Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Spktyr
Give me some examples, please. I know very little about trucks. Gas mileage is more important than size or typical truck functions. We have a Subaru Outback (which I love) but it can't be flat-towed and I really don't want to have to deal with a trailer.
20 posted on 01/13/2009 11:03:09 AM PST by mtnwmn (mtnwmn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: mtnwmn

We are getting 24/25 mpg in the Tacoma.


25 posted on 01/13/2009 11:08:48 AM PST by AirForceMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: mtnwmn

The Ford Ranger is still sitting on the same 1980 chassis and suspension (with a couple of modifications) as the original 1980 Ranger. You can literally drop the current Ranger body on top of a 1980 Ranger frame and it will bolt up with the exception of (IIRC) one or two body bolts.

Handling and ride are pretty much straight from 1980 as well. It’s nowhere near as “car-like” to drive as the Toyota Tacoma or even the GM Canyon/Colorado twins.

They also have the usual run of “UAW-induced” flaws.

Sure, the 2.3L Ranger is the most fuel-efficient small truck on the market, along with its twin, the Mazda B2300 2.3L, but the 2.3L truck is gutless. Better to get the 2.7L Toyota Tacoma which is only 1 mpg less in the city, ties it in highway, and has more power (143hp/154lb-ft of torque for the Ranger, 157/180 for the Tacoma - and with trucks, torque is king.)


31 posted on 01/13/2009 11:14:07 AM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson