Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - VII

hindsite

Since you do not own a Toyota, which I know that you do not. I have owned two Camrys . . . one was a 89 and the other was a 99. The 99 was better in quality and finish then the 89.

cpousnr

the 2001 Ranger may be worth waiting for 40

I think you will be impressed compared to the other choices you have suggested.

1. More hp and torque than your other choices
2. Lower price, much lower.
3. Great reliability
4. My 99 handles real well, this is suppose to be better.
5. If 4X4 is your choice, works really well, can show you my site pictures if your interested.

Seriously, wait till Sep, and either look seriously at the new Ranger or pick up on a left over 2000 of what every you decide.

hindsite

As always with any new version . . . especially with Ford . . .there are numourous recalls and TSB's.

hindsite

"Driving habits, weather, altitude, and aftermarket accessories all affect the
performance of any specific part of the car, and how it relates to every other part. The most common cause of a recall is cost cutting measures taken in manufacturing. Japanese and German auto manufacturers design parts with the life of the vehicle in mind, not the life of the warranty. Fiberglass hoods on Mustangs and Windstars saved money in production costs, and reduced the vehicle's weight, however the 97S88 recall to repair hoods that were separating into two pieces offset the initial savings.

4.0 liter Explorers and Rangers now use plastic intake manifolds, rather than aluminum. The results are amplified engine noise, hissing, and
rough idle due to manifold warpage. Lighter and cheaper? Yes. Better? Hardly."

allknowing

I don't think that anyone came out and said that you lied. Some may think that you stretch the truth a bit or that you have amazing luck at meeting these Toyota officials. Who knows. You help keep this place alive and you give the Tacoma guys someone to make fun of so you've accomplished something here.

allknowing

Matter of opinion whether the extra money is worth it for the Tacoma. So far, I would say that the Tacoma is well worth the extra money to me. Never met a Tacoma owner with a squeeky clutch either. Matter of fact nothing seems to squeek on any Tacoma I've driven. On the other hand, I know several with squeeky suspension on their Rangers. My wife's was squeeking so bad after just 2 years and 25,000 miles we had to have the tie rod end replaced.

allknowing

That's interesting about the plastic intake manifold. My sister's intake on her Mustang cracked because it was plastic after about three years. The dealer admitted that it's a common problem. If they start using it on the famous 4.0L for the Ranger, we may have some of these Ranger guys turn on Ford. There's nothing like your manifold splitting in the middle of nowhere and trying to get a smoking, coughing engine to run long enough to get home. Hard to believe Ford would do something like that with all the problems they're already having.

allknowing

What do you want to do with your truck? That can be a big factor in what to buy.

allknowing

Thanks for your consideration in the posts earlier today. I hope that you're right about Ford continuing to improve reliability on the Ranger. I'd be really worried if they start using more plastic like that article Hindsite posted. If they do, we won't have to debate here anymore because there won't be any happy Ford owners.

allknowing

It's hard not retaliating aggressively isn't it. I guess it can't be helped sometimes in this environment.

spoog

Here is a quote from CSpounser's posting about " Engineers fly average joe's out to discuss Ford"

Dang CSpounser...do you even read what you post?




"Things that were discussed:
1. offroad - mainly about the torsion
bars, more below
2. suspension
3. noises - wind, road, drivetrain
4. interior - this was a pretty good
discussion; we complained
about the cup holders, we need bucket
seats, the 5 speed trucks need the tachometer more than the
automatic,"



In case you didn't understand the article, these are all COMPLAINTS by Ranger owners.




" We also discussed suspension
- front, bring back the twin I beams?
- offroad features; front limited slip,
torsion bar problems
hub seals
- discussed the "ultimate" offroad Ranger
to include a solid
front axle and a transfer case with a
manual lever (even the automatics)"




What ????? You have to be kidding me!!! Ford doesnt offer a transfer case with a manual lever??????????


"discussed steering any steering problems
- steering column
- front end alignments
- possibility of a telescoping steering
column
- power steering pump noise
- manual steering
- idler pulley wearing out too soon

"6. Back to suspension again
- ride quality
- rear end hopping
- body roll
- possibility of polyurethane bushings
instead of rubber

They said, "basically, you want a more
predictable ride and no
axle hopping?"....we said yes!

7. Trailor towing
- wiring
- tow hitch
It was discussed that it didn't seem that
the majority of Ranger
owners bought their truck for towing.
Maybe hauling small stuff
and using it to pull small things like a
jetski or trailer.



We hoped the Ranger would be built better"


Very, VERY interesting complaints.







" Also talked about a different style of
emergency brake. Maybe like
a Toyota setup or a lever style in a console."




"Maybe like a Toyota setup". lol.

spoog

" Bottom line"



First of all, watch out when people preface an article by using the phrase "bottom line".





"1. More hp and torque than your other choices"


First of all, the Toyota Tacoma can be fitted with a FACTORY supercharger which allows for the highest hP amd torque. It is also covered FULLY under the warranty.





"2. Lower price, much lower."

Not really. According to Fourwheeler, the price difference is about a grand between similarly equipped Ranger and Tacoma. You will understand WHY the Tacoma is more expensive when you see my forthcoming data.






"3. Great reliability"


Nope. This is an outright lie. The Ranger has average reliability at best. Check Consumer Reports(red dot mag) for the past ten years.Check the JD power long term quality report(5 years):

http://www.jdpower.com/awards/award.html

The Ford trucks placed WELL below average. Again, check the official stats on the Recalls, defects, and TSB's from the NAtional Highway safety institute.


\\5. If 4X4 is your choice, works really well, can
show you my site pictures if your interested.\\


Quite frankly, the Ranger isn't much of a 4x4. IT is lacking many basic features that the Tacoma has. Check the PEtersons June head to head Tacoma Ranger test and the 4wheeler 98 pickup of the year comparison test for the answer to that question. NEedles to say, the Tacoma was chosen UNANIMOUSLY.


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



40---


These are the facts I have brought you. Remember, it all comes down to what YOU prefer. But it doesn't hurt to be armed with the TRUTH when you go to the dealer.

spoog

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/



1999 Ranger recalls - 3
1999 Tacoma recalls - 0


2000 Ranger recalls - 1
2000 Tacoma recalls - 0



Total recalls from 1989-2000(Ranger)-

32


Total recalls from 1989-2000(Tacoma)-

6

mviglianco1

Loking back I stand correected. I am guilty of what I accused you of doing and admit I am wrong. I just assumed that the post was insinuating that the 3.4 was from the Previa. In my opinion any 4 cylinder engine is a car engine anyway. In that case consider the Ford 3.0L v6. Ranger, Taurus, Probe,...what else?

40ounces

I am mostly getting the truck as a commuter vehicle. I do not need a lot of ruggedness, but do not want a wuss-mobile either. I want good acceleration, decent gas mileage, reliability and safety. My wife is renting a F-150 right now, which she would love to get, but I think price and gas mileage are prohibitive for this. My concern with the smaller trucks is that, well, they sometimes look like smaller trucks. I hope this answers about what I am looking for. You guys are a trip.

cpousnr

A simple "Oops, blush blush..." was ok.

Respect everyones opinions here and sometimes we all make mistakes, like include hindsite in a spoog post section.

hindsite:
Would have corrected, however am associated with Ford by ownership, therefore, will repair under warranty. . .

40ounces:
Ah spoog, the resident Ranger basher that fails to answer my detailed questions, never shows us his truck, makes statements about my truck that are not true, takes comments from Older Ranger owners, who like the older twin I beam suspension and totally glosses over the neet things in my long posts.

Look, I am a retired Navy Chief, not going to lie to you. Ranger is a very good vehicle, economical and you can get some real good deals on them. My 4X4, 4.0L 99 supercab inital price was $15,800, but with the addons and not qualified rebates was $18,300. If 4X4 is not your taste, you could get a Ranger for maybe 12K or less.
Consumer Reports rates the the two basically equal. I will post an opinion analysis here tonight that rates them equal and the Nissian slightly lower. I have had good luck with mine:

http://members.aol.com/Cpousnr/index2.html

spoog cannot show you his, for whatever reason.

Is Ranger the best? Depends, Tacoma will outrace a Ranger, until 2001 models and overall Toyota quality is quite good. May depend on how much money you can spend. Rent a Ranger, you can do that at Budget for maybe 20 bucks a day. I think they are automatics though.
But if you go Ranger, get at least the 3.0, or the new 4.0 which by all accounts is a screamer.
In my opinion the day of the 4 banger truck is past.

hindsite

I will say that you have lied. Seriously, if I were to look at you as an adversery the only threat is Cpousnr. He can think. Still I admire your commitment to swaying those towards the Ford Ranger.

BTW Have you ever owned a Toyota vehicle? If you did not can you seriously knock the Tacoma or any Toyota product.

hindsite

Personally in your situation I would get the Ranger 4.0. If you do not plan going off-roading then the Tacoma is a waste. As a retired Major in the US Army I will tell Cpousnr's advice is correct.

mviglianco1

is that the more I see of the Rangers the more I like them. I like the way they look both inside and out, and yes I am envious of the new 205hp engine. But I do not like the way they drive as much as the Tacoma. My friend 97 with 60K miles rattles and squeaks more then my 88 toy pickup with a rusting out bed does, honestly. And reading the posts about the plastic valves being a result of Fords overall business plan makes me skeptical. My personal, family's, and friend's experience with Fords and Toyotas would make it hard for me to buy a ford over a toyota no matter how much I may like the way they look of whatever the price difference is.

spoog

How long do you plan on owning the vehicle?

Did you read the Edmunds long term Ranger test?

They have complained over and over of squeaks and rattles, not working windows, broken center armrest, transmission clunks, warped and destroyed brake rotors, dangerous pulling to the right upon braking...

All these problems in 29,000 miles.

Go to Edmunds.com, go to Road tests, and select Ranger long term test. Couple these results with my NHSTA stats, and the Jd Powers long term quality tests, and you have a very good idea of the quality of the Ford Ranger. Also be sure to check out Consumer reports Red dot reliability articles for the past ten years. The Tacoma eclipses the Ranger in reliabiity by a wide, wide margin. They ar enot equal in reliability. This has been proven again and again and again through Consumer Reports, Edmunds.com, the NHSTA, JD power long term quality test and so on.

For CSpounser to tell you that IS a lie.

Remember..how long do you want this vehicle for? How hard do you plan to drive it? The Toyota holds up better in all these areas, hands down.

barlitz

Thanks for the nuetral response back.

allknowing

If you like the looks of the Ranger, and you only want 2 wheel drive, I have to agree because of the price that it may be your best bet. If you think that it looks small, you may want to consider the Toyota PreRunner or Nissan's 4x4 look alike. You'll pay more for the Toyota, but the bigger tires and lifted body gives the truck the illusion of being larger than it is and you may gain a bit more in reliability. Unfortunately the Ranger will look about the same even with bigger tires because it's body sits lower. The Nissan's may be cheaper too if you like their look and from my experience with Nissan, will be top quality. If you're not going to hit any rough trails though, the Ranger will probably suit your needs for less cash. If it was me though, and I was going to buy a 2 wheel drive, I'd get the TRD PreRunner, spend the extra cash, and enjoy the better looking truck. That's my opinion though. So do you take the advice of someone named "Allknowing" or someone with a name that no one knows what it means like "cpousnr"? (Just kidding cp)

allknowing

I appreciate your acknowledgment. It's always better to have friendly discussions and attempt to appreciate each others point of view. The discussions can get heavy here though so you have to be careful not to get out of hand sometimes.

eagle63

any of you guys leasing your tacoma or ranger? I'm trying to get opinions from people who have leased vehicles so I can decide whether to lease or buy my next truck. -although from the research I've done so far, leasing seems to be the way to go. thanks, eagle

cpousnr

here is a site that may assist you in your analysis:
http://www.deja.com/channels/channel.xp?CID=11916
You can read comments on all three vehicles you seem to be interested in. Have not figured out exactly how to place all three side by side in a configuration other than the small 4 banger (you click the left box fore each then the compare side by side bar) but maybe there is a way.
You will notice the rankings here are, in order of what you are interested in, Ranger, Tacoma, Nissan with a 3.4, 3.3 and 3.2 out of 5 average.

I suggest the 3.0 or 4.0 in a Ranger mainly because of the resale value and the performance, however, if price is a consideration, the 4 banger does work ok.

Anyway hope that site helps, about 1,300 ratings of the vehicles should be available to you. How true are they? Well, this is the internet but you can think that many are honest opinions, some flowered for publication but good overview at least.

Look for additional pictures on my web site, hope to get my pics from the latest trip back soon.

cpousnr

What, you do not know what cpousnr means....

A little know fine French whine. . .

cpousnr

how long you going to let spoog rant and personally attack?

spoog

Calling somone a "liar" is not a personal attack.

You claimed the Ranger had "great" reliability. The countless hard data and decades of information prove that otherwise. I call it how I see it.

You trying to silence me Cspounser? Thats the right wing way, isn't it?


I'd also like to mention that the Roadless Initiative comment period broke records, and the final decision will be made in September( 80 percent of the letters supported it).

allknowing

I once knew everything but I forgot a lot of it. Now I remember things as they come along. Kind of like Ted Kennedy's motto: "I'll drive off that bridge when I come to it". You can also see why I'm not a professional comedian.

scape2

www.carpoint.msn.com go to the the Toyota's before the TAcoma came out in 95/96 and see the reliability ratings and compare them to Fords of the same years. Next, go to Kelly Blue book and punch in like Toyota's/Fords of years with the same equipment, you may be surprised what you find as far as resale value is concerned vs inital purchase price... Next go to www.crashtest.com, and right here at Edmunds and compare past models of Tacoma's vs Rangers...
A 4x2 Ranger with a 3.0 5spd and limited slip axle (somthing Toyota doesn't offer) is an excellent choice. The SC version has more interior room than a comparable Tacoma, the 3.0 will also peform quite nicely also... I have had two Rangers, first was a 4.0 XLT 5spd and went to 96K with absolutly no problems, My present has about 30K with NO PROBLEMS.. Get educated, the extra cost of the Toyota isn't worth it...
by the way did someone check the TSB # for the squeaky clutch on all 95-99 Tacoma's? I thought not, I know I talked to this Toyota mechanic and I thought having a TSB would prove it, but on the internet its damn hard to prove anything.
CP sorry to hear about your synchro's. I guess these Toyota boys don't know what real offroading is or what trail classification means. Your Ranger made it though into places these Toyota boys say Rangers are not supposed to be able too... Hmmm.....
See you in the Cascades!

allknowing

Did somebody just say something? I could almost swear that I heard someone wanting us to look up ratings on the 95 Ranger and compare it to the Toyota of the same year. You know, the 95 Ranger... the one on the Consumer Reports "Used Cars To Avoid" List. I ignored the rest after the worst year of the Ranger is used to show how it rates against the Toyota. Maybe Vince is really trying to show how bad the Ranger is?????

allknowing

You and cpousnr need to get together. Your sources conflict with each other. If Carpoint is correct than Consumer reports is full of ----. You guys need to find a source that you can agree on.

allknowing

Nice page by the way Dennis with some nice pics. My Dad was retired Navy too and left as Master Chief after 27 years. I see that you're proud of your service and I respect you for that.

spoog

"You and cpousnr need to get together. Your
sources conflict with each other. If Carpoint is
correct than Consumer reports is full of ----. You
guys need to find a source that you can agree on. "



They are scrambling. They have been scrambling ever since this discussion headed toward THE FACTS instead of myth and heresay.

anonymous

excuse me, "a" Master Chief.

allknowing

wow I logged off and it changed my name to "anonymous". Pretty cool and good to know.

allknowing

I guess if you search long enough you can find a source to support your viewpoint.

allknowing

OK we know that Tacoma is not one of the top selling trucks so???? You're losing me....so what?

allknowing

Still confused too. Is carpoint a reliable source or is Consumer Reports a reliable source???

allknowing

Seems that spoog is right as far as Vince scrambling to find anything to support his viewpoint. Even at the expense of more credible Ranger guys like cpousnr. If they're not careful he may discredit all their supporting data before we get a chance.

hulk66

boy are you out of the ball park vince. The 95 ranger was the worst year for the ranger!! Go back w/cpousnr and tell us what it says. Spoog and the rest of the toyota boys like us need a little humor once in awhile. One thing, how can you stand to sit in those back seats on the ranger??? I have always gone by consumer reports because they do not take any underhanded tactics to give a vehicle a good reveiw. I had an 86 toy 4x4 and NEVER had any problems at all still w/original clutch. RELIABILITY (*****) 5 STARS.

cpousnr

the following vehicles are listed as cars to avoid:

1989, 91-92 and 95 Ranger 4wd
1995 Toyota Tacoma


Sooo, how did the Toytoa side of this argument miss this Toyota vehicle?

I would assume that Consumer Reports has different criteria than MSN Carpoint in it's evaluations.

See Allknowing, I do often list both sides of the argument. I do not see that as often on the Tacoma side of the discussion.

cpousnr

Hayden pass, east side:
http://members.aol.com/uncchrisb/hayden1.jpg

allknowing

I'll check when I get home but I have the 1998 Annual Auto Buying Guide and I couldn't find any Toyota's listed in the "Used Cars to Avoid" section. In the rating section it had the 95 tacoma with all excellent ratings (red balls) and only a few very good (half red )balls. The 95 Ranger was wearing mostly black balls (poor). Either I missed something or Consumer Reports changes their mind a lot. I'll admit if I wrong but I really question your information at this point.

cpousnr

I gave you the page. . .

anonymous

8^)

xena1a

Nice picture of Hayden Pass, CP. Of course, we both know how rough that road REALLY was. Although I'm sure we'll hear otherwise from you know who!!!

anonymous

No, the ANNUAL Consumer Reports for 1998, the one you get for renewal of CR monthly.

xena1a:
More pics to follow. . .That was one of the better ones on first blush. Did you get any pics on the first climb on the lefthand switchback on the west side of Hayden? Still interested in sending you copies, got some VERY nice ones of your truck. Email me your address and they are yours.

allknowing

I guess I'd probably use "anonymous" too if I was using a poor source like Consumer Reports. I don't subscribe to C.R. so I didn't get their Annual book. Please explain to me why it would be so much different than their monthly magazine. Are they prone to misprints? Do they change their minds that quickly? Don't even try to tell me that Toyota's quality dropped from excellent to poor in the six months from my issue to yours. I'd simply say scrap Consumer Reports from backing anything because it's proved to be unreliable. I'd be pretty upset if I bought a car based on their tests and a few months later they changed their mind wouldn't you? Of course, I haven't seen your issue but I somewhat trust you that you're telling me the truth.

spoog

Scramble scramble scramble, grasp grasp grasp, straw straw straw.


lol.