TOYOTA TACOMA vs. FOR RANGER

scape2

I am reading in some other posts/boards that some people are paying as high as 26K for the Tacoma TRD??! Why?
I am also reading the Tacoma price will drop next year due to the introduction of the Tundra. The price of the Tundra is not much more than a Tacoma.

Gischpel

I paid $18,300 for my '98 Tacoma X-cab with 2.7L 4 cylinder, 4x4, SR5 with chrome package, air, tilt, tach, all weather package, and bedliner. Sticker was $20,540.

I too am in Pittsburgh like mikec13 where the 4x4 is nice to have.

I thought I read that Tundras were pushing $30K. I guess that's not far from $26K if folks are paying that... I'm not...

scape2

I only paid about 1K more for my Ranger XLT with a 4.0 v6 5spd. Came with tow pkg, offroad pkg, pwr windows, locks, ABS, CD, alarm, air, pwr brakes, steering, wheels.. and more. This of course after rebates, and 500 dollar repeat buyer, along with days of haggling. Like I keep saying, 18,300 for a 4cyl toyota?? Toyota overpriced.

mikec13

vince8,

Without knowing the exact specs of someone's truck and the prices, rebates, financing, availability etc. in effect at the time of purchase, you can't know how much (if at all) anyone overpaid. It's already been well established, if not run into the ground, that Toyotas are more expensive in general. Everyone makes their own value judgements about projected reliability and what that's worth. That's part of what makes a market.

We both seem to be happy so far with the Ranger. Ditto for the Tacoma buyers. The interesting part will be how we all feel 6 or 7 years from now. Good luck to us all.

scape2

What is this I keep reading on the Internet about Toyota Tacoma's and head gaskets??

volfy

Toyota has just about a constant $1000-$2000 rebate on the Tacoma. I agree a loaded Tacoma 4x4 can get real pricey. But what I paid for my 4x2 Tacoma with a $1500 rebate was right in line with most of the other compacts out there.

Resale value isn't of too much use if you keep your vehicle longer than 5 years. It's probably worth considering if you're leasing though.

Gischpel

I think the issue with head gaskets was with the V6 used in pre-1997 or '98 Tacomas. It is my understanding that the current V6 is lifted from the Camry and has not had the same problems.

zx2fan

I think both of these trucks kick [non-permissible content removed] and take names...... I think if people show an interest in the other one's truck, and vice-versa, than maybe there can be some more interesting stories to be told.... let's stop biting each other's heads off and praise each other's trucks (big difference from kissing someone's butt).

Friend has a '94 Ranger 4x2, basically thinks it's a 4x4 (crossing small streams, light mtn. climbing), and he beats the crap out of it and it keeps out running great. And I have a friend with a '93 Toyota that also takes abuse and still runs up on the odometer.

There both great trucks! Enjoy them!

rgb

My two cents on this competition, having owned both brands: I bought a '97 Ranger 4x2 extended cab with 4.0 liter engine to replace my reliable old Toyota two years ago. It was the first American-brand vehicle I'd bought in 23 years. I was eager to give a chance to a venerable American name, and Consumer Reports encouraged me to be trust the Ranger to perform reliably. I liked the styling, power, and initial quality, but trouble cropped up after the first year.

By the time the Ranger racked up 25,000 miles, it required a new gasket for the fuel injector (problem manifested in rough idling and a tendency to buck when driving at low speed in low gear), new air conditioner relay (AC broke down completely) and new windshield wiper multifunction switch (intermittent wipers merely twitched instead of wiped).

Concurrent with those repairs under warranty, which required a total of five full days in the shop, the truck developed an intermittent humming resonance loud enough to turn the heads of pedestrians. The dealerships were unable to reproduce or diagnose it. The final straw came less than two weeks later when I thought I heard a motorcycle engine receding into the distance as I sat at a stoplight. I realized after a moment that something under the hood was emitting a loud groaning noise.

A few days later I traded the Ranger for a Tacoma Xtracab 4x4. It's too early to tell whether this one will prove as reliable as my old Toyota, which has rolled up 115,000 miles virtually problem-free. But Toyota has earned a presumption of quality from me, and I gladly paid $5,000 more for the Toyota than I did for the '97 Ford. Considering that the price differential included 4-wheel drive, I feel it was well worth it.

It seems to me that the Ford's problems derived not from basic design or assembly, but from poor-quality parts. I probably will not risk buying another American brand vehicle for the rest of my driving life--reliability is not an area in which I'm willing to compromise--and I'll certainly take Consumer Reports' reviews with a grain of salt from now on.

In retrospect, I feel I was forewarned in a backhanded way about the Ranger's long-term reliability by my Ford salesman. During the test drive, I told him reliability was very important to me. He asked, "Well, how long do you keep your trucks? Trade them in after three years or so?" I answered: "More like seven years." And his response was silence.

As for the main criticism Edmund's review raises about the Tacoma--that its price should come down--I won't argue the point. I'm certainly willing to pay less.

slorenzen

No question the Tacoma is a nice truck, but if you got the V-6, don't be surprised when you need a head gasket. For some reason, this is STILL a problem with the 3.4 engine. I asked the service manager at the local dealership if this was still happening, and his response was to shake his head and mutter "rampant".

This is NOT rocket science...why is it even an issue?

scape2

The head gaskets are not the only issue, leaf springs are another, along with some electrical. The Tacoma is also made here in the USA, by people who live in the USA. The Ford Ranger is by far the better value, for 5K extra I'll buy the wave runner Edmunds talks about!

Holliwood

Hummm, I read that the head gaskets were a problem on pre-98's and back. I didn't buy a new Tacoma, but I got lucky and found a '98 loaded Tacoma 4X4 V-6. Contrary, to some peoples preference I'd prefer my Tacoma over a Ranger any day. I test drove the Ranger, it's a nice truck, but the build quality seemed better in the Tacoma and it looked better, IMHO.

From all my reading on BB's most people started out looking to buy Tacomas, but couldn't afford them so they went with the Ranger. Most settled for it and found out they like it, but they initially wanted a Tacoma.

Both are nice trucks, I just liked the feel of Toyotas...that's all.

Gischpel

The Tacoma offered this and that's what I needed (and the only thing that is legal) with two little ones in booster seats in the back. This was something that was not available with the other trucks in this space.

scape2

OK, If you read back you will know what kind of Ranger I have and how I use it. I was out this last week up in the mountains in my "unreliable" Ranger, with a friend looking for a place to fish/camp. I was on a logging/forest road when I happend upon a guy in a Tacoma. Well, his hood was up. His Tacoma just quit, would not start. I know this guy was not happy that a Ranger was about to help him. My friend and I had to chuckle since we both know how the Tacoma is soooo reliable and the Ranger is so unreliable. I gave him a ride to the nearest phone. By the way one of his comments, "yeah, this is Toyota relibality at its best".

Holliwood

It's the sum of the total that counts, of course some Tacomas will have a few problems, but everyone knows that overall the Ranger is not quite up to Tacomas quality standards. Ford has closed the gap, but for the most part while shopping for a midsize truck I was told for the long haul go with the Toyota. It's not a perfect truck, but it just has fewer problems long term. Sure your Ranger runs fine now, but check back with us when you rack about 150K-225K in miles...that's when the Tacomas "shine"! I test drove both and the Ranger was nice but, the Tacoma had a more solid feel and besides Rangers "come a dime a dozen" with all Fords rebates and incentives. Just too many on the road for me! I ended up getting a loaded '98 Tacoma 4X4 w/ 8K on the odo. Man, it's silky smooth and you can just feel the quality!

scape2

For those of you who are preaching Toyota quality/reliablity. Please visit www.carpoint.msn.com. Look under the reliability section and check Toyota Trucks. The reliablity/quality isn't all that great for pre 1996 Toyota trucks. Then, go to the Ranger. Surpise!!

Holliwood

I checked Carpoint. You must have looked at the wrong truck. Long term reliability is definitely in Tacoma's favor! What are you talking about? There was only one problem with the Tacoma. The accessories(tail light problem) in '96. No problems since then. The Ranger has shown to be reliable the past 3 years. Look at the overall reliability for both trucks, the Ranger has had all kind of problems up until recently. Just like I said in my earlier post 'Ford is closing the gap'. Toyotas over the tears have been very reliable and the Carpoint report(one of hundreds) just proves it!!!

scape2

Holliwood, check again, look at pre 1996, before the Tacoma. Under Toyota trucks. The Ranger has excellent reliablity right in there with the Tacoma. www.carpoint.msn.com.

Holliwood

What, your only concerning yourself with one year?! Sure it was acceptable in '96, but look over the long haul. Toyota trucks have the record of solid, dependable trucks over the years. The current Tacoma has great reliability ratings( so does the Ranger) in its present model form. I'm more concerned with a trucks overall reliabilty, not just a couple of years. The Ranger had all kinds of hits on engine problems, transmission, brakes, heating & a/c, starting & charging, accessories. To see this you have to click on the "Reliabilty"link. Sure Ranger's are much better now, but like I said B/4 its the sum of the total that matters to me. My Tacoma is a '98 and it's awsome! Heck, I got 18mpg on mostly city driving. I thought the Tacomas got bad gas mileage...that's not bad to me.

I love my Tacoma and you love your Ranger, to continue to discuss which truck has better is useless because of the given reliability data. It speaks for itself, so let's move on to something else.

www.carpoint.msn.com/VIP/Used/Ford/Ranger

scape2

Holliwood, as I have said, please go to Toyota pickup 91-95 and read. Engine problems, transmission problems, brake problems, and more with 91-95 Toyota trucks. The Ranger rates just as good as the Tacoma in 1996-98 years. Ranger gets 5 out of five or 96-98, and 4 out of 5 from 93 - 96.
Also, do yourself a little test. Go to Kelly blue book. Do a comparison in resale value between the Ranger and Tacoma. Yes, the Tacoma comes out ahead anywhere from 2K -2.5K. But, the price the initial price of a comparable Tacoma to a Ranger is about 2K - 4K more, depending on where you look.

Holliwood

Hummm, I didn't look at the reliability ratings for '91-95 trucks. You're right, I stand corrected. Sorry, I only looked at the Tacomas failing to remember that the Tacoma didn't come out until '96.

Though, I have seen the reliability ratings for '91-'95 Toyota trucks, word on the streets(NC) was to stay away from the Ranger. Most said it couldn't and hasn't stood the test of time. Man, I see old Toyotas everywhere around here and mostly new Rangers. All of the guys where I work suggested getting the Toy or the Chevy Silverado Z-71 if I was going to get a full size truck. This is my first truck, always had sports cars, and in most cases if a car or truck is problematic the consumer's opinions are usually right on the money. All of the guys I work with have trucks, most are 15-20 yrs. older than me and no one recommended the Ranger. Neither did they dog it out either, but for the long haul they said go with the Tacoma.

Nevertheless, according to carpoint's ratings for '91-95 Toy trucks, the Ranger is just as reliable if not more reliable than the early Toyota trucks. But, I swear from the streets you sure couldn't tell it. But, I have to admit the Chevy/GMC Silverado/Sierra Z-71's dominate in my city...no question! Heck, where I work from the looks of the parking lot you'd think having a Z-71 was a criteria to work there! Almost bought one, but I thought it was just too big for me and too many of my acquaintances drive them also.

Sorry, for the verbal jousting...I still know and feel my '98 Tacoma is better than any Ranger.

scape2

To each his own, my main goal here is to get the damn stigma of all Fords/GM products fall apart after 30 days out of peoples minds! This is my second ranger, first went to about 94K with just a clutch and brake replacement. When I sold it it still ran great. When I went to buy a new truck I drove them all, Toyota, Nissan, S-10, Dakota. I felt the Ranger was the best value. Thanks for reading my post and seeing true data. Enjoy your Tacoma, see you in the hills! :-))

wsnoble

Hey Everybody

This months Peterson's 4Wheel and Off Road (June) has a small truck 4X4 shootout. The Tacoma takes top honors. They rated it's V6 better than all of the other contenders, including the Dakota V8. It also shines bright, because it offers the only REAL locking rear diff. Also before I ruffle your feather's Vince8 (Just Kidding) the Ranger gets high marks as well.....

-wsn

PS The Toyota was only $2200 more than the Ranger. Well worth it in my opinion.....

-wsn

scape2

Another place to go check reliability ratings is Popular Mechanics, also don't forget www.carpoint.msn.com.
Thank-you for not ruffling my feathers :-)
The only point I am making is for $2200 difference, I'll go get the jet ski Edmunds mentions in their review of the Tacoma!
I will keep trying to educate people about Ranger reliability/value.
Later.

hindsite

I have a 99 extended cab SR5 4WDTacoma with V6 and automatic and did not take price into consideration. In fact I paid for the truck in full. So what if you saved $2k or more today . . . what is the bottom line in the long run.

scape2

Once again the mindset and stigma of the 80's is upon us. Please, visit www.carpoint.msn.com visit the Tacoma and Ranger reliablity reviews, then go to the Toyota pickup section also, Popular mechanics homepage then to their autosection, find the Ranger, read the review on the Tacoma here at Edmunds, then read the Ranger review. The perceived quality advantage is gone my friend. I have about 15K on my Ranger and they have not been easy miles either, still waiting for it to fall apart as you say. This is my second Ranger, first went to 94K with just general maintenance and ran fine at sale for my new one. And, noone in here has answered the question of "If the Toyota is of better quality/relibality/workmanship and so on, why is it the Ranger outsells the Toyota almost 3 to 1?"

wsnoble

The Ranger out sells the Tacoma because of a few things

1.) Most people's bottom line is up front MONEY.

2.) The Ranger benifits from fleet sales.

3.) The Ranger benifits from Gov. agencys that have to buy so called "American" cars.

4.) The Ranger benifits from people who buy so called "american", becuse they think that buying foreign is un-patriotic

5.) Most americans love to buy cars and don't consider how to make the most of buying a depreciating asset/cars (Resale and reliabiltity)

The Ranger is a good truck. If i had to buy a truck from one of the big three i would only condider the Ranger, but the best small 4x4 truck out there for performance, reliailty, and resale is the Tacoma hands down.....

-wsn

scape2

wsn, by the looks of it you were typing awfully fast and furious.
Your excuses for #1 are pathetic.
The Ranger is the better value. I gave you tons of facts and places to go and read. Obviously you didn't and won't. If you plan to rebute my claims do so with some facts instead of opinions. Your 80's mentality of Toyota is "just better" is old my friend. Sorry you paid more for the same reliability ratings. As far as resale, The Ranger costs anywhere from 3-5K less than a Tacoma with roughly the same features. Go to Kelly Blue Book, type in a Ranger and a Tacoma in the same year with the same options. The Tacoma comes out ahead anywhere from 2-2.5K ( I have done this time after time with different years/options). So, it looks like you get it either coming or going.

hindsite

I agree with WSN that most pulic agencies and fleet sales are American vehicles. In fact some of the agencies I know uses Ford pickup trucks. Besides that both the Ranger and the Tacoma are equals for the most part in general. The only major difference I see is the pushrod 4.0 engine on the Ranger only produces 160 hp, while the dohc 3.4 engine puts out 190 hp. In fact the torque on the Ford's 4.0 is only 225 lb ft while the Toyota's is 220 lb ft. I was considering the Ranger, but when I saw the specs on the engine for the Ford I opted for Tacoma. Nothing to do with money and how much one can save between one car maker and the other car maker or which car maker is going to give me a better deal. Just the fact is that I wanted a modern engine in a modern time and not that old push rod engine. That is the bottom line.

Lohengrin

Push rods rule! Maybe I'm a little conservative, but I like things that are tried and true. BTW, I hope your head gasket doesn't break.

Holliwood

Most people who drive Rangers considered the Tacoma first, but opted for the cheaper of the two, the Ranger. Now that they have the Ranger they "think" it's the best thing since slice bread, while probably knowing the Tacoma is a better truck, has been and still is! I drove both, the Tacoma felt more solidly built and had gobs of power! Sure it cost more, but I bought what I really wanted and knew was better...Tacoma. But the clincher on the decision was that everyone said get the Tacoma if I could afford it because the Ranger just couldn't cut it over the long haul. If I had to buy a Ford it definitely would be the F-150...Ford's only proven truck!

Sorry Ranger owners, but the truth is the truth and if I thought the Ranger was better I definitely would have bought one, especially since it was cheaper.

Bring on the flames, the truth usually gets burned anyway!

hindsite

In a reply from Loh...n you stated that "I hope my head gasket doesn't break." And if one were to read between the lines of that statement is doesn't sound all too pleasant. I thought this was a discussion that was open to all opinions without malice towards others. Well, in fact Toyota has since corrected the problem with head gasket. Fact is that I consider the Ranger and the Tacoma to be comparable to each other and was stating my preference for dohc instead of a pushrod engine. Yes, the dohc is fairly recent, but it is also a proven engine that is just as reliable as the push rod engines. In fact several other car manufactures make the dohc engine . . . in various configurations.

scape2

Ford is dropping the 205HP V6 into its Ranger next year. Next year I trade into this from my 4.0 5spd 160HP. Torque is what your after anyway with 4x4. I believe torque will go up to 235ft/lbs.
Hollywood, you obviously are one of those people who didn't research before they bought. You took peoples opinions and ran right down to the Toyota store. I have given you many sites to visit and research long range reliability between the Ranger and Tacoma. The Tacoma is a good truck, I have never said it wasn't. Have you also read the long term on the Ranger here at Edmunds and the review of the Tacoma here at Edmunds? I am just trying to get the point accross it is down to a personal preference, reliability/quality are old reasons to pass on the Ford. Come into the 90's the door is open.
As I have posted, a co-worker and I went head to head in the mountains of Oregon. He as a Tacoma V6 and I have the Ranger V6. It was a draw, I could go anywhere, pull, haul, climb anything he could. See you in the hills! (I have the tow pkg, and off road pkg, also got rid of those hurting Firerocks that Ford puts on)

mikec13

Does anyone know of web sites that show the HP & torque curves of the Toyota and Ford V6's including the Explorer's SOHC V6? I think this would be more interesting than just the max numbers.

brucec35

Cost of ownership of a vehicle is a combination of 6 factors:
1. cost of money(interest on the loan or opportunity cost of your investment)
2. depreciation(probably the single biggest factor, one most ignore in favor of price)
3. Insurance
4. Fuel
5. Maintenance
6. Taxes and fees

Only if you calculate each of these over the vehicle's life can you arrive at an accurate cost of ownership. Some cheaper vehicles are actually more expensive to own than nicer, more expensive ones. I would guess that the Ranger and Tacoma would be very close in total cost of ownership, overall.

One thing that REALLY costs people, is the add-ons like sunroofs, electric doo-dads, CD players, etc, etc, that don't really add much on resale in the price guides. THAT is what most buyers base value on in this day and age. Dealers have told me that they give ZERO value to any options not listed in a price guide. So if you really want value, lay off the neon turbo massaging heated sunvisors.

Lohengrin

Hindsite,

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive. Just trying to get a rise out of you. Head gaskets were a pretty cheap shot. I guess I was just feeling like a smart *ss and got carried away. I apologize; I don't want to make the topic unpleasant.

Holliwood

Have you read Petersen's 4X4 magazine? They compared all midsize 4X4 trucks. They liked the Ranger, but the considered the Tacoma to better all around! But, like most articles they rely on their driving experience with the vehicle and of course their personal opinions plays a part too!

And YES, VINCE8 I did take people's opinions over magazine article views! Some articles for Tacoma and some for the CHEAPER Ranger! Past and present owners know more about the overall performance of a vehicle than a hand full of editors who only test the car/truck for maybe 2 days on short term test, while the owners can tell you about the long haul, 100K+.

So I don't believe I was in error by taking people's opinions over the various periodicals I read. Like I said, I always research any vehicle B/4 I buy. Read and ask people about the product that's the only way you can get the true value of any product from trucks to consumable goods.

When I concluded my research I felt and STILL DO FEEL THAT THE TACOMA IS BETTER FOR THE LONG HAUL AND NOT JUST FOR 2 DAYS IN A MAGAZINE TEST!

Oh yeah, VINCE8, I'm in the '90's that's why I bought the better truck! I am through discussing this topic because in my opinion I bought the best truck. I'm sure you have a nice truck, but mine is BETTER! Everyone knows that deep down inside. Toyotas ruled in the 80's and are still ruling in the '90's. I'll be waiting for you in the next century, but by the time 2010 gets here your Ranger will be in the salvage yard and trust me you'll have plenty of Ranger buddies to debate which truck was better when it was new! Toyotas have the strong rep of going the distance, does Ford? Hummmmm, let me think, everyone think too...NOOOO!!

I'm outta here!

hindsite

Log,
Apology accepted and I am glad this is forum for discussion. Yes, Toyota goofed big time with those head gaskest. It is apparent that Toyota forgot the fact that the coefficent of expansion for different metals and alloys vary. Aluminum has a linear expansion of .00128, while cast iron has a linear expansion of .00059 at 100 degrees fahrenheit. Simply put the seals need to be sufficent for the expansion or the aluminum head needs to be redesigned for so that the expansion is not eccentric.
Other than that I am glad Ford is putting the 205 hp engine in the Ranger this coming year. Good for competition and good for those that want to buy a Ranger. One thing in common we all have is that we drive pickup trucks . . . guess that is one thing we can agree on

scape2

Holliwood, I take it you live in California? Where? what do you use your truck for? What did you pay for your truck? What model? engine? options? You may want to take a visit to the High mileage room also before you claim Toyota the overall winner for high milage vehicles.
Once again you claim all Rangers will fall apart. Old, your not in the 90's. You obviously did not read the longterm review from Edmunds, and did not compare it to the Tacoma. I never said the Ranger was better, just equal. I will let you think your truck is bettter just because you paid more for your perceived quality advantage and image. I have already went up against a Tacoma in the mountains of Oregon. A co-worker and I would throw barbes at each other until I finally said meet you in the hills at this time and lets see who is better. Hate to burst your bubble, it was virtually a tie. We could pull the same, climb the same, haul the same, we even drove each others trucks. His high horse "Toyota is better attitude" sure went away quick. He admitted he did not even test drive a Ranger. Although he would still have bought his Tacoma just because he has always owned them. There was one difference though. Price. I was able to put on many options, spray in bedliner, tow package, offroad pkg, nerf bars, hood guard, better tires, fender flares, and more and still beat him in price. He thought he had me on the warranty issue, nope I also was able to buy an extended warranty up to 75K or 5 years which every comes first. And still beat him in price. Don't get pissed at me because you paid too much. See you in the hills.

barndog

Wow! People really take this stuff seriously! I am a newcomer to this forum, and cannot resist putting in my two cents. I have owned a couple of
Toyota 2wd pickups, and also driven quite a few rangers at work. The Toyota's have been faithful and reliable, for the most part (my current p/u has 145k and needs some parts now and then, but it still hauls hay and pulls 65 on the freeway). The rangers at work were a mixed bag, some of them were in the shop constantly, and some of them were pretty reliable. I am thinking about a new truck sometime this year, and was surprised to see all the negative sentiment about the tacoma in Edmunds and Consumer reports. The only thing I want to check is if the seats are really so uncomfortable; but aside from that, I'll probably look most seriously at the Tacoma, because I have had good experiences with toyota trucks, and mixed experiences with ranger's. I think it's just human nature to stick with something you have had success with in the past.

Holliwood

Not from Cali., but from NC. I have a loaded V-6 ext. cab. I didn't read any futher, too much rhetoric! No need to make this our 'verbal war ground'! It'll spoil it for the others. I've seen things like this destroy a BBS and I refuse to go let it go any further. I said what I said and so did you...now what?

We both love our trucks...let's leave it at that.

Holliwood

scape2

Wow, I thought this was supposed to be truck vs truck room. I gave facts and other sites for you to visit to educate you about the Ford Rangers reliablity record, along with reviews to read. I thought we could have a good debate here. I debated a guy in the Nissan room (cncman who is a Nissan sales person) about the new Nissan Frontier vs the Ford Ranger. We spent weeks bringing facts, figures, reviews about both trucks into the room. Other people loved it. Helped people make a decision between the Nissan and Ford. Some chose Nissan, some chose Ford for some of the information cncman, and I brought into the room. I guess I will have to debate someone else. I do enjoy my 98 Ranger SC XLT 4x4 4.0 V6 loaded also. But when Ford comes out with the new 4.0 it will be trade in time.

mikec13

It may be an expensive trade if you're only doing it for that engine. I drove an Explorer Sport for a day with the V6 SOHC. My impression was that it would make highway passing a little easier but would be of little value otherwise for me at least.

I'd get that engine if I was going to trade regardless but no way would I trade a good running '98. Too much money for too little return IMO unless you're routinely pulling a lot of weight.

spoog

Remember, Toyota and Jeep make the only decent stock 4x4's if offroading is your choice.
If you want a car with a bed and car brakes, get a Ford Ranger. Resale value is crap on them too. Ford brakes are notorious for being garbage. They use the taurus brakes and rotors on thier full size and small pick ups.

If you are going fora compact, go tacoma all the way. It will whip the ranger in 0-60, plus you can byck up 2 grand for a factory installed supercharger that will turn 0-60 in 6 seconds.
Also, in tyhe manula tacomas, you get a clutch start cancel switch, which allows you to start the truck without depressing clutch for NO SLIPPAGE hwen stuck on hill. The Tacomas option locking rear diff should let you know which truck is a performance machine and which one is a car with a bed. Ground clearance is NOT even close.
RESALE value is not even close. Fords reliability has gotten better, so I cant comment on which vehicle is more reliable.
dont think the ranger even has standar skid plates. LOL!

Use your brain man.

spoog

HEY VINCE 8

Are you crazy? A tacoma with 12 inches of ground clearance, a clutch start cancel mechanism,
a locking rear differential, better departure and climbing angles, and High mounted air intake
for water protection is "just as good"
as a ford ranger? Come on! LOL! The Ranger is just a car with a bed, and car brakes.

What did your "offroad" package include? A sticker? LOL.

YOu clearly CANNOT differentiate between a PERFORMANCE MACHINE and a car with a bed.
FORD MAKES THE WORST OFFROAD VEHICLES PERIOD,
next to chevy and Dodge. Every ford offroad test has been a joke. Check out the Expedition and how badly it got ripped when compared wit the Toyota
Landcruiser in Edmunds recent comparison test.
They even said they wOUL NOT take the Expedition
on gravel rutted roads more than a few times a year because they were all worrieds about the shimmies ans squeaks they heard. This type of crap gets passed down to the ranger.
They said the Cruiser was as smooth as glass,
no rattles, no squeaks. This gets passed down to the tacoma. The toy pickups and Jeeps are the ONLY decent 4x4 stock vehicles made for under 30,000. Everything else is a pretender.
The big pickups are towers and haulers.

spoog

I really question this Carpoint reliability rating test. Where do they get their info?

The real test is I think it's called consumer reports. Anyway, it's the one that uses the red and black dots. Get one of these going back to 90
and you will see that the Ranger has all black dots from 90 to 96.
The 91-95 toyota pickups were quite possibly the most bulletproof vehicles ever produced.
The v6 engine was the main problem. The 22re is considered the most bullet proof truck engine ever designed.

Those carpoint ratings did not quote their sources. Please check consumer digest?(dot tests)
for source quotes and deeper tests.

hindsite

I guess I have red dots Very well stated Spoog about the positive attributes with the Tacoma 4x4, but do think the Ranger is still a good competitive truck.

scape2

Spoog, the ground clearance is much do to the larger tires Toyota puts on the Tacoma's. My Ranger now has as much ground clearance as a Tacoma with the tires I have. I dropped those damn Firejunks the day after purchase.
Higher air intake? not much higher about 2 inches.
Isn't the locker an option? I can have these installed on my Ranger also aftermarket.
Skidplate, have one, after market available. Toyota charges an extra $500 for this in the price of the truck?
The clutch start is a nice option I have to admit.
Resale, once again, I paid anywhere from 3-5K less than a comparable Tacoma. Please go to Kelly Blue Book and do a comparison with like years and options. Yes, the Tacoma comes out ahead anywhere from 2 - 2.5K depending on year and options. But, I paid less upfront.
I don't understand why you cannot believe one publication but another is ok if it favors Toyota. I am sure you heard of the head gasket problems? Along with the huge recall today on Toyota's?
Better check the 0-60 times again, visit Edmunds.
If you read back you will see how I use my Ranger. I have already gone up against a Tacoma, and in no way "got my but kicked". I can pull, climb, and do anything my co-workers Tacoma could do. The Tacoma is overpriced and overrated. Why do you see more Rangers on the road? Why does Ranger outsell Tacoma almost 4 to 1????

scape2

Another short comment, limited slip or locking REAR differential? Lots of debate as which is better spoog.

hindsite

I really do think that skid plates on the Toyota Tacoma come standard on the 4WD and is not an option period. I don't recall seeing that as a $500 option. Actually if you were to think about it the amount paid and the resale is all relative and proportional for all purposes. Well other than that glad I didn't have to upgrade my tires, add an aftermarket locking differential, and skid plates on my truck. I do prefer limited slip and in many ways it is better all around. Toyota doesn't offer limited slip on any of its trucks, because their company statement is that the bearings burn out.