Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
TOYOTA TACOMA vs. FOR RANGER
azninvazion
Member Posts: 15
What does everyone thing about this choice? Pros
cons? Owners of either what do you think about
them in the field of reliability. Thanks
cons? Owners of either what do you think about
them in the field of reliability. Thanks
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Bought my 98 Tacoma Xcab V6/SR5 in June 98. I shopped the Ranger and the Dakota for about six months before I bought the Toyota. The Dakota was more $$ and I have issues with Dodge reliability. Friend of mine has a 97 Dakota Xcab V6 SLT. He has had it in the dealership more than once. I loved the Ranger Xcab V6 XLT. I like the off road package but hated the gray vertical grill, and the underpowered V6. I dececide on the Tacoma, because of long term reliability and resale. It looks the nicest. It has the most horsepower of all 3's V6's. It has the highest ground clearence with the 265/75/R15's on it (A Must!). There was a $1200.00 rebate, and most of all the dealer let me order it the way i wanted and still gave me invoice+$500.00. Let history speak for itself. How many late 80's Dakota's and Rangers do you see driving around. I see plenty of Toyota HiLux'es and Tacomas. I bought the Tacoma, and I love it. Guy i work with loved mine so much, he bought the exact same truck 4 months latter. Hope this helps...
-wsn
Dont misunderstand me i think the ranger is a great truck, but when it comes time to sell it you will not get the same $$ as you would with a Tacoma. With the Tacoma you'll get the money back and you still get to enjoy Toyota's proven long term dependabilty. Not to mention the 190 hp V6
-wsn
I did pay more for my Tacoma, but I will get it back when i trade it in. That extra money got me standard skid plates, longer bed, and not to mention the extra 24k/3 years on my powertrain warranty. I'm not trying to bring down the Ranger (I had a 94 and loved it) but in my opinion the Tacoma is going to be the most financially rewarding whether you trade it in (Resale Value) or keep it foreever (Reliability)
Bigger V6? The 4.0 ranger has 5ft/lbs more of torque than the Tacoma. Like I said reliability is a mute point with me. My first Ranger went to 94K with only new brakes, clutch and water pump.
800 dollar difference?
I see in my paper you can get a 1998 Ford Ranger XLT super cab, 4.0 V6, air, 4x4, pwr steering, brakes, CD, Tilt, cruise, 4whl abs, alloy wheels, for 16,088 5 at this price. The "4cyl" Toyota comparably equiped is 16,777 3 at this price?
Tacoma is expensive and overrated. I test drove one when I was in the market last year. Yes, it was a very nice truck. But I wasn't going to pay 2 - 3K more just to have a Toyota.
I bought a Ranger XLT 4x4 5spd loaded, tow package and offroad package for 2,300 less than a comparably equiped Tacoma. I use my truck in the Mountains and deserts of Oregon. It has never let me down and is extremely reliable. I have a friend at work who bought a Tacoma V6 about 2 months before I bought mine. We went and did a little offroading. I could do anything he could, go anywhere he could and haul anything he could for 2,300 less. With the savings I fixed my truck up even more!
Thanks,
Terry
The prices I quoted were based on the Toyota Xcab V6. It's a model, not an option. To different part #'s.
In my previous post I was comparing V6's, not Toyota's 4 vs Ford's 6.
You also state "You could do whatever your buddies Tacoma could do" I beleive that you can do anything he can, well except lock your rear diff. because only Toyota offers that. Good for 4x4ing i might add.
Anyhow my real concern is reliability and craftmanship. Yes your seats may be more comfortable, but for how long. How the product lasts = craftmanship and reliability. I am the type of person who looks at the long term effects of my choices. Not everybody is like that, and that's fine. Maybe this section should be titled
"Long term vs. Short term"
Again I wish you well with your Ranger....
-wsn
1. You cannot buy a Ford Ranger 4x4 outfitted like that for that price. It was obviously a "teaser" rate, which is typical for newspaper ads. The photos in the ads usually show a decked out model, when what you get is a ugly dog with steel wheels and skinny tires and other "common" items missing. Toyotas do, of course, cost more, though. I suspect that without the tariffs on them, they'd cost less.
2. Why would reliablity be a "moot" (not mute) point with anyone? All studies of reliablity rank Toyotas on or near the top of the non-luxury brands, year after year. Fords have ranked from fair to poor.
3. From everything I read about the vehicles, the Toyota engine is superior in performance to the Ford 4.0 in the Ranger. Testers always rave about it's smoothness and power, and always seem to be disappointed in the 4.0 a bit.
While the Ranger is probably technically superior in many areas, after you factor in resale, and maintenance, the Ranger will probably be the more EXPENSIVE truck to own. The powertrain warranty 50,000 miles(?) , is worth quite a bit by itself. Many posts here will testify, a lot of vehicles "break" just after the 36,000 mile warranty runs out.
A vehicle may cost $2,000 more at purchase, but if it resales for $3,000 more than the other vehicle, it's actually CHEAPER to own.
That said, I own a Dodge Ram and a '98 F-150. I think the compact trucks are bad deals if you need the larger engines, auto trannys, and extra doo-dads on them. My reg cab Ram is almost as spacious as a club cab ranger, just w/o rear seats. If you don't want the bulk, I'd go with the Dakota mid-size. (but talk about reliability problems!!!!) And finally......compact pickups have higher than average death rates in crashes....full size trucks below average.
Reliability and Resale are everything.......
Not to mention a long hard look at the recall lists as well.....(Reliability)
My 98 Tacoma has one recall. A "typo" in the owners manual, and Toyota sent out a new Manual to me in the mail.....
The 98 Ranger already has 5 (NHTSA web site)
-wsn
Does anyone have the official numbers for 1998? The last ones I saw were still late '98 estimates, and they were 379,170 for the Ranger (including Mazdas built in the same factories) and 151,475 for the Tacoma.
Ford is perceived "Made in the USA" and there are still many people who will not buy "foreign" whether or not they perceive Tacoma as being better (even in Tacomas are made in California).
Rangers are cheaper overall and often less expensive when "equally" configured. Some people have fixed budgets they can not exceed no matter the value they believe the extra $$$ will bring.
Many companies buy Rangers as fleet vehicles. (Haven't seen that with Tacomas. Maybe it's the price???)
I can make numbers look any way I want if I choose to work them in my favor. I am sure there are configurations of Tacoma that outsell the same configuration of Ranger, but the overall numbers will never be in Tacomas favor. But to try and make a statement of value from that is ridiculous.
Terry
I thought the argument being made was that if Company A is selling more of its product than Company B, someone on the sidelines might get the impression that the reason could be that Company A is providing more of what potential customers want in the product to be purchased. Perhaps you don't believe that, but I do.
Well, I don't have a Ranger, so maybe I should stop here. Personally, I think more HP in the Ranger engine would be a welcome change, but there's a rumor that might be happening soon. If so, this topic might really heat up.
The sales numbers do matter. If the Tacoma is so much "better" why are people buying the Ranger? I could have opted to pay the extra $2700 for a like equiped Tacoma. Instead I bought the truck that had more value, equal quality, for less money.
I understand what you are saying and that tells me I wasn't very clear in my earlier post.
My point with "Made in the USA" and being on a budget was that some people may perceive Tacomas as better vehicles than the vehicle they end up purchasing. But they won't buy a Tacoma because they are "foreign" or out of their price range and instead they buy a Ranger or Frontier or whatever. They are not necessarily making a statement about the vehicle they are purchasing as being better, just that it meets the bottom line.
Here's my example... in 1994 I bought my wife a Taurus because it was safe and within our price range. The Volvo wagon I wanted was equally as safe (if not moreso), but not in our price range. At that time, Taurus was the best selling vehicle -- period (according to vince8, that makes it the best car -- period), but I still think Volvo is/was a better car. The Taurus met our bottom line and we bought it.
I'm not going to argue the sales numbers -- they are what they are! But it is the interpretation of those numbers to say Ranger is better because it sells more than all others can not be supported purely from sales volume.
vince8,
First, you have never answered my earlier question as to why you think Tacomas are overrated. You just keep spouting "more value, equal quality, for less money" and this is all based on your experiences (while most statistics do not support your quality or resale value assertions in the least). As long as you believe it, then be happy. The rest of us who don't believe that are happy in knowing we bought a vehicle we believe has better resale value, better quality that was worth paying for now and getting back when we sell or trade.
People buy vehicles for a number of different reasons, but to say one is better than another purely because it has higher sales volume is ridiculous. You can not support that argument from those numbers.
Sorry for being so long-winded.
Terry
Regarding the sohc v6, I drove an Explorer Sport for a day with that engine and remember it pulled nicely on the highway. If I were buying new and it were available, I'd definitely go for it. Now if Ford would just make that autotrack 4x4 available...
details: 1990 2wd XLT longbed. 4 cyl auto. Used
almost always as a commuter vehicle. Bought from
the original owner with 49K. Tranny went at 53K.
Rear end(!)went at 57K Tranny went again before
60K (rebuilt free). Fuel pump went about 70K
leaving me stranded and requiring a tow. Engine
went at 88K leaving me stranded and requiring a
tow. Paint begin flaking off the roof, hood, etc
at 65K. Tranny went AGAIN at 108K. Oil has been
changed faithfully at 3-4K (4K max). In addition
battery, brakes, tires, exhaust, ABS ($$$) module
all went. It is (I still own it) by far the single
most expensive vehicle I have ever tried to keep
running reliably. As a contrast - I bought a 1984
Mazda SE5 pickup new for about $6K and drove it
159K without even changing the clutch. Ford Ranger
again? No thanks! I'll get a Nissan or Toyota.
1. WORKINGMAN could you please stop posting that same article, I have read it 3 times so far. What the deal was on your truck, I don't know. We will all take your story into consideration when buying a truck, but we do not have to read it 3 times to remeber it.
2. Vince and Wsnoble, Lying about the refering the reliability to an article that you have seen will not accomplish anything. Much of these articles are based on reputation and personal opinion. I do consider that most reports are based on fact, but you must understand that much of these reports could be written on the best case scenario, or worst case scenario. What I mean is that you can find goods and bads in everything, pending on where you look. Think about it. So if either of you want to swear by your truck, bickering like children and pointing out typos as a personal insult will not accomplish the remaining task, of which is better. My father has had a toyota pickup for 13 years with 170k miles with a busted clutch and messed up gearbox. All can be fixed, but I think we got our moneys worth. Still works but unreliable. I am going to buy a Ranger or a B-Series, why? Because price is a large factor. Reliability is a huge issue, which I debate about to myself everytime I think about the truck. I have heard horror and success stories about both trucks, some more then others, but the point still stands at where your perspective and experience lies. I have the experience with a toyota and without a Ford, but I will soon have the pleasure to try something new to clear a name gone bad or to add fuel to the fire of reliability regarding Ford. Either way it will be a learing experience for both myself and everyone I speak to about the truck.
3. To summarize #2, Person research and experience is important, but I am trying something new. I think everything relies on whether or not you buy a well built truck or a defect.
4. Buyer Beware.
I am not saying the Ranger is a better truck than the Tacoma. If anything they are about equal. Toyota of course has the reputation for reliability, as we all know. I guess I had a chip on my shoulder because a co-worker just assumed his Tacoma was just "better". After our shoot out his opinion changed.
I have 12K now on my Ranger. They have not been the easiest of miles either. So far the truck is as solid as the day I bought it. Next weekend I head to the Blue Mountains for some camping.
I to had the chip on my shoulder. I was growing tired of the "Tacoma's are overpriced" song and dance. I to feel the Ranger, like the Tacoma, is one of the best trucks out there. The Tacoma just fits my needs better. As I posted before I owned a 94 Ranger and was quite pleased with it. Again the Tacoma just suited my needs better, this time around.
AZ
As for the "Children bickering". I believe that was a bit much. I believe that vince8 and I both just feel strongly about our choices and were just stating our opinions based on research done by both of us. I know that if I was getting ready to purchase a new truck, that kind of "Bickering" would help educate me on the choice I was going to make. A good debate always almost always educates it's listeners.....
Happy Easter All.....
-wsn
Personally, I see the Tacoma as being a bit wimpy looking due to the fact that it seems lower to the ground. Although a raising kit and/or larger tires would EASILY solve this problem (I have seen the 4x4s, and I am impressed!), why spend more money on a standard v6 4x2 to get a 4x4 look? The pre-runner I would have taken into consideration, had it not been the fact that it does not come in a 5spd manual!?! What's the deal Toyota? We want a 4x2 with a 4x4 look at a 5spd Manual Trans.!!
The ranger does have its flaws though. Some of which include cheaply manufactured and installed interior parts. I have not had a first or second hand experience with fords (except the internet), but read many good and bad stories about the truck. If I can afford the ranger/b-3000, I will have a story to tell. If I cannot afford these vehicles, then I think I civic will suit me for my everyday commute. I hope I will be able to afford 16K against 11k.
The Toyota sits higher than the Ranger due to its larger tires also.
Don't buy the 2.5, the 3.0 can be had for about $500 more. The MPG in the 5spd version of both the 2.5 and 3.0 is about the same also. For 16K you can get a 3.0 4x4 XLT 5spd. (At least in Oregon) I see them in the papers all the time. They come with air/pwr steering/brakes, pretty well equipped. A commuter, the Ranger is not though. Get your Civic for the commuting, that is of course if you can't swing the heavy gas bill.
So bottom line, Ford has to be doing something right for them to stay in business AND prosper. Toyota is OBVIOUSLY doing a lot of things right, why they have the reputation, but the price is a killer. Ford styling is better then the Toyota 4x2s.(maybe not the 4x4s.) and Ford has a decent Warranty. So Ford can't be all that bad, and it is going to be a risk I am going to take, without any PERSONAL experience. I have first hand experience with Toyota, but some things you just have to try for yourself.
I TEST DROVE THE 1999 TOYOTA TACOMA EXCAB,6CYL,4WD,5 SPD. I DON'T KNOW WHERE EDMUNDS GOT THEIR PRICING FROM BUT I BOUGHT THE TACOMA EXCAB,6CYL,4WD,5 SPD,WITH THE SR5 PACKAGE,BEDLINER,ALLOY WHEELS W/265R75 TIRES,FOR LESS THAN $23,000 INCL N.Y.STATE TAX.! I ALSO HAD THE BUCKET SEATS-WHICH I FIND MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE THAN THE BUCKET SEAT IN THE MAZDA 99 MODEL. TRUE, YOU GOT MORE BANG FOR THE BUCK IN THE MAZDA,INCL. ABS BRAKES,4DR FOR $2,000 LESS-- BUT THE MAZDA 6CYL ONLY HAS 150HP VS 190HP IN THE TOYOTA-PLUS 220LBS TORQUE. IT'S NICE GOING UP MODERATE GRADES IN 5TH GEAR AND ACTUALLY MAINTAINING SPEED! COULDN'T DO THAT IN THE MAZDA.
IF ONE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT PERFORMANCE THE MAZDA IS THE WAY TO GO-MAYBE.-I ALSO LOOKED AT THE NISSAN FRONTIER.VERY LITTLE ROOM BEHIND THE DRIVERS SEAT,BUT YOU PROBABLY THE BIGGEST BANG FOR THE BUCK,BUT STILL IS 20HP LESS THAN THE TOYOTA. I'M VERY PLEASED WITH MY TACOMA.THE RIDE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE A SEDAN.-IT'S A TRUCK.THE BUCKET SEAT ARE MORE COMFORTABLE THAN THE BENCH SEATS-BUT THAT'S A GIVEN!!
Tacomas are not $5K more than anything else in their class comparably equipped.
I agree with azninvazion -- 4x2 Tacomas are butt ugly!
Terry
I had not read the article and stand corrected on the $5K difference. I can not imagine paying that kind of money for a pickup -- and then take it off-road on top of that... The Limited package was hard for me to imagine anybody even wanting when I was looking at trucks. I don't know why Edmunds chooses to test a vehicle that is beyond the average truck buyer's means... or maybe I'm just not making enough $$$... (Maybe Toyota suggested that vehicle as what they would prefer to have tested.)
mikec13,
There are still many folks willing to pay a premium for a vehicle that comes from a manufacturer with an outstanding reputation for quality (myself included). Toyota soaks up the extra $$$ doesn't want to challenge Ranger's dominance unless they can do it at the margins they are already achieving.
I'm happy with what I paid for my truck, but it's no where the vehicle that Edmunds is testing... I'm comfortable with the difference I paid over what a Ranger might have cost and believe over time I will continue to feel it was worth it. For now, I have no complaints...
Terry
I don't see anything wrong with paying more for quality (as to whether perceived or real in this case, who can see the future of an individual truck?). IMO anyone who is happy with what they bought did good.
My point with the price reduction to stimulate sales is that Toyota might more than make up for the reduced margins with increased volume. And at some point with the competition increasing quality up to Toyota levels, that margin is going to be harder to maintain anyway. I'd like to see the bean counters go for the gusto and make an aggressive price move...shake up the competition a little.
Personally, I really liked the Tacoma and have felt that the 4x4 model is the best looking compact out there. Had the price been nearly as equal between Tacoma and Ranger as my appraisal of the trucks, I might be driving one now.
I got to agree with you on the point that you made about the Tacoma 4x4 being the best looking compact. If the 4x2 came with the image the 4x4 has made, with comparable options, and a sticker price of 2K more, I would spring for the Tacoma. The prerunner is way too expensive and it does not come in a manual trans. I would love to get a 4x4 tacoma, or a prerunner manual. but the bills just aren't there
The Tacoma is just way TOO expensive for a compact pickup. You paid 23,000 for a beautiful truck, but I am paying 15K for a ranger, which I like the image, with 8K to spare. I could buy a geo with the amount of money that I have saved! For 23k I would have gone for the F-150, or a luxury car!! What I am trying to say, is that one of the main reasons I am buying a truck is for the price. I get a 15k truck that will last me for 8 years. That is all that I am hoping for. I am sorry to say 23K is way too much for a compact pickup.
Also, the comparable B-3000/Ranger to your truck is only 19K. that is 4K that you are saving. What do you need a 4x4 in NY? Are you going through the forests or are you staying in NYC?
Mikey? NY? Paid too much for my truck? One of us is a little confused.
I have a Ranger (4.0 ex-cab auto loaded). I'm in Pittsburgh (southwest PA) and 4x4 on a snowy day in hilly terrain is nice.