|
|
|
|
|
This image has expired.
Final Stats:
| Total Votes |
0 |
| Average Score |
0.00 |
| Verdict |
Not Rice
|
Showing page: 3 of 4
[ 1 2 3 4 ]
 |
| #41 |
3-01-2005 @ 12:53:37 AM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#37, actually, that sums it up quite well...if you want to argue that a 3.5-liter 5-cylinder works well for the colorado, be my guest, ill just look at the performance/towing numbers; if you want to argue that the ranger is worth 30k, go ahead, obviously you like the idea of wasting money; and finally, if you want to argue that the nissan and toyota don't make a good amount of power, handle well, and offer much more for the money, have fun, everybody else must be wrong too
one more thing...what better way to win an argument and put someone in their place than to re-post the original comment, add some babble, include some spiffy words such as: like, stuff, and sucks, and highlight it all in bold for that extra effect...BRAVO!
[Edited by ambientFLIER on 3-01-2005 @ 12:57:04 AM]
|
|
| #42 |
3-01-2005 @ 12:55:10 AM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#35, yeah, you can get that too...get a base model with the V6, and a few extra things...i dont know where you are getting the idea that all these options are just being forced onto you
|
|
| #43 |
3-01-2005 @ 02:04:49 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#41, It's called "wit". It's not my fault you're lacking in it.
You neglected to mention any of the real figures for any of the vehicles. You didn't truly compare prices...you just made statements to the effect of "The Ranger costs $30,000", neglecting to mention that that $30,000 is for the abso-fucking-lute top-level Ranger, and that the base level truck is one of the cheapest in the group. You don't compare handling data, you basically just said "This truck handles well because it's a Nissan". Your idea of a quality comparison is "These three trucks are low quality because they're American, but these other two are high quality because they're Japanese, and Japan is magical."
|
|
| #44 |
3-01-2005 @ 03:11:47 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
and you neglected to look at the link that i provided in the description, which states the tested price of each truck...my problem isnt with quality, all three american trucks arent lacking in it, but with the fact that the "abso-fucking-lute top level ranger" costs around 30k, and for that money you get a lot less than with the other trucks...sure, the base ranger might be cheaper than the other base trucks, but then why wouldn't it be, it's smaller and it's a ford, and the price of the base model has nothing to do with the comparison of the TOP MODELS, and maybe if you , mr. argue-with-everything-ambient-says-just-because, pulled your head out of your ass and spent less time on your so-called "wit", you would realize that...and as far as handling goes, read the reviews, these people aren't idiots, and i'm sure they can tell the difference from one truck to the other
[Edited by ambientFLIER on 3-01-2005 @ 03:12:34 PM]
|
|
| #45 |
3-01-2005 @ 03:16:43 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
and why are so hung-up on the ranger, why dont you try to defend the piece of shit 5-cylinder colorado, that's a joke of a "new" model
|
|
| #46 |
3-01-2005 @ 03:26:08 PM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
personally, I miss the old Nissan hardbody trucks... cheap, square and made for work.
[Edited by kstagger on 3-01-2005 @ 03:26:23 PM]
|
|
| #47 |
3-01-2005 @ 04:05:53 PM |
| Posted By : Tastycakemix |
Reply | Edit | Del |
You have to remember the target audience.
They may not produce high numbers because the engine design was focused more on reliability. These trucks will may be immediately put through a great deal of stress. Therfore, heavier stronger parts are used. News would got around quick that their trucks broke apart under high conditions. Numbers may be not as expected but they can tow those numbers for a good 20+ years.
|
|
| #48 |
3-01-2005 @ 09:26:44 PM |
| Posted By : ricerocketboy |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#46, heck yea. I love those things. Another one of my faves is the original S10 and Ranger. The old Dakotas rock too.
|
|
| #49 |
3-02-2005 @ 03:00:04 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
the older dakotas are my favorite out of the earlier trucks, followed by the ranger
|
|
| #50 |
3-02-2005 @ 10:33:00 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#44, On the contrary, I did read the link you provided. And what I found was you neglected to mention the Dodge has the highest towing and hauling capacity. Rather, you made some comments about the V8 not being as good as the other trucks' V6s. The article you provided says nothing about the Ranger offering less for the price, except that it's not offered in a crew cab. Who the hell needs a crew cab in a truck that small? It would be left with a bed barely big enough to haul a cooler in. Remember, just because other trucks offer it does not mean you're missing out for the same price. The also was a simple write up (what would you expect from the likes of Edmunds?) and not an in-depth analysis, so I for one would not place too much faith in it. I'd recommend the same for you.
[Edited by Skid on 3-02-2005 @ 10:35:03 PM]
|
|
| #51 |
3-02-2005 @ 10:35:58 PM |
| Posted By : Adambomb |
Reply | Edit | Del |
What about the old Toyotas and their biodegradable beds?
|
|
| #52 |
3-02-2005 @ 10:41:12 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#51, As far as I know, they've fixed them. I haven't seen a Toyota truck with a rusting bed that was newer than the late '80s.
|
|
| #55 |
7-06-2005 @ 02:32:55 AM |
| Posted By : 427 Vette |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I win! Because interiors are the main attraction for pickups! And I can live with the five cylinder engine.
|
|
| #58 |
7-06-2005 @ 02:56:07 AM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#57, i like that one...colorados look good without the ugly stock fender flares
|
Showing page: 3 of 4
[ 1 2 3 4 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
View Stats
