Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - V

reddogs

They made the LAND Cruiser modeled after the LAND Rover and other offroad designs, the Tacoma was made under the "philosophy" for drivabilty as in asphalt and pavement. They don't do much offroading in Japan anyways, but for the US market they are sensitive to its peculiarities. 4Wheeling in Florida...as if we had a mountain to climb down here, yet they still sell a lot of 4X4 here to people that just "have to have it".....

hindsite

Very well stated Spoog that the Toyota is more reliable than most vehicles on the market yesterday and today. BTW CThomp I am not cheering Spoog, but personal experiences. At the same time I can say that Ford is not reliable from my personal experiences. I will say that most Ford owners, but not all here will not divulge the truth about the lack of Ford quality. There is a myth that Ford trucks are built tough. A marketing ploy for the purpose of attracting sales. The only tough thing to stomach for me was constant problems with my Ford trucks. Maybe they should revise it to "Ford Tough on Owners."

wsnoble

What people should keep in mind about the Tundra is that in it's first year it has already overtaken and /or equaled the big 3 in many things. It is only it's first year. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years as it becomes more refined and offers more configurations. I say for it's first year its doing quite well at keeping the heat on the big 3

I don't belive resale is that subjective. It is a very variabled equation, but it can be measured. See what happens when you go to trade in. A foreign car in good shape will almost always demand more than it's big 3 equivilant. Just the fact of availability will prove this point. Ford's are a dime a dozen, and the value you may get up front will bite you in the [non-permissible content removed], when you trade in. Ask any used car dealer and/or buyer at a dealership.

My .02
-wsn

cthompson21

You can measure numbers like G's on a skid-pad and such.

But, You can't measure handling. Therefore, it is subjective and a matter of personal opinion.

How can you measure how balanced a car feels? How can you measure the road feel through the steering wheel? How can you measure how well a manufacturer meshes everything together in a package?

Everyone has their own personal preferences too. I might think that a Porsche handles better than a Pinto, but there's probably some people out there somewhere who disagree. They're not wrong. They just have a different opinion.

cthompson21

Resale value has too many variables to make an accurate measurement.

(1) sell yourself vs. trade
(2) trade to same mfgr or competing
(3) maintenance
(4) geographic area
(5) supply vs. demand
(6) vehicle configuration
(7) KBB or NADA prices may be substantially off
(8) price paid for original vehicle
(9) redesigned model out yet?
(10) number and proximity of dealerships
(11) rebates, special financing & other incentives

And that's just what I can think of in 2 minutes.

spoog

When will you get it?

A head to head COMPARISON test that relies on data and testing like 0-60, braking, ect IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. IT is real factual data.

I understand that your Ranger's offroad ability is good enough for you. But for others, it isn't. Paying an extra 2k for the Tacoma is a good choice for those that want more.

YoOu and Vince need to stop using this line:

" The average customer doesn't use this"

Please stop using that excuse. It's only making your argument weaker, and IN FACT implying that the Ranger specializes in nothing, which is Edmunds main comlaint with FORD.

spoog

"Fact: toyota compact p/u's have not been
incredibly reliable the past ten years. did you
forget about that head gasket problem? what about
the bodies that rust out in just a few years? "


That was on the older models Cthomp. Come on man, look at the data. Their reliability rankings in all magazine are EXCELLENT. Look at the NHSTA data. IT's amazing. They ARE the most reliable truck made, PERIOD. There is no quation about it.
Im not sure where the NISSAN stands but I am sure it is close.

Look at that Jd Powers 5 year reliability study that was just posted here. Toyota trucks and SUV's WON EVERY category! The whole thing was Tacoma, 4runner and t-100, with a Mazda pickup thrown in as well(93). They totaly dominated. Coincidence? I don't think so. THATS a five year study my man. Totally objective.


As for the Tacoma, it beat the Ranger in every single perfromance category in the 4wheeler.com head to head. And offroad handling can be objective. A vehicle that has problems traversing terrain and bounces all over the place , and a vehicle that just flies and excells over the same terrain with the SAMe driver is basically proven as fact.


A Porsche handles better than a Pinto there is no denying that. It is pure fact. Any idiot can figure that out by just driving one, let alone doing the cone test.

Please stop splitting hairs Cthomp, it's dong a diservice to you.

mviglianco1

My style has been cramped. This morning I pulled into my parking lot and the first thing I saw was a Lunar Mist Metalic TRD exactly like mine. This is the only other one I have seen like mine except on the Tacoma commercial and a few posted picks at the Tacoma Territory site. Maybe it does not have 4x4. The tags are from Virgina and I am in Charlotte so I guess I will have to run this imposter out of town or finally get that shell I have been mulling over to regain my individuality.

cthompson21

You write:


"Fact:

The Toyota compacts have incredible reliability
ratings the past ten years"


FALSE, unless you consider blown head gaskets and rusting bodies falling off the truck to be signs of reliability.

cthompson21

I believe that you're the one with comprehension problems.

Okay. Tell me the MEASUREMENT for HANDLING. That's right! There isn't one! It CANNOT be quantified! Therefore, it is subjective and a function of opinion.

Some aspects (skid-pad forces and braking) can be quantified. But, there are so many more aspects of handling that can't.

cthompson21

How about instead of "the average customer" I use 99% of customers (including yourself)? Vince is the only one I see on this board who actually falls into that 1% and his truck seems to do just fine.

hindsite

A lot of domestic owners have knocked the T100 for not having a V8. Now that the Tundra has one they want a bigger V8. What next?

hindsite

I have yet to see an article in any magazine that that the Tacoma 4x4 did beat out the competition (Ford Ranger) in the area of off-roading. Why is that?

BTW 92,000 recalls for the head gasket problem for one year in particular.

hindsite

"did" should have been "did not"

cthompson21

Then, they'll probably want a V10 (both gas and turbo diesel) and dually versions. Go figure. It's that whole bigger is better mentality.

cthompson21

I'll pose a question.

Would an elderly gentleman prefer the 'handling' of a Porsche over a Cadillac?

Would a 16-year-old prefer the 'handling' of a Cadillac over a Porsche?

cthompson21

Magazines don't drive trucks. People do.

I believe that the Taco is a better off-roader than the Ranger. But, just because a magazine says so doesn't it true.

scape2

Hind, notice not comment on my pics huh? I proved to you I both own a Ranger and live in the NW. End of story. Next you will see my Ranger in action in the beautiful Cascade Mountains of the Northwest.
Spoog, as far as resale please go to Kelly Blue Book and start punching numbers of like Rangers vs Tacoma's you may be surprised. I know I have mentioned in the past a friend of mine deals with selling/buying cars/trucks at wholesale to and from dealers. He says resale depends greatly on region and market area. He also says that Toyota/Honda are loosing the resale advantage. The percentage has dropped over the last 4 years and shows no sign of going up. California for instance, has thousands and thousands of Toyota's and Honda's to choose from, Wisconsin does not.
The Tundra just doesn't cut it as a real work truck. As much as Toyota wants to push it as a full size the dimensions say otherwise. The backseat is an absolute joke, no limited slip rearend available, same axle and driveline used in Tacoma. Sales have also leveled off, people are finding out the truth.

cthompson21

That last sentence should read:

But, just because a magazine says so doesn't make it the 100% truth.

hindsite

I have been away on a short vacation and did not see your photos or whatever. I never read the articles if I am gone for days. Just go to the end of the list. You have not proven anything to me. Anyone can take a pic of any mountain and call it the cascade range or whatever. LOL. Did you put it on your web site? I think not.

hindsite

Well, in the same stroke that you say that magazines do not drive trucks and is not a valid argument. I will say to you that crash test are performed by dummies. Yes. . . they are not drivers.

hindsite

Fact is that Ford Ranger 4x4 in any stock configuration will never beat the Tacoma 4x4 or the TRD in any off-road magazine. Instead when I posed a question about an article in reference to
the above, they will; postulate that the test was performed by a magazine, tries to trivialize that the comparison was inaccurate and therefore meaningless, discount the article as invalid due to differences in the options, and will just skirt the issue.

spoog

YOu are skirting the issue BIG TIME Cthomp. YOu are seriously just playing devils advocate.

The magazines PROVED the Tacoma is the better offroader. How would you react if I said that becuase the NHSTA says the Ranger is safer in side crashes, that it doesnt mean it is so? Do you see how silly your logic and argument has become?

Hey Cthompson, farmer John called. He wants you to stop grasping at all his straw.

spoog

Toyota trucks are the most reliable trucks made. All the data proves it. Sure they had issues with the gaskets, and the pre 92 trucks had issues with bed rust. They STILL were the most reliable truck made, simply far ahead of the pack.
NO question are they more reliable than anything by Ford, Chevy ect. All the data proves it, time and time again.

THEY ARE THE MOST RELIABLE TRUCK MADE, PERIOD.

I would appreciate it if you would let me know if you are arguing because you care about the topic, or because you just enjoy to argue. If the latter, I have no need to correspond with you any longer.

allknowing

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with you on this one. A vehicles' handing ability is not at all subjective and has less to do with "road feel" or "how balanced a car feels" than you realize. Before I bought my Tacoma I had a 300ZX. I could take a 90 degree corner at 35 miles per hour without even squealing the tires and with complete control of the car. Most cars would slide, have a great bit of tire squeal, and the driver would have to make a considerable effort to keep control of the car at that speed. A driver of a truck taking a corner at that speed would, most likely, completely lose control and crash into something.
There is no personal opinion involved in realizing that the 300ZX handles better than the truck or the average car. A vehicle that can turn at a greater speed with complete control is a better handling vehicle. You example of someone preferring a Cadillac to a Porsche would only apply to softness of ride, not handling.

cthompson21

I think you're completely missing my point.

You're suggesting that the best handling vehicle is the one that can take a 90 degree corner at the fastest speed???

Don't you think this is incredibly simplistic? Don't you think that there's a whole multitude of factors involved?

By your logic I can simply look at the skid-pad G's to determine whether a Porsche 911, Acura NSX, Ferarri, Viper, or whatever exotic is the best handling vehicle.

Come on. We both know you're a helluva lot smarter than that. Isn't that where your handle came from? )

cthompson21

you write:

"they had issues with the gaskets, and the pre 92 trucks had issues with bed rust. They STILL were the most reliable truck made, simply far ahead of the pack."

Have you gone absolutely CRAZY??? Blown engines and bodies falling off from rust??? You consider this to be "the most reliable truck made"???

Just tell me how many old Toyota compacts you see around Chicago. That's right. It's a getting pretty rare. This from "the most reliable truck made"? It can't even last 10yrs?

scottssss

forget that big EXPENSIVE Tacoma Add on the Back Cover.. And please dont say that has nothing to do with it.. if you want to claim it doesnt you are just making a statement about your own ignorance...

Dont trust a man whose pockets are lined in gold.

allknowing

I don't think I'm being incredibly simplistic and yes the skid-pad results tell quite a bit. Handling is a measure of a vehicles ability to maneuver while keeping control. I've been involved with various forms of racing over the years and I've never heard anyone else involved comment that a Cadillac has a "better feel" on a course. A vehicles ability to maneuver is easily tested on slalom or a track and I don't see how anyone would contest the obvious. I guess there are those that still think that the Earth is flat but that somehow doesn't change the fact that it's round. Maybe you're saying that some prefer a little under steer and others over steer. I may go along with that. Anything more and I'm sorry ct but I can't go with you.

cthompson21

My car can take a 90 degree turn at 35+ mph. Does that make it a better handling car than your 300Z? According to your logic, it does.

You need to look at the big picture. The best handling vehicle is not the one with the fastest lap times or can pull the most G's on the skid-pad. Ride firmness or lack thereof is also part of the equation.

EVERYBODY has their own OPINION about which vehicle handles the best in many different conditions, terrain, and situation. There is NO quantative measure. Why don't you understand?

BTW, I never said that a Caddy has better feel out on a roadcourse. I can't figure out where you got that from. I think you're gravely misquoting me here. I only said that it's very likely that Mr. Wipple down in his Florida retirement home is going to prefer the handling of that Caddy over a Porsche.


Just a little example for you. About a year ago, Car and Driver had a little article about the best handling car available in America. They had a Ferarri, Acura NSX, Porsche 911, C5 Corvette, Dodge Viper GTS, a BMW M3, and a few other semi-exotics to exotics.

Do you know which one they believed to be the best handling car in America? Almost unbelievably they chose the BMW M3. It came nowhere near the G's of the NSX or Viper. It also had the fewest ponies of the bunch by far. It turned in mediocre lap times and other performance data like 0-60, 1/4 mile, and 60-0 distance.

Whyever do you suppose they chose a 45K semi-exotic 4dr sedan as the best handling car in America over pure-bred exotic sports cars costing many times more???

Before all you guys start lambasting me over bringing up a mag comparo, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with their results. I only wish I was out there as one of the judges wringing out those cars on the track. It's merely support to my argument that handling IS subjective. Obviously, the testers from C&D agree.

;o)

allknowing

I'm hearing what seems to be double-talk to me. I would like to read the C&D article that you mention because I wonder if there's more to it. As far as the Caddy comment, I don't believe that any old fart would say that a Caddy handles better than a Porsche. They might say they like the more comfortable ride but not the handling. Car companys stiffen the suspension and equalize the weight ratios of sports cars to improve handling don't they? Maybe they should make some of their sports cars suspension's softer so they don't corner well and lose control easier for the older folks out there to buy. I also wonder why some of the Indy and Grand Prix drivers don't just use a Pinto or a Caddy as I'm sure at least a few would prefer their handing since it's just a matter of subjectivity. I'm sorry CT. I'll try and respect your opinion, but It makes no sense to me.

allknowing

Let me add this. Yes I believe that if your car can corner faster than mine, i.e., take a corner at 35+ without losing control, than it does handle better than mine. Seems like common sense to me.

allknowing

As I analyze or discussion, I realize that our definition of "handling" is not the same. My dictionary defines handling as the ability to control or direct so I equate that to cornering ability. You seem to define handling as the vehicle's overall ride characteristics. I guess that's where we really disagree.

cthompson21

I believe handling to be every movement of a vehicle, whether up, down, sideways, etc..., when it travels from point A to B.

BTW, my car is an SVT Contour. It can take a 90 degree curve at 35+ mph. Do I believe that it would handle better than a 300Z? Probably not. But, that's just my opinion. I'm sure there are pleanty of people out there who would agree or disagree with me.

It seems as if you think that handling is only cornering ability. There is so much more to it. I would think that anyone who has spent time at the track would know this.

Exactly what is this "double-talk" to which you are referring?

cthompson21

I'll see if I can find the article. I don't know how likely it is, tho. My wife cleaned out my office closet a little while back and threw out the huge stack of car mags in there. It might be archived on the C&D website.

hindsite

Allknowing,
It is clear from your post or posts that a vehicle that can turn at a greater speed is the better handling vehicle and not trying to turn at 35 MPH on a 90 degree turn. You hit the nail directly on the head.

hindsite

There are many variables as to why a truck will not be able to make that turn that a passenger car at speed.

One of the laws of physics is body moves from a state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line will continue on that straight line.

Also, the there are several factors; short wheel base will generally turn faster, center of gravity plays, the turning radius of the vehicle,
different pavements have different frictional values, and tire contact.

smcpherr

Handling has to be a subjective thing. It is all personal opinion and situational. If you give a person two cars, say a Hummer and a Ferrari, and tell him to test drive them on the streets of Boston. Which one is he gonna say handles better? Most likely the Ferrari, right? Then take the same person, the same two cars and tell him to test them only on unpaved roads in the Colorado Rockies. Which vehicle is he gonna say handles better? Most likely the Hummer. (Personally, I think I'd take the Hummer in either situation) Now, not everyone drives only in Boston and not everyone drives only in the Rockies. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, and our opinions of handling will vary greatly. I think my pickup handles better than a friends BMW, but then I don't crave skid pad numbers, turning quickly or the ability to "feel" the road. I do however, prefer sitting up high, feeling solid on unpaved roads and not feeling every bump in the road. The streets of Milwaukee aren't all that smooth anyway.

And yes, I think some retired guy in Florida would much rather have the cushy feel of the Cadillac to the rock-solid feel of the Porsche. Unless, of course, he's/she's having some retired-crisis type of thing going on and they feel the need to prove how "young" they are to the rest of the retirement community. Go to any retirement community near you and take a census of what kinda cars are being driven. Caddys, Mercedes and BMWs will probably dominate. Not Porsches, Vipers or Tacomas.

cthompson21

Here's the article, the best handling car for over $30,000. It's a couple years old. Where does time go?


http://www.caranddriver.com/FrameSet/0,1350,_sl_NewArticle_sl_0_cm_1633_cm_631_1_16_cm_00,00.html


Hind, according to you and Allknowing, they could have just driven the cars around a single corner to see which is fastest to give their choice for the best handling car. That would have taken about 5 minutes. What were they thinking???

hulk66

As for comparisons, the toyota outperforms over ford.I have a '86 toyota 4x4 w/107,000 miles and it still runs strong with no engine problems with that kind of mileage. Fords can't claim that and besides that bed rust the truck will still go another 100,000 miles. Toyota trucks will last forever and as for ford owners ,the toyota is the one i would want in the deep woods!!!!

scape2

Please visit www.therangerstation.com to see all the Rangers with over 100K, 200K even some with 300K miles on them along with the links to other happy Ranger owners. What do you say to these owners that have Rangers that have over 100K, or 200K miles on them?
As for reliability, www.carpoint.msn.com says otherwise about Toyota truck reliability, why? Why is it when someone posts data that says otherwise its immediatly disregarded, as with the crash test results. Tacoma finishes pretty poorly, www.crashtest.com, and carpoint both have the same data showing the Tacoma is terrible in crashtest results.
Hind, I did prove I live in the NW, take another look bud, I have an Oregon license plate, signs showing how far to MT. Hood, along with my truck in the picture of MT. Hood what more can you ask for????!!!
Just as an FYI to Ranger owners also. In Oregon we can't pump our own fuel. I pulled away from the pump and my check engine light came on. I pulled over immediatly and started checking my engine. Oil pressure fine, fluids ok, engine running good. I remembered a blurb from another internet site I read about how your fuel cap not being on tight can cause the engine light to come on. So I checked the fuel cap and the guy had barely put it on.

spoog

You say that the Toyota pickup is not reliable. Instead of criticizing my PROOF, please name a pickup that has a better reliability record? Thanks...oh, and no backing out of this one, Goerge Bush Jr.

lol.

mviglianco1

can you provide a more secific link to carpoint? I coould not find any info at carpoint regarding any reliability ratings for any truck.

hindsite

All those photos can be taken from various web sites. Honestly, I have no intention of scrolling back just to see your web site. It is a waste of my time to look through all the posts just to find a link.

hindsite

I will have to disagree with you on that point, and think that he was just trying to make a point.

hindsite

Which is the better handling vehicle; the rear drive, front drive, or the AWD vehicle on a tight S curve at speed? Only applicable to automatic transmissions.

cthompson21

Sorry, not into politics.

If your "proof" is blown engines and bodies falling apart from rust, there you go.

-C

cthompson21

Well, I guess that would depend on driver preference.


That's why handling is SUBJECTIVE.

cthompson21

Any thoughts on the C&D article about the best handling car?

Can you tell me why they just didn't drive all of the cars through a single corner to delare the winner?

Can you tell me why they picked a car as the best handling car for over $30,000 that didn't place first in a single one of their tests?



All you guys have to do is write "handling is subjective" (and mean it, as you know it's true) and I'll shut up about it already.

mviglianco1

I think I am with you an this one. In the case of a car going around in an oval handling may be more impericle but regular driving conditions are not that one dimensional.

As far as reliability. My old 88 Toyota p-up 4x4 is rusted out but it is by all means reliable. I drove it from NC to New Orleans to Arizona to California to Vancuver and back to NC via Colorodo last Spring at this exact same time (it almost makes me cry sonsidering I am hammering away at a computer all day now) and would trust it to do it again. The rust really is not a factor in reliabillity. It also has the 3.0 v6 and never had a head gasket problem with 120K miles on it.