like the independent front suspension on the new Ranger. They LIKE the twin I beam.
sigh...spoog: Well, I am not going to debate you with what I was trying to say. The weight distribution on the Tacoma is slightly more nose heavy than the Ranger. If the guy who was complaining about a perceived instability in a Ranger, the same problem would more than likely exist in a Tacoma, an S-10, an F-150. . . because trucks are front heavy. If you come down TOO FAST, even on a straight but, lets say for argument, 20% slope, you stand a greater chance of loosing control in a truck, compared to a shorter wheelbased, better weight distributed Jeep. I do not know the weight distribution on a Jeep, but do recall the values being 64/36 on the Ranger and 65/35 on the Tacoma. That means, spoog, 65% of you weight in the basic vehicle is on the front half. If you do not make provisions for that, the opportunity to flip is high.
The factor is not how high the vehicle is, per se, rather how is the weight distributed.
Soooo, regardless of what you say, locker or no locker, tuned suspension or not, you are not running where ever you want at what ever speed you want in your Tacoma. On the flats, maybe but surely not in the mountain.
If you DO approach mountain off-road driving like that, let me know where you go. I want to be mile away. . .
The thing about you that strike me is that when I did state an opinion that was not bashing in the past I could not help but you notice a remark that you made. Put it this way you have your coy way or roundabout way with your remarks. Fair game in my opinion and open likewise at the opposite end of the field. At times I have said nothing to malign the Ranger and yet I have been a label as bashing the Ranger. The new catch word of the day is, “gunslinger.” Suffice it to be it then I will satisfy those here now and in the future for label that Ranger owners have so pinned on me. So I am starting to sound like Spoog? Is that the first catch phrase for the day? Then I will take that as a compliment from you. Spoog says what is on his mind, and you do not. Apparently you may not sound like Vince, but you sure smell like him.
mod: I posted some pics of Moab, and would tend to agree that you need a seriously articulated vehicle for most of that area. In the pics they showed many vehicles, lots of Jeeps etc. I remember seeing one Tacoma, it was rather clean and was only shown in the town, not out wheelin. I do not recall seeing any Rangers but will have to look again.
Hmm a Tacoma or Ranger doing Moab bit 60+% of it's weight in the front.
Well I did check out that link about that skid plate. It is hilarious in my opinion that someone would hit a stump at 15 mph. It goes to show you that a lot does depend on the driver. The owner did recommend that he would recommend the truck to his friend. Did the Ranger owners in my link recommend the Ranger to their friends?
I THINK a guy on the Rough Rangers Off-Road Club was trying to arrange a trip to Moab. He lives in the area. I am 340 miles and 6.5 hours away according to Mapquest.
Gonna have to see if the can get that going.
Any Colorado Rangers, I am going to host an off-road day an/or weekend in the Pike National Forest come May as soon as the snow clears.
Also, one in the Sangre de Christo's if anyone is interested.
Let's take a look at 2wd trucks, the ones that only pretend to be 4wd.
Well, how about this? Which is better the better truck, a Trailhead Ranger 3.0L V6 5-speed or a Pre-runner Tacoma with the 2.7L I4 auto (they don't come with manual trannies?). Comparably equipped, their prices (at least invoice and msrp, not what is actually paid) are extremely close. The engines are similar in areas of hp & torque (well pretty close).
Didn't mean to strike a nerve. Believe it or not I like both trucks equally well. I am just stating my opinion that depending on what you do with a truck neither truck is all conquering. Lastly, and I'm going by memory, weren't there like two or three favorable posts in favor of the Ranger on that site you listed? I was just stating how quick you were to point out the negative while ignoring the positive. Every one knows that a whiner will cry and complain about something way more than some one who is happy.
I remember in my marketing class a few years back in college that on average:
A person who has a bad experience with a product will, on average, tell 10 people about it.
On the other hand, a person who has a good experience with a product will, on average, only tell 3 people about it.
Relevance, accuracy? Questionable. I do know that I tell everybody and their brother to steer clear of Sony, but I don't go around heaping praise on Pioneer or Kenwood. (If you can't tell, I've had bad experiences with Sony and good experiences with Pioneer & Kenwood)
Just my $0.02 Take it for whatever it's worth (probably not even that 2 cents)
How come I get the feeling that the majority of the people posting are from California (Tear'em up Trojans), I rarely see anything from Texas (Love them Longhorns) or Michigan (My Oh My its Meeecheeegan) or even Alabama (Roll Tide). Are Californians the only ones that care about their cars and trucks or are the rest of the states "frozen" with cold?
"I have mentioned a friend in the past who has a Jeep and is a severe offroader, visits MOAB every year, in an offroad group and so on.. He laughs at the Tacoma, and calls it a yuppie truck also!! LOL."
Look, here is that "Friend" person again...
"I figure a person who buys this option will probably use it about .3% of the time."
Can we see some math on this please or is this a just a made up number/opinion?
"We can go this round again. Most who buy this option buy it for the pretty sticker and will not take their 24K TRD's into places where a locker will actually be beneficial. Nice sticker, enjoy."
Vince the fool rides again! "Why does everybody say i'm anti-Tacoma? Re read the above why don't you? Log on to TAcoma Territory and you will see plenty of people with their "24k TRD's" off road. Why don't you do us a favor and save us from your posts until you have something to post that is not from a "Friend", or that has factual basis, or is not you moaning about how you get labeled for being anti Tacoma, when you make posts like your last one.
Looks like everybody could re think their grills for 2001, in my opinion.
Good to see ford offer the SOHC V6 in the Ranger. I hope they quieted it down a a bit. Mom has one in her Explorer Sport and it is loud, and it is quite thirsty as well. Pretty punchy though...
I'm not sure what Toyota going to do with it's XCab for 2001 but they should offer at least one suicide door on it for those who do not want to opt for the 4 door...
After lloking at all the photos i wonder how long it will be till they rename the new Ranger the "Explorer Sport Trac 2Door". I would hate to see the Ranger lose all of it's identity to the Explorer. I think it would best to position it as a mini f150, not ANOTHER Explorer clone...
According to them the Ranger "Edge" will be the only model to offer the new V6, and as an option only, and opting for this model gets you an auto 5spd tranny only. Looks like ford may be making a mistake with this one. All 4x4's should offer a man. I sent Toyota an email when i heard the new 4door was auto only as well...
hindsite: In the reviews "opinions" you posted here is the spread: STARS 5Stars:64, 4Stars:41, 3Stars:9, 2Stars:9, 1Star:4 PERCENT 5Stars:50, 4Stars:32, 3Stars:7, 2Stars:7, 1Star:3
Yes the guy that stated, I think, that he rolled his Ranger recommended it to a friend. Also rated it "Highly Recommended". "Stupid is as stupid does" Forest Gump
"Ranger has a new gas tank for 2001 giving it a 300-mile driving range."
Well, I have a 19.5 gal tank and get 20-21mpg on the highway. That is 390-409 mile range. I usually gas up at 350miles with about 2-3 gallons left.
Well if they offer the 4.0 SOHC with a manual and in 4X4 in 2001, guess I will take a look. . .
reddog: Most I think are not from Calif. Some have lived there at one time or another. I reside in Colorado.
No nerve was struck with your post or posts within the last few days. Actually, I found it refreshing to find someone fore right and honest about the two trucks in your last post. The core of your argument made in your last final post addressed to me, I am of the same belief as yours between the two trucks.
I reside in Oregon. WSN, I specifically remeber from past post someone who OWNS a Tacoma saying in the owners manual and on the door jam is says NOT to engage the locker above 5mph??? I have read this in other chat rooms also around the internet. I will head down to the Toyota dealer in the next few days and look myself. New Ranger looks good. I just hate those damn Firejunkers they put on them. Why can't they use BFG's or Goodyears? a real all terrain tire. Glad to here the 4.0 SOHC is on its way, love to see the 0-60 numbers on this baby for you Toyota owners who love to race trucks.
Well, it doesn't matter . You seem to forget you can still get the supercharger for the v6 from the dealer warrantied. IT will beat any Ford offering in the Ranger, PERIOD.
I knew when I invested in the charger it would pay off in the long run...and it has. I knew no other stock compact pickup could offer that much power stock.lol.
In the past most of the participants in this topic have talked about the virtues and deficiencies with their tires. Well, to clarify matters somewhat here is a link breaking down all the tires and rating each accordingly.
A favorite topic in the past has been recalls. Here is another link for Ranger recalls. I tried hard to find one for the Tacoma, but could find none under that heading.
Ah. . . So the Ranger has a lot of star power. So how many stars did the Tacoma get overall?
The Tacoma with the V6 has always gone way over the 300-mile range. Hmm . . . Guess I could outrun the Ranger if a Ranger fanatic chased me.
Short Takes If I were to consider the 4.0 vs. the 3.4 engines that is roughly 37.0 more cubic inches or .021 cubic feet more in the 4.0. If I were to make some broad assumptions and take 450 lbs. / ft. for cast iron multiply that by .021 cubic ft. it comes out to roughly 10 lbs. more. Ideally the Ranger would weigh more in the front.
Who said I posted in Epinions? I haven't. And I notice you don't post or link all the GOOD posts about the RAnger, why? Old news, its a 1998 article. And everyone knows the 4.0 V6 with its 160HP and 225ft/lbs of TORQUE is not the most HP in its class, Torque however is a different story. And the reviewer raves about its high quality interior and comfortable seating. Large tires they say? What? They obviously know nothing about trucks and tires. Ford puts some of the smallest tires on their trucks, we all know this already. A reason I upgraded. I still find somthing kind of funny. As much as all you Toyota fans put the Ranger down, sales are still going up. 13 years straight the Ranger has been the number one seller. And, I know I am going to here, sales don't mean the best. But doesn't the consumer make the choice? The power thing is going to be gone in the next year when the 4.0 SOHC V6 is available in the Ranger. At 210HP and 240ft/lbs of TORQUE, what will the Tacoma fans have to cry about then?? Boy hind, really racking them up. With a link like "fordtrucksuck" that wouldn't be bias or anything would it? And the six shooter goes off again! Any day now we should see the white flag come out from hind with a white dove offering peace. See you in the hills.
Did not really count them. Would assume there would be more for it, but do not forget that is a site that pays you when someone reads the comments that you post. One would hope that the comments listed are a persons fair assesment of thier experiences. However, 105 out of 123 give thier Ranger experience 4-5 stars which is excellent.
Hmmm Frodtruckssuck. Interesting name but I will not grace thier site with my positive comments. But I guess we DO see where spoog "suddenly" got material to comment on Hitler and a so called relationship with Henry F.
Spoog, did you read my post a while ago that I took from a Tacoma site speaking about how hard the supercharger is on engine life? Now do not get me wrong, the make it go fast. But given your reduced engine life, guess I will be motoring long after your engine frys. Plus in the same article, the author stated the price plus an install at over 3 grand.
How is the salt on the roads in Ill. now? Effect your sheet metal yet?
"At 210HP and 240ft/lbs of TORQUE, what will the Tacoma fans have to cry about then??"
LOL. Why, the Tacoma owners WON't be crying about anything, they will just head on over to the Toyota dealer and get a factory installed Supercharger offering 280HP and 300 ft/LBS of TORQUE.
Cspounser writes:
"Spoog, did you read my post a while ago that I took from a Tacoma site speaking about how hard the supercharger is on engine life? Now do not get me wrong, the make it go fast. But given your reduced engine life, guess I will be motoring long after your engine frys. "
Where are your numbers for this? Where is your proof? Take that HERESAY OUT OF HERE CSPOUNSER! Take it OUT OF HERE!
And if you think a Ford Ranger motor will outlast a Toyota Tacoma motor, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. You haven't been paying attention, have you?
"Plus in the same article, the author stated the price plus an install at over 3 grand. "
You can get a Tacoma v6 for 20k, paying 23k for a compact pickup with 280 HP and 300 ft/lbs of torque is far from extravagant or ridiculous.
As for the constant complaining about the 4wheeler comparison test, I dare you or Vince to find ANOTHER Comparison test that deals with the Ranger and Taco HEAD to HEAD. I have found TWO, the 4wheeler.com site, and Petersons offroad june 99.'
BOTH OF THOSE models in that test are IDENTICAL to the models in 2000. So, until the new models are released, I think everyone hear with a brain understands the 4wheelere comparions IS the "creme' de le creme" source or the ENTIRE current Tacoma vs Ranger debate. Good day.
Uh, don't you think that there might be just a little more to the front end of a truck than just the engine? Maybe things like the suspension, all of the various accessories, bumper, and even sheet metal too.
Granted, the Ranger's 4.0 probably weighs more than the Tacoma's 3.4, but you might be talking about maybe 20-25% of the weight over the front wheels.
Oh my god! That is CRAZY hindsite! What a fantastic link! WOW!
YOu know, I ALWAYS use to wonder why my old Toyota 22re 4x4 would go through this deep water, yet the F150's and Rangers would usually be stuck in it. I remember once passing by a large f150 that was stalled in the water. I went right through the puddle in my truck, splashing water up over the windows. I went slow, and grinned at the guy in the f150 who was sitting in his truck with the door open. The wake from my truck splashed up into his door, and I aplogized. I got through the crazy flood and hollered back to see if he needed a ride to a phone. I went back to through the flood, and he climbed from the bottom of his door to the top of what was my cap on my old toy. I gave him a ride to a phone.
Like I said 100 times before you posted this, the intake is WAY too low on the Ford trucks.
I like how that site also posted the photos of the other vehicles going through the puddle. lol. A car? geeze......
Folks, there is a REASON why Toyota and Jeep get such high offroad accolades. They put alot of hard work into their offroad design philosophies. They EARN their reputations.
ok this guys teenage kid drives through a puddle nice and safely.. Right.. kid hits puddle at 30 mph water shoots all over the truck. including intake. Truck wont start. Tell dad you were driving safely at the time. A little more likely. Just my take on it. I know if i was 17 that is how it would have happened.
Now that we all have seen pictures of stuck Tacoma 4x4s, here is a photo link for a stuck Ford Ranger. I wonder if he has a skid plate underneath his truck. Would a limited slip differential help here?
I can't believe how you guys go at it here. We're not saving the world, just talking about trucks for goodness sake! Anyway, the February 11th issue of USA Today had photos of the next generation (2001) small trucks from Ford, Toyota, Chevy, and Nissan. The Ranger was clearly the best looking, soon to resemble a small F-150, while the Toyota redesigned front end looked like an overgrown foo foo Rav4. The S-10 and Frontier look the same as they do now. Also, since the 2001 Explorer will have the 4.6l Triton V8 currently found in the F-150, the outstanding 4.0 SOHC with 210 hp will be available in the Ranger. Looks like any perceived advantage Toyota owners think they have because they spent so much more for their trucks will be gone with next release!
I used to drive my 22 re 4x4 Toyota pickup through puddles at 50 MPH when I was 17 years old. It doesn't matter. And whats with the Ford manual saying you should only go inot water as deep as your hubs? lol.
Well guess I will go back and find my post of the dead Toyota in the water with the blown engine. Think it was an older Toyota with a 22R engine.
What was the engine you said you had in your older toyota. Oh, never mind I found it. . .
"I used to drive my 22 re 4x4 Toyota pickup through puddles at 50 MPH when I was 17 years old. "
I MEASURED my intake so I know how high off the ground it is. Also, I have been trough water to the bumper in my 99, no problems. Just took it slowly. Would a Tacoma owner do the same and take a measurment? But REMEMBER, I have a 94 with 31 inch tires out front to measure myself to get a general idea.
We can read all we want about the persons poor luck with a ford, however, we do not know the entire situation and if the guy is trying to get a new engine, he may not be telling all the story.f
Would you like to see the picture of the stuck Toyota again?
Comments
" The Tacoma TRD handled the ruts and rough stuff better than any vehicle we have EVER driven.....PERIOD".
That is one heck of a ringing endorsement for the Tacomas offroad prowess. Absolutely amazing.
The "purist" on Ranger sites also do not like the independent front suspension on the new Ranger.
They LIKE the twin I beam.
sigh...spoog:
Well, I am not going to debate you with what I was trying to say. The weight distribution on the Tacoma is slightly more nose heavy than the Ranger. If the guy who was complaining about a perceived instability in a Ranger, the same problem would more than likely exist in a Tacoma, an S-10, an F-150. . . because trucks are front heavy. If you come down TOO FAST, even on a straight but, lets say for argument, 20% slope, you stand a greater chance of loosing control in a truck, compared to a shorter wheelbased, better weight distributed Jeep. I do not know the weight distribution on a Jeep, but do recall the values being 64/36 on the Ranger and 65/35 on the Tacoma. That means, spoog, 65% of you weight in the basic vehicle is on the front half. If you do not make provisions for that, the opportunity to flip is high.
The factor is not how high the vehicle is, per se, rather how is the weight distributed.
Soooo, regardless of what you say, locker or no locker, tuned suspension or not, you are not running where ever you want at what ever speed you want in your Tacoma. On the flats, maybe but surely not in the mountain.
If you DO approach mountain off-road driving like that, let me know where you go. I want to be mile away. . .
past I could not help but you notice a remark that you made. Put it this way you have your coy
way or roundabout way with your remarks. Fair game in my opinion and open likewise at the
opposite end of the field. At times I have said nothing to malign the Ranger and yet I have been a label as bashing the Ranger. The new catch word of the day is, “gunslinger.” Suffice it to be it then I will satisfy those here now and in the future for label that Ranger owners have so pinned on me. So I am starting to sound like Spoog? Is that the first catch phrase for the day? Then I will take that as a compliment from you. Spoog says what is on his mind, and you do not. Apparently you may not sound like Vince, but you sure smell like him.
I posted some pics of Moab, and would tend to agree that you need a seriously articulated vehicle for most of that area. In the pics they showed many vehicles, lots of Jeeps etc. I remember seeing one Tacoma, it was rather clean and was only shown in the town, not out wheelin. I do not recall seeing any Rangers but will have to look again.
Hmm a Tacoma or Ranger doing Moab bit 60+% of it's weight in the front.
Hmmm, up the insurance policy before you go. . .
would hit a stump at 15 mph. It goes to show you that a lot does depend on the driver. The owner
did recommend that he would recommend the truck to his friend. Did the Ranger owners in my
link recommend the Ranger to their friends?
Gonna have to see if the can get that going.
Any Colorado Rangers, I am going to host an off-road day an/or weekend in the Pike National Forest come May as soon as the snow clears.
Also, one in the Sangre de Christo's if anyone is interested.
Well, how about this? Which is better the better truck, a Trailhead Ranger 3.0L V6 5-speed or a Pre-runner Tacoma with the 2.7L I4 auto (they don't come with manual trannies?). Comparably equipped, their prices (at least invoice and msrp, not what is actually paid) are extremely close. The engines are similar in areas of hp & torque (well pretty close).
A person who has a bad experience with a product will, on average, tell 10 people about it.
On the other hand, a person who has a good experience with a product will, on average, only tell 3 people about it.
Relevance, accuracy? Questionable. I do know that I tell everybody and their brother to steer clear of Sony, but I don't go around heaping praise on Pioneer or Kenwood. (If you can't tell, I've had bad experiences with Sony and good experiences with Pioneer & Kenwood)
Just my $0.02
Take it for whatever it's worth (probably not even that 2 cents)
" http://www.epinions.com/auto-review-2A33-43FDBD-388DD5DE-bd3 "
"I have mentioned a friend in the past who has a
Jeep and is a severe offroader, visits MOAB every
year, in an offroad group and so on.. He laughs at
the Tacoma, and calls it a yuppie truck also!!
LOL."
Look, here is that "Friend" person again...
"I figure a person who buys this option will probably use it about .3% of
the time."
Can we see some math on this please or is this a just a made up number/opinion?
"We can go this round again. Most who buy this option buy it for the pretty sticker and will not take their 24K TRD's into places where a locker will actually be beneficial. Nice sticker, enjoy."
Vince the fool rides again! "Why does everybody say i'm anti-Tacoma? Re read the above why don't you? Log on to TAcoma Territory and you will see plenty of people with their "24k TRD's" off road. Why don't you do us a favor and save us from your posts until you have something to post that is not from a "Friend", or that has factual basis, or is not you moaning about how you get labeled for being anti Tacoma, when you make posts like your last one.
Engage brain before posting please.
-wsn
Good to see ford offer the SOHC V6 in the Ranger. I hope they quieted it down a a bit. Mom has one in her Explorer Sport and it is loud, and it is quite thirsty as well. Pretty punchy though...
I'm not sure what Toyota going to do with it's XCab for 2001 but they should offer at least one suicide door on it for those who do not want to opt for the 4 door...
-wsn
Just my Opinion
-wsn
My .02
-wsn
In the reviews "opinions" you posted here is the spread:
STARS
5Stars:64, 4Stars:41, 3Stars:9, 2Stars:9, 1Star:4
PERCENT
5Stars:50, 4Stars:32, 3Stars:7, 2Stars:7, 1Star:3
Yes the guy that stated, I think, that he rolled his Ranger recommended it to a friend. Also rated it "Highly Recommended".
"Stupid is as stupid does" Forest Gump
"Ranger has a new gas tank for 2001 giving it a 300-mile driving range."
Well, I have a 19.5 gal tank and get 20-21mpg on the highway. That is 390-409 mile range. I usually gas up at 350miles with about 2-3 gallons left.
Well if they offer the 4.0 SOHC with a manual and in 4X4 in 2001, guess I will take a look. . .
reddog:
Most I think are not from Calif. Some have lived there at one time or another. I reside in Colorado.
refreshing to find someone fore right and honest about the two trucks in your last post. The core
of your argument made in your last final post addressed to me, I am of the same belief as yours
between the two trucks.
WSN, I specifically remeber from past post someone who OWNS a Tacoma saying in the owners manual and on the door jam is says NOT to engage the locker above 5mph??? I have read this in other chat rooms also around the internet. I will head down to the Toyota dealer in the next few days and look myself.
New Ranger looks good. I just hate those damn Firejunkers they put on them. Why can't they use BFG's or Goodyears? a real all terrain tire. Glad to here the 4.0 SOHC is on its way, love to see the 0-60 numbers on this baby for you Toyota owners who love to race trucks.
I knew when I invested in the charger it would pay off in the long run...and it has. I knew no other stock compact pickup could offer that much power stock.lol.
You have got to be kidding me. I read your link about the stump, but it was so moronic. Which of those EPINIONS was VInce's?
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/surveyresults/orat.htm
http://ing.azcentral.com/depts/wheels/0221ranger.shtml
http://www.fordtruckssuck.com/recall7.htm
The Tacoma with the V6 has always gone way over the 300-mile range. Hmm . . . Guess I could outrun the Ranger if a Ranger fanatic chased me.
Short Takes
If I were to consider the 4.0 vs. the 3.4 engines that is roughly 37.0 more cubic inches or .021
cubic feet more in the 4.0. If I were to make some broad assumptions and take 450 lbs. / ft. for
cast iron multiply that by .021 cubic ft. it comes out to roughly 10 lbs. more. Ideally the Ranger would weigh more in the front.
Old news, its a 1998 article. And everyone knows the 4.0 V6 with its 160HP and 225ft/lbs of TORQUE is not the most HP in its class, Torque however is a different story. And the reviewer raves about its high quality interior and comfortable seating. Large tires they say? What? They obviously know nothing about trucks and tires. Ford puts some of the smallest tires on their trucks, we all know this already. A reason I upgraded.
I still find somthing kind of funny. As much as all you Toyota fans put the Ranger down, sales are still going up. 13 years straight the Ranger has been the number one seller. And, I know I am going to here, sales don't mean the best. But doesn't the consumer make the choice?
The power thing is going to be gone in the next year when the 4.0 SOHC V6 is available in the Ranger. At 210HP and 240ft/lbs of TORQUE, what will the Tacoma fans have to cry about then??
Boy hind, really racking them up. With a link like "fordtrucksuck" that wouldn't be bias or anything would it? And the six shooter goes off again! Any day now we should see the white flag come out from hind with a white dove offering peace.
See you in the hills.
Hmmm Frodtruckssuck. Interesting name but I will not grace thier site with my positive comments. But I guess we DO see where spoog "suddenly" got material to comment on Hitler and a so called relationship with Henry F.
Spoog, did you read my post a while ago that I took from a Tacoma site speaking about how hard the supercharger is on engine life? Now do not get me wrong, the make it go fast. But given your reduced engine life, guess I will be motoring long after your engine frys. Plus in the same article, the author stated the price plus an install at over 3 grand.
How is the salt on the roads in Ill. now? Effect your sheet metal yet?
"At 210HP and 240ft/lbs of TORQUE, what
will the Tacoma fans have to cry about then??"
LOL. Why, the Tacoma owners WON't be crying about anything, they will just head on over to the Toyota dealer and get a factory installed Supercharger offering 280HP and 300 ft/LBS of TORQUE.
Cspounser writes:
"Spoog, did you read my post a while ago that I
took from a Tacoma site speaking about how hard the
supercharger is on engine life? Now do not get me
wrong, the make it go fast. But given your reduced
engine life, guess I will be motoring long after
your engine frys. "
Where are your numbers for this? Where is your proof? Take that HERESAY OUT OF HERE CSPOUNSER! Take it OUT OF HERE!
And if you think a Ford Ranger motor will outlast a Toyota Tacoma motor, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. You haven't been paying attention, have you?
"Plus in the same article, the
author stated the price plus an install at over 3
grand. "
You can get a Tacoma v6 for 20k, paying 23k for a
compact pickup with 280 HP and 300 ft/lbs of torque is far from extravagant or ridiculous.
As for the constant complaining about the 4wheeler comparison test, I dare you or Vince to find ANOTHER Comparison test that deals with the Ranger and Taco HEAD to HEAD. I have found TWO, the 4wheeler.com site, and Petersons offroad june 99.'
BOTH OF THOSE models in that test are IDENTICAL to the models in 2000. So, until the new models are released, I think everyone hear with a brain understands the 4wheelere comparions IS the "creme' de le creme" source or the ENTIRE current Tacoma vs Ranger debate. Good day.
Granted, the Ranger's 4.0 probably weighs more than the Tacoma's 3.4, but you might be talking about maybe 20-25% of the weight over the front wheels.
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/9183/jokes.html
same problem or has Ford addressed the problem?
http://www.enter.net/~dhpctech/index2.html
http://www.tgrigsby.com/views/ford.htm
YOu know, I ALWAYS use to wonder why my old Toyota 22re 4x4 would go through this deep water, yet the F150's and Rangers would usually be stuck in it. I remember once passing by a large f150 that was stalled in the water. I went right through the puddle in my truck, splashing water up over the windows. I went slow, and grinned at the guy in the f150 who was sitting in his truck with the door open. The wake from my truck splashed up into his door, and I aplogized.
I got through the crazy flood and hollered back to see if he needed a ride to a phone. I went back to through the flood, and he climbed from the bottom of his door to the top of what was my cap on my old toy. I gave him a ride to a phone.
Like I said 100 times before you posted this, the intake is WAY too low on the Ford trucks.
I like how that site also posted the photos of the other vehicles going through the puddle. lol.
A car? geeze......
Folks, there is a REASON why Toyota and Jeep get such high offroad accolades. They put alot of hard work into their offroad design philosophies.
They EARN their reputations.
Just my take on it. I know if i was 17 that is how it would have happened.
http://www.truckworld.com/Stuck-Of-The- Month/98feb.jpg
truckworld.com/Stuck-Of-The-Month/98feb.jpg
http://www.flamingfords.com
http://www.intergate.ca/personal/djk/index.html
There are numerous defective links at the above site.
Great posts!
Anyway, the February 11th issue of USA Today had photos of the next generation (2001) small trucks from Ford, Toyota, Chevy, and Nissan. The Ranger was clearly the best looking, soon to resemble a small F-150, while the Toyota redesigned front end looked like an overgrown foo foo Rav4. The S-10 and Frontier look the same as they do now. Also, since the 2001 Explorer will have the 4.6l Triton V8 currently found in the F-150, the outstanding 4.0 SOHC with 210 hp will be available in the Ranger. Looks like any perceived advantage Toyota owners think they have because they spent so much more for their trucks will be gone with next release!
What was the engine you said you had in your older toyota. Oh, never mind I found it. . .
"I used to drive my 22 re 4x4 Toyota pickup through puddles at 50 MPH when I was 17 years old. "
I MEASURED my intake so I know how high off the ground it is. Also, I have been trough water to the bumper in my 99, no problems. Just took it slowly. Would a Tacoma owner do the same and take a measurment? But REMEMBER, I have a 94 with 31 inch tires out front to measure myself to get a general idea.
We can read all we want about the persons poor luck with a ford, however, we do not know the entire situation and if the guy is trying to get a new engine, he may not be telling all the story.f
Would you like to see the picture of the stuck Toyota again?
So, what is the intake height of a Tacoma?
http://members.aol.com/Cpousnr/stucktoy.jpg