Howdy, Stranger!

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

Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII



  • The best selling statistic is only an accolade. Why would scoprio be telling us about 7% declines here, and revenue decreases there, if sales don't mean anything. Nobody is making the argument that the Ranger is best because it is the best selling vehicle. That is reversing the definitions of cause and effect. The Ranger must be better overall, because they sell more units (or meet the customers demand), not the contrary.

    I have never gone to a dealership where they say "You really should buy this truck because it is the best selling vehicle in America". I have heard best value, most options, and best quality statements from both dealerships, however. The dealership just wants your money, and will do and say whatever it takes to get it.

    Maybe Ford just has better sales people? That might as well be your argument, because if the quality gap was so great, Toyota would have the sales to back it up. Maybe Toyota needs to tell it's sales people to start marketing the quality thing, since is so obviously in Toyota's favor.

    The fact of the matter is that no one really does care how many units were sold, when they go to purchase their own ride based on what fits their wants and needs. More people choose Ranger.

    Most people just look for the better priced vehicle, with more options, better safety, more doors, more power, larger pickup bed, larger interior room, standard A/C, better seat, better interior, better towing, better looks, a full instrument gauge, a free clock you can easily see while driving, an automatic shifter not modeled after a joystick, and a non funky front fascia, you know the little things.

    I still am on the receiving end of something I don't pay for any more. We will see what you all think when your trucks are 10 years old. You may call it a cheap deal, but I call it one hell of a tough and dependable truck.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Scorpio just said why he made those comments about 7% declinese here and there. In post 541 he said,"Yeah, I've tried putting it in not-so-direct terms." I think there is your answer.

    More people choose Ranger simply cuz you can get one with white paint and absolutely nothing else for the price of a power wheels barbie car. The majority of Rangers I see on the road are just that. Granted, most are prolly fleet vehicles, but Ford counts them, too, in that stupid little statistic you keep quoting. Tbunder kept saying how there were so many TRDs on the road. That's easily explained. If someone wants a nice truck they get a Taco. If they want the cheapest vehicle with a bed, they buy a Ranger. Seems to me to be an obvious excuse for why there are so many Rangers sold.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    the volume of sales is not the factor, but the growth is whats important. I believe I've said that numerous times. When a company sells 300,000 units one year, and 200,000 another year, even though it's ahead of the rest of competition, it means the company has declining growth of 33%, and lost market share. And that is not a good position to be in, because next year the company has to have a 50% growth just to GET BACK to where it was 2 years ago.
    The big question mark in this whole Ranger issue is this: if Ranger is all that it's hyped up to be, why did its sales fall a whooping 20% given:
    1. Patriotic ad campaign for few month (which later was found illegal and companies were asked to stop)
    2. Incentives.
    3. Low price, compared to its competitors.
    Think about it: Tacoma sales fell not anywhere nearly as much as Rangers, and Toyota didnt run an ad campaign to keep America rolling with patriotic music in the background, nor were any rebates given. Heck, I only started seeing Tacoma commercials on TV few month ago.
    So there is something to the Rangers decline. Part of it can be blamed on new SportTrac. What else should be blamed?
    Ford Ranger $12,940
    Toyota Tacoma $12,435

    Of course if you ever want any options, the Tacoma quickly rises in price. Might as well just open that checkbook up wide.

    Oh yeah, for 2002, your clock now costs 82 bucks. Since you like percentages, why the 2.5% increase?

    Just buy one from radio shack, $4.99. It even has a timer, but may not live up to Toyota Quality.

    Compare FEB 2002 sales.
    Ranger 2002 vs 2001
    18,497 > 20,099 -8.0%
    Tacoma 2002 vs 2001
    11,079 > 12,039 -8.0% (mostly loss in 4x4 sales)

    I thought Tacoma was know for it's high quality, and being the best 4x4?

    Ranger might have to grow 50% to be were they were last year, (in reality it's only 13.5%), Tacoma will have to grow 50% in sales to equal the Ranger.

    All this talk, and I thought no one cared about sales... If that was true, this would be a dead topic.
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Posts: 172
    nice, stang. good points.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    so why are you quoting 1 month data? What happened in 2000 vs 2001?
    As far as cheap: you are destroying whole tbunders arguement line from before about how overpriced Tacomas are.
    Somehow I don't get a feeling that Toyota wants to beat Ranger in sales. They are taking it slow and easy, steadily up, and not having to fire 30,000 employees.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Are you guys gonna keep saying that the Ranger is so much cheaper or more expensive. How bout you pick one and stay with it. Can't be both buddy.

    The only reason I even got into this sales argument is to show you how "dead" your side of the argument is. Im not the one quoting endless data. I simply gave an anwer for the reason why Rangers sells so many: more people wanna spend $13k on a truck than much more, and kick quality aside.

    By the way, can you make up some numbers right quick on which manufacturer sells more trucks at that $12k price range. I wonder if my hunch is correct.
  • allknowingallknowing Posts: 866
    I just saw some "bare bones" Rangers in the paper advertised for under $10,000. I haven't seen any Tacomas that cheap. I agree that the Ranger is a good truck but I think we can't deny that at least a portion of the Ranger sales are attributed to cheap prices like this.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    it doesn't matter what you post, these guys just downplay everything. notice how they didn't comment on your little post where the tacoma 4x4's were down in sales.

    and for whoever said that "if they wanted a nice truck, they'd buy a tacoma". what do you consider nice? a truck with less than 200 horsepower? a truck with a clock that costs over $80? what i call nice is maybe a 6 disc in-dash cd changer, 4-door cab, factory security system, step bars, blah blah blah. etc. if you want to compare niceties between tacoma and ranger, there is no comparison. everything on ranger is standard if you buy xlt. sr5 doesn't even include power windows. its all extra with toyota. here in iowa, they're advertising '02 ranger xlt 4.0 sc 4x4's for $17995. lets see, that's like $6000 or $7000 less than ANY trd tacoma.

    id be willing to bet a lot that more 4x4 rangers are sold than 4x2's. i RARELY see anything other than a 4x4.
  • allknowingallknowing Posts: 866
    You said it Tbunder !!! All of those Ranger owners that purchased their Ranger before 2001and have less than 200HP, i.e. cpousnr and approximately two thirds of the other Ranger owners that post here, don't have a NICE truck (at least by your definition in post #552). By the way, I think that includes stang too so you may want to apologize to him for your post.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    whats up bud. a little late to be up ain't it (for you)?

    btw, no i do not consider a ranger older than '01 "buyable" for my tastes. but you also have to remember that the old 4.0 still had more torque than your 3.4 or whatever engine you have in your toy. the reason i say this is that i have been spoiled by the power of the SOHC 4.0. i had an explorer sport (1997) with this engine and my parents also have a '99 explorer sport with this engine. although the explorer powerplant feels a little more balsy than the ranger version (not by much), the power just can't be compared to anything in a small truck ive driven. my brother in law also had a '93 explorer sport (yep, at one point we had three sports in our family) with the old 4.0 in it, it just made noise and didn't go much of anywhere, but it did go 180K before he sold it. granted in '97, with the addition of the 5-spd. auto. tranny it made the old 4.0 pretty quick, but i would never buy any ford product with the old 4.0 in it. i just love the power of the SOHC. im not calling the older 4.0's junk, just not as powerful. and i doubt anyone who owns an old 4.0 would compare it to the new 4.0 for power. but remember, you still got more stuff standard on older rangers than you get with even new toyotas.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    So what about Nissan then? How does that fit in your definition of a "nice" truck (considering you wanted to buy one, and was for a while trying to prove that it was also better than Taco).

    As for downplaying: Heh, we are all masters of downplaying each others arguements. As for 4x4 sales decline? Hey, stang said himself that 1 month data didnt mean much, so why is he quoting it? Still, Tacoma had a sales growth in 2001, and thats important.

    As for prices: 18K for a Ranger, and from what you said, sounds like 21K for Tacoma (I bought my TRD for 21K with everything I wanted (TRD, SR5, power. Don't believe me? Check the invoice price on 2002 4x4 V6 manual Taco with those packages).
    With Ranger I'd have to start taking things OUT and selling them to get rid of all the junk I didnt want.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    "If they wanted to buy a nice truck, they'd buy a Tacoma." By that I meant a truck that is built better, is more reliable, regardless of how many "niceties" come on it. With all honesty, I can think of about a dozen Ranger owners, who bought in the past couple of years, who said that they did recognize how much tighter and more well-made the Tacoma felt when they test drove it. They just didn't want to spend the extra money. So far that is, in fact, what I identify as you Ranger fans' best excuse: Is the extra quality worth the added expense? If it is, you spend the money on a truck that will last. If you just want to save a little money, sure, the Ranger is the truck for you. Just be sure that you'll have to live with lots of squeaks, recalls, and trips to the dealer. I don't. You know what? I'll concede this much: in alot of cases, the Ranger is the better "value." That DOES NOT make it the better truck.
  • Scorp -"As far as cheap: you are destroying whole tbunders arguement line from before about how overpriced Tacomas are"

    I guess you didn't read the part about "Of course if you ever want any options, the Tacoma quickly rises in price. " or the 82 dollar clock. Try pricing any nicely loaded truck, and match up the equipment. Tell me who costs more.

    Anyways, this original statement of mine was directed towards Saddaddy's comment that Ranger's sales statistics area greatly boosted from fleet sales, because they are dirt cheap. Not so, when looking at MSRP prices.

    One month because I'm showing you what's going on NOW with both respective vehicles. Seems less and less people are buying right now, (especially the pinacle of superiority, the Tacoma 4X4).

    I'm just pointing out the innacurate data quoted by scoprio.

    Sadpapa--->I don't know about the dealerships in your area, but in North Dallas, Tx, there are MANY more XLT's and Edges on the showroom floor than any XL's. Check out my above statements regarding your cheap or not cheaper statement. Tacoma's are cheaper in barebones. If you want a pickup with 4 wheels and a 2 doors, then you would save on the Tacoma (going off the manufacturers quotes). But if you want a decently optioned, or loaded compact truck, Ranger will have you out the door with less cash.

    On paper, the Tacoma has the Toyota reputation for Quality. In real life, Rangers go just as far, and can do exactly the same if not more(and for less money).

    Hey I got 100 Hp, but 10 years and 138k miles of service.

    You don't know the difference between an impact socket and a rachet, then get a Tacoma. If you know how to maintain a vehicle, and like saving money, The Ranger will be your life long companion. This is true today because you get more of a truck, and a well built one at that.

    "Is the extra quality worth the added expense?"
    No. Especially considering the cheapo interior, seats, dash instruments, clock, and smaller everything.

    I love arguments about trucks that last, when no one here owns a Tacoma as old as mine.
  • keith24keith24 Posts: 93
    My question to you would be, "What MAKES a better truck?" Fit & finish? That closing the door "feel"? How many useless options you can get for X dollars?

    It seems to me like, what makes a "better" truck is whatever opinion we have about our respective trucks.

    I was shopping for a compact, x-cab 4x4 truck about a year ago. I drove both the Taco & the Ranger. Both w/ V-6, 5-spd. manual etc. etc. Here's what I gathered:

    The Ranger seemed to be more solid in fit & finish (doors closing, hood, tailgate, etc.) It also had a better highway ride. I drive 80 miles back & forth to work every day, so this matters to me. V-6 power was decent. Seats were comfortable. Visibility was good, and the seating position was comfortable to me for commuting.

    The Taco's fit & finish were good, but it didn't seem to have the solid feel the Ranger had. Highway ride was nominal (tolerable), but the V-6's power "seemed" to be a little better through the whole powerband. (it was smoother also) The seats left a little to be deisred, but they wern't enough to discourage a purchase. However, the seats were a little too close to the floor for me. I could live with this as well if I had to.

    What this all boils down to is which one I liked better. After all the haggling over price, there was less than $750 difference between the 2 trucks. The trucks were optioned as close to one another as they could get.

    I was dead set on the Taco. I thought it looked better, handled better, felt smoother at speed on the interstate, etc. etc.

    What did I buy? Well, after all was said & done, I came across a used, low-mileage F/S Silverado 4x4, & made the mistake of looking at it & driving it. I couldn't have bought a truck better suited to my needs. No, the gas mileage isn't as good as a small truck. Its a regular cab, so its easier to park downtown. Its easier to get around in the woods, too. If I had to do it again, I don't think I'd even consider a small truck. I guess its all in how you look at it.

  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    talk about a tricky ending to a suspenseful story. :o)
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    Just wondering.

    Keith, I will say this. You obviously care nothing for longevity or quality (which was my main point). I see this from your buying a Chevy. I love em to death but Rangers and Tacos are much better in that arena. To refute me you should have first read some of the Ford guys' points. They seem to hold the award for having the most useless options for X dollars. Tacos' options are fewer and much more necessary than alot of Ranger options. Ask tbunder, mp3 player, disc changer, and other stuff. Granted they are nice, but they are things that, if I bought, would be aftermarket for sure. Who would trust an mp3 player made by any normal car manufacturer? An idiot. I mean these are trucks, what do you want a navigation system?

    As for the rest of your claims of solidity, you're truly one in a million.

    You were exactly right about "what makes a better truck is what we like in a particular truck." I agree, thats why I try not to argue as aggressively as some. I love my Taco, but still think just about any 3/4 ton truck is "better" just cuz of what it can do. They are TRUCKS.

    However, the biggest current debate here has to do with the Ranger being so much cheaper, and I was just trying to give my best excuse for that. I honestly think that Tacos are a little better/solidly made. Old, though the interior may be, it is from what I have hear, the better made of the two as far as quality. I have not had the first squeak, and I spend lots of miles on washboarded gravel roads. Oh well, this is entirely too long and I have wasted lots of time. Take it EZ guys!!!
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Posts: 172
    you are one of the few people i enjoy reading around here. so many people have such strong "opinions" or they think they have to defend their purchase, or they know inside that their truck ISNT as good and so they try to OVER promote it, despite fact. i am a journalism student and i have written for a couple newspapers and i know what bias is. so what i did in buying my truck was remove the bias and try to buy what was going to serve me best, in reality. well i decided that Tacoma is probably better. but guess what, its not like it goes 100k more than anything else on the road, this is 2002....just about ANY car can go 150k. and who really keeps their vehicles longer than that? i am not going to, in all likelihood. i bought the ranger because i think its better looking, was more comfortable, i got a good price, and it has some good power. my family owns fords and toyotas and i honestly havent seen much difference over the years. the toyotas may have an edge, but its not like they were flawless and we had to fix the fords every day or something. i am proud of my truck but i dont like it so much that i let it distort my reality. i dont kiss it in the morning and i dont defend it against fact. i save my affections for my fiancee. :) and my ranger takes me to work every day, just like a tacoma would.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I go over board some I think, but I try to keep my head on straight. One question: What's wrong with kissing your truck in the morning? LOL, guess its easy to see that I need a girl, huh? J/k, about the kissing part. I really do need a girl. TRUCKS rule. Have a good one!
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Posts: 172
    i didnt say there was anything wrong with it, i just said i dont. lol
    but i keep an open mind, so one of these days if its looking sexy...well, as trucks go
  • keith24keith24 Posts: 93
    "Keith, I will say this. You obviously care nothing for longevity or quality (which was my main
    point). I see this from your buying a Chevy."

    For starters, I don't see any quality or longevity issues w/ my truck. Sorry you're of this opinion. Granted, my F-I-L's '98 silverado blew a trans @ 62,000 miles for no apparent reason. It didn't pull a trailer, nor did it haul anything heavier than pool cleaning equipment. Go figure...However, his '91 silverado had over 300,000 miles on it when he sold it. Only problem was the A/C compressor locked up right after it rolled over 300,000. THAT WAS IT!! Would that be considered bad? I don't know where you're from, but around here, we'd consider that pretty darn good!

    My trucks got 65,000 miles on it, 32,000 of which I put on it. I hunt, and am outdoors a good portion of the time. With my truck. My truck doesn't rattle. It'll squeak every now and then. But when you go where I go, I don't care WHAT it is you drive, it's gonna squeak a little when you get it twisted up just right. Don't believe me? I'd be happy to let you follow me down "3 Sister" getting into Little Grassy to duck hunt. Just be sure you bring your own chain or tow strap. You'll need it. I guarantee it. 100%.

    Now, do you have THAT MUCH of an inferiority complex about your truck that you have to berate & belittle others simply for what they bought? Is this a justification thing for you?

    Does it make you feel like you've done something when you berate others? I was like that once. IN JUNIOR HIGH!

  • I've never owned a Toyota, but many Ford products. Ford through the years has put much more effort into covering up their blunders, from the exploding pinto up to their over easy explorers. Shame on you Ford telling customers to run tires at 26 lbs. The repair staff is just as guilty and inept. If ever a company should be put out of business, it's this one. This is more than a debate about quality. Ford, as always seems to put the profits over customer relations, and safety. I can't admire Ford about much of anything. I wish I could, but I've had enough of the way they do business. The only thing worse than their quality is their attitude. Good luck to all Ford customers, you'll need it, plus a good life ins. policy
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I would need a tow strap, I've got a Prerunner. However, anyone will tell you that a compact with same tires as a fullsize will out mud the big trucks. Lighter is better. I gotta locker in mine and it helps alot, still can't steer all that well though. You have had good luck with the trucks. If I was gonna get a 1/2 ton truck, I'd be all over the z71s, Ive wanted one forever. My dad has an old sierra, and he's had decent luck with it. They are good trucks. What I base my comment on is just the amounts of recalls, problems I've read about on here, and stuff like that. Chevy just doesn't have a good rep for that. I hate it as much as you. Those engines they use knock like sin, trannies have trouble, and many other things.

    Whoa, I just read the last part of your post. Ouch man, sorry I came across as so harsh. I would consider a trade with you right now, honestly. You replied to my comment about quality: Ranger vs. Taco. So I came with a refute. Get used to it if you're gonna hang around here. But to say that Chevy's rep. for quality even holds a candle to Toyota's would be a lie. My dad will tell you the same thing, but he still will never buy anything but Silverados and Sierras. My apologies, man.

    On a lighter note. If you invite me duck hunting one more time, I might show up on your doorstep one frigid Dec. morning with my Browning raring to go. I love to hunt more than anything. Never been duck hunting, though, I just love the deer too much. What state are you in? I'm in MS.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    keith, take it easy man. sads an okay dude. he just loves his truck like everyone else does. nothing wrong with that. and you have to admit, gm products aren't the most reliable when compared to fords or toyotas.

    sad- only thing ford doesn't offer that toyota does option-wise is a locker. big deal, those are easy to obtain. any other options are just luxuries that one can have with a ford, and not with a toyota. so if toyota offers an in-dash cd changer next year on their all new tacoma, you gonna dismiss it too? what if it has a built in clock, wouldn't that be an advance in toyotas technology? hehe

    dunkmydonut- what does "ford or toyota" have to do with what you posted? you sound like a person who is posting currently on here and conjured up a new user name to help support your effort. oh, and i had an explorer with firestone tires, it says right on the door to put 30 lbs in all four. whoever put in 26, didn't read the build tag.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    test where they compared a '98 toy prerunner, S10, Ranger and Dakota.

    What was interesting was the order of finish was Dodge, Ranger, toy then S10.

    The old Ranger push rod 4.0 was fastest empty by .2 seconds and second to the toy with 800 pounds by .2 seconds(so much for the torque theory) and the Ranger stopped the best. Guess them toy brakes are WEAK!!! LOL!!!

    Funny how this test gets lost by the toy fanatics
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    that 5-spd automatic tranny they put in the older 4.0's starting in '97 really helped that engine. and as far as (my) torque theory, the old 4.0 only had 5 lb/ft over the 3.4, but hey, its still more. lots of factors to consider, axle ratios, tires, air pressure, tranny, driver. and i also believe that ford brakes are second to none.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    I wonder if Toy has upgraded the brakes since '98. I've read 2 different compact pickup reviews in the last 2 years and in each of them the tacoma has the shortest stopping distance.
  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    not that Ford is entirely without fault in the whole firestone tire debacle, but.... if you remember GoodYear defended Ford by stating that they also recommend 26psi in their 235/75/15 AT's that were in many explorers. (fyi: the goodyear equipped Explorers had no tread separation problems.)
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    catpoint reviews actually show that Ranger outstops Tacoma by about 5 feet average. Its ok. Mod is still carrying his memories of the Silverado vs. Tundra fight.
    And the old Ranger can outrun Prerunner all it wants: Prerunners never came with manual transmissions. Manual tranny beats auto every day.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    I think I agree with you 100% about the clock, tbunder -- quite possibly the most ridiculous quirk I have ever heard of. Don't use this against us, but Tacos had square cup holders for a couple of years. LOL. Some things leave me feeling rather confused. I thought that it had long been an accepted fact on here that the Ranger was available with a bigger choice of options. That is sort of vague comparison between the two, so I guess the argument of mine was not a very clear one, either.

    The racing contest that included the Prerunner -- were the other trucks normal 2xs? I can guarantee that they did not have 31 inch tires. Much less they are lower to the ground. Just to show how insignificant that test was, a 4.3L, low-to-the ground Extreme would smoke any of em. Its not fair to post stuff like that when no one knows how each of the trucks was set up. Lemme race any of em with the same tires, gears, and height in my prerunner and the story will be different, I would think. That DOHC is something special, and I like Toyota for the fact that they went the extra mile and used technology to make a comparable motor out of such a smaller block.
This discussion has been closed.