Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - III

1910121415

Comments

  • skipdskipd Member Posts: 97
    I read these boards from time to time because I have just finished college and I will be in the market for a new vehicle very soon. I must say, this particular board is by far the most entertaining to say the least. I am not biased toward any make of auto maker and I try to take everything into consideration. I must say, it's a tough choice trying to decide what to buy and these boards don't make it much easier. I hear negatives as well as positives for every type of truck made. Consumer Reports has not made it much easier. It's seems they don't like trucks to begin with. They seem to absolutely hate the Tacoma, but rates it's reliability at the top of the heap. CR also seems to indicate that if it had to buy a truck, it would be the Ranger who's reliabilty it rates as avg. with the Dakota coming in a close second. Hmmmmmm.......

    So what is a guy to do. I guess just take all of this info. with a grain of salt and then test drive and decide for yourself. So, this past weekend I decided to start the test driving process. What did I test drive first? Dodge Dakota. Why? No particular reason....I just happened to be going by the dealership and decided to pull in. A friendly sales rep. offered to let me take the truck out by myself and I had it out for about 1/2 hour. It was an SLT Club Cab (this is the extended cab to reduce any confusion) 4x4, with the 4.7L V8 (new engine in dakota this year) and automatic. It pretty much had everything you could want...power group, overhead console, big old center console, even a new full time 4 wheel drive system.

    What did I think? Well to be honest, I was very impressed with this test drive. This new engine has some guts and it should with 235 hp and 295 ft. lbs. torque What was more impressive was how quietly and smooth this engine ran. Vibration/harshness was almost nonexistant through the steering wheel. This V8 engine also only get's about 1 mile/gallon less than other truck V6 engines.

    The ride was very nice and the cabin quiet. The interior was handsome and well laid out as well as very roomy....ofcourse dakota is a slightly bigger truck than it's rivals.

    What was the price? This good looking truck with all this stuff stickered at slightly over 24,000. Not bad huh?

    After the test drive I did some researching. Dakota Quad Cab was just named Truck of the year by several magazines including 4 wheeler magazine. You guys probably already know about the JD Power and Associates award. The new 4.7L engine also made Ward's best engines list. Hmmmmmm......

    I'm not trying to be a smart guy by posting a Dakota report on this board. I just enjoy this board more than others. As I test drive other trucks I will give my unbiased opinion on those as well.

    Can't wait to hear what you guys have to say...

    Skip

    P.S. Take it easy one me
  • benz88benz88 Member Posts: 42
    I would say that the Dakota is too big for the places I play in. I do like the room in the full size Ram Quad Cab. Definitely the most comfortable rear seats in the pickup market. My brother has one and four big guys with waders can fit in easily. Styling inside and out is excellent.

    The service is pretty good at the Chrysler dealership too. Unfortunately, my experiences with Dodge and Jeep is that the reliability isn't there. If you do get the Dakota, I'd advise getting the gold star warranty. Mine paid for itself in service shop rentals in two years.

    The Dakota is more comparable to a Tundra than a Tacoma.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Skipd, not going to hear anything from me. The Dakota is a nice truck. I know of 3 owners and they enjoy their Dakota's. I have no use for a V8 engine or a midsize truck. The Dakota competes more against the Tundra rather than the RAnger/S10/Tacoma/Frontier in my book. Its nice to see folks test driving and getting a feel for what is really on the market. Good luck to you and whatever you choose.
    mvig, I visited the room you speek of. I only reccomended he visit the Tacoma/Ranger room and post his concern he may get more feedback. OH, I get it you don't want to hear the problems the Tacoma is having right?
  • benz88benz88 Member Posts: 42
    I just got a free "instructional" videotape from toyota about truck driving and 4 wheeling. The tape features Ironman Stewart and Toyota trucks and SUV's.

    What a lame tape.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    If you want performance(ALL categories, braking towing, hauling, crawling, ect) choose the Tacoma:


    If you want quality and resale value, pick the Tacoma

    Let me say this again people. Comfort and looks are subjective. They cannot be proven as fact.

    Performance data CAN be proven, and so can build quality be proven. A vehicle can be called "junkie" becaue it has lots of defects, recalls ect.

    And once again, the real kicker. HEad to head comparison. According to the hard core truck staff at 4wheeelr, the ranger wasnt even worth one vote against the Tacoma head to head.
    That says it all in a nutshell.

    If you want to save some money, and you wont be offroading, get the ranger.

    But dont get caught into playing "catch up" like Cspounser and Vince did. Get what you want when you drive off the dealer lot.


    4wheeler.com :


    " Its not often our testers agree on anything, but the Tacoma was picked UNANIMOUSLY over the Ranger and mazda. It beat the Ranger and Mazda in EVERY SINGLE PERFORMANCE category".


    "Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.

    Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year. "


    http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/ptoty.html



    "Ford's new compact frontend uses F-150-style short- and long-arm IFS, with torsion bars. The setup offers big gains on pavement--but not without trail sacrifices. "


    http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/tech.html





    lol. Anyone else find it interesting that the 4wheeeler testers(serious truck guys) UNAMNIMOUSLY PICKED THE TACOMA!!! MEaning, NOT ONE TESTER PICKED THE RANGER. NOT ONE.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    I welcome news about any Tacoma problems, I just bought one. You wont find me making any excuses for Tacoma problems. I had to question your motives for directing others to come to this thread because Edmunds would be shutting that thread down. That was the b*lls**t I was refering to. I wouldnt go to the Ford Ranger 4.0 Engine Problems thread and try to direct people here by claiming the discussion was going to be shut down just for this debates sake.

    More on Mexican Parts: My friend is having to get her lawyer invoved in getting her "Fiesta" Ranger fixed with genuine Ford parts. Again, I realize it is the insurance companies doing but still rediculous.
  • smcpherrsmcpherr Member Posts: 114
    Spoog, let me see if I get this right... If someone knows that the Tacoma rated better in certain ambiguous performance categories (as judged by rather biased and DEPENDANT "magazine editors," I don't care what magazine they work for, everyone is biased. Get someone into CR that is blindly loyal to Ford trucks and see what his non-accepting-of-automotive-advertisements opinion is.) yet decides to buy a Ranger because it better suits his needs, you think that person made an unforgivable mistake? Please, give it a rest. I think the person whose needs are better matched by the Ranger, who likes the Ranger better, but buys the Tacoma anyway because someone else (one of those "magazine editors" again...) says its better at doing something they will never do, they have made a mistake. If this person was a friend of mine, though, I don't think I would blast him the way that you blast the Ford owners in here. I drive Ford, but I am not brand loyal, I think my Ford is better for me than the other options.

    I have one last question for you... Lets say, three years down the road, that Ford and Toyota both come out with a new truck. If I said that the Ford was, head to head the best truck by far in all categories; off-roading, 1/4 mi, 0-60, towing, hauling, fuel efficiency, interior, exterior, and various other categories, would you believe me?
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    So now I am radical against Ford. Whatever moves you, but the same could be said of you.

    Cpousnr,
    Hoping to have my web site up within two weeks or so. Yes, it will include a Taco, 64 GP, and more cars.....and my latest addition . . . 99 Ford Taurus. Btw I finally bought that digital camera so I hope it will be easy to copy and paste.

    Season greetings everyone:)
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    hindsite:
    Will be interested to see pics of the NY hills er I mean mountains!
    I would not consider you anti-Ford but rather balanced in your opinions. I liked the report on your trip one time where some vehicles made it, some did not make it over the rocks.

    Spoog:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/Heraud/Toyota/Tacoma/1999O.asp

    Psst...this guy TESTS cars/trucks for a living.

    "Testing Methodology
    Each vehicle featured in Test Drive undergoes a comprehensive week-long evaluation by Daniel Heraud and his team of four testers."
    "To test acceleration, braking, and roadholding, Heraud's testers use the industry-standard Vericom 2000 testing equipment to achieve accurate, reliable, and consistent results."

    You DID see the words "industry standard" and "consistent" did you not?

    For Ranger:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/Heraud/Ford/Ranger/1999O.asp

    Results? Go to the data and see a SLIGHT edge to Tacoma, but again, the vehicles are VERY close.

    Just be informed in your decision, a vehicle is a big investment.
  • cliffy1cliffy1 Member Posts: 3,581
    I was off yesterday and missed a few posts.

    Barlitz--You are the first person I have heard who does not like the new Avalon design. Sit in one and you will have a different opinion. It is not smaller and is much nicer than before. And it wasn't bad last year!

    wsnoble--I have not heard a thing about squeaky seats not a fix for them.

    cthompson--You are right, things will get interesting when the new Taco arrives. I can't wait.
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    Cpousnr,
    Checked out your two sites above and say it is about dead even. I would give the nod to the Ranger for those extra doors. Only mountains you may see in the photos is the Catskills.

    I agree with Barlitz about the Avalon :) Take the Buick Park Avenue.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    The sites for Heraud certainly do not beat the 4 wheel drive systems to death but I thought they were fair assesments. Some good points, some bad points to either vehicle.

    Extra doors are a nice touch but I think Tacoma is going to get them or has them for 2K. Ranger is starting to exploit the PreRunner setup as Tacoma has sucessfully done.

    Lots of changes coming but what is going to happen with this new deal from our "Great White Father" (sorry, had to be a bit sarcastic) in Washington?
    Expect the price of SUV's and trucks to go up and no change in the polution index's.

    If Calif. is outlawing MTBE as a cancer causer, why am I still fueling with 10% MTBE in Denver?!?
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    Not to mention the terrible mileage w/ MTBE. I guess our lawmakers think the Californians did it just because it's trendy. Who knows?
  • icemaniceman Member Posts: 21
    "I notice no one really answered the person with the Tacoma slipping out of park?

    Reason : it never happened !
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Interesting......were the Ranger and Tacoma tested on a long, offroad journey as TRUCKS in the carpoint review? Or was it your typical gorcery-getter "parking is a breeze" fluff from a CAR REVIEW?

    The carpoint reviews was not a truck review. Hence the name "Carpoint".
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    No surprise on that review site. The trucks were NEVER taken into a 4x4 situation. The 4wheel drive wasn't even tested. They never even left the pavement.

    Sorry, I think Petersons June offroad issue which picked the Tacoma, and the 4wheeelr.com pickup of the year reviews are much more informative to a truck purchaser. Lets not forget that CARpoint also used points for comfort , which is totally subjective, and didnt even bother to test these trucks offroad. tsk tsk. HAlf of the character and life of a 4x4 is its 4x4 in action. Tsk tsk.

    HEy C, let me know when you find a TRUCK review. Thanks.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    First, let me state that that review is erroneous in several ways.
    The Tacomas 0-60 time is off with the v6 manual. It should be around 9 seconds. This is the result on most every other test. There are a few other errors in there as well. Oh, and if you ar really going to beleive this car review, then you shouldn't deny this quite from HEward:


    "CAPABILITY Four-wheel drive Tacomas' off-road prowess is a cut above. "


    A cut above. Just like what 4wheeler and PEtersons say about the 4x4 tacomas. " acut above".

    NOw, if all of you are going to take this review at its word, then you must take the "tacoma 4x4 is a cut above" statemant as fact also.

    If you do not, you will come off looking like a large bunch of hypocrties?


    So what is it? The Ranger and Tacoma are matched well in pavement conditions, the Tacoma is of higher quaility, and "a cut above" offroad? BEcause that is EXACTLY what the Carpoint. reviews say. If you accepet this review, you are accpeting the comment that the Tacoma is of higher quality, has higher resale vale, and is a "cut above" the Ranger and all other trucks in 4x4 prowess.

    by accepting this review, you accept those things as well.

    By accepting this review, and NOT accepting the carpoint pro-tacoma comments above, you will look like a nitwit to say the least.
    So here it stands.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Spoog, why is it you can change data in a review of your choice and in your mind make it the way you want it to read in favor of the Toyota? It is obvious this review is quite good. The Toyota is not as superior as you feel in your mind and I believe you truely hate that because you spent so much extra cash on a compact truck. I like the way you don't answer any of the Tacoma folks who have problems in this room, kind of hope they go away type of attitude. The articles you keep quoting and quoting and quoting are old and extremly bias, and inconsistent on data. The Ranger is the best all around compact truck value on the market today. It is no secret the Tacoma is expensive, even shows in your articles you keep quoting. Heck, people can even check Edmunds and see how they feel about Tacoma price, they would rather spend the extra cash on a wave runner, was it? Until Tacoma even comes close to selling as many Rangers the Ranger remains numero uno. Sales do matter, consumer makes the choice. sales make profit for the company. Sales do matter thats is all part of the game. And after 13 years the Ranger remains on top with no sign of the Tacoma making a dent in sales. How can over 420,000 people be wrong?? And I know I am going to get the "fleet" sales, and "low interest" bull...." Anyone knows that Toyota offers the same financiancing as Ford. And even if I gave you 100K of fleet sales, the RAnger would still outsell the Tacoma. And why don't companies buy Tacomas for fleet trucks? I'll tell you why, to spendy to own, fix, insure....
    See you in the hills, not bumps.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    95% of 4wd vehicles (pickups and suv's), never venture off of pavement. I'd say that the ranger has roughly 80% of the off-road ability of the tacoma (stock vs. stock). So, in my own personal estimation (which is open to debate) the tacoma would be a better buy for about 1% (5% venture off-road and 20% of those might need more than a ranger's capabilities) of ALL truck purchasers if off-road ability was the only factor.

    Personally, I'm not pursuaded by review articles in either way. To listen to one or a small group of people who drive the vehicle for a very limited time as gospel is plainly stupid. To really evaluate a vehicle, you need to drive it for at least a few weeks, better yet for months. This all boils down to the best source of information, the owner. Ask people that you know how they like their trucks, what its strengths/weaknesses are, and if they'd reccommend it for you.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    You accept one review as the almighty truth (despite numerous inconsistencies) and dismiss another as herecy.

    Who is being a hypocrite here?

    Also, you never answered my question that I posted 4 times.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Are you really this stupid?


    "Spoog, why is it you can change data in a review
    of your choice and in your mind make it the way you
    want it to read in favor of the Toyota? It isobvious this review is quite good."


    Wait a second here...this "review" claims the Tacoma is of higher quality, is "a cut above" other 4x4's offroad ,and has higher resale value.
    By admitting that the carpoint Ranger and Tacoma reviews are good, your admitting that these claims are true, sicne THAT IS EXACLTY WHAT THE CARPOINT REVIEWS SAY ABOUT THE TACOMA! Do you get it? The very review you are claimng to be good agrees with what I have been saying all along. And the same with 4wheeelr and Petersons. ALL these reviews lead to one thing :


    THE TACOMA IS A SUPERIOR OFFROADER, is of Higher Quality, and has higher resale value. The EXACT same things I have been saying over and over and over.

    Read the pros and cons of the Ranger and Tacoma in the carpoint section. I just LOVe how you guys throw this reviews out, and they just end up proving my claim that the Taocma is superior in 4 wheeling, quakity, and resale value.


    So lets see. So far, 4wheelr, carpoint, and PEtersons offroad say the tacoma is the superior offroad to the ranger, is of higher quality(which I have proved myself NUMEROUS times), and has higher resale value.


    This is just too funny. Dont you guys read these reviews before you send them to this group? lol.


    I also find it interesting how cSpounser and Vince bow down to the NHSTA crash test results(yes, thats who did those side tests), yet simply ignore the quality and defect results from the NHSTA.

    It's over gang. Your hypocricy has shown through to all.


    AND.....AND if they bow down to this Carpoint review, without accpeting Carpoints view that the Tacoma is a SERIOUS offroader, of higher quality, and higher resale value, they REALLY show their hypocricy yet again. this battle is over. The Tacoma has been proven to be the better performer,
    offroad and on, it has been PROVEN that the Tacoma is of higher quality, and has a higher resale value.



    Enjoy!
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    So, do you Ranger owners beleive This about your RANGERS?


    From Carpoint....the Pros and Cons section of the Ranger review:


    Cons

    1. PERFORMANCE The 2.5-liter engine is fine for light tasks, but nothing more. The V6 engines are real gas guzzlers.

    2. RIDE COMFORT These pickups are built to get the job done, not pamper passengers. With an empty bed the ride is bouncy.

    3. BRAKES With rear-wheel drive there's only rear-wheel ABS. A full load in the bed can overpower them.

    4. HANDLING The base Ranger has a soft suspension and undersize tires, while 4WD Rangers have the opposite handicap—their suspension is too hard and tires are too big. In either case, handling leaves much to be desired.

    5. STEERING Much too slow. The wide turning radius really hampers maneuverability.

    6. 4-WHEEL DRIVE It's rather crude and isn't as versatile as the automatic all-wheel drive in the Explorer.

    7. FUEL CONSUMPTION The V6s burn a lot of gas.

    8. NO V8 If only the Ranger were powered by a V8 engine. Oh well, there's always the Dodge Dakota.

    9. POOR FEATURE The rudimentary bench seat in low-end trims. It provides no lateral or lumbar support whatsoever







    So... let me make this CLEAR. If you DO NOT accept these things about your RANGER, than you CANNOT accpet the REST of the review. So, is it still a good review? Do your Ranger really have sloppy handling, poor performance, bad braking?

    Is this true? Well, if you accpet the rest of this review, than you ACCEPT this. Notice how this IDIOT rips the Rangers 4 wheel drive system and praises the Explorers. Well let me tell you, the Rangers "crude" 4 wheel drive system is ten times better and more relaible than the Explorer. THis guy isnt a truck guy, this guy isna t an offroad guy. This is some yuppie poser who reviews trucks like cars.


    So, accpet that your ranger cant handle well, your engines stink, your braking stinks, ect(just like carpoint says) or ditch this pathetic review. The choice is yours. But dont be ashamed when people start digging in on the rangers handling, braking and performance when they use "carpoint review" as a source. lol.

    Its up to you.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Someone said the Ranger scored higher than the Tacoma in carpoint?


    huh? The Tacoma scores a 60%, while the Ranger gets a 57 %.


    Like any of this matters, since that review is worthless. They didnt even engage the 4wd system.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Member Posts: 241
    My ? about carpoint is not about the reviews section. It is "How do they calculate their reliablity section?" The liilte red, green, and yellow boxes. Is that based on the reviews(Dan, Ann, etc) If not how?

    -wsn

    PS Spoog check out this month's Maxim Mag. It has a cool Taco TRD add in it...
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    First, thanks for the correction on the times. I never really race 0-60 but some, like you, might.

    I just presented the data at face value. I think I stated that it did not beat the 4wd to death. But remember, this room is NOT exclusive to 4WD.

    I do not dispute the guys assesment on either vehicle. It is hoped by me that thru reading numerious articles, not just one article, a person can get a feel for multiple opinions on a given vehicle. I could very well have referenced an article from another reviewer from Carpoint or from any of 3-4 newspapers that reviewed the vehicles.

    The Carpoint area you refer to where Ranger scored better was here in reliability ratings:
    http://carpoint.msn.com/reliability_ratings.asp

    Also, the advantage in THIS review to Tacoma is 3% and I thought I SAID the nod on these reviews goes to Tacoma.
    Your forgot these PROS from the article:

    1.RELIABILITY Owner satisfaction comes from this truck's dependability and tried-and-true features. The Ranger is known for its solid build and
    excellent fit and finish, which really add to its appeal and value.
    2. ON THE ROAD The front suspension is much less sensitive to road faultsthan the previous Twin-I-Beam setup. Steering is much more accurate.
    3. MANUAL TRANSMISSION It's easy to use thanks to its smooth, accurateshifter.
    4.V6 ENGINES They offer terrific hauling and trailering capabilities. We consider them the best engine choices.
    5.EXTENDED CAB SuperCabs are equipped with two rear doors.
    6. NICE FEATURES: Windshield wipers that sweep a large area at a good clip; bucket seats and a 60/40 split-bench seat that offer good support.

    And in regard to Tacoma, you forgot these CONS:

    1.SAFETY Tacomas received low marks from NHTSA in collision tests.
    2.PRICE Tacomas are often more expensive than equivalent competitors.
    3.TORQUE The DOHC V6 is a bit lacking here.
    4.BRAKES Emergency stopping distances are long and the Tacoma's path can be erratic without ABS.
    5.CHOICES More limited than is the case with Ford and Chevrolet. Where are the extra doors?
    6.REAR SEATS Being an acrobat or a contortionist is very helpful in getting to the Xtracab's rear seats; there's not a lot of room once you get there.
    7. ROADHOLDING The high center of gravity of 4x4s make curves dicey; the Xtracab's length and wide turning radius make tight maneuvers nearly impossible.
    "Safety (crash tested poor)...Price(more)...V6 lacks Torque(not as much as a Ranger hee, hee)...Limited Choices...Rear Seats...Road Handeling.
    How did he miss no V8 which was an issue on Ranger?

    "T'was the night before x'mas and in the garage,
    My Ranger was parked right next to a Dodge,
    Car keys were hanging by the door with care,
    In hopes that a 4X review would only be fair...
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    And to all, a good night.

    Come on, Spoog. Both trucks have pluses and minuses. It is up to you (the consumer) to decide which is better for you. That's all CP is saying.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    We are at over 600 posts here and I see a Ranger vs TAcoma room IV on the Horizon.
    My friend got his Tacoma back out of the shop about 4 days ago for the headgasket deal he didn't want me to know about. I asked him if he would buy Toyota again. His answer, a resounding "hell yes". A lot of this is brand loyalty here folks. And in this room you have some RAnger fans and some Toyota fans locked in an endless circle/battle, round and round we go!
    Have a good Xmas.
    See you in the hills. I am going up to MT Hood area to do some tubing in the snow with the wife and kids this weekend. Weather is clear/cold here right now.
  • trenttrent Member Posts: 86
    When I was looking at Toyotas and Rangers V-6 4WD auto they both had comparable EPA mileage figures (no more than 1 mpg difference if that). Is the EPA estimate a good indicator to compare the trucks?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    My 4.0 ranger is rated at 15/19. I get anywhere between 13-17 city/mixed driving and about 20 straight highway. So, I guess that's pretty close. Oh yeah, it's a 5-speed automatic 4x4.

    I could probably eek out another mpg or two as my foot is not too light on the gas. But, who wants to drive like grandma crawling down the road?
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Accepting the pros of the Ranger and the cons of the Tacoma in Carpoint reviews is accepting that the Ranger has weak engines, very poor braking "cannot brake with heavy loads", very poor handling, is inferior offroad, resale value is not good, 4 wheeld drive system is inferior to Explorer(lol the ultimate mommy shopper). This is Exactly what the carpoint "cons" of the Ranger are. You cant just PICK AND CHOOSE. You cant pick and choose tidbits from each review that fit your views and toss the rest. Sorry, it doesnt work that way.

    So is the ranger a poor handling, weak gas guzzling, awful braking vehicle with "decent" resale value? Carpoint seems to think so. Sorry C, by accepting the other points in the Carpoint reviews, you accept these as well. Admit to them, or dismiss the ENTIRE review.
  • jloco1jloco1 Member Posts: 34
    Here is Consumer Reports take on both trucks,

    TOYOTA TACOMA:
    This unimpressive small truck sticks out conspicuously in Toyota's otherwise-excellent product range. Handling is unimpressive, and the ride is choppy and uncomfortable. Bumpy curves make the Tacoma leap and bound. The seats aren't comfortable. And in extended-cab models, the forward-facing rear seats are useless for adults. There's no rear door to aid access, either. What's more, a Tacoma with antilock brakes may be hard to find. Three good points: The optional 3.4-liter, 190-hp V6 is responsive; the controls and displays are excellent; and the Tacoma is a very reliable workhorse.

    FORD RANGER:
    Civilized trappings like air conditioning and power accessories can't disguise the truckiness of the Ranger and similar Mazda B-Series. But among compact pickups, they're the best. Handling is good, though the ride is stiff. The 4.0-liter V6 performs adequately. The seats are low, and their padding is thin. Four doors are available in extended-cab models, but the rear seat is fit only for cargo. A cutoff switch can deactivate the passenger's air bag when you install a child seat there. Reliability has improved to average for the four-wheel-drive versions.

    The Ford Ranger is recommended.
    The Toyota Tacoma is not.

    I own a 1999 Ranger XLT SC 4.0 w/Offroad package(4000 miles now).
    I looked at the Tacoma and have to agree with Consumer Reports. The handling and comfort of the Ranger blows the Tacoma away. I've heard a lot about fit and finish in this topic. I would put my Ranger up against any Tacoma for fit and finish. Plain and simple, Ranger is a better truck all around.

    JLOCO
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I didn't know Tacoma's Didn't come with ABS standard?? My Ranger has 4whl ABS and I found out in our last rain storm it works very well!
    We can sit here and post review after review, one favoring the TAcoma the other the Ranger. It all comes down to a personal preference of the reviewer. Sometimes I wonder why they even have them at all.
    Spoog, are you getting that Tacoma for Xmas? from mom and dad?
    If CP has to take the carpoint review, why are you not accepting the reliability data carpoint posts about Tacoma and Toyota trucks? or even the Consumer report data? Or the crash test results making the TAcoma WORST in its class?
  • daniel40daniel40 Member Posts: 34
    I know baja trucks aren't even the same trucks
    anymore but how come Ironman Stewart usually wins
    and the Ranger is usually never seen in those
    races, it's usually the bigger F-150? I also
    know that TRD helps out with the suspension of
    the race vehicle - could this help inspire the
    off-road suspension in a reg. Taco? This next
    statement is a matter of opinion but I think
    the Ranger is better suited for work and the
    Tacoma for play. But how many people actually
    work thier trucks. Not many people buy a compact
    truck to haul huge amounts of stuff and if that
    were the case anyways the Tacoma would suit your
    needs. I mean you have to admit most people on
    this board drive their trucks to work, don't you
    need that acceleration going on to the on ramps.
    Let's be honest it feels good to go up to another
    truck and blow it's doors off! How red in the
    face would you be if you went off-roading with
    your Taco buddies and couldn't go through the
    same mud or sand and at the same time if you could
    you couldn't keep up and on top of that you couldn't keep up on the highway either! I know
    it hurts! If Ford show's me an inline-6 or even
    a turbo diesel I will be happy. I want Ford to
    step it up a notch! If you want a low-rev hauller
    get a dually! You want a #2 offroader that can
    fit in the tight trails get a Ranger. You want
    a #1 offroader that could hit those trails get
    a Tacoma. Don't believe me, ask Ironman Stewart.
  • daniel40daniel40 Member Posts: 34
    MERRY CHRISTMAS
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    Ranger doesn't come standard with ABS, either. It is option #67B. Come on, start posting facts, Vinny.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "If CP has to take the carpoint review, why are you
    not accepting the reliability data carpoint posts
    about Tacoma and Toyota trucks? or even the
    Consumer report data? Or the crash test results
    making the TAcoma WORST in its class?"


    I am not acceptiong the carpoint reliability data because carpoint does NOT list a source for that data, or a method. I FULLY buy into the crash test result data, as that was conducted by the NHSTA, the very SAME site that has all those recall, defect investigations, and tecnhical repair bulletiins. ooops Vince, I gotcha. I got ya real bad. You fully accept the crash test results from the NHSTA, yet you denounce the defect investigations, recalls, and technical service bulletins? Interesting. No offense Vince, but your in a little over your head here.

    The NHSTA data is not patriotic phone call SPEW, it is the actual results and documents from the REPAIR SHOPS, you know, the places truck owners say they never have to go to.

    And for the final time people, comfort is SUBJECTIVE. It can not be proven as fact.
  • trenttrent Member Posts: 86
    Ranger 4wd comes standard with 4 wheel abs. It is optional on the 2wd models.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    MMC, you are somthing! YOu talk bad about a product you know nothing about! Just like spoog claiming the Ranger 3.0 as less powerful as the Toyota 2.7! LOL. and his other claim the Ranger has no skidplates available.
    Gotcha! in your own lie!
    Ranger scores another round with STANDARD 4whl ABS on all 4wd's!!!
    Spoog and round and round we go. All you post is the bible, anything any Ranger owner posts is a lie.
    And this is why the guys seats in his Tacoma are falling apart right?? The guy you wouldn't answer, remember?
    And once again the NHSTA site. You once again want people to see the WHOLE number not the contents of each entry. Not the ones that are duplicates, or for stickers, or tags, or for certain lots of Rangers. And you don't want folks to visit www.carpoint.msn.com because the truth hurts about Toyota, huh?
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    ABS is standard on all 4WD Rangers. Remember, this topic is Ranger vs. Tacoma. Not 4WD Ranger vs. TRD Tacoma. You would make it seem that ABS is standard on ALL Rangers.
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    I have said all along that if what the Ranger offers fits you better than the Tacoma, BUY IT! It will suit you well (as would a Tacoma for someone who it fit better than Ranger).

    To bad you can't say the same. You are all Ford or nothing.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Wrong, I keep saying this over and over again. I have NEVER called the Tacoma a "grocery getter" or incapable, or unreliable. Its a nice truck, but at a very steep price. Option for option the Ranger will cost you less. This is only one reason why Ford sells so many. Why are you putting a company down for being able to output enough trucks to drive prices down, yet keep quality good, options within reach and so on??
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    So, do you Ranger owners beleive This about your
    RANGERS?


    From Carpoint....the Pros and Cons section of the
    Ranger review:


    Cons

    1. PERFORMANCE The 2.5-liter engine is fine for
    light tasks, but nothing more. The V6 engines are
    real gas guzzlers.

    2. RIDE COMFORT These pickups are built to get the
    job done, not pamper passengers. With an empty bed
    the ride is bouncy.

    3. BRAKES With rear-wheel drive there's only
    rear-wheel ABS. A full load in the bed can
    overpower them.

    4. HANDLING The base Ranger has a soft suspension
    and undersize tires, while 4WD Rangers have the
    opposite handicap—their suspension is too hard and
    tires are too big. In either case, handling leaves
    much to be desired.

    5. STEERING Much too slow. The wide turning radius
    really hampers maneuverability.

    6. 4-WHEEL DRIVE It's rather crude and isn't as
    versatile as the automatic all-wheel drive in the
    Explorer.

    7. FUEL CONSUMPTION The V6s burn a lot of gas.

    8. NO V8 If only the Ranger were powered by a V8
    engine. Oh well, there's always the Dodge Dakota.

    9. POOR FEATURE The rudimentary bench seat in
    low-end trims. It provides no lateral or lumbar
    support whatsoever







    So... let me make this CLEAR. If you DO NOT
    accept these things about your RANGER, than you
    CANNOT accpet the REST of the review. So, is it
    still a good review? Do your Ranger really have
    sloppy handling, poor performance, bad braking?

    Is this true? Well, if you accpet the rest of
    this review, than you ACCEPT this. Notice how this
    IDIOT rips the Rangers 4 wheel drive system and
    praises the Explorers. Well let me tell you, the
    Rangers "crude" 4 wheel drive system is ten times
    better and more relaible than the Explorer. THis
    guy isnt a truck guy, this guy isna t an offroad
    guy. This is some yuppie poser who reviews trucks
    like cars.


    So, accpet that your ranger cant handle well, your
    engines stink, your braking stinks, ect(just like
    carpoint says) or ditch this pathetic review. The
    choice is yours. But dont be ashamed when people
    start digging in on the rangers handling, braking
    and performance when they use "carpoint review" as
    a source. lol.

    Its up to you.






    Sorry Vinnie, but the Carpoint review did not engage the 4 wheeldrive systems at all.

    If you accept Carpoints review, than you accept their statements that the Ranger is a bad handler, very poor braker, has weak, gas guzzzling engines, and that the Tacoma is the superior offroader, has higher resale value, and has better engines. This is according to Carpoint.


    Vince, sorry little buddy, but you are way over your head here. YOur debate skills are sorely lacking. Run along back to the "my chevy pisses on your Ford" board and call it a night.
  • wsnoblewsnoble Member Posts: 241
    If the NHTSA has duplicate entries, WHY.? Is there a reason for these "Duplicates" or is there more to it than that? Serious ?

    Also i saw a Daniel Herard (Carpoint guy) review book this weekend. All sorts of misprints in it. I will dismiss carpoint until someone points out how they get those little green and yellow boxes. What is there testing method. I agree with most of their statements but without this info it's really more of a personal opinion, not a subjective review.

    The guy compares the Explorer 4wd with the rangers 4wd system? Is it that a mixing Apples and Oranges situation?

    -wsn
  • wsnoblewsnoble Member Posts: 241
    My ? about carpoint is not about the reviews section. It is "How do they calculate their reliablity section?" The liilte red, green, and yellow boxes. Is that based on the reviews(Dan, Ann, etc) If not how?

    -wsn

    PS Spoog check out this month's Maxim Mag. It has a cool Taco TRD add in it...
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    I see that Toyota stock has gone up recently. My friend read that it is because they released that since their demand was so high they could raise prices and still sell vehicles. Bad for those looking to buy a Toyota, good for us that already have them.
  • anonymousanonymous Member Posts: 314
    This is cpousnr!!!

    Hey finally figured out a way to post since Edmunds system is so un-user friendly with Win 3.11 systems. . .

    spoog,
    Your rather demanding and final in your request.

    I posted what I find to ASSIST people in making a decision on a rather large purchase in thier life. Do I agree with the complete article. No as that was his opinionated assessment, kinda like the OPINION of Four Wheeler when testing a TOP of the line Toy against a BOTTOM of the line Ford.
    You have never responded but it has been made VERY CLEAR to you that the Ford was a non-offroad equipped vehicle. It would have been NICE to see what would have happened if the Ford was the TOP of the line off-road equipped vehicle but that was how, I think, Four wheeler decided to STRUCTURE their test that you so often refer to.

    Back to the issue. The Carpoint articles were for information. Armed with DIFFERING opinions one can judge for themselves.

    Some FACTS:
    1. The mpg on either vehicle is within 1-2 mpg so would both qualify for "gas guzzler"? By the way, with 300-400 LESS weight and as you often try to drum into our heads such a "superior" engine, why is the fuel efficiency so CLOSE to the Ranger?
    2. The guy did not rate the two vehicles that far off spoog. 3 points out of 100 is 3%. Such a "superior" vehicle SHOULD have been 10 or MORE points ahead by my estimation and if you see the averages, both vehicles were BELOW the average for the class (God knows what vehicles they really like if the Tacoma and Ranger were below average).
    3. Four Wheeler, in its latest issue, picked the DODGE Dakota its "4X Truck of the Year" All rigs are nice when new but factor their pick of a Dodge, always rated low in quality by anyone's books, for such of an award. Tarnish that award for the Taco a bit spoog that your ranked up there with a DODGE?

    Bottom line is I have so far enjoyed my truck. Good mileage, handles very well, hauls what I want, a comfortable ride, looks(in my opinion) sharp and was reasonably priced.

    I will accept ANY review and bounce it against what I experience. So no spoog I do not accept the article totally but respect the guys opinion.

    In regard to the comment on the ratings, I thought I read they were based on input from users of the truck. Kind of like the Consumer Reports survey's where people comment on the things they use or have experience with. Read the DETAIL and you will find that they list the head gasket problem for the 3.4 engine and that is why it received the cautious rating.

    Have a good day gentle(wo)men (gotta hit both bases) and enjoy your trucks.

    MMC, you and I need to get together to wheel a bit near Rampart.
  • sredman1sredman1 Member Posts: 66
    THE 2wd Ranger comes Standard with Rear wheel ABS.
    ALL RANGERS come with some form of antilock brakes.
    And the Ranger XLT comes with standard with 4 wheel antilock brakes.
  • frank12frank12 Member Posts: 20
    Why is that so many people people always say that Dodge is bottom of the quality chart but every time you see customer satisfaction surveys and initial quality surveys(like all the JD Powers studies), Dodge Dakota is always on top (Over both Tacoma and Ranger)?

    Something to think about.....Until you drive and own a vehicle a while you realy need to throw all the stereotypes out the window.....

    Hey spoog....since Peterson's is your bible, why don't you go buy an early 80's GM diesel car? When Moter Trend first drove them back in the early 80's, they thought they were the best thing ever to come out of Detroit. Only shows that whoever throws them the most money (Toyota right now) gets the best reviews.
  • cruiser06cruiser06 Member Posts: 10
    FYI. Just ordered 2000 Tacoma V6 4x4 xcab. bucket seats, 5sp, conv pkg, pwr pkg, sr5 pkg, factory alloy wheels (not the Enchei's) w/ p265/75 michelins, cruise, tilt, am/fm cd, chrome trim for wheel wells.

    Easiest vehicle I ever bought. Took about 15 mins. to do the deal. (but I had done my research). Price was $19,880. If Edmunds and Kelley's pricing is correct that's $144 over cost.

    I am happy with the deal. I have had a Ford and just sold a Chevrolet, so I have experience with all. Chevrolet was a good truck. I liked better than the Ford. From my experience the Ford V^ is kinda weak. Although I realize the Chevy had the 4.3 liter. The Toyota engine seems much stronger and smoother.

    I don't think I could have gotten a similarly equipped Ranger much cheaper. I drove a new one and just didn't care for it. Plus, from owning a Ford and Chevy previously I know they don't hold their value as well as the Toyota.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Wise choice my new Tacoma owning friend!

    Excellent call, and a great price too!

    You should have the clutch start cancel switch standard as well. Thats a nice feature.

    Enjoy your Tacoma!

    By the way, did you utilize my NHSTA site posts and 4wheeler comparison test reviews?
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.