Ford>TOYota

[--weezl--]

I keep saying this over and over, I have had Toyotas and I loved them. I love my Ranger and all my older Rangers and BII's, but my early Toyotas were the best to won at the time. Thay out performed my Rangers at that time. I have friends who still have Toyotas and that never had any issues with them at all. One buddy has over 200,00 miles on his 05 4 door 4x4 Tacoma and he never had any issues with it. He drives it daily and loves the hell out of it. He is a former Ranger owner and had 4 Rangers and then bought his Tacoma and loved it right away. He pulls his 20 Flats and Bay boat with 140 merc engine and takes it out twice a week for over 5 years now.
I really think it is just luck of the draw as to what happens to your car or truck when you own it. Many of my Ranger buddies have not had any bad issues with their trucks. The Toyota and Ford trucks are still the best on the market as far as I am concerned. The Tacoma is still here in America and we have lost our beloved Ranger here in the USA.

over 20,000 miles, that's not very many...

you guys must be jealous, we still have the ranger in canada, though we lost the fx4 model the same time you guys lost the ranger... 2011 got traction control and 4 wheel disk brakes too!

 

[straycat]

over 20,000 miles, that's not very many...

you guys must be jealous, we still have the ranger in canada, though we lost the fx4 model the same time you guys lost the ranger... 2011 got traction control and 4 wheel disk brakes too!

LOL, 200,000....ha ha!!!. Yes...we are Jealous, Bro, but why did they get rid of th fx4? Traction control, Eh??

 

[--weezl--]

no idea... i don't think it was a large selling model... i bought an 07 just so i could get the level II's they just had the offroad package for 08 i believe

 

[Will]

I only like old Rangers, I don't like any of the newer stuff. Reason is, I like the Erector Set construction of the TTB generation trucks. Take it apart, put it back together some other way. Put the bed on the front if you want and the cab on sideways. Weld stuff on the simple C-channel frame anywhere you want with a stick welder.

If I had a new truck, maybe the Frontier crew 4.0 with the 6-speed and D44 rear axle. Or a Ridgeline. I really like my wife's Pilot. Plus, it pisses you guys when someone suggests the Ridgeline is a truck.

 

[RangerBoy94]

Id own any pre 85 yota 4x4 but anything newer no way!!!

 

[--weezl--]

I only like old Rangers, I don't like any of the newer stuff. Reason is, I like the Erector Set construction of the TTB generation trucks. Take it apart, put it back together some other way. Put the bed on the front if you want and the cab on sideways. Weld stuff on the simple C-channel frame anywhere you want with a stick welder.

If I had a new truck, maybe the Frontier crew 4.0 with the 6-speed and D44 rear axle. Or a Ridgeline. I really like my wife's Pilot. Plus, it pisses you guys when someone suggests the Ridgeline is a truck.

the ridgeline is less of a truck than the SSR or the golf truck

you know will, as a moderator, you should know about trolling in the forums...

 

[heptofite]

Try that with a Yota

...you probably could have done so just as well

 

[heptofite]

Yeah I go ford over Toyota any day. I test drove a brand new taco and hated everything about it. It was a piece of s#it. The ranger imo is a much better truck and it costs less. Absurd don't support buying forign vehicles. (unless its a Mazda) because there owned by ford. I'll never buy a toys though. I don't support communism. Did everyone know that they built most Japanese war vehicles during ww2? If you support that you should leave America. That's just my opinion though.

Were you born this ****ing stupid or is this the fault of public schools?

 

[heptofite]

A 97 4.0 would out pull it. 97 4.0l is a pushrod engine, by design they make more low end torque.

that's a logical fallacy, i will explain.

pushrod engines are GENERALLY tuned for more low end because they can't spin as fast as ohc engines, that doesn't mean that high torque is an inherent property of pushrod design, you could get an identical power curve from an overhead cam engine.

still, it's a property of tuning, not inherent design.

 

[Ozwynn]

I thought toyota was brittish durring and before ww2..... And nissan built most of japan's ww2 vehicles.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

that's a logical fallacy, i will explain.

pushrod engines are GENERALLY tuned for more low end because they can't spin as fast as ohc engines, that doesn't mean that high torque is an inherent property of pushrod design, you could get an identical power curve from an overhead cam engine.

still, it's a property of tuning, not inherent design.

Not so much that, but towards the end of the pushrod engines reign the dark times of performance had fallen. Basically they couldn't make much power so they moved what they could muster down in the powerband so it felt like it had more than it actually had. Back in their glory years of the late 60's and early 70's smallblocks with stock intake ports that could swallow a tennis ball they had absolutly no qualms about high revs.

I don't know how true it really is, but OHC engines seem more exact in their exhaust note. It is really hard to describe, my 5.4 sounds perfectly perfect but my OHV 5.0 has a raw meaner sound to the exhaust note. I think it is like the next step like what the switch from a flat tappet to roller cams did for the pushrod engines... better more exact valve control.

I do like the sound my 302 better though... it sounds more like a muscle car when it is getting gone in a hurry.

I have sat in the 'Yotas at car shows, I didn't really like the feel of them. To be honest either Chevy and Ford were about tied for first, Nissan and Dodge for tied for second.

 

[Will]

the ridgeline is less of a truck than the SSR or the golf truck

you know will, as a moderator, you should know about trolling in the forums...

What if your truck and a Ridgeline went head-to-head and your truck got it's ass kicked?

Seriously, a ranger is a generation, or two, behind other vehicles. It's why it's failing. When it started, it was ahead. I've driven a SOHC Explorer Sport--I put a nes engine in one during the timing chain guide failure era--and the 3.5 Honda is a whole grade above the 4.0 SOHC, which is a grade above the pushrod 4.0, which is my favorite engine. My wife's Pilot, which we've had for 6 years, will kick the living shit out of a 4.0. The Honda transmission is better than any manual or auto Ranger tranny--not even close. The Honda doesn't have a Torsen--it has a system that applies brakes to use the diff as well as possible. It also has a lock button that locks the rear axle when all else fails.

You want to talk about unit body--don't even begin that. Or if you do, show the pictures of a Ranger with the bed cocked 6" from the cab. A VW van had frame rails welded to the body and was a unibody. A Honda has that too. The only difference is that the frame is bolted on with 4 bolts insted of contiguously welded. There's a video out there of a Rdigline being drive around without the body. It does not have little subframes, but a frame that goes front to rear and is welded to the body.

Our Pilot is awesome. We've had it through many snow storms, trials and tribulations. It's unbelievable that a 4,500# car--900# more than a Ranger 4x4, can accelerate so hard, go through so much and be so comfortable doing it.

They are stopping the Ranger, remember. The Ranger was awesome back when it mattered. Now, like I said, the only reason I like the old Ranger is because it is an Erector Set. The Ridgeline is what it is. It's not going up Twister. But anywhere you want to go and avoid body damage, it will follow. On the road, with any towed load, it's kicking your ass. It has a lot of damn power and has a transmission suitable for a main battle tank.

 

[--weezl--]

will, only scanned that last post, getting tired... agreed that the ranger is a generation or 2 behind, but i don't think that a ridgeline would have any advantages over my truck, there, i said it, and i stick by it...

and furthermore, the ranger is still being produced for the canadian market, with no discontinuation scheduled, or even rumored really...

that's a logical fallacy, i will explain.

pushrod engines are GENERALLY tuned for more low end because they can't spin as fast as ohc engines, that doesn't mean that high torque is an inherent property of pushrod design, you could get an identical power curve from an overhead cam engine.

still, it's a property of tuning, not inherent design.

agreed, but that being said, 1) as far as the speed the motors can turn... i've raced cars with chevy 350's (stock block) that was running 7000rpm, still in the powerband, and designed to be shifter just over that... though it is quite unargueable that the extra hardware required for an inblock cam, makes the motor less efficent...

take 2 inblock cam motors, build one normally, then build the other to have ohc's but with the same intake, and heads that are ported identically, shaped identically and measure the same, the ohc motor will probably produce 10-15% more power and torque (imo)

 

[det107]

I thought toyota was brittish durring and before ww2..... And nissan built most of japan's ww2 vehicles.

Toyota Industries LTD was actually Toyoda Loom Works. The "d" was changed (for numerical reasons) to "t" for good luck.
All I can think of is the Mitsubishi producing the A6M 'Zero' fighter aircraft during WW2-

 

[Metallheadd]

I would buy a Toyota for the crewcab,reliabilty and size. The price is hard to take. The Ranger definitely has the best bang for the buck factor working for it.