Howdy, Stranger!

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





Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

1434446484959

Comments

  • marklomarklo Posts: 2
    at the comments that are continually posted in here. I know it's a Ranger vs. Tacoma message board, but good grief. I've come to realize, diehard Ranger owners, will never like Tacomas, and visa versa. I'll continue to come in here for a quick chuckle..."Mine is better than yours!" LOL! ;-)

    Marklo
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    lmao. intelligent, real intelligent.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    and I am proud to say that I do not believe that Rangers are crap and that they are pretty nice trucks. Wow, this therapy stuff really worx! Happy monday everyone.
  • I wouldn't own a Ranger if someone bought it for me. I used to sell cars, and every Ranger we sold was ugly (inside and out), made of cheap materials, and the engine sounded like metal grinding metal.

    I have NO problems with S-10's. Better built in my opinion. If I had to have a cheap work truck, I would get one.

    Oh yeah, and I really like the Ranger Prerunner package....Oh what is that you say? There is no such thing (No, the "Edge" package does not count)??

    Wow.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    certain people here think that prerunners are sissy trucks. I have been told that in some peoples eyes they aren't even real trucks. Imagine that. IMO, they are one of the smartest ideas borne by truck mfgs. in a long time. I rank the notion right up there with the third doors.
  • I've been looking at the new Edge/"prerunner" line for a while. If only I can find a dealer willing to special order me a 4x2 Regular cab Edge Ranger with 4.0l and a manual transmission, then you can call me sissy boy all you want. You will just probably be saying it to my tail end...
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    obi one k-knownothing is hilarious. he speaks with such intelligence i can't even get through his messages. it's like he knows all about trucks and is teaching us something with each and every worthwhile post. i wished my 2001 "off-road" "207 HORSE SOHC 4.0" "5-SPD AUTO'D EXT. CAB 4-DOOR" ranger was as tight and built as well as my previous two S10 ZR2's in which the back seal leaked all the oil out on one and the other sat for three days in freezing temps for not starting. i also wished my SOHC 4.0 wouldn't have rattled so hard it broke my steering column right off. if only ford could build them like gm. who knows, if ford still used the original ranger chassis that was born back in '83, it MIGHT be as good as the awesome S10 with re-circulating ball steering and ten speed cable operated caliper feel brakes. but the frame on the S10 that dates back to '82 is the thing that puts the S10 trucks ahead of the ranger and everything else in durability and strength.
    if ford would just keep their 207 horse butter smooth SOHC 4.0 out of the ranger and all its technical advancements out of the way, it may outsell the dakota and frontier and maybe someone will show some respect for it. but until it goes to the front in sales, towing capability, power and torque, and price, everyone knows the ranger just can't compete in the compact segment. obi, thanks for the posts. you have taught everyone so much here at edmunds. it's a pleasure to have you post your knowledge. it has enlightened me so much that i await each and every post that starts with OBI.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I'll have to go back and dig up the post where you said that you liked your ZR2s better than the Ranger. I distinctly remember your saying that you had no problems with them. What is it? I like em both, but Chevys quality in my mind, shrinks everyday.
  • 01taco01taco Posts: 1
    I'm surprised there has not been hardly any reference to the Consumer Reports data. I would think that their data would be reliable. I purchased a 2001 Toyota Tacoma Xtra Cab 4wd, V6 w/manual. I compared my choices of the other similar small trucks with the Tacoma based on Consumer Reports. According to them, the Tacoma has a very good reliable record as it ages. It appears that the Fords and Chevys are less reliable as they age. Of course, I know there are people who are on both sides of the spectrum with the issues of quality vs manufacturer. But I think its hard to dispute Consumer Reports data.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    give us a link to that data. I know that it would be very helpful to us in our never ending struggle to prove the Tacoma's worthiness of its higher pricetag to the Ford and Chevy guys, thanx alot.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    We've been up and down that alley already.....we cite the 4wheeler mag competition where Tacoma wins, Ranger boys say that "That magazine is a sellout, it's got a big Toyota ad in it". We cite CR, we are told that they don't know jack about trucks.
    Although, if I were you, I'd not allow any "awards" influence your decision when buying a vehicle: Trailblazer won a "best truck award" of some kind, and 6 month down the road was stalling and had to be recalled.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    really think that the military reads about airplanes in magazines and then buys whatever one they say is the best?
    this magazine quote thing here at edmunds doesn't prove anything. it's real world use that matters. and i'd bet that there are a ton more rangers on the road still working than any toyota truck.

    01taco- just peruse the toyota tacoma problems board here at edmunds, and then tell me that CR is telling the truth. seems the initial quality and even long term quality isn't all what it's cracked up to be in toyota land. for $2-3000 more at initial investment and still not getting as much equipment on your tacoma, the ranger is the better choice for any buyer. it will go anywhere a tacoma will go and do it for less money. it's as simple as that. plus, it has more power and torque, more towing capability, more doo-dads (abs, security system, cd player, cruise, aluminum wheels, etc) standard.

    sad- i never said i liked my ZR2's better, i said i like them and they were stout off-road. but i never said they were as tight or as well built as the ranger. they rattle like crazy. however, they take abuse your trd would never dream of taking, and that's the honest truth. go look under a ZR2, and then look under your trd. the ZR2 has full-size pinnings underneath it everywhere. it is very stout. they just need to refine it. who knows, they may have done that since mine. i had a '97 and a '95. the sonoma won jd powers last year for small truck, so it must be the best right? after all, jd powers is just like CR and we all know what they say is rule.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Except for the fact that you are going back on some things you have said - thats old hat. I could care less, I just was trying to get the story straight. I probably just misread some stuff. I like em both a good bit.

    And I think it would make as much sense to discount the sales numbers as it does to discount what magazines say. I will, from this point on, blow every problem in the Ranger Problems thread 200% out of proportion just like you. You'll see how much sense it makes. And just remember, what I say is what RULES. Have a good one.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Tbunder was exactly right in what he said about the military and airplanes. The military knows what is best and only uses that, right tbunder.


    This fact is extremely apparent in the fact that the ARMY is buying Tacomas buy the hundreds to send to special forces in Afghanistan. Thanx for bringing that extremely relevant point to our attention.


    Be sure to tell us when any Rangers get outfitted with .50 cal machine gun turrets. Everyone have a look to refresh you memories as to what the military deems the only compact truck worthy of service.

    http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1033245&uid=484006

    Jees this is getting easier everyday.

  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I have no idea how military selects their equipment. Well, I do, sort of: number of companies in a field compete for government contract to develop and produce X type of a weapon. The military makes their decision based on the price tag and how good the equipment is, given the specifications.
    So no, they don't read CR. Instead, military personnel engages in field testing of prototypes.

    So while I don't take CR too seriously, I would pay attention to other magazines. FourWheeler, for one.
    And yes, nobody will dispute your statement about "i'd bet that there are a ton more rangers on the road still working than any toyota truck": It is true, but the wrong reasons. Seeing how Ford flooded the market with Rangers, yes, there are more Rangers out there than Tacomas. It's simple numbers. What would be more interesting to see is ratio of units sold say....7 years from now, to units still on the road (and rust buckets don't count). But since we can't get these numbers, we'll just have to say that "Yes, tbunder, you are correct, there are more Rangers on the road".

    You think Ford is so much better. I disagree. Seeing the string of "accidents" happening to Ford, one can only wonder: why is it happening? Toyota doesn't make tires for their trucks and cars.
    Why is it that when I look at recall info for 2002 Tacoma vs 2002 Ranger (4WD top of the line engine), I see two serious TSBs for Tacoma: off-center steering wheel and a pull to one side (And no, TSB that says "seat belt extender" is not "your seat belts don't work" that you've tried to say before), and for Ranger I see:
    timing chain rattle.
    fluid leaking from front axle vent.
    vacuum leak
    shift interlock, inadvertent disabling (whoopsie)
    heater core: repeated failures.

    This is 2002 models: Both Ranger and Tacoma came off a slight redesign in 2000. Who's got more problems?
  • He actually got a Ranger that is not falling apart!

    What is that? Like 1/50?? Good job, dude.

    And by the way, I never said I HATED Ford, just Rangers. Oh, and I don't like you very much because you know about as much as me when it comes to trucks....

    NOTHING!
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    sad- the military uses tacoma's simply for one reason- they have a crew cab option. simple as that. ranger doesn't have this, frontier not as off-road oriented, dakota too big and s10 too low to the ground as the ZR2 isn't offered in crew cab configuration.

    scorp- YOU need to look at a current issue of four-wheeler magazine, and not keep pondering on that nearly five year old article (pluto's favorite). the latest offering by toyota tacoma could only muster third place. what gives? it got beat by a dodddddddggggggggeeeeeeee. u proud of that one? but hey, its four-wheeler and what they say goes, right? hilarious.

    obi- you're not worth the time. but ill waste a little anyways. it's obvious you know nothing about trucks, but please don't try to hide your own ignorance by trying to spread it onto others who have superior knowledge as compared to you. when you say that gm products are in the same category as the ranger and tacoma, things are real clear where you come from.

    scorp, one more thing. you say ford "floods" the market with rangers. this may be true, but why do they do this? easy- because people buy them. is that so hard to understand? if toyota built as many tacomas as ford did rangers, there would be heaps of tacomas sitting around because dealers simply wouldn't be able to sell them.

    it's clear who the public chooses year in and year out for their compact pickup needs. the ford ranger. you toyota guys hate this and hate to acknowledge it. it has more power, torque, towing, standard features, options, and it's cheaper. accept it.
  • You might want to check out the edmunds user ratings on the S-10 and Ranger. For the last 4 years, Ranger is on top, and receives the "Used Car Best Bet" accolade. If you really own a Tacoma, better stick to that comparison. That is the only way you can win in quality arguments.

    People say what they want to hear. Anyone making blanket statements should know their folly.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Hehe, there is no way to refute the military stuff. They don't use the tacoma b/c of the crew cab option. Heck, that back seat really isn't that big. You think they only buy the airplanes that seat the most people, since you like that analogy so much. Not a chance, buddy. You lost big time on this one and there is no way out of it. The military picked the best truck, the one that they knew could handle the job the best and you know it. Be a man and stop downplaying this fact just b/c it makes a Toyota look good. I would be the first to give the Ranger props if the military used it, but they don't.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    ONLY because... - for the ONLY reason that... - SOLELY because...

    and then he says that they don't use crew cab frontiers b/c they aren't off road oriented and not GMs cuz they are too low.

    Sounds to me like you meant to say that they use tacomas for a variety of reasons including the crew cab option. Hehe, I know its tuff to "negativize" this one - its showing, tbunder. And how is a Dakota too big when there is a giant 1980 something Chevy blazer all camoed up in the background of those pics. ROTFLMAO!
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    You know, given enough ads on TV and lower prices, people'll buy nearly anything. VW Bug sold millions of cars, does that make it a good vehicle? No...I wouldn't own one if it was given to me for free. And yes, this year Taco did get beat by Dodge....those Tohico shocks don't stay on trucks for long. Everyone I know runs either Bilsteins or Rancho. We lost this year because testers didn't like "roughness of the ride", well, it was an offroad competition. Big deal.

    You know, it's not like Toyota dealers are sitting there thinking "How the heck am I going to get rid of all these Tacomas in my lot?". They sell, and sell well. Toyota achieves their quota for the year. It's a different business plan, not lack of popularity with buyers.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    away from whatever test Dodge won. Does anyone know if the Dodge tester used in the competition had the 20in" rims on it? Cuz if it did, it just goes to show how little the testers really know. That would prove that they were looking for the prettiest grocery getter that still said 4x4 on the tailgate, and nothing more.
  • You are right, Ford products are better than GM. Hands down....

    Now you do have PROOF that Ford is better, right? Not just articles with peoples opinion, but PROOF, right?

    Probably not.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,890
    Let's relax a bit on the toss-down-the-gauntlet style challenges. Since "the best" is usually pretty subjective, I doubt anyone's ever going to be able to come up with concrete proof that will satisfy even the most ardent Ford/GM/Toyota/etc. advocate.

    kirstie_h
    Roving Host & Future Vehicles Host

    MODERATOR
    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    so that they would blend in better among the locals at that time. On the military installations that I've been on over the last year or so, I see ONLY Rangers being used by inspectors, painters, electricians, and other government civil service and military personnel. No Tacomas, S-10s, Mazdas, or any other subcompact truck.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    and upt-tite colonels around an army base is a far cry from hauling troops and machine guns around afghanistan. D-cabs don't blend in too well with hi-luxes either.
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    you make me laugh. it seriously sounds to me like you're trying to convince yourself that your truck is so good that the military uses it. as much as i hate to say it, oby has a good point. how many foreign terrorists or any other extremist group are going to be driving around in ford rangers over there in the middle of asia? and are you really comparing space of a DC to a ranger SC? is that fair? you said it yourself- they want the vehicle that can haul the most troops. the DC fits the bill as well as fitting and blending in over there (hell). sure it's a good truck to boot, but pushing it on the military simply cuz everyone knows its the "superior" vehicle on the planet is a little far fetched. maybe not to you who owns one, but to a non-biased non truck owner it's easy to depict this conclusion. (not me)
    i highly assume that the military uses just as many fords, gm's, etc as they do foreign vehicles. probably more. how heavy are those big guns anyway? probably max out the DC payload don't you think?
  • tbunder1tbunder1 Posts: 257
    i bought a brand spankin' new jeep liberty sport 4x4 friday night. it's silver with black trim. i can honestly say that this is most perfect vehicle i have ever purchased. the quality of materials and overall tightness is the best i have ever bought. got the dealer to throw in some 30 inch BFG A/T's, five of them. will have them installed monday. i think it will look tough. it is a real fun vehicle to drive. it is very powerful and quick, very roomy, and something fresh. not to mention it has a cable operated t/c. im anxious to see if it is as good off-road as i've read. still a ford man at heart though.
This discussion has been closed.