Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
As far as engines go: you said Tacoma I4s were severely underpowered. So in a comparison, Ford's I4 is really really bad. And the 3.0L is not much better than Toyota's I4. Please don't steer the conversation to "Well, my 4.0L has 17 horses more". We've all heard it before. Thats not the point. You wrote that I4 was severely underpowered: that makes Rangers I4 even worse. I still see plenty of Mazda B2000s around....so what about them?
Ranger sales: I hate to break this to you, but " the ranger has risen drastically" does not get supported by numbers. From 280K in 1990 to 330K in 2000...wow, a whooping 25% increase in -->10<-- years. And if you take a 1995-2000 period, when Tacoma was introduced, that makes 21K units more for Ranger....A whooping 7% increase in 5 years? That doesnt sound like a bestseller truck to me. The rate of inflation is higher than rate of Ranger sales increase
stang: I've agreed before that a V6 in regcab is a definite must for Toyota. They've done it up to 97 or so, and discontinued it. Ford has a winning hand there. As for having V6 standard on a 4x4.....why is that a plus? At least Toyota owners have a freedom of choice, and if you go ask ttora guys, most of them would not have traded the 4-banger for a V6.
If that many trucks in Iowa have that problem you talk about, then I'll go out and count the full size Fords of the same age with similar problems here in MS. Seriously, the only rusted Yota I have seen was a first year PU, that had 300k on the odometer on the original everything that still ran fine. Ill take body work over a new engine anyday.
Did you have a tonneau cover on your Ranger? I am thinking of one for my truck ($700 fiberglass job), simply to get better mileage. I am not displeased with the current mileage, but for college students, every little bit helps. Are they really supposed to help much???
The reason I was getting mad about your comments was that you just kept listing alleged probs. Similar claims from me have always seemed to be discredited without any backup or anything. Its easy to debate that way, try to debate over specific topics, its alot more fair and two-sided to the ones who really come here looking for info.
Half-way through 1995 the Tacoma was released with three engines: 2wd trucks had the 2.4L 4cyl, and 4X4's had the 2.7L (150hp) and the 3.4L (190hp). So Tbunders buddy was pulling the Jet skis with a 116hp 4cyl, a far cry from the 2.7L and 3.0L for that matter. I didn't make him buy the thing with a 4cyl and then try to pull a trailer.
The Tacoma was also a completely different vehicle than the pickup, although they didn't change the looks much. Any joe on the street probably can't tell the difference between a '90 pickup and a '97 Tacoma just by looking at them. The late 80's models even look the part on regular cabs. Now '98 and newer is a different story and I think the looks went to hell in a handbasket.
I test drove all engine combos on 4X4 ext cab trucks back in '96 when I was looking for a truck. I didn't see a huge difference between the 4.0L and 3.4L acceleration wise. In fact the first automatic 4.0L I drove I thought the dealer stuck me in a 3.0L as it was not near the power I expected. I popped the hood and it was in fact a 4.0L. The next 4.0L I drove was a 5-speed and it felt on-par with the 3.4L but wasn't blazing saddles by any stretch of the imagination. The 2.7L or 3.0L weren't much slower so I bought the 2.7L 5-speed and stuck 80K trouble-free miles on it averaging 22mpg. Can a 3.0L ranger turn 23mpg? I suppose it could but doubtful on a constant basis. Like I said my brothers was averaging 17mpg which was 5 less than my similar performing 2.7L. One-trip wonders and inflated EPA numbers do nothing for real-world day-to-day driving.
The only 4X4 trucks that can routinely turn 22-24mpg are 4cyl, and their power is not all that far off (if any beyond towing) from the entry-level V6's of the competition. So your choices if you want good mpg and decent performance is a Toyota or Nissan. And unlike some that preach the gospel on trucks they've never driven or even know what engines they have, I'll say I know nothing about the Nissan besides I think it's ugly and I don't want one.
I noticed no difference in mpg with a Tonneau on my 2.7L Tacoma. Mine had one on it when I bought it and after unsnapping and resnapping the thing a couple dozen times I got redneck on it threw it in the trash. Worthless if you use the bed of your truck regularly. And I noticed no change in mpg which I was watching quite closely when I first bought it.
It's nice to have a cover but I think if I did it again i would opt for the hard top "trunk" cover. I also notice that the frame of the tonneau scrapes the top of my tailgate when I close it, so now I have nasty scratches on the tailgate top. NOT a satisfied buyer.
you say that the air "swirls" around in the bed. how can this happen since the bed is open and nothing is there to even trap it in there? no sides, no top. face it, the air comes in over the cab and goes right to the tailgate. if its up, gas mileage will suffer. if its down, it is more aerodynamic and mpg will improve a little.
I believe I've seen some posts on this at cartalk.com as well as a few others. Was several years ago I ran across a discussion like this and that's the consensus. I believe the air inside the bed pressurizes from the air coming down into it and basically the airflow then goes from the cab and off just as you'd imagine with a bedcover. And I don't think the air flow hits right at the tailgate, it's about middle of the bed. So with the gate down the air flows down further then has to roll out further across the tailgate. But like I said, do the research. If physics were just simple "common sense" there would be nothing to learn.
Lets end this anyway before this forum goes back to it's previous bottom-feeder levels.
http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Archive/1997/October/05.html
I've always read that there was no measurable diff in MPG.
If you like the way they look and can afford it, just do it. I did silly stuff like that when I was in college and don't regret it. Memories of having a cool car are worth the few bucks you'll probably never miss. In a few years you won't give a crap about your daily driver, but will have your eye on much more expensive toys and $700 will seem like a joke.
When I drive my wifes car I'm usually frustrated for the first half-hour because her transmission has learned her light-footed style and doesn't like to down-shift quickly. She gets about 3mpg more than I do driving her car so driving style is pretty substantial.
Of course this link doesn't cover specifically Ranger vs Tacoma, but Californians are definitely registered more Ford Trucks than Toyotas.
"Ford Division has captured 25 percent of the truck market [In California] (252,021 registrations), led by four of the 10 best-selling nameplates—F-Series, Expedition, Explorer and Ranger—and two other segment leaders—Escape and Econoline."
Well think and calculate whatever. When my soft tonnaeu cover is on, I get maybe a mile or so more mileage. I am somewhere around 18-19 in town, 20-21 on the highway. Coming up on 55K so should be changing out the plugs soon, suspect it would boost the mpg a bit.
The Ranger is still working fine. The recent Consumer Reports marked it down in Electrical issues, for which I would agree. I have had a GEM module(wipers came on un-commanded), door chime came on(un-commanded), my temp. sensor went out, the gage read too low and my gas gage goes down too fast(also a sensor). So that is a fair assesment by CR.
Still enjoy the Ranger. It is a good value for a truck. I did add a 2002 Toyota Corolla to my household for the wife. It was a good deal and suspect it will last quite a while.
I went and looked at the ratings. Not many people have voted. Everyone do so. Also, one guy had alot of complaints on the Ranger that I have never heard of. Problems that tbunder always brings up as probs with the Taco occur on the Ranger as well it seems. Things like bad seats and bad paint. These trucks have alot in common, huh, man.
Too bad that you don't "prove" all of your facts before you print them.:)
midnight_Stang & tbunder - For the last year I've heard the Tacoma commercial over and over stating that the Tacoma is the best selling small truck in Southern California. I haven't heard Ford complain or challenge the commercial so I tend to think that it's true. I tend to see at least twice as many Tacomas on the road here than Rangers when I take a drive, but that's not really a scientific study. Full size trucks, on the other hand, seem to definitely go in Ford’s favor.
Tbunder - I'm too lazy to look for something in print for you. I'm just telling you what Toyota advertises. How about you finding some proof that Toyota is making false claims about So. California. I doubt that you'll succeed.
Well I can take your word for it allknowing, commercials are not known to be the best source of knowledge, but companies do seem to put all the bravado slogans in they can.
As for commercials: Toyota can not say that they are bestselling if they are not. If Ranger outsold a Taco by 1 vehicle in SoCal, and Toyota claims that Tacoma was bestselling, Ford would take them to court and win big. But I thought that we established already that sales numbers don't mean squat? I know tbunder doesnt like that, but tough luck.
To me, Sales still mean the greater amount of consumer demand is being filled. (My economics teacher would be proud) If consumers didn't demand a Ranger so much, the Ranger would not be the best selling compact for over 15 years.
Personally, I think that if you throw enough ads at people promising low APR deals and insane rebates, as well as low prices, then enough people will buy your product. It has nothing to do with quality of a product, it has everything to do with presentation. McDs food is extremely bad for you, yet it's convinient and cheap...thats why McDs is the biggest fastfood chain. It's a lot more convinient to go and buy a Ranger when you can drive it off the lot the same day, instead of having to wait 2-3 weeks while the dealer pulls it from the port. Not to say anything bad about Ranger, but on average consumers are very ....gullible. Thats why things like "Personal EZ Abs trainer: 5 minutes a day and we guarantee you'll have a 6-pack abs in a month" are still around.
i had remarked in a post way back several months ago about seeing more Taco's than Rangers in San Diego county (roughly 2 million people). Allknowing is absolutely correct: Tacos outsell Rangers in So Cal. Here in San Diego County, it is even more obvious: By my unscientific evaluation, there are almost a 10:1 Taco's to Rangers on the roads. You'd be hard pressed to find a Ranger on our freeways here... They are scarce, compared to Tacos that are everywhere. Proof ? I don't have sales numbers but the evidence is pretty obvious on the roads here, just as allknowing wrote...
"instead of having to wait 2-3 weeks while the dealer pulls it from the port." I thought Tacoma's were American made too?
kip
As for McDs analogy: I'm making a counterexample to the obvious belief of some that "bestseller is the best of all".
kip
I have never gone to a dealership where they say "You really should buy this truck because it is the best selling vehicle in America". I have heard best value, most options, and best quality statements from both dealerships, however. The dealership just wants your money, and will do and say whatever it takes to get it.
Maybe Ford just has better sales people? That might as well be your argument, because if the quality gap was so great, Toyota would have the sales to back it up. Maybe Toyota needs to tell it's sales people to start marketing the quality thing, since is so obviously in Toyota's favor.
The fact of the matter is that no one really does care how many units were sold, when they go to purchase their own ride based on what fits their wants and needs. More people choose Ranger.
Most people just look for the better priced vehicle, with more options, better safety, more doors, more power, larger pickup bed, larger interior room, standard A/C, better seat, better interior, better towing, better looks, a full instrument gauge, a free clock you can easily see while driving, an automatic shifter not modeled after a joystick, and a non funky front fascia, you know the little things.
I still am on the receiving end of something I don't pay for any more. We will see what you all think when your trucks are 10 years old. You may call it a cheap deal, but I call it one hell of a tough and dependable truck.
More people choose Ranger simply cuz you can get one with white paint and absolutely nothing else for the price of a power wheels barbie car. The majority of Rangers I see on the road are just that. Granted, most are prolly fleet vehicles, but Ford counts them, too, in that stupid little statistic you keep quoting. Tbunder kept saying how there were so many TRDs on the road. That's easily explained. If someone wants a nice truck they get a Taco. If they want the cheapest vehicle with a bed, they buy a Ranger. Seems to me to be an obvious excuse for why there are so many Rangers sold.
The big question mark in this whole Ranger issue is this: if Ranger is all that it's hyped up to be, why did its sales fall a whooping 20% given:
1. Patriotic ad campaign for few month (which later was found illegal and companies were asked to stop)
2. Incentives.
3. Low price, compared to its competitors.
Think about it: Tacoma sales fell not anywhere nearly as much as Rangers, and Toyota didnt run an ad campaign to keep America rolling with patriotic music in the background, nor were any rebates given. Heck, I only started seeing Tacoma commercials on TV few month ago.
So there is something to the Rangers decline. Part of it can be blamed on new SportTrac. What else should be blamed?
Ford Ranger $12,940
Toyota Tacoma $12,435
Of course if you ever want any options, the Tacoma quickly rises in price. Might as well just open that checkbook up wide.
Oh yeah, for 2002, your clock now costs 82 bucks. Since you like percentages, why the 2.5% increase?
Just buy one from radio shack, $4.99. It even has a timer, but may not live up to Toyota Quality.
Compare FEB 2002 sales.
Ranger 2002 vs 2001
18,497 > 20,099 -8.0%
Tacoma 2002 vs 2001
11,079 > 12,039 -8.0% (mostly loss in 4x4 sales)
I thought Tacoma was know for it's high quality, and being the best 4x4?
Ranger might have to grow 50% to be were they were last year, (in reality it's only 13.5%), Tacoma will have to grow 50% in sales to equal the Ranger.
All this talk, and I thought no one cared about sales... If that was true, this would be a dead topic.
As far as cheap: you are destroying whole tbunders arguement line from before about how overpriced Tacomas are.
Somehow I don't get a feeling that Toyota wants to beat Ranger in sales. They are taking it slow and easy, steadily up, and not having to fire 30,000 employees.
The only reason I even got into this sales argument is to show you how "dead" your side of the argument is. Im not the one quoting endless data. I simply gave an anwer for the reason why Rangers sells so many: more people wanna spend $13k on a truck than much more, and kick quality aside.
By the way, can you make up some numbers right quick on which manufacturer sells more trucks at that $12k price range. I wonder if my hunch is correct.
and for whoever said that "if they wanted a nice truck, they'd buy a tacoma". what do you consider nice? a truck with less than 200 horsepower? a truck with a clock that costs over $80? what i call nice is maybe a 6 disc in-dash cd changer, 4-door cab, factory security system, step bars, blah blah blah. etc. if you want to compare niceties between tacoma and ranger, there is no comparison. everything on ranger is standard if you buy xlt. sr5 doesn't even include power windows. its all extra with toyota. here in iowa, they're advertising '02 ranger xlt 4.0 sc 4x4's for $17995. lets see, that's like $6000 or $7000 less than ANY trd tacoma.
id be willing to bet a lot that more 4x4 rangers are sold than 4x2's. i RARELY see anything other than a 4x4.