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 - III
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
But, 1" more ground clearance isn't going to make that much of a difference.
Thanks for the info!
keith24
The reason that so many people buy rangers is its cost vs. benefit. I just don't buy the American nameplate argument. If that were true, the Camry and Accord wouldn't be 2 of the top 3 selling passenger cars in the U.S. for the last 'umpteen years. They provide the most utility for the green. The foreign nameplates (of which actually many are built in the U.S. and actually are classified as domestics) just haven't been able to provide the general public what it wants in a truck. I'm not saying everyone, just on average. Case in point is the T100. It seemed like a nice truck, but it was a complete flop because of its utility. It was smaller than traditional full-size trucks, could haul/tow less, and it cost more. I will admit that foreign nameplate trucks have been improving over the years, though.
So, the Tacoma hasn't really got the ground clearance that is in its specs. Toyota has been speccing the front axle diff, which is a couple inches higher than the rear axle diff. They have been misrepresenting the Tacoma. Oh well. Now, I finally know why spoog would never answer any questions about its ratings for me. Just an observation...
breeds. You cannot say just because the Camry
and Accord are Top sellers in there class.
Most truck buyers are "strictly american" suckers.
The fact is the Ranger is the Best all around compact truck for the average compact truck user. To haul the cubic yard of dirt or haul the new stove. The Ranger/Mazda are the best value in a compact truck. Ranger/Mazda offer more options, more features, more configurations than Toyota. Toyota has lost the VALUE part. It is no secret the Tacoma is a pricey compact truck. If anyone reads mags or reviews they know this, along with a trip to the dealer too.
I have stated my postion over and over again. I have never said the TAcoma was a bad, unreliable or incapable truck. I just question the price. It is now almost 2 years since I shopped and when I did a like optioned Tacoma was about 3K more than a Ranger. The salesperson was also a jerk telling me it was worth the price and Rangers were garbage lecture. Needless to say he didn't know I had a Ranger with 96K miles and not one problem. Out the door I went.
See you in the snowy hills! Have a good holiday season.
Enough of this, though. If Toyota suddenly priced its Tacoma significantly below the Ranger comparably equipped, I'd be waiting in line to sign up despite its few flaws (side-impact safety, low torque, and marginal ergonomics). For full-sized trucks, there is NO full-sized foreign make. The Tundra comes close and has been enjoying some success. Maybe you should think before you go shooting off at the mouth with brainless babble.
this board you will see that some of the things
I said are not all that far out. Take the
Silverado's for example. They come on the
Toyota Tacoma (compact board) blabbing there
mouths about how they can pull a horse, it's
trailer, and all of its crap - who cares!!!!
It's simple. There isn't a Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Isuzu, etc... full-sized truck on the market to compete with the F-Series, Silverado, and Ram pick-ups. Many of those 'buy american' guys would change their tune if the foreign nameplates could offer them a better truck. Claiming to have bought an american vehicle is only a manner of self-justification. It's similar to saying "I bought a Tacoma because it kicks [non-permissible content removed] off-road" or "I bought a Ranger because it's got the best extended cab and lowest price." Could someone have survived with something that has a little less off-road ability or something with a smaller interior costing a bit more? Yes, but everyone needs to somehow justify their purchase. For all those Silverado owners who come posting to Tacoma boards that "my truck is bigger", I wonder if they're read any Freud...
As for inflation, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. It has been very stable the past 15 or so years at about 3-4%. The Fed has kept it in close check by adjusting their lending rate and carefully issuing government securities. But, don't wait too long to buy a house if you're thinking of one soon. Greenspan raised the rate by .25% a while ago, and it looks as if rates might increase slightly over the next year or so.
"It's simple. There isn't a Toyota, Nissan, Honda,
Isuzu, etc... full-sized truck on the market to
compete with the F-Series, Silverado, and Rampick-ups. "
Yes there is. As I said before, the Tundra has a higher standard payload than those full size pickups in their entry v8 form, it tows more, its faster off the line, its faster from 40-70 while towing 5000 pounds than the others, it brakes better, it handles better, ect. Check any magazine to get these stats. Again, the entry level toyota v8 beat EVERY single standard and available v8 engine offered by the big three EXCEPT the 5.8 liter Ford Triton.
Why do you think the Tundra is getting such rave reviews? Check motor trend, Car and river, ect.
Im not that big of a fan of the Tundra for a few reasons. I dont think its that good offroad.
I dont like the interior that much, and It doesnt offer a complete TRD package.
Its frame is also made of a higher density, stronger metal than the other big three full size pickups.
Interior:
Front Headroom: 40.3 in.
Rear Headroom: 37 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.5 in.
Rear Leg Room: 29.6 in.
Maximum Seating: 6
F150 Xcab =Interior:
Front Headroom: 40.8 in.
Rear Headroom: 37.8 in.
Front Leg Room: 40.9 in.
Rear Leg Room: 32.2 in.
Maximum Seating: 6
(Source: Edmunds.com)
Ford basically only has more rear legroom, but are we arguing over 2.6 inches?
The Tundra is classified as a "Full Size" truck. Like it or not. I think Toyota did a great job for it's first real offering. This may be like the Taurus and the Camry. The Camry eventually caught up and surpassed the Taurus's # 1 spot. I'm not saying this will happen, but once they start offering more configurations, and people start getting better gas milage with the Tundra, you may see folks reconsidering the Big 3.
Just my $.02
-wsn
I have also sat in a Dakota, and in my opinion the Dakota and Tundra have very similar interior space. I also don't care if the Tundra is classified as a full size truck or not, in my opinion it is closer to a Dakota, and naturally I feel a comparison between the Tundra and Dakota is more telling.
". I'm sorry for taking up space on your
board with full-size info, but it important to getfacts straight."
The facts are that full sized pickups are rated full size when you can fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat in the bed, NOT on how cavernous the cab is.
"One last though, and I'll let this die. As I have
said, the Dakota and Tundra are very similar
vehicles, yet the Tundra is labeled a full sizetruck and the Dakota is not. "
And you wonder why this is. BECAUSE the Tundra can fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood flat in its bed, and the Dakota can NOT.
Are you understanding this now?
Run along little Jimmy..........
The Tundra has had very good initial sales but they are starting to go flat. The Tundra is not as large inside as the Big 3 offerings of full size trucks. The Tundra doesn't even offer a limited slip axle. Offers only one V8, one V6. GM/Ford/Dodge offer how many engines, cabs, suspensions?
Toyota picked the lower end V8's to compete with because they knew the Tundra could't beat anything else Ford/Dodge/GM have to offer. In fact sales figures show most Ford/GM/Dodge buyers DON NOT opt for the lower end V8. The Tundra is also lighter and all around smaller than the trucks Tundra is comparing with too. And once again the price factor comes into play with Toyota. Lots of dough when comparing trucks option for option. The facts are starting to come out in the wash. The Tundra is no threat to Ford/Dodge/GM they just offer too many options in the full size truck arena. The Tundra is a wanna play with the big boys truck. There is a room now that actually compares the Tundra to the Dakota and this is a better comparison.
I have sat in both trucks. I personally (Opinion) found the F150 to have a "Little" more room in the Xcab (As the #'s support) and to be mostly the same in the front. It would be difficult for me to judge "Cramped" because i own a Tacoma and both models are going to feel bigger to me anyhow.
Lastly i will agree with Vince8 for the first time...
"Isn't this a Tacoma vs. Ranger Room?"
Let's get back to the topic at hand shall we.....
-wsn
http://cars.bestrate.com/pricingreport/report/19995741.html
spoog?!? No limited slip? Vince, would seem the Tacoma DOES have a limited slip.
When I add up on this site all the options that I have on my Ranger, the Tacoma has an invoice of $21,136 and retail of $23,878. Now that is not a lot of options, cause the Ranger XLT was fine for me at $17,400. Sooooo...
If some of the Tacoma owners are getting your trucks for 19-20K, it would seem you are getting a great deal, a couple of grand under invoice.
Also that was probably the case with the 97 post i made earlier. Good thing i sad it may be true and didn't state in as some sort of FACT...
Spoog i think you claims of no Toyota LSD still holds true.
Sorry CP!
Hey CP have you cleaned you engine yet. I'm getting ready to due mine and you usually seem to be up on this sort of thing. If so what are you using, and how are you applying it?
Thanks in Advance
-wsn
I have seen way too many Ranger pickups at trade in to ever consider buying one. At 100K, they are done or nearly done. There are exceptions but not many. On the other hand, I have seen numerous 200K Toyota trucks traded in that were not only still running but running strong and still worth good money. I have never seen a Ranger do that.
I realize this is anecdotal but I have been doing this for 6 years. When I see a customer pull up in a Ranger that is older than 5 years, I know what I will find. I will see a truck with valve and rod knocks, interiors that are falling apart and transmissions that either have been or need to be replaced. We also must test the 4WD system to see if it still functions.
With older Toyotas, I wont say I have never seen a dog, but on the whole, they are in great shape. Before '89, we see body rust and some V6s have had head gaskets but they are still running great. I have seen '87 4X4s with 175K miles bring $2000 as a trade value with the beds falling off. A similar Ford is worth $200 if we can start it.
Just taking dust/mud and some road grime off so far.
Actually that site I cited is fairly good for comparisons. You can go back to a Ford or whatever on another window and see the standard and optional equipment.
Welcome to the fold.
However, the Tacoma has some of the thinnest sheet metal and flimsy jokes for bumpers. Look at the front of a Newer tacoma 4x4. It's all plastic with some crappy little chrome decorative ornaments. This offers basically no protection whatsoever.
I had an old lady back into my front "bumper" of my truck at about 2 MPH. only $678 of damage!
Rangers but I don't think they have the off-road
capability of a Tacoma. I think your tires
that you put on help out the situation alot.
The Toyota's stiff suspension really outperforms
off-road. HAS ANYONE SEEN A DIRTBIKE VIDEO CALLED
CHILDREN OF THE IRON HORSE. Well I think that
is what it is called, anyways they take a stock
toyota and they are jumping it and getting like
3 or 4 feet off the ground, both tires! The bottom line is I know you can put on aftermarket
crap and make the Ranger a better off-roader then
a stock Taco but I don't want to spend the time
or money doing that, I want the best, out of the
box offroading compact pickup.
I DID however take Medano Pass, a 10,000 ft pass, graded 4 in the book I use, with the stock Firestones and it was a bit more difficult, to say the least. That pass has mud, steep turning climbs, stream crossings, rough off camber rock crossings and about 8 miles of the Great Sand Dunes National Monument. I have cut thru mud, snow, rocks and gravel with the BFG's and they do make a difference.
Anyone using the Goodyear AT/S that have 2 wide grooves and side lugs like the BFG AT KO's?
I think Tacoma comes with the Goodyear GSA's, right?
I understand what you want and yes the Tacoma would fit the bill better. Ranger owners really like to play with their trucks, having a good platform to start with.
Maybe your comment on thin metal is the reason a Tacoma is so much lighter than the Ranger. They are very simular in size. I have not done it myself but have read if you ever have to remove a
Ranger door, be aware it is a lot heavier than it looks.
My ONLY point of my comment was that Rangers can be rode hard, put away wet.
Anyone can feel free to correct me on this one.
Second, a full-sized truck is exactly what a full-sized truck buyer/owner says it is. Some full-sized trucks don't even have big enough beds to haul that sheet of plywood in. Does that make them compact trucks? Nope.
Third, if Toyota's top-of-the-line V8 offering can't beat the smallest of the V8's from the big 3, then god help them.
Fourth, when I'm talking about success, it means sales and reviews from various automotive critics. I was comparing it to the flop of the T100. Toyota has been doing their homework and brought a truck more suited to the U.S. market. You really should read more carefully. It seems that everything posted to you just goes right over your head.
You also post:
"And you could do the same seeing as how I proved
you completely wrong on the torque issue." Your mind must be as simple as 1+1=3
Finally, are you bringing back your "denser metal theory" in a new form? LOL
Enough of this full (er... mid) -sized truck crap.
spoog:
Sorry to take away your only hope, spoog, but that 2-year-old article you post (your reference count has got to be well over a 100 posts) just isn't accurate when it comes to torque (and a lot of other things as so many people have pointed out). Please, please, please don't make me explain to you again the relations between torque, transmissions, tire sizes, gearing, etc... to you again. Don't you get it yet???
created on here. But for a change how about
you check out post 1375 on a diesel compact.
What do you think? Great gas mileage and torque!
With the stiffer riding suspension of the taco, I was just curious if this ever happens. Thankfully, Ford alleviated most of this problem with the suspension mods in '98. Still, I wouldn't feel comfortable cruising above 80mph in 'bout any truck. They just tend to 'float', and it'd be pretty easy to lose the rear end in a vehicle with most of its weight on the front wheels.
With the stiffer riding suspension of the taco, I was just curious if this ever happens. Thankfully, Ford alleviated most of this problem with the suspension mods in '98. Still, I wouldn't feel comfortable cruising above 80mph in 'bout any truck. They just tend to 'float', and it'd be pretty easy to lose the rear end in a vehicle with most of its weight on the front wheels.
How about it CP do they?
-wsn
I understand the 98 did have a hook in the rear but they are not on the 99. I added the chrome 10,000 lb ones partly for looks.
Here is some speculation for you. Is it possible that Ranger outsells Tacoma because you Ford owners have to replace them so much quicker than the Toyota guys?
Cliffy is a nickname from college. My roommate and I had the same first name and Cliffy seemed the logical way to keep us apart. Never been to Boston.
So now that Ford "discovered" overhead cams, do you think they will stop all that noise I hear on every Ranger with over 60K miles? Or was that noise just masking other noises that I will now be able to hear?
I though this funny because Toyota sold all of their 99's by October here, and Ford STILL has 99's (a bunch --- 13 '99 Rangers, and 10 '99 explorers). No wonder Ford's are outselling other trucks. Because if they can't get rid of 'em, they give 'em away!!! Found On Road Dead ??? Isn't that what the name stands for???
Cliff and Norm were characters on the sitcom Cheers which was based on a Bar in Boston and I was only kidding when I asked about that.
I do like reading these posts and other posts, even though there are differences and arguements there is one thing we all have in common,we are all truck lovers.
How can they have Tundras left over? They were introduced as 2000 model year trucks.
You either have an OHC cam activating both of the intake and exhaust valves (SOHC) or one OHC activating the exhaust and another activating the intake (DOHC).
While the OHC is an improvement to the pushrod design, the only reason that I can see going from SOHC to DOHC is more/larger valves. This translates to higher rpm's and higher peak hp at higher rpm. What benefit would you be gaining in using this engine for a typical truck engine. It's more complicated and expensive than the SOHC design, but it doesn't improve the torque curve. Don't get me wrong here. I love the DOHC design, for a car engine. The 2.5L Duratec in my SVT Contour absolutely screams. The valving makes it seem as if it's got a turbo charger as the rpm's accelerate towards the redline. But, I wouldn't want this engine in my truck. Its torque is too low and too high in the rpm range for hauling, towing, etc...
The high stock of '99s = Ford is bad argument:
There are lots of '99s still on the lot? That's great! I can get a great deal (cash back, special financing) on a new truck! What's wrong with that? You've got to look at economics here. If you've got higher supply than demand, the price is gonna go down and vice versa. But, I have noticed that the trucks on the lot at the end of the model year are usually stripped down 4cylinder, no A/C models. But, this is just what I've noticed in my area (Chicago).
Cliffy:
I think that most people who have good Ford experiences (about 80-85% according to owner surveys) will probably purchase another Ford at a Ford dealer. So, maybe the guys trading in their rangers for tacomas at the toyota dealer got lemons (yes, every automaker has them, even almighty toyota) and are switching brands. These might be the other 15-20% of customers. Also, the vehicle might not be suited to their personal tastes and made a hasty purchase decision. As an auto salesman, you know all about the "bum-rush" and the amount of stupid people out there. No offense, I'd do it too to put $$$ in my pocket.
I realize that this is a broad generization and the there are exceptions but most of the older Rangers I have seen are not worth trading.
You are in the business so let me ask you this, what would you CV a 92 Ranger 4x4 with the 3.0, 4x4 and 120K miles? Then, what would you put on a 4 banger Toyota with the same miles? Picture these trucks and tell me which one is worth more.