NO way, under 20K for a loaded Tacoma. The V6' s in my region still start at about 18K, add the options and the price take leaps and bounds. reddog you are not going to convince anyone that a loaded TAcoma can be had for under 20K. I am curious to see what Tacoma fans have to say about resale now? spoog? hind? wsn?
It does not matter how much you can get a Tacoma for at an Auction. How many people actually go to an auction to get a truck? The fact that a Tacoma can be purchased for whatever at some auction in Colorodo has no effect on how much I can get selling my tacoma myself in the autotrader(which I have no plans of anytime soon) 2000 miles away. Just think how low they must be selling Rangers for. This should have no more effect on a Tacoma owners thinking then a Ranger owner. Get real and stop arguing for argument sake.
P.S. I was given a price on a very nicley equipped (but not loaded) Tacoma of just under 20K. Yes Way. Not everybody lives on the overpriced West Coast.
As mviglianco1 pointed out, how much do you think a Ranger would fetch at that same auction? Out here in the "overpriced West coast", trucks are auctioned off almost as much as cars, btw. But putting resale value aside, let's talk about demand. Two years ago I attended an auto auction; I've noticed that Toyota/Nissan pickups get roughly 2-3 times the number of bids than your S-10's, Dakota's, and Rangers. Whether this be due to reputation, brand loyalty, etc... there is a higher demand for import pickups than domestic ones. Of course, I'm talking about compact pickups, the Fords and Chevy's rule in the full size category. Just calling it as I see it.
A dealer telling someone what the truck would go for at auction is only a ploy to get the owner to take less for their trade. They don't plan on putting it out for auction. They plan on putting it out on the lot and sticking a retail price tag in the window. Typical dealer tactics.
An absolutely bare-bones, no options Tacoma V6 4x4 will have a dealer invoice price (what the avg consumer should set as a good target price) of slightly under 18K. This is a truck with no A/C, no tach, steel wheels/hubcaps, a non-adjustable steering wheel, no stereo?!, and no ABS.
To say that you can get a LOADED 4x4 V6 Tacoma for less than 20K is absurd. Try less than 24-25K.
From my point of view when I buy a car or truck I do not take into account the resale value. If you have money or come from money who cares. Basically I have sold every use vehicle that I have had well below the resale value. Those cars were all well maintained and the last one I sold was the 89 Camry for $700. In fact I had spent over $1,000 in repairs not needed at the time just to replace 4 tires with premium tires, brakes, belts, and etc. I am just a stickler to giving the buyer a great running auto. Book value at the time was $2000 on the Camry. What I do care about is reliability.
Again, it all depends on the dealer and location. The first dealership I went to in Charlotte, NC said 24 for a non TRD, I never returned. At a dealer in Boone, NC (small town in Blue Ridge mtns) the same basic truck was priced @19,700. Now I know the first was giving me a MSRP and the second a legitamate price. Both V6 5sp 4x4 xcab. Just because it may not be this way in a particular part of the country does not mean it does not exist. This country is much bigger then your hometown.
Hey Ranger Owners - this should make you feel good. The latest 2000 Consumer Reports Reliability Ranking ranks the Ranger (and I quote) "Worse Than Average". In fact, only two trucks ranked in the "Above Average" category for reliability. Tacoma and Frontier!! And before you go spouting off about how it's a biased ranking you'd better think again. The results are taken from surveys by actual owners. That's right - Ranger owners ranked their own trucks "WORSE THAN AVERAGE" LOL! Have a nice day.
Yes, please go to kelly blue book!! and see for yourself that the trade in value is actually better for a 1998 Ranger!! than a like equipped Tacoma of the same year. I punched the numbers twice because I couldn't even believe it. Use these exact same data I used. I basically used my truck. Ranger XLT Supercab (4D) Toyota Tacoma Xtra Cab with these options. V6, 5spd, 25,000miles, 4wd, offroadpkg,A/c, pwr steering, windows, doors, seats, tilt, cruise, am/fm stereo, CD, ABS, sliding rear window, stepside bed (Toyota doesn't offer this), running boards, bed liner, tow pkg, premium wheels, offroad tires, Excellent condition. Trade in value for Ranger is 16,535, Tacoma is 15,155!!!!!. Looks like the higher resale value crap is over Tacoma fans. Keep punching the numbers and see for yourself at Kelly Blue book. Punch away!
Well Ranger owners....sadly.....your beloved Consumer Reports now rates the Ranger below average in reliability.
The coveted Consumer Reports, Vinnie and Cspounsers favorite source, rates the Ranger below average in reliability. OUCH! But thats not a surprise to me , seeing as how I proved that over and over and over and over.
And the funny thing is - like I said, there's no way to punch holes in the report because one might believe the CR report is biased in some way. It's just plain a simple ratings from owners. If I recall correctly - the top (and only) two are the Tacoma and Frontier for the ABOVE AVERAGE category. For BELOW AVERAGE there are a few Ford's in there beginning with the F series. Followed on down the list by the Ranger. The survey is based on CR's own surveys and also Govm't consumer surveys.
Who do you believe? who you want to believe I guess. Consumer reports is know for being bias against the domestics, all of the domestics rate badly in consumer reports or never as good as imports, ever notice? www.carpoint.msn.com contradicts everything consumer reports says. Visit the reliability data section on the Toyota before the Tacoma years, yikes! ouch.... Also the longterm Ranger data, wright up right here at Edmunds. Spoog, punch my numbers at Kelly Blue book yet?
The F-Series below average in quality? It had one of the highest ratings from J.D. Power & Associates. It was above even Lexus. CR rates it below average? I don't get that one.
Hey cyg, I do feel good about my Ranger. I've not had one problem and I would give it an excellent rating over any of my past foreign and domestic owned trucks. Heck if toyota ever comes up with a truck that has the balance of reliability, price and features that the Ranger has I might buy one. Have you read what cr had to say about the tacoma, how about posting back here with a report.
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. Nor is there a 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.
The Ranger and similar Mazda B-Series are the best overall among compact pickups. But neither lets you forget you're driving a truck. Handling is good, though the ride is stiff. The 4.0-liter V6 performs adequately; the 3.0-liter V6 is more pleasant. The seats are low, however, 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-side air bag when you install a child seat there. Reliability has improved to average for all versions.
That JD power survey you are referring to is the INITIAL quality survey(within 3 months of ownership). The Jd Powers 5 year LONG term survey puts the Fords dead last.
The f150 isnt "right behind anything". It is one of the most slapped together, unreliable vehicles ever made. It serves it's purpose well. It is a work truck that has inexpensive repairs.
Dont forget that seat comfort is a subjective thing. A seat that feels good after being sat in for 5 minutes might not feel so good after 6 hours, and a seat that initially felt uncomfortable may turn out to be supportive and comfy after a 6 hour trip.......
The price on those toyotas sounds extremely fishy. Dealer invoice price on a truck with just the options you listed (any more than just those?) would be $19,900 + allocated advertising about $500 = a total dealer invoice of roughly $20,400. I do know that Toyota has some mfgr rebates out now of around a grand or so, but this price seems like the old bait-and-switch. It would be interesting to see what you could find out.
As for the Ranger you mentioned, make sure it doesn't have the "wrist-pin problem" which surfaced in some 4.0s in the '98 and '99 model years (engine redesign during mid-'99). The engine makes noises similar to marbles rolling around in a tin can. I haven't heard of (and no one has provided) news of any mechanical malfunction due to the problem. It just creates what some would consider "excessive noise" and it can only be cured by swapping in a new 4L motor. Keep in mind that 4.0s are not known for their quietness either. They are a reliable, long-lasting engine, but they are nowhere near as refined and quiet as the OHC offerings from Toyota and Nissan.
Also, a 4L will pull a 3000lb boat with no problems. I tow just over 2000lbs worth of snowmobiles and gear up to Wis a couple times a year. My truck, a '98 4x4 4L, has no problems cruising along at 65-75mph. It also gets pretty good gas milage when towing, about 17-19mpg. A V6 Toyota should also be able to tow the boat the 20 or so miles. You'll probably have to downshift and run it in a lower gear, though, due to lower torque that peaks at a higher rpm.
Just make sure that you test drive, test drive, and test drive. Only you can decide which truck that you like better.
Which "Fords" are you talking about? I couldn't find the LT-survey on the website. As just a little possible indicator, Carpoint gave the F150 5/5 in reliability for 1996-1998 and best of class in 1995. Data for 1999 and 2000 is not yet available. Yeah, that sure sounds like they're falling apart over the last 5yrs.
Exactly where is this survey that puts the F150 dead last? Or, are you just talking the poop, as usual?
How about JD powers long term 5 YEAR reliability survey that was posted on this very thread? How about the ZILLIONS of mark ups at the NHSTA recalls, defect, and TSB site? It goes on and on man. How about the excellent documentation from the trans expert that I posted?
Also Cthompy, lets not forget that the Tacoma has more max rear wheel torque than the Ranger......
Where is the link for J.D. Power that shows that the F150 "falls apart" as you put it? I think you're just talking out of your [non-permissible content removed] on this one.
Transmission expert?! If you believe that, Mr. Gullible, then I've got a bridge that I'd be willing to part with.
You still don't understand torque???? It's been months now. I would have hoped that by now you'd at least pick up a book or ask somebody about it. I believe that I and several others on this board including Toyota owners have explained it to you, but you still don't get it????
Carpoint is now a biased, unreliable source? If it were the other way around, you'd be singing its praises all day long. At least attempt to be somewhat consistent.
I checked out Carpoint because it was the only sight I could think of during my 10min lunch break that had reliability ratings for the F150 for the past 5yrs. I looked on the J.D. Power website but couldn't find any reliability ratings.
Well, I have now taken my '98 ranger to the service department for the first time at 20,181 miles. It was for the speed control cable recall. I figured that I'd put it off long enough now (never use cruise, truck has majority of short-haul miles). I dropped her off Thur nite and picked her up yesterday afternoon. No cost to me of course.
No complaints. I'm contemplating switching all fluids (oil, tranny, differential) to synthetics. Any comments or good/bad experiences? I'll probably do it when I next service the truck at 21K.
i have discovered the most beautifull stock truck in my oppinion you can buy.. just driving down C-470 is saw a Black F-150 XLT 4x4 Regular cab Flareside... p265 tires i think. But the lines on this thing were unbelievable.. truly a gorgeous truck..
specialk! Another Oregonian! I know Thomason very well. Actually in today's paper they are advertising 3 2000 Tacoma 4x4's with the sport package, a/c am/fm, buckets, 31" tires, alloywheels, sliding rear window, 2.7 4cyl, 5spd for 14,877. And I am quite shocked at this price. Its right in where Ranger XLT 4x4's usually are at. Looks as if Toyota may be lowering its outragous price they wanted for the Tacoma in the past years. If you watch the ads Thomason will also offer a 4.0 5spd Ranger XLT 4x4 for 16,888 with ABS, CD, a/c and more. It really matters what you are going to use the truck for. If your going up skiing on MT Hood or just to tool around on the logging roads the Ranger will work fine. All I can say is test drive.
That JD powers source was posted by Reddogs...rememeber the link that I made all you ranger owners EAT IT big time on? The one where everyone didnt read the fine print and realize it was a 93, nonFord made MAzda pickup that placed with the Tacoma.
Its back on this list. The FORD f150 finished way below average.
Vince- You are right. If you want to tool around the logging roads and go skiiing, the ranger is a good value.
If you want to tool around on the logging roads and offroad for ten years...then the Tacoma is your choice.
Test drove Tacoma today for an hour. Then went and drove a Ranger for an hour. Then a crew cab Nissan Frontier. The Ranger seemed to have more power and be more comfortable. The Tacoma on the other hand was slower and very choppy. Is that normal? Mabey a fluke? Anyone else not find the Tacoma all that comfortable? Is there a Tacoma above the SR5? Was very impressed with the Nissan.
Also does anyone have towing specs for all three trucks. It would be appreciated. Anyone tow over mountain passes with either truck?
I also go to the beach a lot, which brings up the question of resistance to the elements. Living in the northwest we have rain 9 months out of the year and rust is a concern. And going to the beach a lot in the summer only makes things worse (salt water and sand).
I just took my Tacoma TRD on a trail that I had taken a Ford on last year, but had to turn around because it wasn't doing too well. For Vince and the others that repeat over and over that the TRD package is a gimmick, try driving one before you post an opinion. The Toyota TRD suspension handled the trail incredibly and I felt totally in control the whole time unlike the Ford. On the road I can see how some may prefer the Ranger with the softer, more car-like suspension. Off-road however, you need a truck that isn't bouncing and bottoming out requiring you to drive 1/2 a mile an hour. All here that criticize the TRD need to drive one off-road first before you post an opinion. You're probably the same people that try to argue that a corvette or a 300ZX aren't worth the extra money because they don't handle any better than a Camaro or a Mustang. It's easy to say when you haven't driven one to see the difference.
Not pushing buttons. I'm aware of it, but I don't know where it is. You seem to love keeping track anything that is anti-Ford whether biased or non-biased and posting it over and over again.
If that site actually had anything that said the F150 to be a vehicle that was terribly built and fell apart after 5yrs, you'd be singing it through the hills.
allknowing, hind and all other TAcoma fanatics. Pics on the way of my Ranger along with PROOF I have a Ranger, and live in Oregon. First pics are just proving I live in Oregon and am about 45min to the Cascade range. allknowing, I have a friend who owns a TRD Tacoma and he swore he was going to "pound my Ranger into the dirt" up in the Cascades. Well, hate to burst your bubble, he didn't. My Ranger went everywhere, trailed, climbed everything he was willing to take his Tacoma through. POP! I heard the bubble burst! In the coming days pictures will be posted of my Ranger out and about in the Cascade Range. Every heard of MT Hood, MT ST Helens, or MT Rainer? I live in some of the harshest country in the U.S. for offroading. Proof is on its way. CP, I am trying to find the post where you said folks can send you pics. Please send again. Special, check out www.carpoint.msn.com, and www.crashtest.com, the Tacoma finishes LAST@! at both sites.
There's no bubble to burst. I am not one of the guys trashing the Ranger and I have no doubt that you went everywhere that the Tacoma went. The Ranger is a good truck. You're the guy that keeps trashing the TRD package and I'm just stating the fact, and it is definitely a fact, that a Tacoma with the TRD package is superior off-road to the Ranger and even a standard Tacoma for that matter. It's obvious to me that you've never driven a TRD Tacoma. As far as the crash test rehashed over and over, yes the Ranger fares better. When someone buys a sports car, they know that a porshe will not do as well as Camaro or Mustang in a crash test but the Porshe's superior performance keeps people buying. The TRD Tacoma handles better both off-road and on than a Ranger. I've driven the Ford and the TRD Tacoma off-road in the same area now and the Tacoma a no brainer winner. The Ranger has it's advantages too but not in those areas.
The only reason why I have started to trash the Ranger is Vince's ongoing antics. Add in the name calling & derogative comments from Vince it is not worth being fair.
If you Actually Read the crashtest.com link you will see that the Tacoma does NOT finish last by any means. There scale is Excellent, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. The Ranger gets an overall rating of Good, Tacoma and s-10 are Acceptable, and the Frontier gets a Marginal rating. How does this place the Tacoma as Last?
Since the rest of these guys were busy throwing rocks at each other again, I'll give you my opinion.
YES, the Tacoma has a choppy ride. In addition, it has uncomfortable bucket seats, is noisy, and shifts hard (some might say crisply). Anyway, that's my opinion, and why I just dumped mine. I can't speak for the Ranger or Frontier.
As far as all this "off-read capability", ask your self what percentage of time do you go off-road? Bet its less than 2-3%! So why suffer with a terrible ride and bad seats for 97% of the time???
The seats are so comfy at the Ford Service Department, they got it all soft and fluffy just waiting for all the Ranger butts to pick their favorite one.........:0o
CR finally comes around for the Tacoma! Also whoever was championing the Edmunds long term Ranger, read again. Yeah they boast about it alot, but take a long hard look at the drivetrain problems it has had, and it only has less than 25k on it. Wait till 100k. Also as far as auctions go, you have to be a licensed dealer to attend most often, but it sounds like a salesman's line to me! I just am turning 21k on my Tacoma, and still ZERO! problems...
When you were on C470, did you see a green streak going westbound real fast between Quebec and Univ.?
That was me on my '76 KZ900 Kawasaki. Blowing out the carbon after a long winters nap. Old bike but it moves out real fine. . .
wsn: I hear you but you do realize there has been no follow-up as to any PROBLEM existing on the Edmunds Ranger. Also, one would expect if there was SERIOUS problems, they, Edmunds would REPORT it. And the vehicle, with SERIOUS driveline problems would not be in a condition to drive.
Conclusion? No problems. Most people who have driven the vehicle for Edmunds like it.
BTW, Fords and Ford engineered engines took first and fourth in the last Winston Cup race.
Where was Toyota?
rick: Consumer Reports cited uncomfortable seats in marking the Tacoma down a bit in it's review. Also, in fairness, there are minimal (under 2%) problems reported in the April issue as reported by Tacoma owners.
CR did rate Ranger "recommended" as to a buy.
Vince: Will get to your pics in a bit. Have to find my PKunzip (it is still on my old computer) and still have work in the bathrooms to finish.
summitracing.com has a chrome 8.8 differential cover offered for $29.95. Looks real sharp. Check the Ranger Station off-road board for a posting with a pic. Will match up with my chrome tow hooks real fine.
Ok..here it is...Ford finishing BELOW AVERAGE once again. This is Redddogs JD powers 5 YEAR long term reliability study. This is the real deal folks. THIS is how you tell if a vehicle holds up:
Comments
s in my region still start at about 18K, add the options and the price take leaps and bounds. reddog you are not going to convince anyone that a loaded TAcoma can be had for under 20K.
I am curious to see what Tacoma fans have to say about resale now? spoog? hind? wsn?
P.S. I was given a price on a very nicley equipped (but not loaded) Tacoma of just under 20K. Yes Way. Not everybody lives on the overpriced West Coast.
Go check Edmunds for the resale value of the Tacoma.
Recall that I said it STICKERED at about $26K. I paid $22K for it last June.
As mviglianco1 pointed out, how much do you think a Ranger would fetch at that same auction? Out here in the "overpriced West coast", trucks are auctioned off almost as much as cars, btw. But putting resale value aside, let's talk about demand. Two years ago I attended an auto auction; I've noticed that Toyota/Nissan pickups get roughly 2-3 times the number of bids than your S-10's, Dakota's, and Rangers. Whether this be due to reputation, brand loyalty, etc... there is a higher demand for import pickups than domestic ones. Of course, I'm talking about compact pickups, the Fords and Chevy's rule in the full size category. Just calling it as I see it.
An absolutely bare-bones, no options Tacoma V6 4x4 will have a dealer invoice price (what the avg consumer should set as a good target price) of slightly under 18K. This is a truck with no A/C, no tach, steel wheels/hubcaps, a non-adjustable steering wheel, no stereo?!, and no ABS.
To say that you can get a LOADED 4x4 V6 Tacoma for less than 20K is absurd. Try less than 24-25K.
Now I know the first was giving me a MSRP and the second a legitamate price. Both V6 5sp 4x4 xcab.
Just because it may not be this way in a particular part of the country does not mean it does not exist. This country is much bigger then your hometown.
good. The latest 2000 Consumer Reports Reliability
Ranking ranks the Ranger (and I quote) "Worse Than
Average". In fact, only two trucks ranked in the
"Above Average" category for reliability. Tacoma
and Frontier!! And before you go spouting off about
how it's a biased ranking you'd better think
again. The results are taken from surveys by actual
owners. That's right - Ranger owners ranked their
own trucks "WORSE THAN AVERAGE" LOL! Have a nice
day.
Use these exact same data I used. I basically used my truck.
Ranger XLT Supercab (4D)
Toyota Tacoma Xtra Cab
with these options.
V6, 5spd, 25,000miles, 4wd, offroadpkg,A/c, pwr steering, windows, doors, seats, tilt, cruise, am/fm stereo, CD, ABS, sliding rear window, stepside bed (Toyota doesn't offer this), running boards, bed liner, tow pkg, premium wheels, offroad tires, Excellent condition.
Trade in value for Ranger is 16,535, Tacoma is 15,155!!!!!. Looks like the higher resale value crap is over Tacoma fans. Keep punching the numbers and see for yourself at Kelly Blue book.
Punch away!
Well Ranger owners....sadly.....your beloved Consumer Reports now rates the Ranger below average in reliability.
The coveted Consumer Reports, Vinnie and Cspounsers favorite source, rates the Ranger below average in reliability. OUCH! But thats not a surprise to me , seeing as how I proved that over and over and over and over.
www.carpoint.msn.com contradicts everything consumer reports says. Visit the reliability data section on the Toyota before the Tacoma years, yikes! ouch....
Also the longterm Ranger data, wright up right here at Edmunds.
Spoog, punch my numbers at Kelly Blue book yet?
Just a little Reminder
Have you read what cr had to say about the tacoma, how about posting back here with a report.
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. Nor is there
a 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.
among compact pickups. But neither lets you forget you're
driving a truck. Handling is good, though the ride is stiff. The
4.0-liter V6 performs adequately; the 3.0-liter V6 is more
pleasant. The seats are low, however, 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-side air bag when you install a
child seat there. Reliability has improved to average for all
versions.
It simply isnt built very well at all.
As for the Ranger you mentioned, make sure it doesn't have the "wrist-pin problem" which surfaced in some 4.0s in the '98 and '99 model years (engine redesign during mid-'99). The engine makes noises similar to marbles rolling around in a tin can. I haven't heard of (and no one has provided) news of any mechanical malfunction due to the problem. It just creates what some would consider "excessive noise" and it can only be cured by swapping in a new 4L motor. Keep in mind that 4.0s are not known for their quietness either. They are a reliable, long-lasting engine, but they are nowhere near as refined and quiet as the OHC offerings from Toyota and Nissan.
Also, a 4L will pull a 3000lb boat with no problems. I tow just over 2000lbs worth of snowmobiles and gear up to Wis a couple times a year. My truck, a '98 4x4 4L, has no problems cruising along at 65-75mph. It also gets pretty good gas milage when towing, about 17-19mpg. A V6 Toyota should also be able to tow the boat the 20 or so miles. You'll probably have to downshift and run it in a lower gear, though, due to lower torque that peaks at a higher rpm.
Just make sure that you test drive, test drive, and test drive. Only you can decide which truck that you like better.
Exactly where is this survey that puts the F150 dead last? Or, are you just talking the poop, as usual?
Also Cthompy, lets not forget that the Tacoma has more max rear wheel torque than the Ranger......
They don't even let anyone know what their sources are. They are undisclosed.
Transmission expert?! If you believe that, Mr. Gullible, then I've got a bridge that I'd be willing to part with.
You still don't understand torque???? It's been months now. I would have hoped that by now you'd at least pick up a book or ask somebody about it. I believe that I and several others on this board including Toyota owners have explained it to you, but you still don't get it????
Carpoint is now a biased, unreliable source? If it were the other way around, you'd be singing its praises all day long. At least attempt to be somewhat consistent.
I checked out Carpoint because it was the only sight I could think of during my 10min lunch break that had reliability ratings for the F150 for the past 5yrs. I looked on the J.D. Power website but couldn't find any reliability ratings.
No complaints. I'm contemplating switching all fluids (oil, tranny, differential) to synthetics. Any comments or good/bad experiences? I'll probably do it when I next service the truck at 21K.
Its back on this list. The FORD f150 finished way below average.
Vince- You are right. If you want to tool around the logging roads and go skiiing, the ranger is a good value.
If you want to tool around on the logging roads and offroad for ten years...then the Tacoma is your choice.
Also does anyone have towing specs for all three trucks. It would be appreciated. Anyone tow over mountain passes with either truck?
I also go to the beach a lot, which brings up the question of resistance to the elements. Living in the northwest we have rain 9 months out of the year and rust is a concern. And going to the beach a lot in the summer only makes things worse (salt water and sand).
Off-road however, you need a truck that isn't bouncing and bottoming out requiring you to drive 1/2 a mile an hour. All here that criticize the TRD need to drive one off-road first before you post an opinion. You're probably the same people that try to argue that a corvette or a 300ZX aren't worth the extra money because they don't handle any better than a Camaro or a Mustang. It's easy to say when you haven't driven one to see the difference.
If that site actually had anything that said the F150 to be a vehicle that was terribly built and fell apart after 5yrs, you'd be singing it through the hills.
allknowing, I have a friend who owns a TRD Tacoma and he swore he was going to "pound my Ranger into the dirt" up in the Cascades. Well, hate to burst your bubble, he didn't. My Ranger went everywhere, trailed, climbed everything he was willing to take his Tacoma through. POP! I heard the bubble burst! In the coming days pictures will be posted of my Ranger out and about in the Cascade Range. Every heard of MT Hood, MT ST Helens, or MT Rainer? I live in some of the harshest country in the U.S. for offroading. Proof is on its way.
CP, I am trying to find the post where you said folks can send you pics. Please send again.
Special, check out www.carpoint.msn.com, and www.crashtest.com, the Tacoma finishes LAST@! at both sites.
It's obvious to me that you've never driven a TRD Tacoma. As far as the crash test rehashed over and over, yes the Ranger fares better. When someone buys a sports car, they know that a porshe will not do as well as Camaro or Mustang in a crash test but the Porshe's superior performance keeps people buying. The TRD Tacoma handles better both off-road and on than a Ranger. I've driven the Ford and the TRD Tacoma off-road in the same area now and the Tacoma a no brainer winner. The Ranger has it's advantages too but not in those areas.
Since the rest of these guys were busy throwing rocks at each other again, I'll give you my opinion.
YES, the Tacoma has a choppy ride. In addition, it has uncomfortable bucket seats, is noisy, and shifts hard (some might say crisply). Anyway, that's my opinion, and why I just dumped mine. I can't speak for the Ranger or Frontier.
As far as all this "off-read capability", ask your self what percentage of time do you go off-road? Bet its less than 2-3%! So why suffer with a terrible ride and bad seats for 97% of the time???
http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/CCC/CCC_main.html
Oh What a Feeling!
-wsn
That was me on my '76 KZ900 Kawasaki. Blowing out the carbon after a long winters nap. Old bike but it moves out real fine. . .
wsn:
I hear you but you do realize there has been no follow-up as to any PROBLEM existing on the Edmunds Ranger. Also, one would expect if there was SERIOUS problems, they, Edmunds would REPORT it. And the vehicle, with SERIOUS driveline problems would not be in a condition to drive.
Conclusion?
No problems. Most people who have driven the vehicle for Edmunds like it.
BTW, Fords and Ford engineered engines took first and fourth in the last Winston Cup race.
Where was Toyota?
rick:
Consumer Reports cited uncomfortable seats in marking the Tacoma down a bit in it's review. Also, in fairness, there are minimal (under 2%) problems reported in the April issue as reported by Tacoma owners.
CR did rate Ranger "recommended" as to a buy.
Vince:
Will get to your pics in a bit. Have to find my PKunzip (it is still on my old computer) and still have work in the bathrooms to finish.
Be patient.
http://www.jdpower.com/releases/80401car.html
Oh, and ah.....just for kicks Cthomp...Im posting your comments abour REddogs post to me after his link was posted:
"1) Open mouth
(2) Insert foot
Before you run off your mouth and play Hindsite's
little cheerleader again, maybe you should actually
read through the stuff he posts.
The Mazda (Ranger clone) was ranked first.
Just a little F.Y.I. for ya there, buddy.
-C"
hehe........
apparently it does look like Ford makes a mean van.......