1

[Shran]

So all of my worst cars would fall into that period of our shameful history. Those are the piece of shit 140hp 5.8 liter engines I grew up riding in. A 190hp 500cid Cadillac. Whoopee. These are all trash. The ports are designed around the pushrods and bolts and things because they simply didn't give a shit. These are the worst motors in history--all of them.

Keeping this in mind, most of our 80's Rangers and B2s fall into this category and so do a lot of our favorites from the 90's. I may get flamed for this but honestly I can't look at a 1st gen Explorer anymore without thinking piece of shit. There are still vehicles from the 60's driving around that are in better shape than the garbage from today.

And you do have a point about building the Honda's etc. I'm sure they're fun if you're into that kind of thing, but what most people including myself are saying is that any 16 year old kid can go buy a shitcan Civic or Camry after watching Fast and the Furious and think he's gonna have a race car.

Given the choice between that 600 horse Civic and a '71 Chevelle with the 500cid Caddy motor I'd take the Chevelle any day. Tiny front wheel drive cars with one big ass bee's nest propelling it around are just not my thing.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Not to be an a-hole or anything, but then, why did you buy it?

Because....i wanted a runabout.

Rusty is getting up there in miles and age, and i still run her to town now and again to get grocerys or parts, but to drive 45+ miles to work everyday....naw...and the colorado gets almost 30mpg.

Dont be fooled, i wanted a ranger, but finding a NEW base 4cyl/5sp/2wd truck with air as the only option is impossible. The chevy dealer had one in stock.

I have my F150, F250, and F350 is i need a real work truck

The bigest load my colorado has seen was a 1975 Cub Cadet 149.

.....Will....
You can say what you want about 70s vehicles. Im not going to argue that there were some horrid ones out there, just like nowadays there horrid ones. They may not of been the highest performing vehicles ever built, but they were reliable, durable, and were roomy and comfortable. Me personally i feel they were well designed in terms of comfort and reliabilty. Useing an Engine that was built to withstand the 250-300HP norm of the late 60's and pumping only 185 or so out of it in the 70s means that you have a overbuilt tank of an engine that will never quit.

Also, alot of them got great mileage, my 77 LTD II with a 351W and a 3sp auto can manage 23-24MPG on the highway at 70. My Crown Vic with a 4.6L and O/D only got about 22. With better aero and a "more efficent" engine.

Alot of them also had hellacious amounts of top end power as well, my LTD wont hit top gear untill 90MPH.

Everyone can have there opinion, but me personally i LOVED the 70s cars, and other then late 60s muscle i would take any of them over ANY car built nowadays.

This is beautiful to me....

Not this...

I dont care what is is more efficent or practical. I would feel much more comfortable and safe motoring around in a 70's vehicle.

later,
Dustin

 

[RangerFabWorks]

1-dodge-neon, srt4, caliber, magnum, ect/ chrysler- pt loser, everything else

2- ford- flex, hybrids, focas ect

3- honda- ALL

4-smrt4two

5-any camaro or mustang owner that has the loudest exhaust. and drives the thing like a girl, shifting at 2200 rpm. i mean rev that mother. seriously.
END OF THAT LIST

1- ford probe, i mean could they get any gayer, paint it pink and sell it to a well you know

2- nissan 300zx, any year they suck dont care what you say i own one

3- toyota supra, any year they handle like shard

4-1990 eagle talon tsi awd turbo working on one over a yaer now and it SUCKS

5- any mazda rotory engine that has more rice than a chinese platter.
DONE

 

[ozzy85]

2- nissan 300zx, any year they suck dont care what you say i own one
[/QUOTE]


I have an '85... I like it, except for all the billions of little parts under the hood. Changing the water pump was a chrome plated bitch. Still, the car looks good and handles fine. I just didn't like what they did with the "90's 300ZX... big and round and heavy. It was as much of a shame as watching a pretty girl get really fat. If I want a car that size, Camaro did it better.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

For instance, give me evidence that a Ridgeline is garbage. Most people don't even know what a unit body is. A Ridgeline is not what you identify as a unit body (or unibody). A Ridgeline has a complete frame that is welded to the body. The unibody you are thinking of has no frame--it has short little bits of frame on either end tacked or bolted to the body. A Ridgeline stacks up well against any mid-sized pickup, even if it isn't in anyone's opinion. And it has a better engine and tranny than a Ranger--it's a manual tranny adapted to an automatic--shaft and countershaft, not planetaries. You won't notice that it is primarily FWD. It comes with a selectable rear locking axle and it definately chirps and barks the tires when you use it on dry pavement. Its the best midsized pickup there is, but hiding behind rhetoric will keep you from discovering this.

Honda has called that thing a fullsize on several commercials I have seen... against that kind of company it fails miserably.

An overpriced FWD, V-6 truck with a very short bed is not much compitition against a fullsize. And really the worthlessly small box elliminates from the running for a midsize/compact in my book.

 

[Will]

I have never seen them refer to it as a full-size. I see they say something about a half ton of muscle. Probably refering to the 1,550# payload. The advertisers didn't design it. The guys that designed it know what it is.

The Ridgeline bed is 49.5" wide between the wheelwells and 60" long. The Sport Trac is only 45" between the wheel wells--not wide enough for plywood, and less than 50" long. So I guess the Ridgeline has enough bed because I've heard a certain Sport Trac owner say his bed was big enough with the extender.

 

[Will]

I thought of a major difference in methods of thought between Ford and Honda. We all remember the unfortunate feedback carbs.

Ford's method was to grab the bull by the horns--try to directly control the fuel at the carb.

Honda's method was also a feedback system that used an O2 sensor as well. But instead of trying to make a controllable carburetor, it kept the same old reliable carb. To control the A/ZF ratio, the installed an air solenoid in the manifold instead of a fuel solenoid in the carb. The Honda system just let in some air to keep the O2 sensor happy and the carb would never fail making you want to kick the crap out of your vehicle and roll it down a hill through the showroom windows of your dealer.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I have never seen them refer to it as a full-size. I see they say something about a half ton of muscle. Probably refering to the 1,550# payload. The advertisers didn't design it. The guys that designed it know what it is.

The Ridgeline bed is 49.5" wide between the wheelwells and 60" long. The Sport Trac is only 45" between the wheel wells--not wide enough for plywood, and less than 50" long. So I guess the Ridgeline has enough bed because I've heard a certain Sport Trac owner say his bed was big enough with the extender.

I never said I like the sport trac's bed either. Neither vehicle have been steller sellers. They fill a niche for those that want to haul potting soil without having to vacuum out carpet and that is about it.

Honda having the spare tire in the bed/truck like a minivan is neat, you have to empty the bed to get to the spare...

I thought of a major difference in methods of thought between Ford and Honda. We all remember the unfortunate feedback carbs.

Ford's method was to grab the bull by the horns--try to directly control the fuel at the carb.

Honda's method was also a feedback system that used an O2 sensor as well. But instead of trying to make a controllable carburetor, it kept the same old reliable carb. To control the A/ZF ratio, the installed an air solenoid in the manifold instead of a fuel solenoid in the carb. The Honda system just let in some air to keep the O2 sensor happy and the carb would never fail making you want to kick the crap out of your vehicle and roll it down a hill through the showroom windows of your dealer.

Never been around a carburated Honda aside from my dirtbike, which has no emissions stuff whatsoever. I will agree that Ford's feedback thing was overly complicated, but it is easy to swap to a regular carb with a different distributer. My only experiance with the feedback system is on a truck that was hardwired to run with the stock feedback carb setup without the entire system being present, so personally I don't know how much I can blame it either. I didn't even have the plug to plug in the carb...

 

[Ranger Sport Honduras]

the toyota echo
any thing that kia or hiunday makes
ricer imports
dodge viper
audis, cuz they all look the same

 

[Potatoflinger]

1. Subarus. Especially WRX's.
2. Neon SRT 4's, you can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.
3. Smart cars. If gas mileage is so important, buy a motorcycle. Or walk.
4. Honda ridgelines. Buy a real truck for half the price.
5. Anything with a 4 cylinder and an exhaust tip greater than 2.5" in diameter.

 

[Toms01PSD]

Because....i wanted a runabout.

Rusty is getting up there in miles and age, and i still run her to town now and again to get grocerys or parts, but to drive 45+ miles to work everyday....naw...and the colorado gets almost 30mpg.

Dont be fooled, i wanted a ranger, but finding a NEW base 4cyl/5sp/2wd truck with air as the only option is impossible. The chevy dealer had one in stock.

I have my F150, F250, and F350 is i need a real work truck

The bigest load my colorado has seen was a 1975 Cub Cadet 149.

later,
Dustin

I see, point taken. I can forgive you seeing as you have 3 F-series.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

One in every flavor

The F250 was actualy just my mud truck....but now its a more sane street cruiser/beater.

later,
Dustin

 

[Toms01PSD]

Both diesels I presume?

 

[Will]

I never said I like the sport trac's bed either. Neither vehicle have been steller sellers. They fill a niche for those that want to haul potting soil without having to vacuum out carpet and that is about it.

I did a compare between Ranger and Ridgeline. Seems you have to fully option an FX4 Ranger to get what a Ridgeline offers in base form. And once you do, the price is right up there. The only thing I see lacking in the Ridgeline is a low range. Of course, the F100 from '66-on didn't have low range either--it had a D21 single speed box.

So point out the parts that make a Ranger a real truck. I have both (a Pilot) and unless I were going to modify it, I would rather have the Ridgeline. I know how to beat on a truck. People talk about how they beat their truck. Mine has been over 3 times and even the roof is damaged. I've blown out about everything you can blow out--including a radius arm and axle beam. Mine also plows snow with a real steel blade. I wouldn't do that to a Ridgeline, but I would totally rely on it to pull a 5,000# trailer or carry 1,000# in the bed day in and out. And also get me along in the winter and even use it to haul firewood from up in the woods. These are big robust vehicles, not Civics.

 

[Will]

I never said I like the sport trac's bed either. Neither vehicle have been steller sellers. They fill a niche for those that want to haul potting soil without having to vacuum out carpet and that is about it.

I did a compare between Ranger and Ridgeline. Seems you have to fully option an FX4 Ranger to get what a Ridgeline offers in base form. And once you do, the price is right up there. The only thing I see lacking in the Ridgeline is a low range. Of course, the F100 from '66-on didn't have low range either--it had a D21 single speed box.

So point out the parts that make a Ranger a real truck. I have both (a Pilot) and unless I were going to modify it, I would rather have the Ridgeline. I know how to beat on a truck. People talk about how they beat their truck. Mine has been over 3 times and even the roof is damaged. I've blown out about everything you can blow out--including a radius arm and axle beam. Mine also plows snow with a real steel blade. I wouldn't do that to a Ridgeline, but I would totally rely on it to pull a 5,000# trailer or carry 1,000# in the bed day in and out. And also get me along in the winter and even use it to haul firewood from up in the woods. These are big robust vehicles, not Civics.