Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Ranger AND Toyota Tacoma AND others - READ ONLY

138 messages,  Last post on Aug 22, 2003 at 1:10 PM

You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Javascript runtime error--TypeError: obj has no properties-- no stack trace file was written discussion.

What is this discussion about? Ford Ranger, Toyota Tacoma, GMC Sonoma, Truck

Messages Page 12 of 15

#106 of 138 sigh, Lucky for you I'm bored today by midnight_stang

Aug 04, 2003 (4:41 pm)

This one covers it:
midnight_stang "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Nov 28, 2001 8:18pm
 
midnight_stang "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Dec 13, 2001 11:29am
plutonious "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Nov 30, 2001 11:44pm
midnight_stang "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Nov 30, 2001 9:46am
 
and finally to quote pluto:
"Basically, you guys are saying it doesn't matter that the shocks protrude below the rear axle because they're no lower than the bottom of the differential."
plutonious "TOYOTA TACOMA vs FORD RANGER- Part XI" Nov 30, 2001 12:00pm
 
Yes Basically that was what I was saying, but who cares now. You and Houdini are on your own tangent. Reach your own conclusions, for what we said back then isn't what you bring up now.
 
Also, you would think that strictly vertical shocks would be best, and they may well be. However, none of you are engineers. Period. You do not know if it was more important in that design to fight horizontal axle movement vs vertical movement. You cannot even begin to compute the weighted leverage at any multitude of tests a automotive designer may contemplate when deciding where and how to mount shock absorbers. GENERALLY speaking, you are probably right, that vertical shocks are better than angled ones. But you have NO CLUE how or why the ford engineers designed the Ranger (and Toyota the 4-runner) with such shocks.
 
It's a F-150 design change (nothing to do with Rangers, Tacoma's, etc), and pluto brought it up solely to throw it into my face.
 
Again. Let the subject rest, it's old, and tired, and quite frankly pointless.
 
P.S. H0udini, welcome back to the forum (after your 5 month hiatus of zero posts). You seem to read everything here, but not claim to understand much, but yet you comment on it all. Now who is "trying to confuse and convolute".

#107 of 138 An observation by midnight_stang

Aug 04, 2003 (4:46 pm)

Seems the whole topic has taken a different tone and attitude. If I would pick a date, I would say somewhere around June 30th. Anybody else notice this?

#108 of 138 Hmmm, most of those links have by h0udini

Aug 04, 2003 (5:28 pm)

nothing do with any shock absorber debate, but like you say, who really cares?
 
Maybe what's more important is the fact you continually have to mention the race and occupation of certain posters. What conclustions should be drawn regarding your character and credibility? I'd especially like to hear what you have to say about federal employees...but then again, that doesn't have anything to do with this topic, does it?

#110 of 138 Good evening by tadaoh

Aug 04, 2003 (9:06 pm)

Tim, I am sorry if I acted out of turn. I thought you guys were all about putting each other down. I did not want to be a mommy figure as you put it but I thought I made some good points. Oh Well it already appears to be a big political debate to me.
 
Michael, thanks for the links, but I was hoping for something more concrete like interior plans or numbers on mile per gallon, and et cetera. I hope we can get something more concrete, as my interest is piqued.
 
Roy, I am not too brand loyal that I would just buy a Honda truck if they made one. I just had heard that there was one in the works, and wanted to know all I could about it first. I just would like something cheap and reliable to put some miles on, and maybe put to use during the weekend chores (aka the Honey-do list). I would think it would be similar to the odyssey in more aspects than one. Those links above seem to indicate the same. I was also considering a non-full size truck as I don't need to tow anything. Just the occasional home depot trip, or pick up whatever the Mrs. thinks we need next. I am still open to suggestions and input but essentially I just want a cheap reliable and low maintenance vehicle. I hope to talk to you more in the future about this.
 
Grant, Like I said to Tim, I am sorry if I stepped on your toes too. I didn't mean to butt in and this is second post so I'm trying! Can you elaborate more on the Toyota strong points that are now in Ford trucks? If this is the case, then Ford is looking better and better because I thought the Toyota was the more refined, although expensive of the two. Also I am not interested in the F-150, like I told Roy, just the ranger as I don't want the full size.

#111 of 138 actually by midnight_stang

Aug 04, 2003 (9:08 pm)

You had to read through the posts see the subject matter, but it's won't be obvious unless you read it.
 
And maybe what is more important is the person who is directly involved state that I crossed a line involving occupation or race. Should Pluto be the one to judge what is inappropriate, not you? Seems to me you are a third person party trying to stir up some trouble, when it's probably none of your business to begin with. Draw any conclusions on my creditibility if you want to, but let me remind you, this is the internet, not life. You won't hurt my feelings no matter what conclusions you make... but this should be a discussion about trucks. Right?

#112 of 138 Cheap and reliable by rlafaver

Aug 05, 2003 (5:18 am)

Tadoah, I like your criteria. Like I said, I did not have good luck with Honda, but most people seem to, so I'm sure it will be a good one. You will definitely get better pricing from Ford/Chevy/Dodge and probably from Toyota, unless the Honda is even smaller than the usual small truck. We will learn all this soon enough, I guess, so good luck with it.
h0udini, I've read most of this stuff, and I didn't see anything about race. And if I had I would have left it alone. Is any place safe from guilt-ridden white crusaders? I'm sick of hearing about it, so I will just bow out of this place. So long, m_stang and saddaddy. Enjoyed it.

#113 of 138 well, there you go. by midnight_stang

Aug 05, 2003 (6:15 am)

Sorry to see you go, rlafaver. We will certainly miss your input and collaboration, especially amidst the current population.

#114 of 138 Yep, same here by saddaddy

Aug 05, 2003 (1:34 pm)

-- even my purdy red neck will miss you.
 
Tadaoh -- we are not ALL about putting each other down, just a couple chosen ones.

#115 of 138 midnight_caballo by plutonious

Aug 06, 2003 (7:47 pm)

OK, here's my last words on the subject:
 
We did in fact have a long winded discussion with shock absorbers. I simply brought the subject up when I saw the redesigned F-150 confirm what I had been saying earlier. If this is so upsetting to you, maybe you shouldn't participate in discussions where people have opinions backed by facts.
 
Don't assume the role of moderator and place blame on me for what sometimes happens in these discussions. If I was guilty of even half the nonsense you accuse me of, I would have lost my membership privileges long ago. Much to your displeasure, I'm sure, that hasn't happened. It "takes two (or more) to tango," as the saying goes.
 
If other members here, myself included, don't care to hear nonsense about race and occupations, why do you continue to bring the subject up? I certainly never have.
 
Want to know what's really funny about all this? Everytime you see a new F-150, you'll be reminded of how you lost our little debate, which, of course, you deny ever took place. And everytime I see one, I'll smile...

Messages Page 12 of 15

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement