Last post on Oct 02, 2002 at 3:10 PM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger
#222 of 1840 More of tbunder's misinformation...
Jan 23, 2002 (2:44 pm)
I'll ask you again, just where do you get your information? This time, it's your Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V's claimed 0-60mph in under 6 seconds. In reality, that car's time is 7.7 seconds. And here's what reviewers are saying about this car (from Automobile magazine, January 2002):
"Almost as powerful, and almost as portly (compared to the VW GTI 1.8T), is the 175-horsepower Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V. We're guessing there are a lot of homebuilts out there that shame the SE-R on many fronts: refinement, shift quality, and stylistic restraint."
"Funny, because when we think of the SE-R, we tearfully recall the decade old Sentra SE-R, which was as fluent and eager a front driver as you could find back in the day. And when we hear the Spec V designation, our minds call up the mighty Skyline GT-R V-spec. It may be that our fond associations with both labels amplify the disappointment this car brings. Though it has a fine and torquey 2.5 liter four cylinder engine featuring continuously variable valve timing, certain aspects of the Spec V's powertrain limit its usability. The rev limiter cuts in just 100 revs above the car's 6000 rpm power peak, frustrating us on the track. We were always running out of second gear in corners, and banging into third left a gap. And by banging, we do mean shoving, cajoling, cursing its plasticky six speed into gear. Those who pine for the crude pleasures of 1980s Atari joysicks will love it."
"This car returns good numbers, peeling off the second-best quarter mile runs in sixteen seconds flat, third best lateral g numbers of .87, and second shortest braking from 70 mph (184 feet). After a few days with it, though, we were left thinking that good numbers ar this car's main goal. But the raod to automotive greatness does not run through the dyno lab. Great cars reward the human behind the wheel, not the accelerometer inside the g-analyst.
"A more rewarding experience awaits at the wheel of the..."
tbunder, I hate to say it, but you are a compulsive liar with these outlandish claims you keep making about whichever vehicle you like or dislike. Didn't you say the Ranger's rear diff is 2" bigger than the Tacoma's (it's .4" bigger)? Didn't you say that Rangers have lockers? Didn't you say Tacoma's don't have 31" tires? Didn't you over-rate the Ford 4.6's power output? Didn't you claim to jump and haul massive amounts of firewood your Ranger, yet your E-bay advertisement says it's never been abused or off-roaded? Didn't you say Rangers outweight Tacomas by 400lbs? Didn't you say your Ranger had its bed welded to the frame?
CAN YOU SAY LIAR?
#223 of 1840 One more thing, tbundy...
Jan 23, 2002 (3:05 pm)
Being that I'm an honest and sincere person...you know, I just don't think I could live with myself if somebody bought your Ranger believing it had never been off-roaded or abused, as your E-bay advertisement claims. I feel compelled to e-mail your potential buyers my saved internet pages where you talk about "jumping" your truck and hauling massive amounts of firewood through the woods.
Hmmm, my concious is telling me to hit the "send page by e-mail" button...
#224 of 1840 Explorer and Ranger recalls
Jan 23, 2002 (3:53 pm)
Ok. Taken from alldata.com (you are not going to disqualify THAT site too, are you?)
Explorer 2001: The all-famous Supplemental Tire Inflation Label (sounds like someone is telling customers to change their PSI in tires). Other TSBs that sound awfully interesting:
1. Heater Core: repeated failure.
2. Front Axle: vent tube fluid leaks. Now why is that?
3. Here's my favorite, tells all about "The Ford way": Fuel Pump whine heard through speakers.
Let us try Ranger 4WD 4.0L 2001, shall we?
1. Heater Core failure again. Whats up with that?
2. Drivetrain thump and clunk noise. Whats that? Losing gears?
3. Electrical: water inclusion into connectors. Can you say short circuit?
4. Power windows: clatter when operating.
5. Include all the explorer stuff here.
Take a look at Tacoma 4WD V6 from 2001 then.
Out of 13 TSBs (no recalls), 3 are documentation, 3-4 are replacement plates for VIN, etc.
The only 2 TSBs that I could potentially relate close to anything serious are:
1. New parts for seat belt tongue stopper
2. Brake pedal: linkage update.
3. Seat belt: extenders.
Now. I understand that being a foreign manufacturer, it's easier to hide recalls. We all by now have heard of the gasket and sludge problems in the 1997 Tacomas. Havent heard anything about 2001 ones.
So you wanted to know? Here it is.
When I read through those TSBs for Ford, I don't get a picture of a great company that makes great vehicles. You say Ford has gotten their crap together? Ask a few of those 30000 people they kicked out, see what they say.
Toyota has its own brand loyalty. I mean, its either that, or last year 90K idiots pour into Toyota dealerships around the country to buy that supposed full-size truck. And each year more than more idiots are paying for an obviously overpriced Tacoma, when they can have an affordable Ranger. Ford will make sure to tell you not to run too much of a tire pressure, otherwise your tires will blow right under you.
#225 of 1840 pluto, tbunder
Jan 23, 2002 (3:58 pm)
I'd not necessarily call hauling wood an abuse. Thats what the truck is made for, to haul stuff.
However, it'd be an abuse if you hauled the maximum payload all the time.
But I do agree about jumping the truck. Its an abuse. It's kinda both ways, tbunder:
If jumping is what everyone thinks (and what we've all told you was abuse), then you should not have said on Ebay that "truck has not had any damage done to it whatsoever", cause you did do damage by jumping.
If jumping the truck is what you call it...what was it? getting out of a ditch? Then you should have said that you've been offroad at least once, since obviously, you don't find ditches on highway, where the truck is "mostly driven on highway". I'd be more honest on Ebay. When I was selling my Blazer, I've described every problem that I knew of that it had, because I didnt want people to get into a situation they didnt know they were getting into.
#226 of 1840 Speaking of the supposedly full-size Tundra...
Jan 23, 2002 (5:00 pm)
The Ford/Chevy guys have said before the reason they love to criticize the Tundra is because it's not "full-size," yet is advertised as so. Well, I don't consider any of the regular cab Chevy 4.8s or F-150 4.6s any more "full-size" (ESPECIALLY with those totally worthless step-side mini-beds) than any Tundra, and especially not any more capable.
And since the Ford/Chevy guys have such a problem because of the Tundra's not so accurate advertising campaign that says it's full size, I think it's only fair to bring up their trucks' advertisements. Ford's is "Quality is job #1" and Chevy's is "Like a rock." Yeah, give me a break! I think those advertisement slogans are much more misleading than Toyota's...
#227 of 1840 as a side note on Ford quality job
Jan 23, 2002 (7:16 pm)
My uncle, who has a 1.5 year old F150, just called me and said that his brakes have failed today. And I mean failed as in: something in the front disk brakes has loosened up and jammed in between the pads. Tore right through the brake rotor and locked up the tire. Luckly, he just got off the freeway and was at a traffic light.
Sure, this could happen to anyone, but interestingly enough, didnt happen to my 2 cars that I had prior to this time.
#228 of 1840 lmao.....my ranger?
Jan 23, 2002 (9:22 pm)
pluto, you're such a loser. i think i've got your naive ass wrapped around my finger. you TOTALLY hinge on every word i say (i love to set you up). its hilarious and truly funny. YOU NEED TO GET A LIFE DUDE! i am beyond flattered you have my truck saved in your computer. amazing. as far as the ranger, i have just made a deal tonight with the guy in virginia to sell. he's driving over the weekend to pick it up. so go ahead and email the buyers, they'll not only think you're a loser emailing strangers, but they'll immediately recognize a keyboard loser, like yourself. do it. do it. i want you to.
as far as the lies you posted earlier, please go to ford's site or yahoo's site and check out the numbers on the 4.6, you'll again see that your stupid ass posted the wrong information-again. haven't you realized that edmunds posts very inaccurate info all the time? get a brochure if you want. you're so naive my man.
also, visit car and drivers site to see what they say about the nissans. what, you want to race a celica against one? what a joke. you would though wouldn't you? doh!
as far as my truck being abused, it is OBVIOUSLY clear to me that you guys never use your trucks for what they're meant for. you paid for that 4x4 t/c, try using it sometime. just because you've hauled or wheeled in anything, doesn't mean it has been abused. and yeah, my truck has mostly highway miles on it, maybe 100 off-road miles. is that a lie? jumping? ditches are abusing? maybe for a toyota, but not a ranger. no wonder they sell hundreds of thousands more rangers, people aren't scared to wheel with them, or use them to work with.
and as far as the wilderness tires, you're wrong again. i do believe that tacomas once came with firestone wilderness tires stock. doh! get that foot out of your mouth you idiot. research my man. you need to learn a little.
after all, you're the king dumbo who thought you could install a lsd alongside with your locker. and you claim to be part of a club of off-roaders? whatever. i think your truck is getting tired of that drive to taco-bell every morning pluto, try using the little lever next to the console. after all, you paid for it.
scorpio- as for the recall stuff, notice that all the toyotas have to deal with safety issues, seat belts and such. and that the ford's are relatively small issues, that im sure dont affect every vehicle. i personally haven't had any of those things wrong with my truck. but i hope you have got your new parts for your brakes and seat belts. did you know what you posted? id rather have a heater core fail than my brake linkage or my seat belt stopper. doh!
for producing millions more vehicles a year than toyota, i find it pretty impressive that the ranger has only 3 more tsb or recalls than the toyota. and im sure ford is a lot more thorough on listening to their customers, i mean, ive heard the horror stories toyota owners have with their service departments. i think you two have posted a couple. toyota guys don't like to hear of problems with their vehicles. it will ruin this "understood" claim that they only have maintenance on their vehicles, and not service. ive visited a couple toyota dealers, and both were stuck up m-fo's, who obviously believe that they're selling hand made ferrari's.
here's a couple facts you guys hate-
#1 selling compact truck for over 15 years
more power and torque
those two things get to you guys i know. you're wondering why toyota won't sell as much as ford, and why doesn't toyota come out with an engine as powerful as the 4.0.
oh and pluto, one last thing- a couple days ago you posted that ford "upgraded" their 4.0 to achieve the 210, 207 horsepower ratings it owns. i guess you didn't know that this is a totally different engine than the one that outsold the tacoma before the 2001 model year. overhead cam vs overhead valve. please, educate yourself before you post info. that proves how much of an idiot about vehicles you are. just like the rear diff thing. that was hilarious, and you're joe off-roader, or so you said.
since my ranger will be gone, my days will be limited for posting here, but ill still read your bs. hehe.
ps. pluto, the tacoma does NOT have 31" tires, it uses metric tires now. i know your old '98 uses the flotations, but how many times do i have to tell you to go look at a new one, they now have 16" wheels (optional of course, while ford uses 16's as standard stuff) and use 265/70/16's. which are wider than a 31 and have a noticeably smaller sidewall.
Jan 23, 2002 (9:47 pm)
Offroading is not necessarily abusing a truck. It depends on how you offroad and where. Jumping is abuse, no matter what.
About "why doesnt Toyota come out with engine as powerfull as 4.0?": when exactly did the Ranger get its 207 horses? 2001?
About TSB: note that Toyota TSBs don't say "Failure", unlike Ford ones. The brake one is "Update", whatver that means. What bothers me is that TSBs that I've looked at span a lot of vehicles. It may be an error on the part of the site, or is it that Ranger is sharing a lot of parts with the Explorer?
I don't have any horror stories about service department. I've never been to one. Just like your Ranger, mine is running flawlessly. Whatever your experience with Toyota dealers is, sure it may be true. I know a guy who works for a Toy dealership here. I'd not go to buy a truck from him. I know him more or less personally, and he's just a bad type of a person. However, my experience when I bought the truck was very excellent. I'd go back to the same dealership when I need to get the next truck, how many years from now it'll be.
It's not that all Toyota dealers are pricks. I'd give you an example of a Ford dealer like that, however, I've stayed away from Ford dealerships completely. I wasnt even remotely considering buying a Ford. I guess I'm the idiot here, not wanting to be the part of "big Ford family and millions of people who continue driving best vehicles in the country". I'll pass, if I want tires exploding under me, I'll let you know.
Again, as for power and torque, when did Ranger get the new 207hp engine? It's rather funny, Ford continues to sell its old 3.0L engine with 150hp, and the 4-banger version. The reason why its funny is that you keep bragging about power, and Toyota's 7 year old I4 engine is better than Fords' one, and as good as the Fords' 3.0L. I guess we missed that.
Jan 23, 2002 (10:07 pm)
but the engine has been out since the fall of '96. why put it in ranger when they didn't have to? even the old 4.0 pushrod made more torque than your tacoma's 3.4. and you brag about your 190 horse engine's torque? the old ranger 4.0 was outselling everything with the less powerful 4.0, why change something that isn't broken. also, im sure they had a lot of those older 4.0 engine parts around, which im sure is why they used that older design as long as they did.
as far as the 3.0, i would think that the majority of ranger 4x4's sold have this engine in it. this engine is bulletproof and very torquey for its size. and with the 5-spd auto or 5-spd manual, it gets going pretty quickly for only having 150 horses. why get an I-4 (with toyota for more money) when you can have a small V6 which will last longer? also, ford doesn't insult its buyers by offering a 4 banger in a 4x4. for toyota, this is what the majority of their 4x4s get. and they're even more expensive than ford's V6s. sure its a good engine, but its still a 4-cylinder. and they're dogs. also, last time i checked, you couldn't even get a tacoma 4x4 regular cab with a V6. at least ford offers this, along with a manual with both V6s and the off-road packages, both of them. TRD off-road in a reg. cab? dream on. and YOU guys talk about toyota giving you choices. what are they, a clock for $85?
you claim that the toyota I-4 is as good as ford's. you are insulting your own engine. ford's I-4 is only used in its base 2x2 trucks. toyota on the other hand depends on their I-4 for the majority of their builds. at least ford has an optional smaller V6 for 4x4's. toyota's small I-4 HAS to be good, it's their main engine in their trucks.
Jan 23, 2002 (11:19 pm)
I've seen several TRD's in a Reg. Cab. Tacoma so what's the deal. They're relatively easy to get in California.
I'd also, once again, caution the Ford guys here from praising the Explorer's quality history. It's a big seller but it's had a lot of consistent problems other than the tires. The SOHC 4.0, for example, had many years of failed engines from the timing chain situation. Ford eventually took care of the problem (apparently..time will tell) and refunded the money of previous repairs (typically engine replacements). That took about five years of ignoring the problem though. I've read several posts here attempting to claim that the problem only made the engine noisy of which the writers are completely misinformed. The noise was typically a prelude to extensive engine damage if left unattended.
The Ranger, on the other hand, has a very good reputation so I'd stick with defending the Ranger if I was a Ford guy.