Howdy, Stranger!

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


azninvazionazninvazion Posts: 15
edited March 2014 in Toyota
What does everyone thing about this choice? Pros
cons? Owners of either what do you think about
them in the field of reliability. Thanks


  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241

    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...

  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    I purchased myself last year a 1998 Ranger XLT stepside kingcab 4x4 5spd 4.0 (offroad pkg, tow pkg). After shopping GM, Toyota, Nissan, Dodge I found this to be the best value. I purchased mine loaded for about 2K less than a Tacoma. I found Toyota to be overpriced/overrated. With the money saved I was able to put on nurf bars, spray in bedliner, topper, rock guard and buy better tires. This truck looks fantastic. I get many complements on the stepside box. A friend of mine purchased a Tacoma about a month earlier than I purchased my Ranger. We went head to head in the mountains of Oregon. My Ranger could do anything his Tacoma could do. We agreed it was a tie, except for price. I am an outdoors person. I use my 4x4 in the mountains and in the eastern deserts of Oregon. My Ranger has performed flawlessly. As far as reliablity, This is my second one. My first went to 97K with minor problems. Have a friend who has a 94 Ranger with 103K. Shop and compare. The Tacoma is very expensive and overrated.
  • hindsitehindsite Posts: 590
    I have a 99 extended cab Tacoma 4 x4 loaded and can say it has been great so far. I saw the Ford Ranger, but since I had trouble with my 92 Ford Mark III custom van I decided to buy Toyota. I think that most cars or trucks these days can go 100k if properly maintained, but can they reach 200K. I had a 89 Camry I sold at 165,000 with no mechanical or electrical problems and although it is not a truck it does say a lot for the company . . . Toyota.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    vince 8

    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

  • Does the 190 hp really make that much difference? Isn't torque really more important in a truck? The Ranger 4.0 has 225 ft-lbs of torque compared to the Tacoma's 220 ft-lbs. I know that's not a big difference, I'm just wondering if Tacoma's 190 hp really makes it the far superior drive train. On the autos, does the Ranger's 5 spd auto make up for less hp? Again, just wondering from people who know more than me about this stuff.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Don't forget, you paid more for your Tacoma than I did for my Ranger. You either get it coming or going. This is my second Ranger, first one went to 94K with no problems, that is why I bought a second one. Reliablity with me is a mute point. You better check the 0-60 times of the 190HP V6 Tacoma before you start talking performance against the Ford Ranger. Like I said in a previous mail. I already went up against a Tacoma 4x4 190HP in my Ranger 4.0 and I could do anything he could do, go anywhere he could go, haul anything he could, tow, climb which ever. Tacoma is very overpriced and overrated.
  • KatmanduKatmandu Posts: 24
    One thing's for sure, the Ranger is better in the crash tests than the Tacoma. The sheetmetal in the tacoma is too thin to really protect it's occupants. All those goofy waves and dimples on the Tacoma require thinner sheet metal. Also, did you ever try to buy replacement parts for a Toyota??? My god a fender is $400-$500. A ranger fender is $200-$250. No one likes to think about denting a new truck but hey, it happens. I used to be a loyal Toyota man, loved the trucks. Now they're WAYYYYY overpriced. For the $25K for a loaded xcab Tacoma 4x4 I could get a REAL truck..full size and pull that Tacoma wherever I wanted to. Plus the build quality of the Tacoma is not what it used to be.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241

    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)
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Reliablity with me is a mute point. My last Ranger lasted me 94K and ran fine at trade in time. I will give you resale value. But you paid anywhere from 2-3K MORE than I did upfront. The Tacoma is overpriced, I read this in many postings and magazines. When comparing feature for feature the Tacoma can run you as high as 25K! You can get a full size for that price. Read Edmunds postings also as far as performance numbers in comparing the Ranger to the Tacoma, you may be surprised.
  • My Ford Ranger has been a lemon. Here's the 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.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    Where did you get your prices from??
    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!
  • GischpelGischpel Posts: 133
    Every post you say the Tacoma is overpriced and overrated. You have stated your opinion on the prices and folks can decide that for themselves (as you did), but I want to know exactly what you mean by overrated?


  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    With the money saved I was able to buy a better powertrain/extended warranty than Toyota offers. Better craftmanship, nope, Ranger rated very well and even better than Tacoma in ride comfort and seat comfort. Plastics used are very high quality, better check again pal. The 3.0 and 2.7 are only .3 liters apart. The 3.0 has the same HP and torque as the 2.7. The 190HP V6 is also optional in the Tacoma and you will pay for it also. For the same price you can get a full size truck or even a Dodge Dakota V8! I have already went up against a Tacoma in a head to head offroad battle. A co-worker bought a Tacoma a few months before I bought my Ranger. He just went to the Toyota dealer, didn't even shop other makes/models. We went into the Mountains of Oregon and had an offroad shootout. I could do anything he could, pull, climb, haul.. You overrate your Toyota bud.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241

    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....

  • brucec35brucec35 Posts: 246
    Sorry Vince, but you're off base on a few things.

    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.
  • LohengrinLohengrin Posts: 84
    BTW-Toyota's are made in California, not Japan (at least final assembly anyway) so there is no terriff on them. They cost more because people are willing to pay more, especially die hard Toyota lovers like my brother. If people stopped buying Toyota's and Toyota lovers started buying Ford's and Dodge's and Nissan's, I think the price would come down.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    If you read offroad mags and your normal mags on Trucks they always are talking about the price you are going to pay for the Tacoma. A year ago I was in the market for a new compact truck. I have no real need for a full size truck. I shopped and drove all of them. Chevy, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda/Ford, Dodge. I never have said the Tacoma was a bad truck. Its not, its a nice truck. But, in my comparisons you will pay for the Tacoma. I use my Ranger in the mountains and deserts of Oregon. It has NEVER let me down. This is my second. My first went to 64K with only minor problems. With the $2,500 difference I was able to buy and extedended warranty along with do some improvements/add ons to my Ranger. People are willing to pay for a so called "better truck"? I don't think so. They are buying what I feel is an equal truck for more money. I have already proved this to a co-worker who bought a Tacoma and gave me a very hard time for buying a Ford. We went head to head in the mountains of Oregon. As I posted before, I could do anything he could.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Posts: 241
    Thanks Bruce35

    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)

  • LohengrinLohengrin Posts: 84
    Is that a fair comparison? What were the recalls for? Big stuff like drivetrain or suspension, or little stuff. 1998 was the first model year for the newly redesigned Ranger, so of course there's going to be a couple bugs at first. I'm sure they've been fixed for 99. How many recalls did Tacoma have on it's first model year?
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    wsnoble, I went and checked the NHSTA site and 2 out of the 5 are for the 97 Ranger. The 3 are for extremely simple items not even associated with the actual reliability, quality, drivablity, suspension, mechanicals of the Ranger. Please people go check for yourself. The Ranger is rated very well in Consumer Reports, Edmunds, Road and Track, MotorTrend, shall I go on. I am tired of the assumption that the Tacoma is "just better because its a Toyota crap". Do your homework, the edge Toyota had once is gone. Why does Ford Ranger still outsell Tacoma almost 2 to 1? Can all these people be wrong? The Value, comfort, performance and reliablity of the Ranger is there.
  • lwflwf Posts: 223
    Regarding "Why does Ford Ranger still outsell Tacoma almost 2 to 1?"

    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.
  • GischpelGischpel Posts: 133
    Whether Ranger outsells Tacoma 2 to 1 (or whatever) has no bearing on the value of either vehicle, IMHO. Why????

    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.

  • lwflwf Posts: 223
    You may have a point, Terry, but I'm afraid I don't see it. Perhaps I should have provided the other compact PU production numbers. 292,760 for GM/ChevyS10 & clones and about 90,000 for the Frontier (+ 48,000 non-Frontier Nissan PUs made in Mexico). The Ranger outsold all of them by good margins including the GM compact PUs, so the perceived "Made in the USA" argument doesn't seem to apply here. And I'm pretty sure that model for model the Frontier was quite a bit less expensive than the Ranger, so that seems to contradict your logic regarding "fixed budget" people.

    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.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    It is happening in 2000 - 2001. You will see a 200 HP/ 225ft/lb V6. I'll test drive and decide if I want to order one and trade my 98 4.0 V6 5spd XLT kingcab in. I ordered it with the tow and offroad pkg also.
    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.
  • GischpelGischpel Posts: 133

    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.


    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.

  • mikec13mikec13 Posts: 26
    Last June when I bought, I drove a Tacoma and Ranger with the large engines, auto & 4x4. The Tacoma's engine was a little more powerful but what surprised me was that everything else about the trucks was pretty much a wash. I found the quality issue to be a non-issue. Both are simply fine trucks and it's hard to see how any compact buyer will go wrong with either. Ford had a financing deal at the time that was too good to pass up and I've not had any problem whatever in the 9 months and 8,500 miles since. For me the Ranger has been a very tight, good handling, fun little truck.

    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...
  • My Ford Ranger has been a lemon. Here's the
    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.
  • Manual transmission is the only way to go period.
  • a couple of comments to make:

    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.
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    az, you have a computer search the Internet. The Ranger is rated well for reliablity.

    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.
This discussion has been closed.