MX-3.com

I looking into a weather beater for next winter, sure, its a way off, but im looking on whats available, im looking into a 4x4 truck for around the $5000cdn range, i happen to stuble across a few adds for 4x4 Mazda trucks. Now it would be neat to drive a Mazda truck and car, its quite encouraging after experencing the reliability and quality of my 1992 Mx-3 and my parents 1990 626, so i am only to expect the same thing of a Mazda truck, but cars and trucks can be 2 different things, and considering that Mazda 4x4's are quite rare, im worried abut the cost and rarity of replacement parts and maintenance<P>so, Good Truck or Bad Idea?

Bud, I think you said it all. Mazda does have good quality. I have the same perception that you do regarding that. So go for it. I'd do the same thing but $5G is a little steep for me. <P>one

well, i didnt say it was $5G, thats roughly what im looking to spend for a weather beater that i can use on a daily basis if need be, <P>although there is one in the auto trader: 1993, 4cly, 5spd, 127k kms, $6,995

look at a mazda truck then look at a ford ranger... [img]shrug.gif"%20border="0[/img]

fords are piles of s--- on wheels

lol k guy if ur calling fords shitty then ur calling mazda b series shitty too [img]shrug.gif"%20border="0[/img]

i guess so"

Dude you don't know what you are talking about, Ford Rangers and hence Mazda B-series are consistently rated as the best compact trucks by most car magazines as well as consumer reports beating out even Toyota. My dad has a '96 B4000 with 60,000 mi on it and it hasn't had one single problem. As far as a '92 Mazda truck, I think they were still made by Mazda back then, they turned into rangers in '93 or '94. Either way you will still be buying a quality truck, Mazda wouldn't put their name on anything that is crap.

how are parts (as is cost to fix/replace), they rare?

i personally would never trust an imported, truck... I know I'm gonna get flamed for this but I would rather stick with my chevs

chevs are good trucks, toyota makes the best thats just a fact, ford trucks are....ok...but i wouldnt hit anything if you wanted to stay alive, ive seen crash tests done with them and due to the lack of government standards they are made like s---, the intire engine gets pushed into the front seat, toyota and other auto makers have crumple zones and reinforced framing around the passenger areas, shows how much ford cares, quantity over quality, and if there trucks are like there cars you'll have it in the shop every other week. My buds mom got a cougar and the transmion went, got it fixed, steering column broke, got it fixed, tranny went again, so they finally got her a fully loaded and inspected it to make sure it was tight, ya ford rocks!

lol well we were playing poker one day, and this farmer came in and said he was gonna go buy a truck... so yeah thats all good... goes out and comes back, and everyones like what did you buy... o I bought a toyota Tacoma... then my grandpa speaks up, I though you said you were gonna buy a truck?

typical redneck mentality, why you gonna be driving an import car then retard? get a rustang like all the other idiots

I don't get it sureshiit, are your statements about the crashworthiness of Ford trucks based on acutal data or just your "professional" opinion? I was able to find some data at <A HREF="http://www.crashtest.com" TARGET=_blank>www.crashtest.com</A> that clearly proves that '90's models Ford Rangers score better overall in crash tests than Toyota or Chevy compact trucks. Not to be a d--- or anything but opinions are like a--holes: everyone has one. Unless you have the proof to back it up you shouldn't go bashing Fords or anything else. Just because your mom's cousin's brother's friend's half sister had a Ford CAR that broke down doesn't mean that there aren't millions of people out there who have had positive expiriences with Ford trucks, specifically Rangers.

sorry im not trying to bash anyone who likes ford, sorry for being vulgar in my prior posts, the crash tests i viewed where moderate speed off centre crashs which are the most common in north america, where as typical crash tests are low speed on centre tests where the energy distribution isnt focused enough too test real life safety significance, in the off centre tests i saw on tv which where done by an independent company the toyota scored the best and the ford scored well below satisfactory, they used the ford f-150 for the tests so it might differ from the ranger, although both ford and toyota toon considerable vehicle damage in these tests the toyota's crash cage was completely intact reducing passanger injury to minor, while the fords non existant crash cage let the engine bay be puched into the front seat of the truck, one of the reps of the test company said if he had this ford truck he would get rid of it and would recomend the same to anyone else, but anyways thats all i have to say.