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

1131416181959

Comments

  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    you're starting to show your early 20's behavior. why would you say im not liking where the discussin is going? the ranger is still selling more than tacoma, that's the facts and bottom line. the only reason i mentioned the s10 is because someone mentioned that the tacoma beat the s10 in sales so far (i said it i believe), but im just saying that at the end of the year, one who thinks the tacoma will outsell the s10 has to be hallucinating. why bring economics into this? this is a discussion on sales and who is leading. i never mentioned anything about who is making money and who isn't. you all think ford is about to come crashing down. i got news for you, that's not going to happen. people love their products, if that weren't true, why would they have five out of the top ten selling vehicles in the usa? sure, they're going to take some losses, but they're going to recoup those 'fore long. yep they discontinued four models, big deal. the models they discontinued are still very accessible to the buyer. cant get a villager? buy a windstar. cant get a zx2? buy a zx3 or zx5. no cougar? who cares, those sucked anyways. the lincoln will be brought back next year. the new cobra with 390 horses will sell like hotcakes with its new supercharger. the mustang is selling like hotcakes as is the escape and new explorer. also, the five star crash ratings on nearly all its vehicles give ford a huge advantage over products from other companies, especially toyota and gm.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Heh....I am in my early 20s, so what?
    You are steering away from the discussion not willing even to engage in conversation about the economics of it all. All you can say is that "Well, Ranger still sold more". I guess Simpson education is overrated, if a graduate with 3.5 GPA doesnt know basic economics. This isnt about Mustang or other models, this has been a discussion about Ranger and Tacoma. And so far Ranger isnt looking so good. It's always hard to companies to make it out of the slump of recession. We'll see how well Ford does with Ranger. Ford can sell all the minivans they want, that has no relevance here.
  • A statician is in the kitchen trying to bake up a storm. His significant other complains because it's getting too warm in their little home. The statician looks around for a second, and then sticks his head in the open freezer. Then he sticks his feet in the pre-heated oven, trying to simulate the mean average of the interior. His head is freezing, and his toes are burning, but "Honey, on the average, the temperature is just right".

    Ok, I just had a root canal, so I'm so drugged up I don't really care about one months sales numbers. But if that one month seems like such a matter of worry, I'd recommend you check out November statistics, and why not the whole of 2001. Like my example above, it's also all in how you want to spin the statistics. Like Enron's financial wizards were doing not so long ago.

    Also I agree with Scoprio, it is just a debate on Ranger vs Tacoma, but how come it seems to be boiling down to a big Rooster fight. (Just think of a synonym for Rooster).
  • one vehicle is better than another. The VW Beetle is one of the best selling designs of all time, but I wouldn't want one. Suppose more S-10s were sold in June and November than Rangers. Does that mean for June and November S-10s are better than Rangers? The VW Jetta is the best selling European nameplate in the US, but I think a Passat or BMW 3 Series is better. Just because McDonald's has served "billions and billions," doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have a Fuddrucker's burger. Get my drift?
  • Most car/truck buyers don't look at sales statistics when buying a vehicle. You have to give people like Tbunder a break. All signs point to a Tacoma being better so he's latched on to the sales thing. Let it go, the rest of us know the truth, a Tacoma is a better truck. Take care.......Steelman.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 10,897
    Reminder...

    image

    Town Hall Chat tonight! It's "Open Mic" night tonight, but in the next few weeks, we're looking to have a chat pitting Import Trucks vs. Domestic Trucks.

    kirstie_h
    Roving Host
    Edmunds.com

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

  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Sure, 1 month sales don't mean squat.
    How about a 10 month?
    Link here
    HIghlights:
    In 10 month in 2000 Ranger sold 295K trucks. In 10 month 2001 Ranger sold 240K trucks.
    Tacoma sold 122K and 137K trucks respectively.
    Both trucks took a hit in sales in 2000. However, considering the 2001, Tacoma sales rose 12%, and Ranger sales fell 18%.
    Both trucks took a sales hit of about 5% from 1999 to 2000.
    What does this all mean? Absolutely nothing, according to tbunder. It may not mean anything, and Ranger will suddenly bounce back up in sales. However, what would be a reason for such a drop in sales? You can't blame recession for all of it, because then Tacoma sales would have dropped in 2001, but they didnt (In fact, if that trend continued, then Tacoma would have come out ahead of 1999, pre-recession sales. I didnt look too hard for the figured for full 2001). So what would be a reason for a best-selling truck (Ranger) to take a hit on sales when a tincan Tacoma was luring in more and more buyers? tbunder, any ideas?
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    why doesn't toyota still sell 181,000 trucks like it did in 1990? or even 204,000 as it did in '94? and those weren't even tacomas. i suppose you'll blame it on the "full-size" offering from toyota, eh?

    pluto- "luring in more and more buyers"

    pluto, a drop from 1990 sales of 181,000 to 147,000 in 2000 is gaining new customers? maybe that's why someone said the older toyotas (non tacoma) are in big demand. maybe buyers know something tacoma owners don't, maybe they're built better or something. something has to explain the huge sales drop over the ten year period. however, look at the ranger sales numbers- 280,000 in 1990 to 330,000 in 2000. seems the new customers went to the ranger don't it? even in "just" ten months of 2001, the ranger had a smaller drop in sales as compared to 1990 numbers than toyota did compared to the same year's numbers. what's up with that? i agree with you that the compact market is slowly dwindling (somewhat) away, and this may explain why sales are slowing down over ten years, but to say the ranger is falling on its face, is ludicrous. if anything is falling on its face here, its the tacoma. why else would it have such a huge difference in sales over ten years? please remove foot- again. did you take statistics at tech.?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    My guess is: introduction of a new, more expensive truck. Toyota ditched the Toyota PU at that point, and went with Tacoma. New model, higher price, thats probably why.
    And perhaps you were replying to me, not pluto (or do you still think there's a conspiracy theory that all these toyota people here are just one person, maybe two?)
  • build quality, longevity, resale value, performance, RELIABILITY and to an extent styling were what influenced my decision. The trucks' sales numbers and the economy had nothing to do with it. In 1998, if Toyota only sold 1 Tacoma, I would rather have that Tacoma than any of the thousands of Rangers sold. 'Nuff said.
  • Scorpio--->So toyota's sales went down when the Pickup became a Tacoma. Rangers sales have dropped recently, but let's not forget the inclusions of the Escape and Sport track onto the Ford family too. See there could be a reason for everything, just depends on how hard you look (or want to look).
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Thats true, SportTrac could have had something to do with it. So if Ranger drops in sales again and again, will new models be to blame? All this still shows that "bestseller" has nothing to do with quality, etc. Price, yes, overall package, not really.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    i meant you scorp. sorry pluto if i offended you.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    When I was younger, I tagged around with my dad on several vehicle buying trips. He always had these certain criteria that he would base his decision on. NEVER EVER was one of those criteria the number of that type of vehicle sold. Until I came here I had never thought of such a stat as being significant. I will never use numbers sold as a way to help me make a decision of any kind, especially a decision that involves over $15k.
  • Yeah, I will grant you guys a point there, but overall, safety-wise, the Tacoma is no slouch. In fact, according to some sources, it's been rated #1. I think some of the safety problems that has plagued Ford recently are much more serious than anything the Tacoma has experienced.
  • No one ever said they bought a Ranger because everybody else is buying them. Sales figures only do substantiate which make and model is meeting customer demand more effectively, or in greater volumes.

    If Ranger sales drop again, to answer Scorpio's query, newer models will not necessarily be to blame. I can say that I doubt the Ranger will go away any time soon, even in the light of other models by Ford stealing it's sales. This was only brought up as an example of possible reasons for sale figures fluctations, such as a newer model version coming out that was altogether new and more expensive (I.E. '95 Tacoma).

    In summary, the best selling vehicle is not and should not be considered a selling point for said vehicles. It is, however, completely within bragging rights territory for each said vehicle. :)
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    I heard somewhere that the Ranger will be gone in about 3 years or so. Have you heard this? apparently it will be replaced by a larger model.(probably mid-sized like the dakota) I for one am against this as I think there's a great size variety right now. I don't see a need to make compacts any bigger, but oh well.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Ranger is being replaced in 2003 with a new midsize Ranger,that'll have a V8, possibly a 4.6L (?) from F150.
    Same is happening to Tacoma, which will move into midsize range with a new engine. It'll be either a 3.7L V6, or Tundra V8 (At the last autoshow in Chicago, new redesigned bigger 4Runner was shown with Tundra V8 in it. 4Runner and Tacoma have shared many components, including the engine, and therefore it may carry over into 2003 models)
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    the 4runner's 3.4 is only rated at 183 horses, and the tacoma's is rated at 190 horsies?

    you'd think with the added weight of the suv, it would have more power. what's up with these numbers?
  • oac3oac3 Posts: 373
    the v8 in the tundra is rated at 245hp (and 315 Ib ft of torque), in the sequoia it is rated at 240hp (and 315 Ib ft), and in the lex/lc it is rated at 230hp (and 320 Ib ft)?

    include in the above the fact that the engine in the tundra and sequoia uses regular unleaded gas, while the one in the lex/lc uses premium....

    so any ideas why all of these differences ??? same reason as your question wrt tacoma and 4runner !
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    I don't know why the 4runner's 3.4 has slightly less power - must be de-tuned or something. It's sort of the opposite of Ford's SOHC V6. It's rated at 210 hp in the explorer, but 203 or 204 in the Ranger.
  • Every vehicle gets it's own exhaust system, with dual, or single cats, inline or dual exhaust, different bends, and muffler configurations. Even different tuning for NVH concerns, or even unique exhaust notes per vehicle.

    Probably not the single reason for the peak HP difference, but I would bet a major contributor.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    ranger sohc has 207 horses.

    anyone have any experienes with a '99 or later grand cherokee?
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I have heard but I don't remember the exact explanation. I seem to think that it has to do with the exhaust like stang said. I think the 4runners, right now are a little underpowered, unless you charge em. Haha.
  • smgillessmgilles Posts: 252
    I agree with the 4runner thing, I would buy a Pathfinder in a heart beat over a 4runner.

    250hp vs 183hp for the same $$$, it is a no brainer
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    It is hard to beat that 250 hp in the pathy, but I think I'd still take the 4-runner. The pathfinders have become way too delicate and luxury-esque for me. Now the older style pathfinders, well now that's a different story...
  • rickc5rickc5 Posts: 378
    My wife and I have been discussing the purchase of another pickup. We previously owned a '95 Tacoma and a '99 Tacoma. Both trucks had many problems, and Toyota even took back the '95 and gave us a T100, Which we didn't care for as it was too big.

    Anyway, I mentioned that we could get a really good deal on a Ranger right now (like $7000 off MSRP), but it isn't the world's best truck if you consider reliability (I'm sure most of you will agree with that statement).

    Her response: "We don't need to pay thousands of dollars extra to buy the best, whatever that is these days. But, if I hear the word Toyota come out of your mouth, I will beat you silly." Looks like she has learned the lesson too.

    I laughed so hard my stomach hurt.
  • I own a '93 2wd Ranger now w/110K mi. Had a '82 4wd Toyota. Also a great truck. Will buy whichever (Ranger or Tacoma) I find the best deal on 1st. Am looking at a loaded '00 TRD pkg with 70K for less than 15K. Would you recommend (or not) buying one with that many miles on even if it is a Toyota? Seems like a price. Thanks!
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    that my stomach hurts too. Big deal, man. So you had bad luck with some trucks. Means nothing to me. Keep up the sorry maintenance schedule with the Ford and you'll learn what a pitiful truck is.

    At least your woman does know what the best is.

    There are some things that you should buy the best you can afford. You seem to already realize that quality-wise Toyota is better (you already admitted that), why skimp on the new truck? I don't understand? I mean even after saying you had bad luck with Yotas, you go and say that they are the "best." Haha, you kinda talked in circles. There are tons of folks with the same experiences with every kind of vehicle made, your case is no more special than theirs.
  • Yes I could argue that Tacoma that is better than Ranger; and so could they since their prices reflect that. Then again I could also argue for Ranger fr my own personal exp. Either way, would you buy a late model with high mileage if seemed like a GREAT deal (b/c of their reputed reliability); or wait for a later possibly with 20K less?
This discussion has been closed.