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
I'm sure they didn't, the ABS on the Ranger would
not change the stopping distance at all. I'm sure
you realize that a experienced driver can stop a
non-ABS vehicle in a shorter distance than one that has ABS."
What?!?!
Everything I have ever seen where non-ABS vehicles are compared to ABS vehicles, show a significant decrease in stopping distances in all but a very, very few instances. The only situation where ABS does not greatly reduce stopping distance is where a wedge (possibly gravel or snow) will build up in a non-ABS vehicle stopping it in a shorter distance. The trade-off to this shorter stopping distance is loss of vehicle control (no steering, just straight forward).
I've seen a comparo where a test driver (the experienced driver you attest to) will make runs with ABS and no ABS. The ABS is always significantly shorter.
I wish I could find a link, but it was in some old Motor Trend or Car & Driver that I've probably thrown away long ago. It was a few years back when ABS was becoming a major option on all cars. It instilled the belief in me that equipping your vehicle with 4-wheel ABS was as important as seatbelts.
Even my stock family car can run the dash to 60mph in under 7s, to say absolutely nothing about a real sports car.
room for improvement. Let's just start with the
Taco's poor safety ratings for one."
Well yes, they could all get 100 mpg and be bulletproof, etc. No, I wouldn't want to get T-boned in a tacoma or any other light truck. What I mean is in the performance and reliability department, the Tacoma is not "lacking" in any regard compared to competitors, at least not in the opinions of most owners or mag writers.
Mustang : 4-speed automatic
Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec.
Mustang : 5-speed manual
0-60 mph in 7.8 sec.
So at 7-5 0-60, a stock tacoma is faster than stock V6 Mustang.
http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Heraud/Ford/Mustang/2000S.asp
Tacomafrank you can add the same air setup on a Ranger and increase its hp and tourque.Plus add a superchip and open up the exhaust and you can easily bump up a new Ranger to 240,250 Hp for under $600.
In my own opinion, the Tacoma is lacking. It's interior is terrible. It's crash ratings are atrocious. It lacks low rpm torque that I need to pull my trailer. It's price is astronomical. It's option packages are limited, so I can't pick and choose only what I want/need. It costs more to insure and more to fix. Its aftermarket following is much smaller than a Ranger (not Taco's fault but still a factor in my mind). I wouldn't like to drive another potential head gasket time bomb like my H.O. Quad-4 (past problems, maybe fixed, maybe not).
I don't really care about the nameplate on a vehicle. I'm gonna go for whatever vehicle fits my needs and gives me the most bang for my dollar. Who knows where I'll stand when I trade my truck in (whenever that may be).
And, do you really think a sports car would have a slushbox for a tranny?
BTW, you might also want to use either actual test data or manufacturer's ratings. Ford rates my car at 7.9s when it's really about 6.9s.
But, I guess that doesn't really work either because you're running back to back on the same track with the same driver, results will vary.
Try higher flow fuel pump, higher flow fuel injectors, air/fuel guage, and a custom burned computer chip, which sure as hell isn't gonna come cheap!
What are they charging for the 2nd gen charger?
They could build a Ranger to take on any Tacoma on the street.
I will look for the web address and post it later.
And Frank, I am not an expert on every thing on the Ranger. In fact my Ranger is rather un optioned, just tires, and KKM filter and a few other minor odds and ends.
But it works fine for me.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/equipment/ABSBRAKES.html
Particularly notice: "Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without? ABS is designed to help the driver maintain control of the vehicle during
emergency braking situations, not make the car stop more quickly. ABS may shorten stopping distances on wet or slippery roads and many
systems will shorten stopping distances on dry roads. On very soft surfaces, such as loose gravel or unpacked snow, an ABS system may
actually lengthen stopping distances. In wet or slippery conditions, you should still make sure you drive carefully, always keep a safe distance
behind the vehicle in front of you, and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions".
I really doubt that you have seen any data that suggests that an ABS vehicle has a lower stopping distance than a non-ABS vehicle because it's simply not true. If you read that in a magazine I'd suggest trashing your subscription. An experienced driver can pump the brakes and beat an ABS system easily. The problem is that most people simply slam on the brakes and lock the wheels which keeps them from steering and controlling the vehicle. That's why they make a big deal about installing the system on new cars. No driving skill is required.
Every link I find says the same so I don't know where you've been. Here's a link geared towards women if you're not man enough to accept the facts:
http://www.womanmotorist.com/glossary/abs.shtml
Notice this line on the page: "ABS does NOT
stop the car faster".
Please don't take offense as I'm just being sarcastic but let's face the facts.
All that being said, even if the system slightly improved the baking for the driver in Fourwheeler magazine, it didn't make 30 feet of difference. The braking system on the Ranger is obviously much poorer than the system on the Tacoma.
Designed to keep the tires from locking up by pulsing the brakes.
As you stated, works best on wet/slippery road.
AND
that the stock, non-31 inch tires on Tacoma is smaller in diameter than the stock Ranger off-road package 16 inchers.
Man do those 16 inch tires cost though!
If reqursted will be glad to post the URL for BFG's where you can see the charts for your self.
Advantage Ranger for a stock vehicle? Just one of the 20+ configurations of the Ranger, ready to hit the trail. . .
Shows the capability of Rangers/BroncoII's
http://www.rrorc.com/Anniversary2000.html
also, it seems to me that bragging about your supercharged engine being more powerful than normally aspirated engines is pretty lame. maybe it's just me....
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/specs.html
Dakota R/T - 7.0 seconds.
Tacoma - 8.0 seconds.
Ranger - 8.9 seconds.
Sonoma - 8.9 seconds.
Now I currently drive a Ranger, but I am shopping for a new 2wd extended cab truck. I do some hauling, so I want the biggest motor. The new Tacoma S-Runner is VERY appealing, but not available here in Canada (sucks). I have test driven the Dakota 4.7L 5-speed, and it is sweet, but very expensive. Also tested the Sonoma with the ZQ8 sport suspension, 4.3 5-speed, and was NOT impressed. Slower than expected. The S/C 2wd Frontier is not available her in Canada either. That narrows it down to the 2001 Ranger XLT S/C, which IS AVAILABLE here in Canada with the 4.0L SOHC Manual Tranny in 2wd. I have verified this through the dealer ordering guide, as well as the Ranger brochure. Hope to place my order soon.
In my opinion, based on extensive reading of automotive publications for the last 15 years, the V6 Tacoma, 2001 4.0 Ranger and the V8 Dakota would all be very close in 0-60mph times with manual transmissions. Car and Driver tested a manual 4.7L Dakota Quad at 7.7s 0-60. I will post the month/year of the Motor Trend issue I have used.
wish I knew what it was. "
What a foolish thing to say. YOu know as well as I do that Toyota 4x4's are engineered quite differently from most others.
" The Tacoma TRd handled the rough stuff better than any vehicle we have driven"
-FourWheeler
Also, be sure to check out the Edmunds full-size SUV comparison test. Enjoy reading on how the LAndcruiser absolutely DEMOLISHED the competition in all categores, especially offroading.
The Ford Expedition iwas called" weak and vulnerable", along with being voted "most likely to break".
Don't thinbk Toyota has an offroad design philosphy? You better read that Edmunds full size SUV comparison test.
There are two tests. ONe Luxury test with the lx 450 and the other with the regular landcruiser.
They tested the trucks on dry pavement.
From your own post:
"ABS may shorten stopping distances on wet or slippery roads and many systems will shorten stopping distances on dry roads."
You just proved my point. Thanks.
Do you truly actually believe that you would be able to modulate your brakes and keep the tires closer to the limits of adhesion that a sophisticated computer system pulsing the brakes at something like 300 times per minute?
If you do, remind me never to follow within 500ft of your vehicles.
Just a question, did you get your trucks with 4-wheel ABS?
By the way, those were good Ranger pics. Even though I like the Tacoma better, it hows that the Ranger can do the rough stuff.
It seems Toy is very good at tuning for one end of the spectrum. Nothing that ANY truck owner couldn't do with the thousands saved from not buying a "philosophy".
"Foolish" seems to be your middle name. Explain the 4 lug Escort brakes on the 5 lug F150. Explain how Dana on Toys is the greatest thing since sliced bread when the big 3 have used Dana forever. Explain how IFS torsion bar on a Toy is 'da shtz but on a Ford it's a "highway design".
I agree the big 3 bias their vehicles toward the highway where most people spend their time. Give me the $12,000 difference between a LC and an Expedition and I'll build a pre-runner that will destroy your Toys. Your stupid foundation analogy does not apply.
No I didn't get my Tacoma with ABS because I couldn't find one that had it but I wanted it. That's not because I didn't think that I could brake better, but because I don't know if I'd do the right thing in an emergency where I would be more focused when I race.
ABS and stability systems have improved greatly over the past 10 years. They help take the human variable out of the equation in an emergency situtation. In all but a few rare situations, a vehicle with 4-wheel ABS will stop in a shorter distance than a non-ABS vehicle, and will maintain control.
Also, I never said that 4-wheel ABS would make the Ranger stop 30ft shorter. Don't put words in my mouth.
A couple of other factors in stopping distance are tire/wheel size and vehicle weight. Both of these can be changed with the simple check of an option box.
For spoog, if you had READ the http://www.fourwheeler.com section on differentials you would have KNOWN that Toyota does not use the Dana but \
FORD DOES use the Dana systems.
Glad you liked the pics. That was done near the Ohio/Penn state line, Wellsville. A large goup met to celebrate the 1st year of the Rough Rangers Off-Road Club, a nation wide internet group. People came from Utah, Texas and a lot from the east coast. Many were built Rangers, like lifts, a few v8 conversions, but fun was had by all. Thanks go to Jim Oakes who founded the RRORC and got this together. Wish I could have gone.
Hitcher:
If you look at the pics, Rangers deep enough in the water/mud?
Ranger 4.0 SOHC v6, 205hp 245 lb/ft touque(automatic only at this time, manual in 3+ months)
Look for a small v8 in 2003 (Such that you would need one, heck with 70% of you weight on the front would result in traction issues(spinning the tires)
that Toy recently signed a contract with Dana to
supply diffs and axles and how great they are. I
guess Toy is finally catching up! LOL!!
I don't think I'm the one who doesn't understand ABS...
http://home.gci.net/~tacomaworld/temp031.jpg
You're right. "your Ranger" as just an expression directed at the board.
" I live in the Northwest just below MT Hood. I see this stuff all the time. "
I've been there, beautiful Area. I live in SouthCentral Alaska, where that photo was taken.
"I don't snorkle my truck,nor will I ever. It plays havok on electrical/suspension and so on"
Doesn't seem to cause problems with Tacomas, which was kinda the point of my post.
". My Ranger will go anywhere your Tacoma will go I will bet my titleon it@!"
How about thru that river ? heh heh
Don't take offense to my post, vance8. just having some fun with you ford guys.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just cautious. Unless you knew that service manager, I'd take his words with a grain of salt considering what you've heard elsewhere. Maybe they're just swapping the pulley on the 1st gen charger to run at lower boost and solve the possible detonation problem?
I think that detonation problems are the reason for the continual delay of BBK's Instacharger for the '98 and up Rangers.
I think that Paxton and Vortech both make kits for all years of OHV 4L Rangers. But, they are centrifugal chargers and not roots-type like the BBK, so there's probably some difference there with constant vs. variable boost rate.
The reason I believe ABS to be superior in most instances is this:
A computer can apply the maximum amount of braking force on the pads/rotor without breaking the tires limits of adhesion better than a human.
Well, it will actually break the limits of adhesion (for a few microseconds), but it will recover much more quicly than any human reflexes could muster.
So, the ABS vehicle will spend more time at maximum breaking pressure than a non-ABS vehicle with the human pumping the brakes.
And, as on-board computers, sensors, programs, etc... progress, braking will only get better.
Just for the record, the Ranger's brakes could use improvement, especially on the heavier trucks. Braking is actually pretty good on my comparatively light reg-cab Ranger. But, I've found it to be like night and day when compared to my father's ext-cab with 200lbs worth of cap Ranger. If it were my truck, I'd opt for some high performance pads and the Ford Motorsports rear drum to disc conversion kit. But, I guess he's okay as that truck rarely sees the far side of 40mph.
I posted some insane photos earlier as well that had Tacoma's buried in mud. Cspounser posts pictures of little puddles.
The DIFFERENCE between the one Tacomafrank posted and the one I posted is you can
CLEARLY
see the wave of the water as the Ranger is MOVING in the water. And I PERSONNALY know the owner of that vehicle and can post a picture of our vehicles together.(psst, he is over talking to the guy in the black Ranger)
http://members.aol.com/Cpousnr/cc4.jpg
While franks pic is nice, other than the waves from wind, I see
NO
frontal wave movement of that vehicle.
Perhaps you would care to state that such a recall does not apply to the Ranger?
You know, those subcontracted parts will get you every time. . .
By the way cpousnr those waves are not from wind they are from rocks on the bottom of the river.