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
http://www.thecomplaintstation.com/f/_ford/000000cf.htm
Campaign #: 98V188000
Year: 1998 Make: TOYOTA TRUCK Model: TACOMA
Potential Number of Units Affected: 84323
Component: FUEL:THROTTLE LINKAGES AND CONTROL
Year: 1996 Make: TOYOTA TRUCK Model: TACOMA
Potential Number of Units Affected: 5145
Summary: THESE CRUISE CONTROL SYSTEMS FAIL TO HOLD THE SPEED SET BY THE DRIVER AND CAN ACCELERATE ABOVE THE INTENDED SET SPEED. UNINTENDED ACCELERATION CAN INCREASE THE POTENTIAL FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.
Component: SUSPENSION:INDEPENDENT FRONT
Year: 1996 Make: TOYOTA TRUCK Model: TACOMA
Potential Number of Units Affected: 90000
Summary: UNDER CERTAIN DRIVING CONDITIONS, THE FRONT SUSPENSION SUPPORT CAN CRACK LEADING TO FAILURE OF THE SUPPORT. THIS CONDITION CAN RESULT IN LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.
Component: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:BATTERY
Year: 1995 Make: TOYOTA TRUCK Model: TACOMA
Potential Number of Units Affected: 9882
Summary: THE BATTERY CAN HAVE A DEFECTIVE WELD INSIDE THE POSITIVE AND/OR NEGATIVE TERMINAL ALLOWING THE CONNECTION INSIDE THE TERMINAL TO SEPARATE. THIS CONDITION CAN RESULT IN A NO-START CONDITION, OR A BATTERY EXPLOSION.
Component: SUSPENSION:INDEPENDENT FRONT
Year: 1995 Make: TOYOTA TRUCK Model: TACOMA
Potential Number of Units Affected: 90000
Manufactured From: To:
Year of Recall: '96
Type of Report: Vehicle
Summary: UNDER CERTAIN DRIVING CONDITIONS, THE FRONT SUSPENSION SUPPORT CAN CRACK LEADING TO FAILURE OF THE SUPPORT. THIS CONDITION CAN RESULT IN LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.
That is 279,350 Toytoa recalls.
For such things as serious a cracking frames, exploding batteries, fuel linkages that can stick and passive restraint systems that do not work right.
Spoog, I will take an incorrect sticker that tells me I cannot mount a 16 inch tire on a 15 inch rim anytime.
this place is getting a lil hostil these days lets remember this isnt personel and lets keep in civil.
AND PLEASE NO MORE POSTS OF 1000 lines... they make my eyes hurt and i dont care if there is a new manual for fixing the ranger heating system. please just post stuff that makes a difference.
Hey Cspounser....I posted aroudn 400 TSB's fro mthe Ranger 97-99. Are you telling me your few little nitpicks make up the entire lists? Nice one C, you are grasping for straws yet again.
Time to hang it up. Your in over your head.
As for the Daytona 500, I don't watch that redneck BS.
Scottsss---- Im sorry if you don't like the facts. The Rangers freakish amountof TSB's are alarming.
Ranger owners just makes me laugh. All ticked off that they got the "value" truck instead of the performance machine. Shall we hear some more from the transmission expert?
Second link I will have to assume that is a real problem.
Third link is nothing about the Tacoma.
Come on you can do better than that. Only 1 minor hit and two big misses. I guess the bending of the frames has no correlation to the Ranger, and likewise your two links are meaningless.
1000 lines!!! Gee that is Cpousnr and Spoog.
Hostile? This is hostile? Why we are being friendly here. Darn . . . I am here to give facts and links.
ratings
Dodge Dakota Very Good
Ford Ranger Very Good
Mazda b4000 Very good
Chevy s-10 Good
GMC sonoma Good
Toyota Tacoma Fair
just to show it UNBIASED oppinion the Tundra got an execelent rating and was a best buy along with the F-150.
Hind: Good photos of your truck.
Vince: I'll try to make this as clear as possible, listen carefully!
I DID NOT DISREGARD YOUR CRASH TEST POST. I ASKED YOU TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS A 4X2 TACOMA OR A 4X4. HAVE YOU DONE THIS? NO YOU HAVE NOT! SO UNTIL THEN WE ARE MIXING APPLES AND ORANGES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL DO!
Also the coffin stament was a jerky thing to post. You deseved it and deep down inside if you have some sort of soul you know you did. I will refrain from refering to you as a jerk, when you refrain from stooping to that level.
So run along and answer my 4x2 or 4x4 crash question. I await your reply
Tires: Besides CP does anybody else run the BFG AT ko's or the Michelin LTX AT's? The Firestones on my tacoma are awful and i want to dump them soon.
Thanks
-wsn
First, there are about 350,000 Rangers made a year in all configurations. Of that for the sake of argument, lets say 65% are the V6 engines, 3.0 and 4.0 which is 210,000 vehicles. Of the V6, the 4.0 is favored about 2 to 1 leaving about 70,000 Ranger V6 3.0 engines recalled for the FUEL:THROTTLE LINKAGES AND CONTROL
Campaign #: 99S09 as the recall was ONLY for the 3.0 engine:
So you have 140,000 Rangers recalled for that campaign, plus 11,500 Rangers recalled for the : EQUIPMENT:CERTIFICATION LABEL
Campaign #: 98S02, which was really a non-issue (remember, that was the label no 16 inch tires on 15 inch rims) for a total now of 151,500 vehicles. Add the 600 Electric Rangers recalled and you get what, 152,100 Rangers recalled, correct?
In the same time period there were 279,500 TACOMAS recalled, almost double the number of Rangers and Tacoma produces about one half the number of vehicles as Ranger.
152,100 verses 279,500.
Which vehicle has a WORSE record for recalls?
Toyota Tacoma.
Why are more recalled for defects than Ranger.
Superior steel?
Do the math spooge
as far as the airbag if i was in a not so bad front end colision i would be glad to be hit by a slower deploying airbag then one that only came out at full speed. And your right the airbag deactivation switch is stupid to be discussing. I just kinda like where the ranger has its switch. out of the way not in the middle of the dash, especially considering i have never used it. If i had a child i would but i dont so it is a non issue , so it makes me wonder why i am talking about it LOL.
BEST BUY------------------> RANGER or mazda b4000
ratings
Dodge Dakota Very Good
Ford Ranger Very Good
Mazda b4000 Very good
Chevy s-10 Good
GMC sonoma Good
Toyota Tacoma Fair
just to show it is an UNBIASED oppinion the Tundra got execelent rating and was a best buy along with
the F-150.
Yes the Tundra was very well recieved by CR.
Vince,
If your around come out fighting like a man.
The other half of the point of my post was to show a particular idividual that he was wrong about his position. He was not being ignored, he was just posting inaccurate testing data. This idivdual loves to jump the gun and was firing off questions he didn't want factual answers to.
I'm a facts kind of person. Heresay and Friends opinions don't fly with me.
-wsn
Say 2 identical trucks run into a brick wall, one with an empty bed and the other with a bed full of bricks. The heavier vehicle should get damaged more, due to the extra weight. Why? The frame is the same, and the extra weight only adds energy to the impact. However, the extra weight found in a 4wd versus a 2wd is almost negligible. The only way that I can see that a 4wd vehicle has an advantage in an accident is height. If a 4wd truck is hit by a lower vehicle, a large percent of the energy in the collision might be deflected under the vehicle, reducing the amount of energy transferred to the passenger. Extra weight only increases the amount of energy in a collision, it does nothing to help protect you.
I feel that these tests are accurate enough to give a sense of which frame is better at keeping impact energy away from the passengers. They do not say one is always better than the other, but the highest ranking vehicle will more than likely be safer in most situations than the lowest ranking vehicle. I have been in an accident before. I rolled a Blazer on the interstate after I blew a tire and lost control. It rolled seven times, and the drivers behind me told me that in one of the rolls, the vehicle became airborne and landed hard on its top. When it was over, the roof has been crushed down so it was not much higher than the hood. After going through that, I think it would comforting to be in a vehicle that had ranked high in any collision testing.
"Say 2 identical trucks run into a brick wall, one
with an empty bed and the other with a bed full of
bricks. The heavier vehicle should get damaged
more, due to the extra weight. Why? The frame is
the same, and the extra weight only adds energy to
the impact"
Your example is B (Tacoma) hitting A (Object. In my side impact example i am comparing B getting hit by A
Example: If I run into somebody on the side walk while walking, say a heavy man, i have less of a chance of pushing this man then say a smaller man.
Wouldn't you agree?
-wsn
since a 4wd tacoma weighs more than a 2wd tacoma it will resist moving more than the 2wd tacoma causing more damage.. therefor more damage into the driver compartment.
it is simple physics
Why would you believe that a 4x4 Tacoma would fair any better than a 4x2 Tacoma? As far as I know, differences in the drivetrain don't protect the passengers any better. Ride height? I guess that all depends on what hits you... Are there some sort of differences in the doors or other parts of the body? If there are, why wouldn't Toyota use the stronger materials for their trucks and keep their customers safe?
This increasing disparity of LTV with car weights has increased the threat of fatalities to car occupants and further widening of the disparity will elevate that threat even more. P. 62.
The mass, momentum, and structural strength, such as the longitudinal stiffness, of LTVs make them aggressive vehicles which are hazardous to occupants of lighter vehicles colliding with them. Pp. 1, 4.
Most of the deaths in LTV-car collisions are of the car occupants, and the chances of death and injury to those car occupants rapidly accelerate when the striking LTV weighs more than 4,000 pounds. P. 109, fig. 5-11.
Conversely, there is a direct and constant linear relationship between car weight and fatality risk indexed to the average weight of the current fleet of LTVs: as weight decreases for the passenger car below 4,000 pounds, there is a direct increase in crash risk from collisions with LTVs so that the chances of a car occupant fatality in a car weighing 2,000 pounds is more than 20 times the fatality risk of a car occupant in a car weighing 4,000 pounds.(17) P. 162, fig. 6-6.
Fact is that the testing for the side impact is only valid for that class car. Read the article I posted above.
There were no matching records for your entry: Ford Truck Ranger 1997.
There were no matching records for your entry: Ford Truck Ranger 1995.
Yes I did estimate on the number of Ranges effected by the Fuel Injection seals however please consider that ONLY the 3.0 for Ranger was recalled, not the 4.0. I CHECKED that with Ford before I bought it.
just a thought
Safe, VERY safe.
I do not but the argument that the 4X Tacoma OR Ranger would fair any better or worse in the accident test. There is no data that has been presented. The only thing that MAY factor in is the 4X4 Ranger supercab has 2 more cross member frames than the smaller Ranger and MAY be stronger.
Well, how bad is the Tacoma in crash tests? Let me for now say this:
My wife's 1990 Chrysler LeBaron convertable, not a vehicle noted for the highest quality, has a MUCH better crash test rating than a Toyota Tacoma.
Where was Toyota? Oh I see, they were parked in the infield. . .
http://www.saferoads.org/petitions/petition.html
I'm more into something that requires the cars to make left AND right turns and go up and down hills, such as: touring, Pikes Peak, Baja 500, and of course the WRC (imagine launching yourself at 60-80mph, 5-8ft in the air in a car, not truck!) Just my thoughts
DTKWOK
And let me tell you, the reason the Ranger always ends up in recalls with MUSTANGS and OTHER CARS is that FORD recuycles there parts. Your Ranger has components from Fords line of cars and Explorers.
It was also explained from the Trans expert website that Ford uses the transmission from their cars in the Ranger.
All this data is hardly mindless. oh, and theres plenty more to come. Im just getting started.
Here the 1990 LeBaron was rated 5 Stars drivers side rash rating.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/1990Pkup.html
Here the 1990 Toytoa P/U was rated 1 star drivers side rash rating
So my wife’s old Chrysler ha a better rating than the 1990 version pickup and it is a better rating than all the Tacoma’s listed below.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/1995Pkup.html
Here Ranger has a better drivers side crash rating
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/1996Pkup.html
Here Ranger has a better drivers and passenger crash rating
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/1997Pkup.html
Here Ranger has a better drivers and passenger crash rating
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/1998Pkup.html
Here Ranger and Tacoma have equal drivers side ratings but Ranger is better for passenger side.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/1999Pkup.html
Here the Ranger and Tacoma are equal for drivers and passenger side ratings but Ranger is far better in side impact testing. Here a side impact crash in a Tacoma has a 45% greater chance of serious injury.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/2000Pkup.html
Here there is no front test planned by Tacoma and Ranger is 4 stars front impact for both driver an passenger and 4 or 5 stars side impact depending on if the vehicle is a standard or extended cab.
That is what I am doing, the 1995-2000 years.
It indicates that Toyota had a bit of a problem with bringing the Tacoma up to speed.
BTW WHY is there no mention of the Recall for the 3.4 V6 head/head gasket problem when every Toyota owner of that engine should know that it was recalled? There are other sites, posted above that talk volumes about that recall.
". . .FORD recuycles there parts. Your Ranger has
components from Fords line of cars and Explorers."
Support that statement?
I can think of seeing that there was a sharing of an automatic transmission in the late 80's early 90's but what is your point? Present your factual information that Toyota does not share the same part in it's vehicles.
By the way a "recylced part" means that it was used once then used again. You have presented NO facts to support that statment.
Now I will not call you a liar, like you have done to me numerious times (WHAT WAS SOMEONE SAYING ABOUT MATURITY?) but I think you should support your facts.
So if Toyota did that, and they did as I owned an 81 pickup and my sister-in-law owned an 83 Corolla,both diesel with the same engine, are they "BAD" like you imply of Ford?
Daytona.
Where was Toyota? Oh I see, they were parked in
the infield. . ."
Crossing Anartica and in my case hitting the dunes at Carolina beach this past weekend followed by a complete scrub, polich, and wax.
I didn't say I had "problems" with my '99 Tacoma, other than the power steering leak. I was whining and complaining about it. While my test drive MIGHT have allowed me to detect the complaints I listed, alas, it did not. I should have driven a Ranger for comparison. I didn't do that either. Another mistake I won't make again (another whine).
So YES, I can be faulted for buying something I now find I don't like. My point was that compared to other Toyota trucks I have owned since 1985, the Tacoma is not an improvement, other than it's faster. The Tacoma was Toyota's first "de-contented" vehicle of the 90's and IMHO,they botched the job and probably will never admit all the problems they've had with it.
If Toyota learns from its mistakes, their NEXT generation of small pickup will be dramatically improved. Unless the bean-counters say otherwise.
As I said in my first post, I used to love Toyotas. Now I find myself looking everywhere EXCEPT Toyota for my Tacoma's replacement.