Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Compact Pickup Comparison: Frontier, Ranger, Tacoma, S10, Dakota, B-Series, & Hombre

1246728

Comments

  • webbdwebbd Posts: 176
    Here they come again. "Well, I owned so and so, did 4 million miles on it, no problems. My friend's, though, now that was a piece of doo doo. My truck rocks because I can't find any other examples in my little known universe that are better."

    Personal experience means nothing if you do not include every other owner's experience. Vince8 and Mod, I'm not just picking on you. Amora seems to be bitten by the anectdotal bug as do a lot of others, import and domestic, in Edmunds.

    If you compare, impartially and objectively, the reliability data concerning MOST imported and domestic models of the past 30 years, you will find a major discrepancy between what you feel have been great vehicles and what is actually the truth.

    How long a truck stays on the highway is not a measure of how reliable it is or was. This simply demonstrates the owners loyalty and/or determination to keep the vehicle on the road. Any vehicle, given enough money, can be kept around for ages. To say one spent 5 grand keeping their Nova in running order so it could achieve 150,000 miles does not prove reliability. How a vehicle performed during its tenure with its owner is a reflection of how reliable it was. And again, you have to look past your own world and see the big picture.

    There's a reason why Toyota and Honda, and in most cases, Nissan, are regarded around the world as well-built, highly reliable vehicles. The collective experiences of those owners point to a decided advantage that these companies have in building automobiles.

    For example, troops, militias, and terrorists around the world trust themselves to one SUV above all others because it has proven deadly reliable. I'm, of course, talking about the Landcruiser.

    American automobiles are just not known for their reliability. It's just that simple. And it is not unpatriotic to admit to this. Before we can build better autos, we first have to realize this.

    I'm not saying we haven't come a long way in the last decade or so, but we are generally behind still and recent surveys and studies show this.

    I better end this before I put you all to sleep.
  • webbdwebbd Posts: 176
    Value is getting a lot for a minimum amount of money. What constitutes "a lot" depends on a persons value system. Your version of value is getting a ranger with what you view as valuable for less money than you could with a tacoma.

    My version of what is valuable may be different as someone else's may be. I value long term reliablity, craftmanship, performance (as does everyone probably) in this order. I want the best regardless of price because from my experience, given a "valuable" or cheap alternative to a superior product, it always pays to take the best if one wants to avoid future headache. I'll always pay more for the item that will not let me down. This, of course, is not to say that the highest-priced item is always the best. But with the Ranger and Tacoma, it was for me.

    I owned a 95 Ranger. It was a good truck by all accounts. The ranger according to consumer reports and various other studies is of average to good reliability. The Tacoma consistently ranks higher, though, and with my value system, it becomes my truck of choice.

    So to argue what you consider to be valuable (lots of items) with what, probably, toyota buyers consider valuable (reliability), is futile. You would be better off and, just as effective, arguing religion.

    BUT, to address one item which you consistently post about--the hp/torque curve. The ranger's, now history, 4.0 OHV engine has 223 lbs of torque available at 2800 rpms and 158 HP at 4200. The toyota 3.4 has 220 lbs. available at 3600 rpms, and it tops out at 190 HP at 4800 rpms. So we have 1% more torque by the ranger, but 20% more HP for the tacoma. (By the way, because I'm sure you'll address this, the tacoma, in a 4Wheeler magazine test, had 180 lbs of torque at 2500 rpms.) Now factor that the tacoma's engine is 18% smaller, and what does this all mean?

    It means the Toyota produced much more HP and almost identical torque with less than proportional cubic inches.

    Now, of course, the ranger has the 4.0L SOHC engine. It produces more power, but (again, efficiency), per liter, the tacoma still produces more HP (56 vs. 52 per liter) and more torque (65 vs. 60 lb/ft per liter).
  • webbdwebbd Posts: 176
    I was feeling inspired; late night jitters, I guess.
  • No, the suspension failure was that the Tie Rod ate the dust after only two years. I had a similar problem
    with my wife's truck too. My sister's sway bar on her 94 Mustang broke. Maybe you're thinking of when I
    posted that. All I can say is that I am a Ex-stanch defender of American cars. I used to Race Chevys and I know the small blocks very well and I was also a fan of many of the Ford V8's. I love the design but I gave up on GM after having too many stupid little things fail due to poor assembly on vehicles built in the 70's and early 80's. I had much better luck with Ford in the 80's but when I got a Nissan if 1990 it
    changed my opinion for good. I just have better luck these days with Nissan and Toyota. I like Ford
    Trucks and I think they're the best of the American made vehicles. I do however, think the little extra cost is worth it to those, like myself these days, that want to deal with repairs as little as possible.

    barlitz -With 0-60 times like that, it's a lot faster than I realized. Pretty impressive.
  • This new format really stinks. When you check your spelling and try to post where does your message go?
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    the Twilight Zone....
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    I understand everything that's posted and until my vehicle of choice lets me down I'm not going to buy on data and statistics. Personal experience counts the most with me.

    Web, your Land Cruiser comparo is flawed simply because the 3rd world and military products are NOT the same vehicles sold in the states. same goes for Nissan.

    I always find it strange that the "data" on Toys seems to omit the rusting sheet metal of the last decade and the head gasket problem.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    You can check out www.pickuptruck.com and get up to the month yearly sales,I don't know why but with Toyota so called reliability the Tacoma and Tundra always bring up the rear in sales,Ranger and F150 #1 in fullsize and compact.S-10 is 3rd in compact but still outsells all Foreign.And to date no problems what so ever after 3 months great gas milage and I love the heated mirrors great for the cold mornings in New England.
  • I suppose the Ameican trucks are a better deal to some for reasons rehashed over and over here before. I don't think that you could successfully prove that simply quality will make a vehicle a number 1 seller. Let's also not forget that, at least for the full size trucks, the big three (especially Ford and Chevy) undercut fleet prices to businesses to bring sales up. You can read about the war between Ford and Chevy to be number 1 every year in AutoWeek. The number one full size truck is usually the one that made the lowest fleet sale bids.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    Web. The 3.4 has to work much harder to achieve the same torque the old 4.0 Ranger has to!! Look at your own numbers man.... And as much as you Toyota guys want to get the the lowest numbers. The old 4.0 is rated at 225ft/lbs of torque and 160HP at 2750rpms. The Ranger is the better truck for hauling, towing and pulling.
    The new SOHC 4.0 trounces the 3.4 Toyota offers also at 205HP and 240ft/lbs of torque!
    By the way, do you know how much .6 cu/inches is?
    Value is what the Ranger offers. Value is what Toyota has forgotten.
    You get more options, more choices, more configurations from the Ranger. You won't pay out the nose either! This is why the Ranger has been the number one selling compact truck for 14years straight! Why hasn't the Tacoma taken this spot yet if its so great? Its had almost 6 years to achieve this number one standing... The consumer makes the choice, not some magazine....
  • webbdwebbd Posts: 176
    Barlitz, Ford has been around for a little bit longer than Toyota, especially in this country. What does it prove that to say that they are the best selling trucks? This has been the case for many years. Does it change the fact that Toyota and Honda vehicles are imminently more reliable?

    Vince8, if you bothered to read any of the numbers, you will see that I stated that the new Ranger 4.0 SOHC is MORE POWERFUL, but what I zeroed in on was its power per liter. The only advantage to this engine is its 1000 lbs increased towing compacity. If you consider that the ranger 2wd reg. cab has a payload of 1260 lbs, and a COMPARABLE (this comparison is directly from Ford.com) tacoma has a payload of 2009 lbs., then the only advantage is a total of 251 lbs for the Ranger. And the old 4.0 OHV had 158 HP and 223 lbs. of torque, again, directly from Ford.

    And if you bothered to read anything else I said, you would see that I stated value is a relative term. What you are considering value (lots of stuff) and what I consider valuable (reliability) are two different things, which explains why you drive a Ranger and I drive a Tacoma.

    Mod, the reason reliability studies aren't affected by rusting sheet metal and blown head gaskets is because those problems did not affect enough vehicles to bring down the overall reliability of the toyota truck. The blown head gasket only applied to model year 95 and 96 tacomas, as the engine was new in 1995 (not an excuse, just a fact).

    Of course, since this is the only major problem the domestic car owners can point to concerning a toyota truck aside from the older models' (80's) propensity to rust fast, it gets spread to all toyota trucks, and all of a sudden we'll hear Barlitz telling us things like the Tundra has a blown head gasket problem.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    And what I am zerioing in on is .6 liters is how much? When comparing engine sizes you also fail to mention for the .6 liter difference you get 15 more HP and 20ft/lbs more of torque from the new 4.0 SOHC offered in the Ranger. .6 liters is so little difference. I would bet if you put these engines side by side you could not tell the difference. The old 4.0 has been around far longer than the 3.4 and is old engine technology. How can you keep comparing the old 4.0 the the 3.4 of the Toyota? All the sites I visit say the 4.0 is rated at 160HP and 225ft/lbs of torque. I have visited sites that state the 3.4 is rated at 186HP and 218ft/lbs of torque? Who do you believe? Fact is the 3.4 has to work harder, rev longer in order to achieve a inferior HP/Torque curve even to the old pushrod 4.0 of past Rangers.
    Value, I see value as reliability, quality, and quantity for your hard earned dollar. Both of my Rangers along with several other people I know have Rangers that have been reliabile, quality vehicles. And option for option far less expensive than a comparable Tacoma. What do you say to someone who purchased a Ranger for 19K and has had if for 125K miles with no problems. Then you have the Tacoma person who purchased thier truck for 22K with the same options that has 125K miles? I would say the Ranger person had the better value wouldn't you?
    The stigma of Ford bad, Toyota good is fading. Toyota isn't all cracked up to what you want it to be.
  • webbdwebbd Posts: 176
    Vince, again, if you bother to read ANYTHING from my posts you could spare yourself some derision of them. For the THIRD time, the 4.0 SOHC Ranger engine is more powerful than the Tacoma 3.4. Is that clear enough?

    Second, I compared the old Ranger's 4.0 OHV engine because there are only several million owners out there (you'd be one, right?) still using this engine as it was just discontinued this model year. I was trying to cover both Ranger engines in the pursuit of fairness. The 158 HP and 223 torque figures are directly from FORD, and not magazines. The 3.4 is rated at 190 hp and 220 torque by Toyota. Yes, in the 4Runner, this engine produces 183 HP due to exhaust restraints put in place to make the interior quieter. Who are you going to believe? I thought the manufacturer was the authority in a case like this.

    It's funny that your engine, according to you, is now outdated because it has been replaced with one better, but before it was replaced, it was superior to the tacoma's. Now you only want to debate on the new engine and forget that old, outdated version propelling your current vehicle.

    But to continue the debacle, how much difference is 18%? When you ask how much is .6 liters, this can be deceiving. When you put it in perspective, an 18% larger engine is a noticeably (not visually) larger engine and a porportional power response should follow.

    If you refer to 4Wheeler magazine's (the manufacturers do not provide engine curves, that I can find) independent engine curve charts for both the Ranger and Tacoma (the Ranger curve in this article was for the old 4.0, so I won't bother with it), you will see that the tacoma produces over 82% of its torque at just 2500 rpms. It's peak is 600 rpms higher than the Ranger's (referring to new SOHC now). I only mention this to highlight the tacoma 3.4L's efficiency. It produces excellent HP (and excellent HP/per liter) and good low-speed torque, items both necessary to tow and to accelerate.

    If you read my posts better, you'd also discover that I am a fan of the ranger, but I want the best reliability regardless of price for my money. I agree with you that you get a lot more options for your money with the Ranger. But this does not make it more valuable to everyone unless everyone considers getting more options to define what is or is not valuable.

    "Value" is a very subjective term, and it must be left up to each individual consumer to determine what is valuable to them. "Value" as defined by the dictionary is a "fair return or equivalent in money, goods, or services for something exchanged." Your "options" would be "goods" in this definition while my "reliability" would equate to "services."

    And, please, don't tell me that I'm arguing semantics now. I'm trying to be as clear and objective as I can, so I won't have to keep repeating myself.
  • After a while you'll learn that Vince tends to misread/misunderstand other people's messages in his rush to respond. He drives me nuts.

    Oh, I have a Ranger.

    Steve.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,119
    ......... numbers are funny how people can manipulate them.
    18percent, .6 liters, whatever.. Fact is the new 4.0 has 15more HP and 20more ft/lbs of torque. Granted the old 4.0 is outdated but so is a 486 processor... but it still runs...
    Besides, I know I have old engine technology. But my old engine does fine by me, is reliable and does what I ask of it.
    The auto industry is always changing. The old 4.0 pushrod reaches peak torque at 2750 rpms of 225ft/lbs. The 3.4 reaches its peak of 220ft/lbs at about 3400rpms. The 4.0 reaches 200ft/lbs at about 2200rpms. (I say about because there are so many different sources that may say less or more rpms depending on where you read). The fact is the 3.4 has to rev harder and work harder. You can play with numbers all you want. The torque curve for the old 4.0 is still better than the 3.4.
    I have a friend who owns a TRD. We kid each other all the time about our trucks. I have already gone up against him in the Cascades. I could climb or go anywhere he could. It was up to him to take my Ranger into areas that he felt it could no way follow his TRD. After seeing that the Ranger could do anything his TRD could and for less money. I would say I got the better value.
    So, your saying that value has nothing to do with the money you spend for options? A/C is not of any value? or a tow pkg, or a CD player? I always thought you wanted to get the most for your money when you buy anything? So, your saying a stripped down Toyota Tacoma costing 16K is a better value than a Ranger costing 16K that has A/C, CD player, bucket seats, tow pkg, offroad pkg, tinted windows, sliding rear window, stepside bed, power windows, door locks, seats, p/s, p/b.... and so on...?? This is all hypothetical of course..
  • I've had over 50 cars/trucks in my life.. so far... even sold Chevrolets from 71-74. I owned mostly GM in the early years, and mostly Toyotas in the last few years... but it's been very obvious to me that as trucks go, the fit and finish and durability of the Toyota is definitely superior to anything made by anyone else... which doesn't make them perfect. They certainly had their problems with V6 head gaskets... but so did Taurus, Continentals, and a few others... the biggest difference is that Toyota FIXED them when u took them back. A couple of years ago I had an 88 4Runner that went in for the head gasket recall with 125K on the engine, and they decided because of the tolerances on the engine, new head gaskets would cause problems... so they put in a new short block, remanufactured heads and head gaskets. Ever hear of another company that concerned about their customers or reputation? I get tired of vehicles fast, so I rarely put more than 30K on them. So... my number #1 criteria for buying a vehicle is do I like it, and #2 is resale value. If someone can show me a vehicle you can drive for less than a Toyota, I'll buy it. Even though they may cost more (and if u know how to buy them right, they usually don't cost more), if u sell it within 5 years, you'll get a better return on your initial investment (bad word to use related to cars). My last new truck was a 97 GMC Z71 extended cab 5.7. By 15K I was tired of trying to park it, feed it, and totally bored with it. Went to the other end of the spectrum this time... 99 Tacoma XtraCab 4cyl 5 speed 2WD. Though I practically doubled my gas mileage and have more performance (believe it or not), I'm totally bored with it at 12K. I've driven virtually everything you can name (got stuck with renting Rangers the last 2 years on vacation), and IMO no one makes a truck that's fun to drive, has good performance and gets good economy... especially if u factor in resale value. First of all, u can't get the 4.0 engine in the Ranger unless u get ALL THE GOODIES, and then you're virtually at $20K MSRP... and what's a $20K Ranger worth in a year? A lot less than a Prerunner for sure, and based on my experience getting rid of my 96 Mustang GT... you're lucky if there's enough demand for a Ford to even get someone to come look at it. And as far as rust is concerned... I grew up in Illinois, patched my share of rust... can't figure out why u people still live back there. I can still take a wrench and remove the shocks from any of my old 60s muscle cars here in California. I just wish someone would convince Toyota to build some EXCITING trucks that weren't TOO BIG with a V8 ! ! ! They'd get better gas mileage and go like hell! Actually I've been leaning toward a used Nissan Crew Cab, just because it is exciting to look at, at least... and since they depreciate almost as bad as Fords, I can buy one a year old CHEAP!
  • webbdwebbd Posts: 176
    Vince8, I'm going to keep posting this until your insecurity allows you to comprehend that maybe someone is not threatening you and your ranger universe--I AGREE with you that the NEW 4.0 SOHC Ranger engine makes more power than the Toyota 3.4.

    But what I do not agree with, and nor do the manufacturers of each vehicle, are the numbers you are spouting. It is obvious when you start using words like "about" you don't know what you are talking about and are getting "subjective" instead of "objective." The Toyota 3.4 makes 190 HP at 4800 RPMS. It makes 220 lbs of torque at 3600 RPMs (not 3400, which actually hurt your argument). The ranger makes 158 HP and 223 lbs of torque according to Ford. Magazines round up, hence the numbers you are getting from them.

    I never said your old 4.0 wasn't a capable engine. I said that it was interesting how you changed your argument in light of the new SOHC engine coming out. You called your own engine old, but you were vindicated by the presence of a new, more sophisticated engine but one you didn't even own.

    And to address the question you posed to me concerning the 16K stripped-down tacoma vs a loaded 16K ranger. If you READ my last post, you would see that what I said was "value" is not defined as more options for your money. "Value" is a subjective term. It hinges on the individual consumer's value system. For you, yes, the 16K loaded ranger is more valuable because you place a high value on more options for less money. For me, I value the highest craftmanship, i.e. reliability, regardless of price, so I would take the stripped-down tacoma.
  • webbdwebbd Posts: 176
    You and I are seeing eye to eye. I don't have your vast experience, but I'm digging what you're saying. I even wish Toyota would bring back the tacoma regular cab with the V6. Talk about power-to-weight ration--that truck would go like stink!

    But if you won't these people to read your long posts, you're gonna have to break up your thoughts into small paragraphs. See some of my longer posts back in this discussion to get an idea. But, mind you, even doing this does not guarantee than everyone will read and comprehend everything you post. I'm starting to feel like some just read the last paragraph and then target it for their less-than-accurate rebuttals.
  • cygnusx1cygnusx1 Posts: 290
    wow, I go away for a while and now I don't recognize any sceen names. Well, at least Vince is still here.

    As for this..."as trucks go, the fit and finish and durability of the Toyota is definitely superior to anything made by anyone else"

    A matchbox car has better fit and finish as far I can tell.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    Taken from study of 5 year old models from JD Power. Most Dependable.

    Most Dependable 1996 Models by Category

    Compact Pickup Toyota Tacoma
    Full-size Pickup Toyota T100
This discussion has been closed.