those dumb "surf-board" one-piece seatbacks with no adjustable headrest in the Fords. If you're tall, guess what - whiplash because you can't adjust the stupid thing.
Plus, I can't wear my cowboy hat either without sticking my head forward so the rear brim doesn't get smashed.
"PS; That "special" toy feature that you have to crank the motor a few times before it starts is also present on the Lexus. After driving Fords where a "click" of the key starts 'em, this waiting is quite annoying. "
-I have no idea what you're talking about. my explorer definitely does NOT start with a "click" of the key.
Scorp--->It's called getting a lot of choices in the dealership lot. You can customize if you want to wait. But if you don't like the choices, you drive to another dealership or just order it. You're in Texas right? Head to DFW and take your pick from 5 different dealerships in North Dallas area alone. Each dealership has at least 30 trucks to pick from, and hardly one is alike. They do need more 5 speeds however!
Could be. But can you take these components off? Suppose someone who doesnt want AC comes along, and wants a 4L V6 4x4 Ranger. Does it come without AC?
Both my V10 and Cobra start with very little cranking. On toys there is some delay that causes you to crank maybe 2 seconds.
AK, it is taking some getting used to. I've stopped cranking the wife's Lexus a few times thinking it should have caught already.
I do like how the skid plate question on the toys got ignored AGAIN!!! I am waiting for the reason a $40,000 car clunks when started.......I'm sure that it was designed in by toy for some magical benefit.
Regarding your skidplate question: Funny how you're all hot and bothered with the Tacoma's skid plate, yet the fact the Ranger has suspension componets hanging well below the rear axle, combined with a lower ground clearance than Tacoma, doesn't concern you.
Oh, and I like how Ford puts the rear shock absorbers closer to the center of the axle, versus Toyota which puts them at the edge of the axle (and neatly tucked away, I might add). Which design is more logical?
I don't even know what you guys are talking about with this startup cranking, and I don't even care. You want to know what I think is stupid about Fords? The fact you have to OPEN the door to UNLOCK it. Stupid Ford, they made the knobs so small they disappear when the door's in the locked (down) position, where you can't pull it up. Please explain the logic of that.
Just popped in for a visit... I see things never change in here.
Toyota boys still defend their more expensive trucks with fewer options by saying "Toyota's doing me a great service by not putting lots of fancy stuff in the truck I don't need but still charging me more money!"
Toyota boys bragging about ground clearance superiority even though it's been proven that Toyota does NOT measure from the same points as other manufacturers just so they can post the biggest numbers.
The Ranger's now got more torque and horsepower than the Tacoma and now all of a sudden the argument seems to have been steered away from engines.
I'd love to see a face-off between a TRD and the new Ranger with manual transfer case, off-road package, bigger engine, and 5 speed manual.
I will make the same observation I made long long ago here... the majority of import owners never seem to be able to just enjoy their own vehicles without crapping on anyone else's. The majority of domestic owners I've met in here seem content to love their own trucks until some import owner picks a fight by telling them it's crap. And I've always believed that those who feel the strongest need to go around belittling everyone else are the most insecure.
Our Tacoma starts without any delay. Then again the old 4x2 Ranger that my girlfriend used to have had no problems starting either, it was running that gave it some problems. But I think that was our fault for having a regular cab 4x2 with the 4 cylinder and manual. That old Ford manual's 5th gear was so tall for that engine that we had to downshift going up hills on the highway.
Please notice I have no experience with any newer Ford's so you don't have to get all defensive on me.
I see nothing wrong with what you say Steve. We, the Ranger fans, only get defensive when we see derogatory/unfair words used against the Ranger.
Pluto--->Scroll up a few posts to see why everyone talkting engine starting times. You and scorp seem to be knocking Domestics, so others let you know their own personal experience. Let me answer your door locking knob question with another question. Why the heck are you trying to OPEN a door and expect it to be LOCKED at the same time? Does that work on your house? It's just a convenient feature.
Before you complain about a head rest that doesn't let you wear your cowboy hat like you want to.
Grasping at a few straws are we?
I also like how you avoid the skid plate question, even addressing it and then telling us how you think the Ranger suspension is flawed.
Homework assignment for you, figure out what a shock does, and prove how the placement on the Ranger is such an inferiority, to say your perfect Tacoma. You may want to go back and remember your math classes about geometry and angles.
Scorp--->I don't think you can get one without, but that is a good thing. If you don't want it, don't use it. It you own an air or plain ratchet set, you could easily remove the A/C. If you're worried about parasitic accessory drag, then you can remove the belt during the winter(I do to give my 2.3l more power/better milage). But in Texas, you're one stinky boy without A/C.
Whatever the Ranger's ground clearance, I'm sure they didn't meausure it from the bottom of the shock-absorber bracket. See, Toyota doesn't have a bunch of machinery hanging below the axle/diff, which should be the lowest point of the vehicle. Maybe that's why they have more clearance? What's so erroneous about that?
Stang:
I knew you were going to say something like "why would you unlock a door if you weren't planning on opening it?" Well, that "feature" (if that's what you call it) could be included on any vehicle if they chopped the lock knobs to half their length so they disappeared into the door when locked. Ford is the ONLY maker that does this. For people who have secured parking areas, transport a lot of people continuously and leave their vehicles unlocked, it's ridiculous to have to hand-open doors to unlock them, then close them. What a great idea!! I'm going to cut off my truck's lock knobs so it'll be a convenient feature! Honestly, I can't believe Ford would make half-sized lock knobs in an effort to save a few pennies. They could have put full-size lock knobs on their trucks and still had that "feature" but also an option of unlocking the door without opening it.
Now I suppose you're going to say the one-size-fits-all "surfboard" seats are some kind of feature.
Stang, I don't have to do any homework to answer your question about the shock-absorbers and angles and mathematics. First, I'll answer your question using a simple analogy. Imagine two people holding the ends of a baseball bat, shaking their end of it up and down violently. To stabilize the bat, would you
A. grab it near the middle B. grab it at the ends
Ford's answer is "A" and Toyota's is "B." The bat represents your rear axle.
All a shock absorber does is control/stabilize the oscillation (continuous up and down motion) inherent in a suspension's springs/leaf packs when the system is disturbed. Ever put a weight on a suspended spring, let it go, and watch the spring oscillate for about a half-hour until friction finally stops it? Your vehicle's suspension would do the same thing (not for half an hour, of course) without the shock absorbers. You can tell if your vehicle needs new shock absorbers if it bobs up and down several times after hitting a bump, or by simply pushing down on it and seeing if the vehicle rebounds but continues to bop up and down several cycles.
As for placement of the shock absorbers, specifically, Toyota's vs. Ford's, I think the baseball bat explains what is happening better than words. If the axle's motion always described a perfect up and down motion, it wouldn't matter if the shock absorbers were placed near the middle (imagine the people moving the bat up and down in sequence - you could stop the motion by grabbing the bat in the middle). But in real life, your axle doesn't move that way, one end may be going up, and the other end down. To stabilize this motion, it is best to put the shocks closer to the tires (again, imagine two people shaking the bat violently - wouldn't you better control the motion by grabbing the bat at its ends?). That's because the leverage (force x distance) created by distancing the shock absorber from the source of motion (tire) works AGAINST the shock absorber. Same thing with the bat - as you move your hands inward from the ends, the people shaking the bat have a leverage advantage over you.
This has gotten pretty long-winded but I think you can see the point I'm making. Placing the shock absorbers closest to the tires makes the most sense. The Ford's design almost looks like an afterthought when compared to Toyota's.
About the locked doors: it is very easy to put your elbow on the door latch. When I have windows open, and stick the left hand out the window (to enter the gate key, for example), my arm hits the latch, and locks the door, so when I get home, I'll pull it out. Thats a very valid scenario when your door gets locked.
About AC: If you don't need it, you still pay for it, and have to take it off later (and have Ford give you troubles about warranty later, every car dealer is guilty of that). Thats modifying the stock truck, something that tbunder has made a big thing out of when it came to Toyota. At least with Toyota I could buy a truck without having to pay $900 for AC. Sure, I'll have to select the tach, wipers, etc. all separately, but I have freedom of choice. And I have a reasonably good high temperature tolerance, I open up my window, and I'm fine, don't have to run AC.
I have no idea why Ford would do that. Stang, do you? What I remember from my physics courses, maximum torque to the lever mount point occurs when you apply the force as far away from the mount point as possible. The closer you are, the less torque is generated, and therefore you have to apply more force. So why does Ford do it? Anyone?
would be for the same reason they make half-sized door knobs, surfboard seat backs, lug-nuts that fall off and trucks that crush like a paper plate in an accident: IT'S CHEAPER.
eharri3: "I would love to see a face-off between a TRD and a new Ranger with the manual transfer case, offroad package, bigger engine and 5 speed manual"
DUDE, ME TOO, ESPECIALLY WITH A TRD SUPERCHARGED TRD TACOMA!!!
"DUDE, ME TOO, ESPECIALLY WITH A TRD SUPERCHARGED TRD TACOMA!!!"
Naww, let's keep them both naturally aspirated, as they rolled off the assembly line. Toyota fans love to brag about this 'stock' supercharger but it's just a factory-sanctioned modification kit.
toyota got a 1 star rating from the insurance institutes, the one agency pluto bragged about in the tundra forum.
even with a/c on a ranger, its cheaper than a tacoma w/o it.
i do see the logic in the shock thing. good points. does this affect the off-roadability? we'd have to take an FX4 vs TRD to find out. evidently it didn't matter on the tundra in the new four-wheeler mag, they said the trd sucked off-road. was like a cars suspension.
Chevy boys compare their 5.3 (when they also have 4.8) to Toyota's 4.7.
Ford boys compare their 5.4 (when they also have 4.6) to Toyota's 4.7.
Ranger boys compare their 4.0 (when they also have 3.0) to Tacoma's 3.4.
SO NOW IT'S STACKING THE DECK COMPARING TOYOTA'S TOP OF THE LINE ENGINE (SUPERCHARGED 3.4) TO YOUR TOP OF THE LINE ENGINE (4.0)!?!?
Where's the consistency, or don't you like to play by your own rules, LOL?!
BTW, not too long ago there was this little contest called the Ultimate 4x4, maybe you heard of it?. The Tacoma ("stocker with the locker") beat the Hummer, Jeep and Land Rover. Ranger? Not even a contender 'cuz it's not in the same league as these vehicles.
Tbunder: How many times do we have to go over this? Tacoma no longer has a one star side impact rating, and it has been rated the safest compact overall.
Oh, and your best-selling F-150 did absolutely horrible in the crash test - in fact, it came in dead last. Contrary to your belief, "best-selling" doesn't mean "best," now does it?
"I will make the same observation I made long long ago here... the majority of import owners never seem to be able to just enjoy their own vehicles without crapping on anyone else's. The majority of domestic owners I've met in here seem content to love their own trucks until some import owner picks a fight by telling them it's crap. And I've always believed that those who feel the strongest need to go around belittling everyone else are the most insecure."
-Wow, flip the "domestic" and "import" words around and it sounds like you've described Tbunder to a T. Especially that last sentence. Hmm, also sounds a lot like vince8. I must be wrong though, I'm sure a domestic owner has never said a bad thing about a toyota or honda without being provoked, right?
I have to disagree with you about ford's "stupid" door locks. I have the type you're talking about on my explorer, and frankly I wish every vehicle had them. What's more convenient than just opening the door to get out? having to unlock the door first, and then open it is an extra unecessary step. Besides, it's virtually impossible for a thief to use the old coathanger method to break into your vehicle.
Ford could have easily made the knob a little longer without affecting your ability to simply open the door and unlock it at the same time. At least this way you would have the option of unlocking the door without opening it. It's not like lengthening the knob would have been that difficult or costly...
As far as break-ins are concerned, I would imagine it would be much easier "hooking" the lever used to open the door with a coat-hangar (or any similar device) than trying to "hook" one of those featureless, small lock knobs.
Pluto--->If the stock door locks gives you ulcers that bad, just goto Autozone or any other parts store and pick up a new set for 2 bucks. They can be real long and have dice or eight balls on the end if you so desire them to stick out while locked.
Ford doesn't do it to save money. It's a safety issue. With the old mushroom shaped door locks you can easily get a coat hanger past the weather stripping and hook it onto the door lock to gain entry. But with the shorter door lock stud, you have 1. A deterrent to someone breaking into your vehicle, and 2. You have a easy visual check to see if your doors are locked. And just try hooking a hanger onto the door handles. You can't open them by pulling the latches up, you open them by pulling the latches IN. If you want to have the door unlocked with no intention of opening it, then don't lock it after you get in the vehicle. From the inside, it doesn't matter if the door is locked or not, the inside door handle will open it everytime.
It is just simple, and convienent. Don't be petty.
Also don't forget about the Ford 6.8l or 7.3l. Show me a Toyota that can even compete with that.
Also, your bat analogy is kind of cute. But you fail to realize that by having the shock absorbers closer to the center, the shock absorbers move dramatically less than the outside of the axle, or wheels and tires do. Combine this with a stiff rigid shock, and you're good to go. Now Toyota's shocks do a lot more work with the wheel articulation and axle movement. Any more argument along these lines would necessitate two vehicles being tested for articulation and actual performance on highways, curves, and bumps, etc, with an unbiased judge with a method to measure performance in every aspect. Any volunteers?
PS.. Pluto, you're already debating the F-150 crash tests in the Big 3 VS Toyota forum. Why not keep it there because THIS IS THE RANGER VS TACOMA FORUM.
Also you keep on bringing up magazine reviews for gospel. I guess since the Circus magazine thinks N' SYNC is "da Bomb" I gonna be stupid not to like them and believe this is pure fact? A magazine is just another opinion, albeit an informed one or not. And I always believe that 1. A RANGER is no slouch off-road. 2. Most people don't off-road anyway. 3. People who off-road don't off-road all the time. 4. People who enjoy off-roading, enjoy modifying their vehicles. That throws stock specs out the window.
Also I've noticed you have characterized "lugs nuts that fall off" and "trucks that crush like a paper plate" onto the Ranger. Please keep the problems of your NEGLECTED work vehicle (late 90's expedition) and F-150's crash tests away from your sterotypification of Rangers. Besides, not many accidents occur at 45 MPH between a truck and a solid lump of concrete attached to the foundation.
Do you debate here for the sheer fun of debate, or are you actually trying to prove something? (Like intelligence?)
pluto cannot prove any intelligence for the obvious reasons. he thinks that the tacoma is the safest compact, when the frontier is superior to all, and the ranger and B-series are second. he won't even acknowledge the NHTSA's findings, you know, the government agency?
also, for all this shock talk. just looked at a new tacoma and my ranger's shocks today. the reason the shocks on a ranger are closer together (not that much albeit) is that the ranger has alot bigger leaf springs outside the shocks which make it impossible moving them outwards. and so, pluto, your little babe ruth theory is out the window. maybe if the SHOCK was the only thing keeping the axle's sides from going up and down it would be okay to consider, but since you have LEAF SPRINGS too, the shock really is just there to smooth out the ride. the leafs take the brunt of the axles movements, the shocks just provide a smoother ride. take the rear shocks off, does the truck fall on its face? no, the leafs hold it up. the rangers frame and springs are just so superior to the toyota's, that it has to squeeze them in there. not to mention the diff. is nearly a 1/2 inch bigger too. take those things into consideration, and there's your answer.
pluto- you state that the tacoma is the safest overall compact. please provide proof of this with all of the others compacts tested in the same test. all i have found is the nhtsa rating it (the tacoma) 3 stars and the insurance institute rating it 1 star in side impacts. prove me wrong. ill be waiting.
I'm glad you liked my bat analogy. Maybe you could suggest a better example? You challenged my knowledge of shock absorbers and their placement, so I gave you an answer, that's all.
Now it's my turn to challenge you.
"you fail to realize that by having the shock absorbers closer to the center, the shock absorbers move dramatically less than the outside of the axle, or wheels and tires do."
No, I do realize that, but what in the world would the advantage be? Anybody who can conceptualize this arrangement would agree that placing the shock absorbers closest to the wheels would be the most beneficial.
Since the shock absorbers move "dramatically less" then why didn't Ford put shorter, stiffer shock absorbers with less travel on the Ranger's rear axle, instead of those long ones that protrude well below the rear axle (a serious design compromise)? I am going to love your explanation on that one.
"Now Toyota's shocks do a lot more work with the wheel articulation and movement." WHAT? AGAIN, THE SHOCK ABSORBER STABILIZES THE REAR AXLE'S TENDENCY TO OSCILLATE UP AND DOWN DUE TO THE SUSPENSION'S SPRINGS. A shock absorber's travel length will improve articulation, but the shock sure isn't WORKING when that's being done. Furthermore, the closer you place the shock to the wheel, the LESS work it does because the LESS leverage the moving wheel will have on it through the axle.
In just about any suspension lift I've ever seen, the shock absorbers are always placed as close to the wheel as possible. Haven't you ever seen a lifted truck with 2 or 3 Rancho shock absorbers clearly visible in the wheel wells, right next to the wheel? They sure as heck don't put them towards the diff!!!
Sorry bud, but you need to either retake Suspension 101 or get your money back.
Real simple. On a Tacoma, Left wheel goes up high, Left shock is compressed more than a ranger. Right wheel goes down low, Right shock is extended to it's max. Ranger's goes through significantly less movement.
It's obvious the shocks on Rangers and Tacomas have difference characteristics. Rangers have less travel but are stiffer, Tacoma's Have more travel due to their being perpendicular to the axle itself. Shocks only check the the spring's travel.
As far as the advantage? I cannot say, I'm not the design engineer who builds trucks. Neither are you. Thats why I said "Any more argument along these lines would necessitate two vehicles being tested for articulation and actual performance on highways, curves, and bumps, etc, with an unbiased judge with a method to measure performance in every aspect. Any volunteers?" So shut up or put up. Don't say another word unless you can provide proof that your shock placement is better. Just because it's logical to you, doesn't mean it applies to all life as we know it. Sort of like the door lock thing... My point is that for the axle's wheel articulation, the angled Ranger's shocks have to travel less. This could mean the shocks will be under less extreme travel positions, and theoretically less stress. Also the Ranger's angled shocks would be benefical for axle placment. With two shocks angled, the rear axle will be more resisitant to shifting from side to side under heavy throttle or heavy load and turning conditions. So it boils down to less leverage and more travel vs. more leverage and less travel. It's very silly to continue this, as I've said and then you repeated that no great advantage can be proven in either design.
I guess you've finally realized your argument on Door locks was just silly.
Suspension 101 huh... I guess that's where you've been because you've been skipping Let It Go 202.
I would be interested in the link...just that it doesn't work....care to post it again?
eagle63
What is it exactly that you currently own and drive? Your profile says '97 Ford Explorer. Is this correct? If so, does it have ABS? If not, what do you drive and does it have ABS?
That's all find and dandy, but I would still like you to answer my question, since you think your "theory" makes so much sense:
If the Ranger's shocks go through less movement, why didn't they use a shorter, stiffer shock with less travel on the Ranger so that they could have avoided shocks hanging below the axle?
Sorry, but your theory and the Ranger's design contradict eachother. At least my statements are supported by actual suspension designs.
And why do suspension lifts put multiple shocks as close to the wheels? You didn't comment on that either. And I WOULD JUST LOVE FOR YOU TO SHOW ME A LIFT KIT THAT PLACES THE SHOCKS TOWARDS THE CENTER OF AXLE INSTEAD OF TOWARDS THE TIRE!!!
Yeah, I would say it's pretty obvious that you don't design suspensions, like you stated.
While I'm flattered you called me an expert, I must humble myself and admit it doesn't take much to look like an expert compared to you.
You're a pretty funny guy. But it's not my responsibility to post links and educate you on the limitations of your ABS brakes. You've already been proven wrong on this subject and twice have been provided with the links (which worked), and that's all I care about.
Kind of like that saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Besides, why should I care if you think your ABS will stop you faster on gravel or snow and you go plow yourself into a tree?
can you say hypocrite pluto? you're asking for things that you don't even do, i mean answer others factual comments. are you ever wrong? i mean, driving around in a foreign toyota truck with a cowboy hat on down there in texas must make you look like a really huge expert on everything. i bet those texas ranchers really hinge on your every word. i bet you see tons of tundras pulling horse trailers down there as well. what would the working man do without toyota trucks? i guess you'll never know will you? i mean, driving to the 7-11 each morning to clean the bathrooms doesn't require much, even a corolla could make it there, right? say, can you supercharge that corolla? hehe
dude, you're a trouble makin fool who needs to get a life and stop trollin all over. i mean, the silverado guys already kicked you out and made you look like a complete idiot, do you think its okay to act like one here everyday? we all know you think you know everything, just so that includes ignoring others factual posts. one thing you can do on your lunch break at the thrift store, go measure the leaf springs on a tacoma and then on a ranger. tell me whose is thicker and who has more. ill be waiting. in the meantime, try not making such a fool out of yourself in the silverado forums. and GET A LIFE!
Let it be known to all that on today's date and the above posted hour and minute, Mr. midnight_stang did throw a tempter tantrum after losing yet another argument with plutonious and posted several posts containing such vulgar and racial remarks that their indecency prevent them from being repeated.
Mr. midnight_stang then promptly deleted said posts in a pathetic attempt to comply with the regulations set forth by Edmunds Town Hall.
I hereby request that the events of today be admitted to permanent record for the obligatory purpose of warning others, including the hosts of Edmunds Town Hall whose lawful duties include termination of such offenders, of Mr. midnight_stang's inappropriate behavior when he is proven wrong.
I'm still waiting on that Ford Engineer to find the design notes for the Ranger so we can recall the exact reason why they the suspension was designed so. But seriously...
I was thinking that less travel overall, the shock could hold up a lot longer. Even if the overall leverage is more for the Ranger, stiffer shocks and less extreme travel would be easier and more effiecient in my mind. But that's my thinking. I may not be right, but I'll be damned before you impress your opinion on me as fact.
Anyway don't ask me, cause I don't know. I don't think it even matters. I don't even care anymore.
Anyways don't take it too personal. I don't troll online, so I can't answer you immediately. Also what exactly do you mean by you last sentence in post 2885?
If you think you've got me under the thumb screws here because I can't find a reason, you're wrong. It really doesn't mean anything, except you asking the wrong guy. If you think because a lift kit's have shocks in the same orientation as your Tacoma that you are right, you're wrong.
Lift kits would have that orientation because 1. It's easier to shackle the axle perpendicularly. 2. The Ranger's mounts are welded on. 3. Lift Kits are easier to shackle on than weld. 4. If the shocks are tunable, you don't have to mess with how the angling will affect what the shock does.
[To the tune of the christmas song] Let it go, Let it go, Let it go...
tbunder, Yeah, that's why ALL OF FORD's Trucks are number one and best selling for decades in Texas. Because our shocks aren't on the edge of the axle!! No, we don't ever haul 5 bales of hay(at once), or ever need a truck that can take a gooseneck trailer, or tow our horse trailer. Nah, it's only soccer moms throughout the great state of Texas!!!
You are undoubtedly the smartest cowboy-hat wearing person I have ever "met" (post 2889). I wouldn't have it any other way. Glad yer with us man. LOL. Good goin bro!
The CHIEF engineer for Toyota is sitting right next to me right now, too. Only Im not going to lie like you and say that hes looking something up for me. To tell the truth, we are just sitting here laughing at you. Take it EZ all!!
ask your "chief engineer" that you claim is right next to you, what he plans on doing to make the tacoma surpass the ranger in sales next year. i mean, hey, he's got that suspension thing down to a T, he at least should be able to make it work out so good that that one aspect alone will boost sales by, um, what- around 500,000 or so trucks, give or take a few. hey ask him one more thing, im sure you've got the new four-wheeler mag, you know the one with the pickup truck of the year in it? and the big toyota ad on the back page. ask him why the most respected and smartest magazine(what you and pluto claim) around, why they totally dogged the tundra's TRD suspension, calling it unable to go off-road with any kind of worthiness and calling it too soft and carlike, not to mention them saying if you want the double cab tacoma TRD to work, you need to replace the shocks before you even drive it off the lot. im curious to what he has to say about these statements about the TRD tacoma and TRD tundra. after all, this is four-wheeler and according to pluto, what they say is what goes in 4x4 land.hehe
pluto- how many gallons is your cowboy hat you wear in your tacoma (LMAO). cant be more than two gallons, i mean, if it were anymore, you'd surely hit it on those awesome head restraints or it would surely lock your killer door locks. tell me, do you still have to lift the outside door handle and push down on the inside lock lever just to lock those pepsi cans up? i mean, no one would order power locks on a toyota, that'd at least be another $300 alone, because with a digital clock pushing $90, its only logical to think a power lock would be that much more. and when will toyota figure out remote keyless entry?
people are arguing over this. whats so hard to figure out? everytime i pull in on my inside door handle, the door will open. no matter if it's locked or not. i think the toyota guys are confused because if they lock their doors from the inside, they can't open them until they unlock them. am i right? i may not be, but in earlier toyotas this is the case. thats why they make their lock handles accessible. whats more convenient? having to unlocks your doors just to get out, or just pulling on the door handle and it opening the door, no matter if is locked or not. not to mention the deterrent it provides by not making it possible to latch onto the round hidden handle.
Do you need a lesson in posting links? Or does it even exist? Doesn't really matter to me as you have already convinced yourself of the virtues of your non-ABS, one star side impact rated Tacoma. If I owned a truck such as that.....I wouldn't be casting stones the way you do......
Before you go on again about the non-ABS brakes on the Tacoma, keep in mind that the non-ABS Tacoma stops somewhere in the area of 30 feet shorter from 60 to 0 than the Ranger. My 98 Ford with ABS is noticibly hurting in the stopping department compared to my 2000 (non-ABS) Toyota. ABS is a nice feature but unless Ford has improved their brakes in the last few years, then I wouldn't praise a noticibly weak trait on the Ranger as compared to other trucks. The Ranger's brakes could only, at best, be considered average.
tbunder (or Vince8) - There's a lot of interesting dialog here on shock design but you comments are a bit much. Shocks are not intended to carry the weight of truck body. You're right that the Ranger's springs are carrying the load (as they should) but you should have stopped there. Kids tend to use air shocks and such to raise their vehicles because they're kids and don't know better.
what are you talking about, an '84 cutlass? who uses air shocks on a compact 4x4? but thanks for letting pluto know my theory was correct. i think he stated himself that shocks just smooth out the ride, so it really doesn't matter where they're at, only on toyotas the shocks take more abuse as they are taxed more on the swiveling axle than the fords because the toyotas are closer to the point of pivot. the springs take the brunt of the pivot on the ford, letting the shock articulate longer lengths and not taking as much abuse.
also, the 2001 brakes on the rangers were made larger, and adapt themselves to the drivers inputs automatically. thus, to make statements like you did are moot. this is 2001, lets talk about current models when making statements about brakes. i dont know about your 1998 brakes, but my 2001 rangers brakes will stand the truck up if called upon. and guess what, abs was standard. just like every other compact 4x4, 'cept toyota.
Just because I say I don't know the technical engineering design question you ask, you delclare you are right again. Dude, you thought that since they made locking differentials for LSD pumpkins, They became both Fully locking and Limited slip differentials at the same time. Now you've shut up about the door locks thing after about 4 repeated posts about how stupid you thought they were. I also didn't forget about your work's expedition with faulty lug nuts, which you complain about. Even thought the FREE fix for this has been waiting at the dealership SINCE EARLY 1998!!!
I even admit to not knowing the answer on why Rangers suspension is so. I submitted my thoughts on your repeated question, and in doing so you are automatically right?
I only replied because as to what I think because of posts 2885, and 2887, and the nonsense in 2889. And then you trivialize and put lame words in my mouth in post 2891. What the heck is this about seals?
Saddaddy, you seem like a nice honest hearted fellow, but re-read my post. If you think I was waiting on a reply from an Ford Engineer, that's you're miss-interpretation. See the "But Seriously..." following my original statement?
I'm sorry, but I can't complete with you Pluto. I see you've posted from 1:46 AM to 8:51 pm a total of 14 times!!! No one can say a word without you jumping in, and who can compete with a troller. Does life exist outside of edmunds for you?
tbunder--->I beat he wears a big hat for that big head of his. What an ego-monger!
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
Plus, I can't wear my cowboy hat either without sticking my head forward so the rear brim doesn't get smashed.
-I have no idea what you're talking about. my explorer definitely does NOT start with a "click" of the key.
[Oops, just trying to fit in]
Scorp--->It's called getting a lot of choices in the dealership lot. You can customize if you want to wait. But if you don't like the choices, you drive to another dealership or just order it. You're in Texas right? Head to DFW and take your pick from 5 different dealerships in North Dallas area alone. Each dealership has at least 30 trucks to pick from, and hardly one is alike. They do need more 5 speeds however!
But can you take these components off? Suppose someone who doesnt want AC comes along, and wants a 4L V6 4x4 Ranger. Does it come without AC?
AK, it is taking some getting used to. I've stopped cranking the wife's Lexus a few times thinking it should have caught already.
I do like how the skid plate question on the toys got ignored AGAIN!!! I am waiting for the reason a $40,000 car clunks when started.......I'm sure that it was designed in by toy for some magical benefit.
Oh, and I like how Ford puts the rear shock absorbers closer to the center of the axle, versus Toyota which puts them at the edge of the axle (and neatly tucked away, I might add). Which design is more logical?
I don't even know what you guys are talking about with this startup cranking, and I don't even care. You want to know what I think is stupid about Fords? The fact you have to OPEN the door to UNLOCK it. Stupid Ford, they made the knobs so small they disappear when the door's in the locked (down) position, where you can't pull it up. Please explain the logic of that.
Toyota boys still defend their more expensive trucks with fewer options by saying "Toyota's doing me a great service by not putting lots of fancy stuff in the truck I don't need but still charging me more money!"
Toyota boys bragging about ground clearance superiority even though it's been proven that Toyota does NOT measure from the same points as other manufacturers just so they can post the biggest numbers.
The Ranger's now got more torque and horsepower than the Tacoma and now all of a sudden the argument seems to have been steered away from engines.
I'd love to see a face-off between a TRD and the new Ranger with manual transfer case, off-road package, bigger engine, and 5 speed manual.
I will make the same observation I made long long ago here... the majority of import owners never seem to be able to just enjoy their own vehicles without crapping on anyone else's. The majority of domestic owners I've met in here seem content to love their own trucks until some import owner picks a fight by telling them it's crap. And I've always believed that those who feel the strongest need to go around belittling everyone else are the most insecure.
Please notice I have no experience with any newer Ford's so you don't have to get all defensive on me.
Pluto--->Scroll up a few posts to see why everyone talkting engine starting times. You and scorp seem to be knocking Domestics, so others let you know their own personal experience.
Let me answer your door locking knob question with another question. Why the heck are you trying to OPEN a door and expect it to be LOCKED at the same time? Does that work on your house? It's just a convenient feature.
Before you complain about a head rest that doesn't let you wear your cowboy hat like you want to.
Grasping at a few straws are we?
I also like how you avoid the skid plate question, even addressing it and then telling us how you think the Ranger suspension is flawed.
Homework assignment for you, figure out what a shock does, and prove how the placement on the Ranger is such an inferiority, to say your perfect Tacoma. You may want to go back and remember your math classes about geometry and angles.
Scorp--->I don't think you can get one without, but that is a good thing. If you don't want it, don't use it. It you own an air or plain ratchet set, you could easily remove the A/C. If you're worried about parasitic accessory drag, then you can remove the belt during the winter(I do to give my 2.3l more power/better milage). But in Texas, you're one stinky boy without A/C.
Whatever the Ranger's ground clearance, I'm sure they didn't meausure it from the bottom of the shock-absorber bracket. See, Toyota doesn't have a bunch of machinery hanging below the axle/diff, which should be the lowest point of the vehicle. Maybe that's why they have more clearance? What's so erroneous about that?
Stang:
I knew you were going to say something like "why would you unlock a door if you weren't planning on opening it?" Well, that "feature" (if that's what you call it) could be included on any vehicle if they chopped the lock knobs to half their length so they disappeared into the door when locked. Ford is the ONLY maker that does this. For people who have secured parking areas, transport a lot of people continuously and leave their vehicles unlocked, it's ridiculous to have to hand-open doors to unlock them, then close them. What a great idea!! I'm going to cut off my truck's lock knobs so it'll be a convenient feature! Honestly, I can't believe Ford would make half-sized lock knobs in an effort to save a few pennies. They could have put full-size lock knobs on their trucks and still had that "feature" but also an option of unlocking the door without opening it.
Now I suppose you're going to say the one-size-fits-all "surfboard" seats are some kind of feature.
Stang, I don't have to do any homework to answer your question about the shock-absorbers and angles and mathematics. First, I'll answer your question using a simple analogy. Imagine two people holding the ends of a baseball bat, shaking their end of it up and down violently. To stabilize the bat, would you
A. grab it near the middle
B. grab it at the ends
Ford's answer is "A" and Toyota's is "B." The bat represents your rear axle.
All a shock absorber does is control/stabilize the oscillation (continuous up and down motion) inherent in a suspension's springs/leaf packs when the system is disturbed. Ever put a weight on a suspended spring, let it go, and watch the spring oscillate for about a half-hour until friction finally stops it? Your vehicle's suspension would do the same thing (not for half an hour, of course) without the shock absorbers. You can tell if your vehicle needs new shock absorbers if it bobs up and down several times after hitting a bump, or by simply pushing down on it and seeing if the vehicle rebounds but continues to bop up and down several cycles.
As for placement of the shock absorbers, specifically, Toyota's vs. Ford's, I think the baseball bat explains what is happening better than words. If the axle's motion always described a perfect up and down motion, it wouldn't matter if the shock absorbers were placed near the middle (imagine the people moving the bat up and down in sequence - you could stop the motion by grabbing the bat in the middle). But in real life, your axle doesn't move that way, one end may be going up, and the other end down. To stabilize this motion, it is best to put the shocks closer to the tires (again, imagine two people shaking the bat violently - wouldn't you better control the motion by grabbing the bat at its ends?). That's because the leverage (force x distance) created by distancing the shock absorber from the source of motion (tire) works AGAINST the shock absorber. Same thing with the bat - as you move your hands inward from the ends, the people shaking the bat have a leverage advantage over you.
This has gotten pretty long-winded but I think you can see the point I'm making. Placing the shock absorbers closest to the tires makes the most sense. The Ford's design almost looks like an afterthought when compared to Toyota's.
it is very easy to put your elbow on the door latch. When I have windows open, and stick the left hand out the window (to enter the gate key, for example), my arm hits the latch, and locks the door, so when I get home, I'll pull it out.
Thats a very valid scenario when your door gets locked.
About AC: If you don't need it, you still pay for it, and have to take it off later (and have Ford give you troubles about warranty later, every car dealer is guilty of that). Thats modifying the stock truck, something that tbunder has made a big thing out of when it came to Toyota. At least with Toyota I could buy a truck without having to pay $900 for AC. Sure, I'll have to select the tach, wipers, etc. all separately, but I have freedom of choice. And I have a reasonably good high temperature tolerance, I open up my window, and I'm fine, don't have to run AC.
eharri3: "I would love to see a face-off between a TRD and a new Ranger with the manual transfer case, offroad package, bigger engine and 5 speed manual"
DUDE, ME TOO, ESPECIALLY WITH A TRD SUPERCHARGED TRD TACOMA!!!
Naww, let's keep them both naturally aspirated, as they rolled off the assembly line. Toyota fans love to brag about this 'stock' supercharger but it's just a factory-sanctioned modification kit.
even with a/c on a ranger, its cheaper than a tacoma w/o it.
i do see the logic in the shock thing. good points. does this affect the off-roadability? we'd have to take an FX4 vs TRD to find out. evidently it didn't matter on the tundra in the new four-wheeler mag, they said the trd sucked off-road. was like a cars suspension.
Chevy boys compare their 5.3 (when they also have 4.8) to Toyota's 4.7.
Ford boys compare their 5.4 (when they also have 4.6) to Toyota's 4.7.
Ranger boys compare their 4.0 (when they also have 3.0) to Tacoma's 3.4.
SO NOW IT'S STACKING THE DECK COMPARING TOYOTA'S TOP OF THE LINE ENGINE (SUPERCHARGED 3.4) TO YOUR TOP OF THE LINE ENGINE (4.0)!?!?
Where's the consistency, or don't you like to play by your own rules, LOL?!
BTW, not too long ago there was this little contest called the Ultimate 4x4, maybe you heard of it?. The Tacoma ("stocker with the locker") beat the Hummer, Jeep and Land Rover. Ranger? Not even a contender 'cuz it's not in the same league as these vehicles.
Tbunder: How many times do we have to go over this? Tacoma no longer has a one star side impact rating, and it has been rated the safest compact overall.
Oh, and your best-selling F-150 did absolutely horrible in the crash test - in fact, it came in dead last. Contrary to your belief, "best-selling" doesn't mean "best," now does it?
-Wow, flip the "domestic" and "import" words around and it sounds like you've described Tbunder to a T. Especially that last sentence.
Hmm, also sounds a lot like vince8. I must be wrong though, I'm sure a domestic owner has never said a bad thing about a toyota or honda without being provoked, right?
As far as break-ins are concerned, I would imagine it would be much easier "hooking" the lever used to open the door with a coat-hangar (or any similar device) than trying to "hook" one of those featureless, small lock knobs.
this is getting nitpicky, however.
Ford doesn't do it to save money. It's a safety issue. With the old mushroom shaped door locks you can easily get a coat hanger past the weather stripping and hook it onto the door lock to gain entry.
But with the shorter door lock stud, you have 1. A deterrent to someone breaking into your vehicle, and 2. You have a easy visual check to see if your doors are locked.
And just try hooking a hanger onto the door handles. You can't open them by pulling the latches up, you open them by pulling the latches IN.
If you want to have the door unlocked with no intention of opening it, then don't lock it after you get in the vehicle. From the inside, it doesn't matter if the door is locked or not, the inside door handle will open it everytime.
It is just simple, and convienent. Don't be petty.
Also don't forget about the Ford 6.8l or 7.3l. Show me a Toyota that can even compete with that.
Also, your bat analogy is kind of cute. But you fail to realize that by having the shock absorbers closer to the center, the shock absorbers move dramatically less than the outside of the axle, or wheels and tires do. Combine this with a stiff rigid shock, and you're good to go. Now Toyota's shocks do a lot more work with the wheel articulation and axle movement. Any more argument along these lines would necessitate two vehicles being tested for articulation and actual performance on highways, curves, and bumps, etc, with an unbiased judge with a method to measure performance in every aspect. Any volunteers?
PS.. Pluto, you're already debating the F-150 crash tests in the Big 3 VS Toyota forum. Why not keep it there because THIS IS THE RANGER VS TACOMA FORUM.
Also you keep on bringing up magazine reviews for gospel. I guess since the Circus magazine thinks N' SYNC is "da Bomb" I gonna be stupid not to like them and believe this is pure fact? A magazine is just another opinion, albeit an informed one or not.
And I always believe that 1. A RANGER is no slouch off-road. 2. Most people don't off-road anyway. 3. People who off-road don't off-road all the time. 4. People who enjoy off-roading, enjoy modifying their vehicles. That throws stock specs out the window.
Also I've noticed you have characterized "lugs nuts that fall off" and "trucks that crush like a paper plate" onto the Ranger.
Please keep the problems of your NEGLECTED work vehicle (late 90's expedition) and F-150's crash tests away from your sterotypification of Rangers. Besides, not many accidents occur at 45 MPH between a truck and a solid lump of concrete attached to the foundation.
Do you debate here for the sheer fun of debate, or are you actually trying to prove something? (Like intelligence?)
also, for all this shock talk. just looked at a new tacoma and my ranger's shocks today. the reason the shocks on a ranger are closer together (not that much albeit) is that the ranger has alot bigger leaf springs outside the shocks which make it impossible moving them outwards. and so, pluto, your little babe ruth theory is out the window. maybe if the SHOCK was the only thing keeping the axle's sides from going up and down it would be okay to consider, but since you have LEAF SPRINGS too, the shock really is just there to smooth out the ride. the leafs take the brunt of the axles movements, the shocks just provide a smoother ride. take the rear shocks off, does the truck fall on its face? no, the leafs hold it up. the rangers frame and springs are just so superior to the toyota's, that it has to squeeze them in there. not to mention the diff. is nearly a 1/2 inch bigger too. take those things into consideration, and there's your answer.
pluto- you state that the tacoma is the safest overall compact. please provide proof of this with all of the others compacts tested in the same test. all i have found is the nhtsa rating it (the tacoma) 3 stars and the insurance institute rating it 1 star in side impacts. prove me wrong. ill be waiting.
Now it's my turn to challenge you.
"you fail to realize that by having the shock absorbers closer to the center, the shock absorbers move dramatically less than the outside of the axle, or wheels and tires do."
No, I do realize that, but what in the world would the advantage be? Anybody who can conceptualize this arrangement would agree that placing the shock absorbers closest to the wheels would be the most beneficial.
Since the shock absorbers move "dramatically less" then why didn't Ford put shorter, stiffer shock absorbers with less travel on the Ranger's rear axle, instead of those long ones that protrude well below the rear axle (a serious design compromise)? I am going to love your explanation on that one.
"Now Toyota's shocks do a lot more work with the wheel articulation and movement." WHAT? AGAIN, THE SHOCK ABSORBER STABILIZES THE REAR AXLE'S TENDENCY TO OSCILLATE UP AND DOWN DUE TO THE SUSPENSION'S SPRINGS. A shock absorber's travel length will improve articulation, but the shock sure isn't WORKING when that's being done. Furthermore, the closer you place the shock to the wheel, the LESS work it does because the LESS leverage the moving wheel will have on it through the axle.
In just about any suspension lift I've ever seen, the shock absorbers are always placed as close to the wheel as possible. Haven't you ever seen a lifted truck with 2 or 3 Rancho shock absorbers clearly visible in the wheel wells, right next to the wheel? They sure as heck don't put them towards the diff!!!
Sorry bud, but you need to either retake Suspension 101 or get your money back.
At least I realize the purpose of ABS brakes is to maintain control by preventing wheel lock-up.
You seem to think the entire purpose of ABS is to decrease stopping distances, when that's not the case. Go back and read those links I gave you.
Really, READ THEM. For your own safety, as you don't understand what ABS is for.
It's obvious the shocks on Rangers and Tacomas have difference characteristics. Rangers have less travel but are stiffer, Tacoma's Have more travel due to their being perpendicular to the axle itself. Shocks only check the the spring's travel.
As far as the advantage? I cannot say, I'm not the design engineer who builds trucks. Neither are you. Thats why I said "Any more argument along these lines would necessitate two vehicles being tested for articulation and actual performance on highways, curves, and bumps, etc, with an unbiased judge with a method to measure performance in every aspect. Any volunteers?" So shut up or put up. Don't say another word unless you can provide proof that your shock placement is better. Just because it's logical to you, doesn't mean it applies to all life as we know it. Sort of like the door lock thing...
My point is that for the axle's wheel articulation, the angled Ranger's shocks have to travel less. This could mean the shocks will be under less extreme travel positions, and theoretically less stress. Also the Ranger's angled shocks would be benefical for axle placment. With two shocks angled, the rear axle will be more resisitant to shifting from side to side under heavy throttle or heavy load and turning conditions.
So it boils down to less leverage and more travel vs. more leverage and less travel. It's very silly to continue this, as I've said and then you repeated that no great advantage can be proven in either design.
I guess you've finally realized your argument on Door locks was just silly.
Suspension 101 huh... I guess that's where you've been because you've been skipping Let It Go 202.
eagle63
What is it exactly that you currently own and drive? Your profile says '97 Ford Explorer. Is this correct? If so, does it have ABS? If not, what do you drive and does it have ABS?
If the Ranger's shocks go through less movement, why didn't they use a shorter, stiffer shock with less travel on the Ranger so that they could have avoided shocks hanging below the axle?
Sorry, but your theory and the Ranger's design contradict eachother. At least my statements are supported by actual suspension designs.
And why do suspension lifts put multiple shocks as close to the wheels? You didn't comment on that either. And I WOULD JUST LOVE FOR YOU TO SHOW ME A LIFT KIT THAT PLACES THE SHOCKS TOWARDS THE CENTER OF AXLE INSTEAD OF TOWARDS THE TIRE!!!
Yeah, I would say it's pretty obvious that you don't design suspensions, like you stated.
While I'm flattered you called me an expert, I must humble myself and admit it doesn't take much to look like an expert compared to you.
Kind of like that saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Besides, why should I care if you think your ABS will stop you faster on gravel or snow and you go plow yourself into a tree?
are you ever wrong? i mean, driving around in a foreign toyota truck with a cowboy hat on down there in texas must make you look like a really huge expert on everything. i bet those texas ranchers really hinge on your every word. i bet you see tons of tundras pulling horse trailers down there as well. what would the working man do without toyota trucks? i guess you'll never know will you? i mean, driving to the 7-11 each morning to clean the bathrooms doesn't require much, even a corolla could make it there, right? say, can you supercharge that corolla? hehe
dude, you're a trouble makin fool who needs to get a life and stop trollin all over. i mean, the silverado guys already kicked you out and made you look like a complete idiot, do you think its okay to act like one here everyday? we all know you think you know everything, just so that includes ignoring others factual posts. one thing you can do on your lunch break at the thrift store, go measure the leaf springs on a tacoma and then on a ranger. tell me whose is thicker and who has more. ill be waiting. in the meantime, try not making such a fool out of yourself in the silverado forums. and GET A LIFE!
Mr. midnight_stang then promptly deleted said posts in a pathetic attempt to comply with the regulations set forth by Edmunds Town Hall.
I hereby request that the events of today be admitted to permanent record for the obligatory purpose of warning others, including the hosts of Edmunds Town Hall whose lawful duties include termination of such offenders, of Mr. midnight_stang's inappropriate behavior when he is proven wrong.
I was thinking that less travel overall, the shock could hold up a lot longer. Even if the overall leverage is more for the Ranger, stiffer shocks and less extreme travel would be easier and more effiecient in my mind. But that's my thinking. I may not be right, but I'll be damned before you impress your opinion on me as fact.
Anyway don't ask me, cause I don't know. I don't think it even matters. I don't even care anymore.
Anyways don't take it too personal. I don't troll online, so I can't answer you immediately. Also what exactly do you mean by you last sentence in post 2885?
If you think you've got me under the thumb screws here because I can't find a reason, you're wrong. It really doesn't mean anything, except you asking the wrong guy. If you think because a lift kit's have shocks in the same orientation as your Tacoma that you are right, you're wrong.
Lift kits would have that orientation because 1. It's easier to shackle the axle perpendicularly. 2. The Ranger's mounts are welded on. 3. Lift Kits are easier to shackle on than weld. 4. If the shocks are tunable, you don't have to mess with how the angling will affect what the shock does.
[To the tune of the christmas song]
Let it go, Let it go, Let it go...
tbunder, Yeah, that's why ALL OF FORD's Trucks are number one and best selling for decades in Texas. Because our shocks aren't on the edge of the axle!! No, we don't ever haul 5 bales of hay(at once), or ever need a truck that can take a gooseneck trailer, or tow our horse trailer. Nah, it's only soccer moms throughout the great state of Texas!!!
Uhm, OK...
pluto- how many gallons is your cowboy hat you wear in your tacoma (LMAO). cant be more than two gallons, i mean, if it were anymore, you'd surely hit it on those awesome head restraints or it would surely lock your killer door locks. tell me, do you still have to lift the outside door handle and push down on the inside lock lever just to lock those pepsi cans up? i mean, no one would order power locks on a toyota, that'd at least be another $300 alone, because with a digital clock pushing $90, its only logical to think a power lock would be that much more. and when will toyota figure out remote keyless entry?
GOOD LUCK ON THIS ONE NOW!!
tbunder (or Vince8) - There's a lot of interesting dialog here on shock design but you comments are a bit much. Shocks are not intended to carry the weight of truck body. You're right that the Ranger's springs are carrying the load (as they should) but you should have stopped there. Kids tend to use air shocks and such to raise their vehicles because they're kids and don't know better.
also, the 2001 brakes on the rangers were made larger, and adapt themselves to the drivers inputs automatically. thus, to make statements like you did are moot. this is 2001, lets talk about current models when making statements about brakes. i dont know about your 1998 brakes, but my 2001 rangers brakes will stand the truck up if called upon. and guess what, abs was standard. just like every other compact 4x4, 'cept toyota.
who's vince?
allknowing...
Now that the big two has ABS as a standard feature on their trucks, would it prevent you from buying one?
I even admit to not knowing the answer on why Rangers suspension is so. I submitted my thoughts on your repeated question, and in doing so you are automatically right?
I only replied because as to what I think because of posts 2885, and 2887, and the nonsense in 2889. And then you trivialize and put lame words in my mouth in post 2891. What the heck is this about seals?
Saddaddy, you seem like a nice honest hearted fellow, but re-read my post. If you think I was waiting on a reply from an Ford Engineer, that's you're miss-interpretation. See the "But Seriously..." following my original statement?
I'm sorry, but I can't complete with you Pluto. I see you've posted from 1:46 AM to 8:51 pm a total of 14 times!!! No one can say a word without you jumping in, and who can compete with a troller. Does life exist outside of edmunds for you?
tbunder--->I beat he wears a big hat for that big head of his. What an ego-monger!