NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/autos/27630

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 3.8 KB | 80 lines

Newsgroups: rec.autos
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!jnielsen
From: [e-mail] (John F Nielsen)
Subject: Re: Japanese Full Size Trucks
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: photon.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:11:26 GMT
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I just looked at one of these Toyota T100 pickups (the 1/2ton) and must say
>that I'm not impressed.  I've been waiting a long time to see if the
>Japanese learned from Ford and GM's truck mistakes, but I don't think so.
>
>1.  The 3.0L engine is too small (lower hp and torque).  The Ford ranger
>3.0L has more power (can't say too much about GMs stuff as I was that the
>local Ford/Toyota dealer leafing through truck literature and ran across
>the data).  Hey, the japs may make 'em more reliable, but if your gonna use
>the truck for what it's designed for, hauling/towing, I think your wasting
>your $20,000 (4WD version I saw).
>
Hold on here, The Ford Ranger XLT with it's biggest engine a
4.0 V6 puts out 145 hp with manual and 160 with auto with 145 lb-ft torque

The Toyota is 150 hp/180 lb-ft which is MORE powerful than the Ranger.
What numbers did you read???

IF you say the Ranger is a real man's truck that can tow, why would
the Toyota which has more power not be for towing?


>If you want it for 4WD/looks get a the smaller Toyota pickups (which I happen
>to like the looks of).  Still expensive and underpowered/poor mpg, but they
>look good.

The Ranger gets 17/21 mph
The Toyota gets 16/20 , so what do you mean by poor fuel economy,
especially from a more powerful engine.

Now the real man's test the Toyota can hold a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat.
The Ranger cannot. In fact the Toyota's payload is even larger than
the Dakota's(almost 2 in longer and 4 inches wider). (even the longbed
Ranger can't hold the plywood). Also, the Toyota can tow up to
5,000lbs.
Don't know about the Ranger, but i bet it is less.

>If you want more power in a small pickup, get a Ford or GM.  Quit your whining
>about poor reliability and maitain the thing yourself.  You may not be able
>to fix every problem, but you can probably fix many of them.  Of course,
>if you don't maintain your car at all (what's a tuneup?  I was supposed to
>change the oil?  I didn't know there was a fuel filter.) then buy the Toyota
>for reliability.
Then on top of being superior in opower the Toyota has it's reliability!
>2.  The cab looks like it was designed as if there have never been any truck
>before on the whole planet.  Sorry folks, those seats look worse than my
>GMC 1/2ton w/220,000 miles on it.  Comfort?  I don't even want to think
>about getting in it.  I know from my truck that you gotta get bucket seats
>if you ever want to drive more than 1hour straight.
Don't know about that. To tell I would have to sit in it.

>3. On the good side, it gets good gas mileage for a truck (15/20mpg).  It
>looks good (ok, need to upgrade those rims, YUK!).
>
>It's probably more reliable than Ford/GMs products.
>

>Folks, go see one for yourself.  Guess I'll wait for the net to reply :-)

So, there's a reply! I'm not saying the Toyota is the best truck or
anything but explain to me how your comparison can make sense?

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nielsen   MAGNUS Consultant            ______   ______   __  __
[e-mail]         /\  __ \ /\  ___\ /\ \/\ \
                                           \ \ \/\ \\ \___  \\ \ \_\ \