Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - VI

1235713

Comments

  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Dance , baby! Dance!



    "probably" lol.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Shovel, baby, shovel!

    You seem like a pro!

    Where are these trails here in the great, flat state of Illinois where you gained all sorts of off-roading experience.

    Oh yeah!

    There aren't any! And, you don't have any!
  • hulk66hulk66 Member Posts: 37
    As an owner of TOYOTA trucks for 20 years and now a new TACOMA, the reliability of the truck is above the fords. Everytime i go to one of the local garages all you see is fords getting fixed and repaired. Don't see many toyota trucks in the garage!!!! Ford can not come close to the TACOMA in off-roading. The TRD is the best in the rough!!
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    I don't mean to change the subject or interrupt all these poetic arguments, but I was wondering what the pros and cons are of torsion bars vs. coil springs for suspension. thanks, eagle63
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    That is exactly what I'd expect to see [if I chose to just hang around garages for some reason].

    With maybe 10x as many [I don't know the exact sales figures] Rangers & F150's sold as Tacomas & Tundras, it's just simple mathematics.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    fair answer to my question, no comeback on that one.

    However. . .
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    spoog. The state is flattening out.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    in the lower 48, just 69 feet behind Mt. Whitney.
  • devil1devil1 Member Posts: 74
    I am really looking forward to the 2001 Toyota Tacoma Double Cab. I used to have a 95.5 Tacoma when they first came out (3" lift, 33" tires), GREAT truck, except the fact that it caught on fire one day (VERY weird situation).

    Anyone have any facts and figures on the Double Cab? Toyota won't tell me anything (bastards!). I do know that TRD will offer their supercharger claiming 60+ more horses (250+!). If Toyota installs it, the warranty is 5 years/60,000 miles. THAT would beat the pants off any compact.

    The other crew cab I kinda like is the Dakota 4x4 Quad Cab. Anyone have any experiences with those??

    Thanks
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Please also note that the Tacomas crash tested were stock Tacomas rather than a 4x4 like you're getting. Even the Ranger folks (Except the extreme Ranger cultists) concede that the heavier and 5 to 6 inch higher 4x4 may make a difference in side impact tests. I personally fell that it would fare better because the frame would absorb more of the impact than the std. Tacoma in which the frame may be too low. Others here disagree and we unfortunately don't have that data to prove either viewpoint. Let's just hope no one here finds out by getting into a serious accident. If you're like me, you'll really enjoy your Tacoma.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Liked your pics and the comment to Spoog was pretty good. I was on a work assignment in the Chicago / Wisconsin area for about 3.5 months in 1994 and it was pretty flat out there. Especially since I live in California surrounded by mountains.
  • hindsitehindsite Member Posts: 590
    I have been on vacation, so now that I am back I will participate in earnest.
    I would have to side with Spoog and the Allknowing about their comments in the last several post.

    Barlitz,
    Was up there by your way a two months back and did see a lot of F150's. Anyway getting back to the issue when I attend site meetings with the GC no one really cares if it is American or foreign in least in these neck of the woods.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well, in regard to crash tests. . .

    I THINK the tests were either a regular cab non 4X4.
    HOWEVER,
    When you go to the 4X4 supercab in a Ranger, you go from 5 crossmembers to 8 crossmembers.

    Tacoma offers 5 crossmembers for it's 4X4 extra cab and I think somewhat less than that for the regular cab.

    8 vs 5= strength vs weakness.

    Now I concede that straight crossmembers are not as strong as a triangular shape, however, in '98 Ranger added 3 crossmembers for a reported 400% increase in body strength. One crossmember was added to the front cab area.

    As I stated, I feel the 98 and above Ranger is stronger in the body than the Tacoma based on more frames, more metal in the frame rails (come on guys, if you allknowing own both just PHYSICALLY LOOK at the size difference).

    Not to say the Tacoma is too weak to do the job, just not as strong as a Ranger.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    FLATLANDERS.

    Seems to fit Illinois. . .

    Yeah, sometimes I do find some cute, with NO malice intended, postings.

    Off topic:
    Anyone else see the Avalanche DESTROY the Redwings? I mean it was rarely close.

    Redwings had all the years records in the division.
    Avalanche got to move on. Most impressive was game 4. Outshot 3 to 2 Avs win in overtime (go Roy!).

    They have peaked, watch out Dallas. . .
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    Does anyone read the sights they post? This same discussion was going on back in November when I first started looking for a new truck. Then, as now, some were saying that crashtest.com rated the Tacoma last overall among the compacts. Look again. Ranger Good
    Tacoma Acceptable
    S-10 Marginal
    Frontier Marginal

    As I said way back when, how does this put the Tacoma last in its class? Yes it seems to be last in its class in side impacts, so if that is what you mean say it. It obviously makes up for it in other ways to be rated ahead of the S-10 and Frontier overall. I think it may be time for this board to be deleted as ABSOLUTELY NOTHING new has been said for months. It seems that a topic gets beat to death, ignored for a while, and then beat to death again with the exact same lame arguments, lies, and deliberate misrepresentations of the facts.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Explain to me the structural differences for the Tacoma 4X4 vs the regular non-4X4.

    Differences in Ranger are 3 extra cross-members for added strength.

    My Ranger DOES NOT rattle or squeak while off-road.

    BTW:
    I get a larger elevation increase on my drive to work than is available in spoogs entire home state. . .
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well drive a Toyota into a parking lot in Detroit, Deerborn or Pontiac Mich and see what happens. . .

    8^)
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    one of the Big 3's parking lots, where the blue collar worker, the backbone of America, park
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    I will never try to take anything away from Colorado as it is one of my favorite places to visit and I have a full appreciation for its landscape but we do have mtns here in the east. While not any 14ers we do have about the same elevation change from valley floor to mtn top. I am guessing 8-9K base eleveation for the highest mtns in CO. For a 14er that makes 5-6 thousand feet from base to peak. In NC we are looking at 1K foot base elevations and 6K foot peaks. Again not trying to compare Blue Ridge and Appalacians to Rockies in size but we do have our share of steeps. Illinois?? Even I can call them Flatlanders.
  • xena1axena1a Member Posts: 286
    You mentioned that your truck caught on fire. What the heck happened???!!!
  • devil1devil1 Member Posts: 74
    It was a freak situation:
    I picked up a new computer and had it in an open box in the bed. I was driving home and almost home when I noticed smoke coming from the bed area. One of the pieces of cardboard apparently slipped down between the bed and the cab (There's about a 1" gap and the muffler or catalytic converter runs through their. The cardboard sat on top of the hot metal and caught fire. I quickly pulled over to the side of the road and panicked because I had no idea what to do. Then flames started come out of the middle of the truck and I felt like crying. (It was about 6 months old). Luckily I was next to an apartment complex, so I knocked on the door and grabbed a fire extinguisher and put it out. In fact I used every bit of that little fire extinguisher. I guess someone called the fire department because then they arrived about 5 minutes after I got the fire out.

    It burned a hole from the outside of the back of the cab clear through to the inside. Luckily, it only singed the window and top of the truck and I was able to wax it out. I contacted Toyota and they took pictures and said they will see what they could do and never called me back. Of course I should of bugged them forever because I feel it was a liability issue.

    I ended up replacing the inside carpet on the back of the cab, and selling it to Mitsubishi when I traded it in at nighttime and they did not notice anything.

    Now I want another Taco, but the double cab. (ANY info out there??)
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    I was wondering why I hadn't seen any posts from you lately.Everyone still bickering about whos truck is the best, I like to throw a few jabs in every once in awhile.I will say one thing about the trd in my dentist's office they had a magazine and in it was a trd supercharged celica which may take place of the supra some day,the thing was nuts it had 500 hp,I'm not sure if it was factory if it is it will give anything a run for its money.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I saw that little blurb about the TRD Celica in one of the car rags. I think it may have been more like 600hp but nowhere near street legal. They didn't go into specifics about the [extensive] mods performed to the car, though.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I believe a Supercharged TRD Tacoma puts out 256hp and 267ft/lbs of torque.

    The supercharger kit costs just shy of $3,000 not including installation. I'd guestimate another $500-800 for installation.

    If you consider the Dakota 5.9 R/T a compact [i don't BTW ~ midsize], it would give the TRD-SC Taco a run for the money. But, so would pleanty of cars around [or less than] $20,000...
  • scottssssscottssss Member Posts: 147
    ITs true most of the Peaks deep in the rockies have bases around 8000 ft.. but there are the front range peaks (that are also most of the tallest) that have bases of less than 7000..

    Out my front window (at 5000 feet) i can see at least 3 14er's (evans, bierdstadt, longs)

    And i know there are no views like this on the east coast.. http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/hickory/741/images/me.jpg

    thats on MNT Quandary (14,265 FT) in March after a 4000 ft climb with 45 lbs of ski gear on my back.

    mountains this tall are for Feet and Skis anyway :)

    I DONT want ANY TRUCK this high
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    You must be talking about the mental giants that complain that the Japanese don't buy enough american cars because they're just like them.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I really couldn't tell you which truck has the most cross-members. I'll believe you and I'll look the next time I change the oil. The major difference I was speaking of in the 4X4 is height. I think this has already been discussed several times. Anyway very briefly, in a sports car the driver is typically safer than in most cars because he's seated inside the frame. I postulate that in the higher 4X4, the impact will be absorbed by the frame more than in the 4x2. The tested 4X2 is pretty low to the ground and the door probably took most of the force of impact. The door on the Toyota is undeniably thinner than the Ranger and the 4X2 Ranger appears to sit higher.

    As far as you asking me to look at both vehicles and compare size, I'm not sure what you mean. Aside from the thinner door, the Tacoma appears bigger. I'll admit though that this could be an illusion because the Tacoma has bigger tires and sits higher. The Ranger is heavier but and probably beefier in frame but the Tacoma seems to be a more solid riding vehicle for some reason. Once again, I like both trucks.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Forgive my poor English in the last post but I think that we've exhausted this subject again.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    I would agree with you regarding the 4X4 vs 4X2 in strength. Going to post a site that discusses the changes from 98 on in Ranger, the reported strength increase is 350% over the 97 and lower. Cannot find the site that states 8 crossmembers, but they are there.

    I did NOT by the way say I agree with an attitude of trashing a car/truck because it is not made in USA. However, the union movment in this country has some real redneck narrow minded attitudes sometimes.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    What I ment was I took a look at the two frames. Ranger measured about 5 1/4 inches top to bottom right over the rear tire.
    Tacoma was about 4-4 1/4. Not to say its frame is not big enough, however, just justifying the weight of the Ranger.
    Yes, agree with you that the Tacoma is slightly bigger overall. I have heard from numerious sources that the Ranger doors weigh a ton!
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Would not take anything away from the mountains in NC.
    My grandparents moved to Henderson to avoid high NJ taxes. I love the skyline drive near Luray.

    Well Westcliffe is at 7900 ft. The mountains to the west are high 13K feet with 5 14ers.

    Used my GPS since the error was taken out and my property is at 8415 ft.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    all off of Kelly Blue Book. Some highlites from each

    http://kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.rp?kbb&&11&00fordrangerBut if it's power you want-power to pass anything on the road or climb any hill with ease-try the optional 4.0-liter V6. Available on all models, it cranks out 160 horsepower at 4200 rpm and 225 foot-pounds of torque at 2750 rpm. It compares well against Toyota Tacoma's high-revving 3.4-liter V6 (190 horsepower at 4800 rpm and 220 foot-pounds of torque at 3600 rpm)."
    "Ford's pulse-vacuum hub-lock system introduced last year allows nearly instantaneous shift-on-the-fly four-wheel drive at any speed. When the system is disengaged, the front drive train is disconnected at the wheels."
    "Where this truck showed its real character, though, was on a trek into the Coyote Mountains, which lay at the eastern base of the Sierra Nevadas. While the Sierra's Mount Tom dwarfs everything in sight with its 13,652-foot elevation, the 11,200-foot Coyote Ridge we reached in the Ranger is no walk in the park. The track leading into the Coyotes is narrow, twisting, rocky, and occasionally has holes big enough to swallow a lesser truck. We purposely held off putting the truck in 4WD as long as we could. With its big tires and limited-slip rear axle, the Ranger did quite well. It wasn't until we came on one particularly steep, rough section that we felt it prudent to flip the 4WD selector switch to 4WD-high. The Ranger climbed the hill like a mountain goat. We left it in 4WD the rest of the trek. The only time we shifted to 4WD-low was to gear down on a steep descent. The Ranger didn't falter once on our 50-mile round-trip adventure into the wilderness. In fact, it had better traction and handling than the full-sized SUV that accompanied us."
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    http://kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.rp?kbb&&11&99fordranger
    Ford's Ranger is one of the best compact pickups on the market. It's certainly the most popular. Responsive handling on the highway, impressive suspension performance off road and a comfortable ride everywhere make it a great choice as a light-duty truck."
    "The new Ranger does not drive like a traditional truck. Steering response and handling in transient maneuvers could almost be described in sports car terms."
    "While the ride quality of the two-wheel-drive trucks provides a compelling case, it seems a shame to pass up the superb four-wheel-drive system. The vacuum-assisted hublock system works seamlessly, allowing the driver to shift in and out of four-wheel drive at any speed. Four-wheel-drive models handle twisty roads with amazing prowess. Rough dirt roads failed to upset this truck when we drove it quickly around rutted turns in Southern California's Hungry Valley off-road vehicle park. Point it where you want to go and it goes there. It absorbs big bumps, while showing remarkable stability."

    The article then recognizes the Mazda is a clone of Ranger and says:
    "Mazda B-Series trucks offer a compelling alternative to the Toyota Tacoma, with the Mazda delivering more truck per dollar."
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    http://kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.rp?kbb&&11&96tacoma

    1996 Tacoma:

    More stylish, roomier, more refined and (potentially) better-equipped than ever, the Tacoma has a great deal to offer. The only drawback is one that's common to most Toyota products, and that's price. Feature for feature, Tacomas tend to cost more than most of their direct competitors. On the other hand, Toyota continues to set enviable quality standards, and its products tend to command high resale values as a direct result."
    "For a pickup truck, the Tacoma rides well. The coil-spring front suspension copes well with all but the worst potholes, and has enough travel to deal with off-road obstacles. Like almost all pickups, the Tacoma's rear axle's leaf springs do best when there's a load in the bed; with only a driver on board, the rear tends to react noticeably to freeway expansion joints and similar small bumps, and hops up and down over rough surfaces off road."
    "There are many points in the Tacoma's favor. It is rugged, well-finished, and as comfortable as any truck in its class. When the right extras are ordered, it can be downright lavish, and looks good when dressed up.
    It's also a proven off-road performer, and the 4wd system is easy to use, even though it still entails a small separate transfer case shifter for engagement (some systems now have pushbuttons). It's possible to shift into high-range 4wd at speeds up to 50 mph.

    But when price is factored in, the Tacoma is more difficult to justify. When similarly equipped, a full-size 1997 Ford F-150--a more comfortable, civilized and versatile machine--costs little more. Trucks that compete directly with Tacoma in size generally undercut it in price."
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    "While the ride quality of the two-wheel-drive
    trucks provides a compelling case, it seems a shame to pass up the superb four-wheel-drive system. The vacuum-assisted hublock system works seamlessly, allowing the driver to shift in and out of four-wheel drive at any speed."

    This system was installed in the 99 and up Ranger, maybe the 98 too.

    It has performed flawlessly for me. Click of a switch, your in 4WD high in a fraction of a sec.

    NO conventional hubs to wreck, as in older Rangers and the Tacoma.

    All references I have heard on that system start or somehow refer to:

    Flawless.

    spoog:
    To answer your challenge, I can ship my Ranger to Africa, go on a 2 week trip, ship the truck back for the money I saved vs buying a Tacoma TRD.

    Does that pretty well sum it up as to my opinion?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    The '98 has got the same system.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Great 4WD system is it not? i am truely impressed so far.

    Also, the redesign of the suspension system in 98 was in improvement overall.

    The 2001 Edge will complete the cycle.

    - More HP than older Ranger's and Tacoma
    - More Torque than older Ranger's Tacoma
    - OHC engine, simular to Tacoma but as stated before, more HP, more torque
    - Re-designed off-road suspension on 4X4
    - Offereing equal to the Prerunner
    - Agressive off-road stance even on 2X4
    - Nicely equipped XLT's without having to option up
    - Price right at maybe $20K

    And Tacoma, unless there is something I am not aware of, will have a very simular design to the 1996, with the improvements that keep the suspension from breaking(from the TSB database)
    - same engine
    - same suspension
    - same 4X4 drive system
    - same basic physical design

    Now give Ford will have redesigned twice between 97 and 2001 and Tacoma has not redesigned,
    Which is the more progressive company?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I just read an interesting blurb in one of the car rags that Ford has purchased Land Rover from BMW. Anyone think they can repeat the success of Jaguar with Land Rover?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Actually, it is a very nice system. Just flip a switch, and presto. I make sure to run my truck in 4wd for 10 miles or so every month as preventative maintenance.

    As an owner of a '95 and '98 Ranger, the suspension revision for '98 was substantial. It improved on-road handling by a great deal. I wouldn't know about off-road, though, as my '95 was 2wd.

    The Trailhead package is great. I saw a very nice looking 3L Trailhead Ranger with desireable options, like A/C, sliding rear window, and LSD, that stickered for $14K. With a little bit of bargaining and rebates [when the 2001's come out], you'd probably be able to get the truck for less than $12K. Sounds like a great deal to me.

    The power increase sounds good too. I'm just shy of that with my '98 and $300 in mods. Another $200 for a Superchip should get me up to par.
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    I'm kinda waiting on that new Ranger,I'm hoping its priced right it will be tough to step down from a full size to a compact,The new ranger may just do it for me.I looked at the Sporttrac and it was nice but I'd prefer a pickup.The sporttrac I looked at was a 4x4 xlt auto,nice truck, msrp was $25800.So I think the new Ranger 4x4 supercab Xlt auto will be around $20000.We'll see next Fall.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    From Edmunds:
    Tacoma:
    WHAT'S NEW FOR 1997
    The 1997 Tacoma receives several new value packages that make optioning the truck easier. A locking rear-wheel differential is now available on all 4WD models. Bucket seats can be had on all Xtracab Tacomas this year; not just the SR5. Two-wheel drive models have new headlamps and a new grille that make the vehicle look more like the T100.
    Hmm new value packages(bundled options), locker, headlamps
    WHAT'S NEW FOR 1998
    The 1998 four-wheel drive Tacomas receive fresh front-end styling that makes them more closely resemble their two-wheel drive brothers. A new option package appears for 1998 as well; the TRD (no, not short for "turd") Off-Road Package for extended cab models is designed to make the Tacoma appeal to would-be Baja 1000 racers. On the safety front, Toyota introduces a passenger's side airbag that can be deactivated with a cut-off switch, making the Tacoma somewhat safer for children and short adults. Toyota also offers a new Tacoma PreRunner for 1998, billing it as a two-wheel drive truck with four-wheel drive performance.
    Hmm front end style, more option packages(thought I coined the phrase “turd”(shame on you Edmunds, hide that comment!), airbag, Prerunner.
    WHAT'S NEW FOR 1999
    Toyota adds new front seat belt pretensioners and force limiters. Newly optional on Xtra Cab models is an AM/FM four-speaker CD audio system while 4x4s get 15"x7" inch steel wheels. The PreRunner adds a regular cab option to its model mix. Natural White, Imperial Jade Mica and Horizon Blue Metallic replace White, Copper Canyon Mica, Evergreen Pearl, and Cool Steel Metallic as color options

    Hmm seat belt, 7 inch rims, ooooh colors!

    WHAT'S NEW FOR 2000
    Tacomas with four-cylinder engines and four-wheel drive achieve improved performance from an enhanced gear ratio. Base-grade Tacomas feature a new interior fabric and receive a new exterior rearview mirror design. Daytime running lights are now included with the antilock brake package. There are also two new colors and a new full-color-keyed option package
    Hmm gear ratio, fabric, wow, rear view mirrors, running lights, and full color keyed option packages!

    So in summary, you get more options to buy, spiffy new colors, running lights(a hate those suckers), more options to buy again, a prerunner and wow new rear view mirrors!

    Whatcha say we see how Ranger evolved in the same time period, hmmm?
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    New for Ford Ranger 1997-2000:

    WHAT'S NEW FOR 1997
    Ford introduces its brand-new five-speed automatic transmission to the Ranger lineup. Available with the V6 engines, the five-speed automatic is designed to improve the Ranger's acceleration, towing, and hill climbing ability.

    Brand new 5 speed automatic transmission, to add improvements.

    WHAT'S NEW FOR 1998
    The Ranger gets new sheetmetal, a new grille and revised headlamps. The wheelbase on regular cab models has been stretched to provide more cabin room and the displacement of the base engine has been increased. A short- and long-arm (SLA) suspension replaces the Twin-I-Beam suspension found on last year's models. A four-door Ranger join the lineup mid-year.

    New sheetmetal (like maybe the entire vehicle exterior RAND NEW) , longer wheel base, new engine displacment, new front suspension, torsion bar vs the old old design of twin I beam and a 4 door option for about 600 bucks.

    WHAT'S NEW FOR 1999
    No new changes listed

    WHAT'S NEW FOR 2000
    For 2000, the 2WD can be had with a torsion-bar suspension and a larger tire/wheel package, giving it the tough look of its 4WD cousin. All Ranger models have new wheel designs, and the XLT 4WD Off-Road Group receives a stainless steel front-suspension skid plate.

    Torsion-bar suspension in 2 wheel drives, larger tires, wheel designs, stainless steel front suspension skid plate.

    Ford Ranger, NOT Tacoma has, with the exception of one year, improved, redesigned and listened to its consumers and changed.

    Tacoma gives you new colors, options to pay for and spiffy mirrors.

    The objective facts are there for all to see. And with the introduction next year of the Edge with a NEW engine, NEW heavy duty transmission, a prerunner, agressive suspension redesign, Ford will AGAIN EARN it's place as the LEADER in the compact pickup market.

    THAT, my fellow truck owners is why FORD RANGER outsells the Tacoma 2 to 1 and can do it for a price that is thousands under the Tacoma.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    and do not EVER bi$$h out my Ranger as being an old design that never changes, the FACTS just do not support that attitude.

    And when I am off 4 wheeling, get your [non-permissible content removed] out of my way because I am coming through with no problems!
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Pulse Vaccume Hubs in its new for 1997?

    Something Toyota DREAMS it had a patent for. . .

    Ahhh its nice to be on a roll sometimes. . .!
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I could say that Toyota didn't need any major changes because they were so far ahead in the first place. I could also say that the reason Ranger outsells Tacoma is most likely primarily the price. That would probably be unfair to Ford because they're doing well and they have a good product so I'll leave that to Spoog. All kidding aside, Ford really just needs to offer an off-road package comparable to the TRD. I guess the Edge may do that if it isn't overpriced and lives up to the hype.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I guess no one had a comment on your question concerning torsion bars vs. coil springs. To be honest, I don't know of any real advantage of torsion bars over coil springs except that I believe that torsion bars are cheaper for the manufacturer.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well, yes it could be said that Tacoma is perfect and needs not changes.

    However, my point was the significance of changes Ranger vs Tacoma.

    Do not get me wrong, the refinements in Tacoma vs the older Toyota trucks is basically a quantum leap. It is a fine truck.

    But in Jan of last year the starting price on my Ranger was $15,800 and change. All I really had to do was add skid plates and I was good to go off-road. Now my price was higher as I had to give back $400 new college grad discount and $1K because I took thier low 2.9% financing (it was $200 to my advantage to do that).

    My point again is, the Ranger is a very fine and capable vehicle. I just turned over 27,000 miles since Jan a year ago and have had two minor issues, door sensor and wiper sensor. Other than that I put gas in, change the oil regular and go. Got 21 mpg last tank which included a trip hauling about a ton of water part of the time. The Ranger hauls well, handles well, drives off-road well and has had a significant number of positive reviews, I just posted a few.

    It is worth a look for the budget minded person.
    And the 2001 addresses the remaining perception of shortcomings expressed on this forum.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I can't argue with that CP.
  • savvy4savvy4 Member Posts: 34
    The biggest reason the Ranger sells so well in its class is bang-for-the-buck. If you're concerned about the bottom line, then you'll get more for your hard-earned dollar with the Ranger over all else in its class. Yes, you get quality as well. The Ranger's a great product, no doubt. Ford Motor Co. is really trying hard to make great vehicles, and it shows. They've made some significant upgrades in the Ranger (and the F-series) over the years. It's about time! The big three companies are slow to change, just like any big organization typically is. I thought Ford would never give up those disgustingly stupid "rain gutters" stamped in the sheet metal above the doors on their trucks. It took them long enough to change, and it was just a few years ago they did it. Welcome to the modern era, Ford.

    If you have a little more cash to spend, and you desire a small truck in which quality exceeds the others in its class, then the Tacoma's for you. Remember, Toyota is Lexus is Toyota. The technology is shared, as well as the quality philosophies. In case you don't know, Lexus is the benchmark for quality in which all other vehicles are compared to; that's an undisputable fact carved in stone. I just helped my mother-in-law buy a Y2K Corolla LE, and it feels like a mini-Lexus. Awesome quality and workmanship, no one else can touch it. For the truly discriminating buyer, the Toyota's your chariot. Besides, if you really have cash (like an extra $3000), the Toyota's the only one that offers a factory-built (TRD) supercharger for it's 3.4-liter 6cyl., which makes scary amounts of torque and horsepower for a small truck (large V-8 quantities). As a benefit, since it's a factory-quality system, you get a full factory warranty on the supercharger for the same length as the vehicle's normal warranty. Ford doesn't offer that, neither does anyone else in the small truck business. The worse mistake Toyota makes is not offering more configurations for their trucks. Like their PreRunners for instance, they can only be had with auto transmissions. That's too bad. They should offer more transmission/engine choices.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well stated.

    Toyota has always had great engines. The HP and torque they get out of the four bangers is very good. Also they run almost forever. The 2 87 Celicas my sons own can atest to that. 182,000 for one, 176,000 for the other. Now I will NOT tell you that there are issues with the engine and accessories, like they leak fluids and both could use struts all around, but they have done well.

    I would say, and shoot me Ford people if you will, the older Ranges, while good, had some problems and do not equal my 99. But I have seen the pictures of my sons friends 88 XLT 4X4, 150K miles, beat to heck, bald tires, pulling a stuck large Bronco up a hill. It was U shaped, the guy tried to go up one side and went off the trail, and the Ranger went up the other side, latched on and pulled that Bronco up the hill.

    Also, the 2 Rangers I told you about that went to Moab? One was and older one with a 2.9 v6 engine. Not top of the line by todays standards.

    But it made it on a 4+ trail in Moab.

    To support your comments savvy, Ford makes, maybe too many combinations of trucks. Hard to decide which one and if it is the best deal.
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.