Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - X

eagle63

I think what we need here is some data on the PERCENTAGE of "lemon" vehicles. obviously, if brand X makes 4 times more vehicles than brand Y, then they will have more total lemons. -that's just common sense. but what percentage of their vehicles are lemons? anybody know how to figure that out?

cthompson21

According to AK, that's not true. It's "flawed logic".

Not quite sure how it's flawed, but he explains it as having something to do with the number of Camry's produced as compared to Fords and Dodge's.



Aren't there some lemon sites out there like lemoncheck.com or something to that effect? Maybe they have some numbers.

But, this also makes you specify exactly what a lemon is. I'm sure that there'd be absolutely no consensus on this issue.

rickc5

I for one would really like to know the exact percentages of "lemons" produced. However, the exact definition of "lemon" continues to elude us.

IMHO, a lemon is a vehicle that has met the "lemon criteria" established by the state the owner resides in, and allows the owner to "return" said vehicle to the manufacturer for refund or replacement.

Would my '95 Tacoma been classified as a lemon? Possibly, but only after I had made an enemy of a dealer that I had a great relationship with. Receiving the T100 as a trade was done by the dealer, and I'm sure our problems with that Tacoma never were entered into any type of tracking/database system. Too bad!

I've noticed in person, and feel that my observations are valid, that Toyota is great at "covering up" problems with their vehicles. They will go to great lengths to make customers happy, even if the poor sods have bought defective vehicles. I believe it is called "saving face", and is an embedded cultural phenomenon.

cthompson21

Well, at least the Toyota dealer remedied the situation. It's more than likely that a Ford dealer would tell you to get lost or hammer you on a trade.

allknowing

Are you guys awake? Ct-Let's be real my friend. Toyota sells more Camrys than dodge, etc. does of the same class of car. If you guys are correct, the Camry should have more "Lemons" than those other manufactures. The data says otherwise. You're a smart guy ct so don't pretend not to understand my example.

Eagle and ct - I've produced two or three times as much product in a given year yet, with good controls, have had equal or less units that could be considered "bad". The same would apply to automobiles. The quantity of bad vehicles or "lemons" does not correlate with quantity produced with adequate quality control systems in place. That's a reality in manufacturing and not simply my theory. If you choose not to accept that, that's up to you. That's why they pay me to run a manufacturing dept. and not you I guess.

allknowing

By the way, I didn't mean to sound pompous in the last post but rather just show my frustration.

Eagle - I don't know if there is a place where you can get a complete list of "Lemons" from any manufacturer. Probably top secret info.

cthompson21

I swear that you must not be reading my posts. OK, listen very carefully.

It is for a SINGLE product! That means as you produce more Camrys, the number of defective Camry's will rise.

It mathematically CANNOT be any other way. You cannot unproduce those defective vehicles.

If you can't understand this, I don't see how you could possibly retain a job in the manufacturing industry.

scape2

allknowing, you don't take into consideration that the Taurus/Sable are built side by side?
Also, I thought Toyota was PEEERRRRFFFECTO according to you and spoog. And yes, there have been many other Tacoma owners that have visited this forum that you seem to forget that have had problems.
It still comes to mind my friend with his Tacoma 3.4 and his problems he tried to hide from me because I own a Ford RAnger. I wonder just how many Toyota owners don't report problems or tell their friends/family/aquaintances about problems with their Toyota's... How many Toyota owners are embarrassed to admit they have problems...
The Ranger is number one for a reason in sales. Ford offers a great compact truck for a fair price with the comfort and features the majority of the population are looking for. As much as you Toyota boys want to bash the Ranger, its has remained number one for the 6 years the Tacoma has been around with no end in sight.

eagle63

really, I'm trying to understand the point you're making, but so far I'm not having any luck. the point I'M trying to make is this: let's say that 1% of all tacoma's are "lemons." (I have no idea what the actual numbers are, this is just for demonstration purposes only!) if toytota quadruples their production of tacomas next year, then with everything else being equal, the number of "lemons" also quadruples. -but the PERCENTAGE of lemons is still 1%. basic algebra.

allknowing

Mock me as you will CT. What you call common sense may seem that way, but only to someone unfamiliar with manufacturing. Eagle- all things aren't the same with increased build quantities so simple algebra doesn't apply. I don't want to start a class on manufacturing methodology, but I'll give you a few examples of how increased production will typically actually increase quality and, consequently, result in a lower number of "bad" finished products.

1) Tooling, for example, can be very expensive. The quality of the tooling is typically proportional to the projected number of sales because you have to recover the cost of the tooling. Better tooling will not only result in saved assembly time but will produce less errors and allow parts and sub-assemblies to meet tighter tolerances. Tighter tolerances mean a better final product with less of a chance of producing a "lemon". If the projected sales are low, you typically end up with with cheaper tooling, looser control of tolerances, and a greater chance of a final product with problems.

2) Another advantage of a larger build quantities are quantity dependent price breaks with your suppliers of materials, parts, and sub-assemblies as well as an increased clout. This will give you price breaks on more expensive parts allowing you to install higher quality switches, lamps, etc. for the same or often a lower price. You can also more readily push suppliers of machined items, for instance, to meet tighter tolerances and increase their inspection levels. Since they're building in larger quantities, they save set-up time which saves them money while reducing their chance of producing an out of tolerance part too. This, once again, increases your likelyhood of producing a lower number of "bad" finished products.

That's just a few examples but there are many more. You'll have to get a book on manufacturing if you're interested because I don't like writing books in this forum.
Bottom line, the consensus here that more finished products produced will result in more "lemons", or even the probability of more "lemons", is a flawed premise proved daily in manufacturing companies everywhere. The opposite is actually true.

allknowing

Example 2 should not have an "a" before larger. Like I said, I don't like writing books here.

cthompson21

I'm not mocking you. I'm just showcasing my fine sense of humor and sharp wit! haha

I am actually amazed that your manufacturing company can actually make products in a way where increasing the production actually reduces the total number of defects produced.

For example:

You build 2,000 widgets. Of those 2,000 there are 100 defects.

Let's say that you now build an ADDITIONAL 1,000 widgets. Now, your TOTAL number of defects has DECREASED to 50.

That's amazing! 50 of those defective widgets magically changed themselves back to a correct product!

How many do you have to build until there are no defective products left? Is this a new manufacturing process? Did the Japanese develop Kaizen Part II???

I WANNA BUY STOCK IN THIS COMPANY!!!!!!!!



All kidding aside, your two examples show a decrease in the probability of producing a defective product.

I agree. But, this still does not mean that the TOTAL number of defective products will somehow decrease as production increases.

I'm sorry, but you're talking about a mathematical impossibility.

1 + 2 does not equal 4

cthompson21

Go back to Eagle63's example in post #529. He sums it up quite well.

His example is simple, and the probability of a lemon varies with some of the factors you mentioned (and you are also aware there are an infinite amount more).


THIS STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS CANNOT DECREASE AS YOU MANUFACTURE ADDITIONAL UNITS.

sparkplug1

Allknowing. So increased production increases quality and decreases defects eh? Hmmmmm....Hey, doesn't Ford make many more Rangers than Toyota makes Tacomas?

allknowing

I'll tell you ct, at my previous company we lowered our returned goods to 0.2% of sales while continuously increasing build quantities by implementing some of the items I mentioned plus a few others. Once we reached that point it still continued to slowly decrease for over 10 years until I left the company. I wouldn't have been as successful if I shipped smaller quantities. In the post by eagle you mentioned he's assuming that "all things remain equal". The fact is that all things don't remain equal in a manufacturing environment when production increases (unless the company is pretty ignorant). I tried to give you a few good examples of why the failure rate will actually improve. If you don't wish to accept plain facts about manufacturing so be it. The manufacturing companies I work for and with must all be miracle workers I guess since we repeatedly do what you say is impossible to do. Don't feel bad if I don't hire you as an assistant if you come to my company for a job though. That is unless you take a few manufacturing classes and get educated on the subject.

allknowing

I never said all companies use the best manufacturing techniques. Ford is better than some but, in my opinion, still not the best run auto company. The original argument I had was against this forum's belief that the amount of "Lemons" produced is always directly proportional to the total quantity produced. It doesn't have to be and the opposite is true in a well managed manufacturing company. That line of thinking is why the Japanese were able to take so much business from the American automakers in the 70's and early 80's. In the eighties the American companies were forced to realize exactly what I'm telling you and began to improve their manufacturing practices.

allknowing

Don't know what you do in the electronics industry but I'm not impressed with your manufacturing knowledge.
You stated: "So, in short, your arguemnt that better tools produce better product maybe true, but at a severe price that must be passed onto the consumer".
First, there's a difference between "tools" and tooling. I never mentioned tools and they have no bearing on this discussion. Maybe I should clarify what tooling consists of. Tooling can encompass molds, machining templates, assembly fixtures, etc.
The tooling cost will be a one time charge up front spread over the life of the product and will not be a severe cost to the customer as you incorrectly stated. Good tooling will reduce assembly time and mistakes which will result in a lower per unit cost. In short, the better the tooling the better the final product and the cheaper the product will be to produce. The only drawback to good tooling is that a large enough number of products have to be produced to justify the initial tooling cost. That's why better tooling can be produced, and a better product can be achieved by increasing the number of units produced and sold.
I don't claim to be a manufacturing genius but rather just someone using techniques proven by companies years before I learned them.

sparkplug1

Hey...I'm just pulling your leg.

allknowing

I know. I was just in a serious mood. Ct's a smart guy too and understands what I'm saying. He gives me a hard time to stimulate a conversation. This one's been beat to death though so we'll have to find a new one.

chipshot1

Maybe you guys' simple formulas are just too simple to describe somthing that is beyond your current understanding of the subject matter. I dont think allknowing is saying that increased production automatically leads to a better product, he is explaining how it can lead to a better product if you do it correctly.

jessiemai

I don't know - I don't think it's been beat TO DEATH, maybe just beat senseless.

I for one, enjoyed it immensely. I also work in manufacturing, although in the personnel department. And depending on the product you manufacture, tooling does need to be CHANGED from time to time if your product has variables such as size, shape, etc. It just so happens that our manufacturing requires set-ups and preps constantly, so there is a possibility of huge fluctuations in product quality percentages. Especially when process variables come into play, like temperature, raw material quality, employee error, etc.

This may not be much of a factor in new car manufacturing, but it probably does matter in parts manufacturing. THEORY: If there are 10 slightly different oxygen sensors built by a company, they use one production line to build them. Let it be known that I am speculating here based on my experience: The 10 variations of the part each have their own production runs, where each line is set up/prepped that particular production run. This is where the margin for employee error comes in. What do you think of that theory, Allknowing? I really enjoyed your lessons in manufacturing ideology.

- Jessie

eagle63

I know my previous example was very simplistic. I'm sure there are tons of variables that change when you increase (or decrease) production. but I still stick by my statement that when production goes up, the number of defects goes up. --now using the examples you gave, I'm sure the percentage of defects could go down, but I don't see how the actual number of defects could do anything but go up.

you're right, this subject has been beaten to death. -but at least it's better than the usual: "you're truck sucks, mine is better..." etc, etc. I'll try to think of a new subject that we could debate.

sparkplug1

Well to get back to what this post is all about...we can compare the 2001 Ranger against the Tacoma when I get my new vehicle and we will see what the quality level of the Fords is like for this model year.

cthompson21

I am disagreeing with AK in his statement that as you incrementally increase production, your total number of defects will somehow decrease.

You certainly can lower your percentage of defects, but you can't unproduce those defects you already made to lower your total number of defects.

It's mathematically impossible. Just go back to those multitudes of examples that have been posted.

Maybe it's time to break our that algebra book you got back in high school???

allknowing

When did I say you could unproduce defects already made? You're making up your own arguments. Don't include me in that.

allknowing

Thanks chipshot1, at least a few understand what I'm saying.

jessiemai - You ask a loaded question. If an assembly is tooled properly, and the tooling is maintained and serviced to keep it within tolerance, there would be very little variation in the final assembly and human error would not be much of a factor. That's considering you have good material, the set-up is properly done and so forth as you mentioned. Parts run on CNC machines, for example, can typically hold tight tolerances with consistency. CNC machining is a good example of the benefit of large build quantities also as the extensive set-up time makes it cost effective only on large builds. On the other hand, if a product or assembly requires manual adjustments, a high skill level, or the set-up is difficult, than variations can occur and your theory would definitely apply. Note that even in this case, larger build quantities would be an advantage because of learning curves, etc.

allknowing

Believe me I'm not alone in finding that increased production will produce less defects if managed properly. I didn't invent the techniques but have learned them from smart businessmen and teachers with even more experience than myself. There are companies that have trouble with these concepts but they're usually the companies with low profit margins and/or poor quality.

rustysaw

I bought '00 Tacoma, Xtracab, 5-speed, with 2.7 litre, 4-cyl engine. The 4-cyl engine was a mistake - it doesn't like the hills of East Tennessee. The salesman said 150 HP was plenty, it's not. I love the truck othewise. I like the sporty feel, and the utility of the truck. Now I too can get a load of manure from Home Depot when my wife tells me too. But, I like to drive ALL my cars as if they were a sports car. That is, rev it up a bit and then pop the clutch in each gear. The 4-cyl engine just doesn't cut it for doing that. I am not a speed demon by a long shot, but the sports car drivers here will know what I am talking about. I am also used to the free reving Honda engines. I am seriously thinking about trading (or selling) it for a '01 Tacoma with V6 to get that extra zip. Anyone with opinion on the virtues of the V6 versus the 4-cyl engine! I will be loosing money on the truck since it's only two months old, so I don't want to make a mistake. Please feel free to respond here or directly to rustysaw@aol.com
Thanks for the advise.

cthompson21

Rather than trade your truck and take the loss, have you considered engine mods? If you are truly happy with everything else about the truck, just think of what you can do with the 3K or so you'll lose on the deal.

For that kind of money, you could get a complete custom exhaust from headers on back, an open air intake, a bigger mass air meter, a bigger throttle body, and a performance chip.

Or, maybe TRD has a supercharger or turbo available for that engine. Stuff from TRD is very expensive, but the dealer will still honor your warranty too. I'm sure there have got to be some other aftermarket parts suppliers out there too (Vortech, Paxton) that have got a kit for your truck.

Maybe some Tacoma owners on this board know of some good sources for you???

cthompson21

"Believe me I'm not alone in finding that increased production will produce less defects"

If you'll go back, you'll see that the original statement was:

Ford produces more Rangers than Toyota produces Tacomas. These two vehicles are pretty close in quality/reliability, and one would expect to see more TOTAL defective Rangers (something to the tune of 4 to 1) out there than Tacomas because of the higher production numbers.

You said this was "flawed logic"




Once again, you are backpeddling and changing your argument into something else entirely after being proven wrong (and by several people on this board I might add) by common sense AND basic mathematics.




Don't you remember your whole

"better handling = higher cornering speeds"

fiasco from a while back. After being proven wrong, you completely changed what you were originally saying and shot off snobby insults.

Anybody see a pattern here???

allknowing

What are you talking about as I haven't back peddled anything. I think you're a smart guy so don't prove me wrong in front of everyone. If you really can't comprehend what I'm saying I may as well not try. I haven't been writing at any more than maybe a 9th or 10th grade level and others have had no problem understanding me.
Once again this statement is flawed logic because it has no basis in fact:
"Ford produces more Rangers than Toyota produces Tacomas. These two vehicles are pretty close in quality/reliability, and one would expect to see more TOTAL defective Rangers (something to the tune of 4 to 1) out there than Tacomas because of the higher production numbers".

I think I've given good examples of why the fact that Ford produces more Rangers is not necessarily a reason or excuse for expecting four times as many defective Rangers. I'm sorry but I won't go to a Sesame Street level to try and explain it further. chipshot1 and jessiemai got it right away so, if you seriously don't get it, you may want to stop commenting as you're looking pretty foolish.

You never proved me wrong on the handling thing either, and you were incorrect on the ABS issue also. I just gave up trying to get through to you. I'll admit I may have been insulting in the past but it was frustrating trying to get though to you. It was a kneejerk reaction to someone mocking you and speaking on a subject they have little knowledge of as you did. As
chipshot1 said in his post #541:
"Maybe you guys' simple formulas are just too
simple to describe something that is beyond your
current understanding of the subject matter".

If a pattern is being exhibited, it is you speaking authoritatively and mocking someone yet you're really demonstrating your poor comprehensive skills. I can only hope that you're playing around again as I thought you were a fairly smart guy.

cthompson21

hahaha, that's too funny!!!

"I think you're a smart guy so don't prove me wrong in front of everyone. If you really can't comprehend what I'm saying I may as well not try. I haven't been writing at any more than maybe a 9th or 10th grade level and others have had no problem understanding me. I'm sorry but I won't go to a Sesame Street level to try and explain it further. If you seriously don't get it, you may want to stop commenting as you're looking pretty foolish."

Translation:
I am wrong, but I'd rather die than admit it. I cannot support my arguments. I try and change the argument to some other sort of issue, but you keep calling me on it. I will now try and insult your intelligence to deflect me being wrong.

Maybe you should take a psych class to better disguise these attempts.




I forgot about the ABS thing too. You were wrong there too and still wouldn't admit it. Your own links you provided as "support" for your argument even proved you wrong.



Now, I know you're a reasonably intelligent fellow. But, as your handle ominously suggests, you seem to have a lot of trouble coming to grips with not being right.

I am the first to admit it when my opinion proved incorrect. It allows you to learn and move on instead of hiding behind some kind of "allknowing" attitude.

cthompson21

Alright, TRUTHFULLY answer me this one question and we can put this whole thing to bed.


Let's just assume that Tacomas and Rangers are of the exact same quality. Let's say that there is 1 defective truck for every 100 trucks produced (so chance of a lemon is 1%).

Now, in 1999 there were 400,000 Rangers and 100,000 Tacomas built.



Here's the question, and it only requires a one word answer:


Will there be more defective Tacomas or Rangers built in 1999?

theurinal

I don't post here often and I don't know about the ABS and handling stuff, but you seem to be trying to twist that allknowing guys words in my opinion. He keeps saying the same thing over and over and it makes sense to me. Don't know why it doesn't to you.

allknowing

Interesting, there's someone else that understands yet you keep up with the mocking while still in the dark. Now you ask me a dumb question in your next post. The answer to your dumb question which has no bearing on our previous discussion is "Rangers". Real word manufacturing doesn't work within those rules though so, if you believe that proves anything, you're dreaming. I guess I should ask you some questions.
Why does there have to be 1 defective truck for every 100 and why can't that be improved upon? What areas cause these defects and what can be implemented to improve that number? Can tooling, automation, and added inspection points be implemented that will bring the defect level to near zero and at what cost? What are the minimum number of vehicles needed to be produced to justify the cost of implementing these items?
If you knew anything about manufacturing, which you have demonstrated that you don't, those are some of the factors that would be considered that throw your "simple algebra" out of the picture.

cthompson21

AK's observations about the manufacturing process do make sense, and I do agree with them.

There's only one problem. They're not what we were initially debating. He's diverted off onto some tangent.



My original statement was something like this:

If you build 2 like or near the same quality vehicles, you'd expect a greater total number of defects from the one that you build more of. It's just simple math. AK stated that this was "flawed logic".

For an example, check out post #529.



As for ABS:

AK believes that non-ABS vehicles will stop in shorter distances in all instances. He states that ABS is for control purposes only.

I believe that in most instances, ABS will significantly reduce stopping distances in addition to providing greater control.




As for handling:

AK believes handling is an objective measure that is determined by the rate of speed that a vehicle can take a corner.

I believe that handling is a subjective measure with some of the factors being road feel, ride, cornering ability, overall stability, balance, weight distribution, etc... that when put together correctly make a good handling package.

cthompson21

"Why does there have to be 1 defective truck for
every 100 and why can't that be improved upon?"

There doesn't, and it can. The amortized cost of implementing the improvements exceeds the sales returns. Therefore, it isn't cost feasible.


"What areas cause these defects and what can be
implemented to improve that number?"

Supplier materials cause these defects. Spot-on inspections, testing & R&D, setting a rewards policy in place for your suppliers are a good start in getting rid of those 1% defects.



"Can tooling, automation, and added inspection points be implemented that will bring the defect level to near zero and at what cost?"

Toyota can, but Ford can't! That depends on whether you're talking about fixed or variable costs. Inspection points mean higher salaries (a variable cost), while increasing retooling and automating the process require fixed asset additions (a fixed cost). There are different approaches here, which can be used independently or simultaneously.



"What are the minimum number of vehicles needed to be produced to justify the cost of implementing these items?"

It would be the production level at which you minimize your variable costs, thereby maximizing your profits. (profit analysis, probably best left up to the accounting dept)




Oh well, I guess I'll just hang out in the "dark".

In any case, thanks for finally answering my question.

It isn't "flawed logic" as you stated. It is just a over-simplified example, which is incomplete as I have said many times over.

Who wants to muck up the boards with the ins and outs of the automotive manufacturing process. I'll leave that to Ford and Toyota engineers to discuss.

2k1trd

Well updating to a 01 for the V6 would be beneficial not just for the power but also the other design updates on the vehicle also.

spoog

ere is a COMPLETE list of the TSB's, Defect Investigations, and Safety Recalls for the Toyota pickup, Chevy s-10, Ford Ranger, and Dodge Dakota from the years 1989-2000. Enjoy.


Defect Investigations 1989-2000

Ford Ranger - 20

Dodge Dakota- 14

Chevy S10 - 51

Toyota Tacoma - 2




Safety Recalls 1989-2000

Ford Ranger- 32

Dodge Dakota - 28

Chevyy S10 - 47

Toyota Tacoma - 6



Technical Service Bulletins 1989-2000


Ford Ranger -2,279(yes, 2,279)

Dodge Dakota- 940

Chevy S10 -448

Toyota Tacoma - 150

-------



So there you have it. All data is factual, and very telling. This is NOT "subjective".

A trucks reliability and build quality is NOT "subjective".

Not all trucks are built the same, as you can plainly see.

Here is the hard link:

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

spoog

http://www.denverpost.com/news/news1107m.htm

spoog

999 JD powers long term(5 year) reliability test:


http://www.jdpower.com/global/jdpaawards/releases/images/vdi99.gif

Dodge finishes far below average.


http://www.jdpa.com/studies/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=292&CatID=1

obyone

this is nothing new. C'mon, give us some new data to chew on....everyone knows what a Dodge is...

Good luck on this one now!!

allknowing

I find it hard to believe you ever finished high school.

allknowing

I would appreciate your not making up statements that I supposedly said also. To try and boost your ego by misrepresenting what people say doesn't do much to gain any respect from me and I'm sure many others. For example, find a post from me that says that I believe a non-ABS vehicles will stop in shorter distances in all instances. You can't because I never said that. I did say that ABS wasn't designed to stop a vehicle in a shorter distance and that a trained driver, i.e., a trained race driver, could stop a vehicle in a shorter distance. I hate to be brash, but if you aren't twisting fact to simple get a reaction, then I can come to only one conclusion that you simple aren't too bright. With that, it's a waste of my time to discuss anything more with you.

ranger47

It would appear that the toyota's and honda's of the world do have an advantage when it comes to percentage of lemons compared to the ford's and gm's. One reason has been that they have spent more time and money to get the product right before bringing it to market. The drawback is that they then cost more for that small advantage in quality and I see that changing as they attempt to compete in the volume game with the big u. s. makers. That requires bringing new product to market more quickly, with less time to test and correct flaws. If they don't keep up with new product, then their vehicles will appear out dated and not as appealing to the american buying public. Any thoughs on this..........

scape2

Lets get back to the RAnger vs Tacoma shall we?
Why is it no Tacoma boys want to talk HP/Torque curves? Because Ford RAnger stomps you! thats why!
To rocky, lets me explain something. Its not HP your after its TORQUE and HP and the curve it runs. Ford stopped putting 4cyl engines in 4x4 vehicles for a reason, and you just found out why.
The 2.7 has 150HP and 177ft/lbs of torque. The Ford 3.0 has 150HP and 192ft/lbs of torque.
Allknowing, I understand where you are going with the output vs yields vs quality. I deal with this everyday also. And I see your comparison with the Camry in terms of volume. Ford has its problems but so does Toyota. Toyota takes more market share from GM than Ford. The reputation Toyota seems have as the God of quality is a joke. Search the net, there are plenty of Toyota owners out there that have problems. Now I wonder why this doesn't show up in car industry reasearch.

allknowing

I'll agree that Toyota has their problems. This is my first Toyota but, thus far, it is proving to be an excellent truck and I see a quality advantage over the Ranger. I'll give you the fact that this is just my experience and others may not agree. Overall though, I really think that Toyota has a quality advantage over Ford but you do have to pay for it. Also both the Ranger and the Toyota have their strong and their weak points and the buyer has to choose what's the most important to their taste. I'll respect differing opinions but if Toyota's quality is even close to the quality of the Nissans in my family, I personally can't deny that they are far superior to any American car I've ever owned. If your experience is different that's great. Maybe I just haven't been as lucky with American cars as you.

allknowing

Also Vince, may I add that the 4.0 Ford V6 now offered in the Ranger is a strong engine and drives like a V8. The 3.0 didn't really thrill me as being stronger at any RPM than the Toyota V6 but it had adequate power. Let's be honest though, all of those engines provide plenty of power both on the road and off and are not necessarily that big of an issue for most of us.

barlitz

HOW MANY TIMES MUST I POST THIS,FORD CHEVY DODGE HAVE SOLD PROBABLY A 50 TO 1 RATIO IN THAT TIME SPAN FROM 89 TIL 2000.IF YOU'RE GONNA POST INFO POST REAL FACTUAL NUMBERS.

cpousnr

it's orientation is a bit off from mine, however, consider this quote from the article:
"The idea that Clinton has enacted his environmental program by administrative fiat instead of trying to work it through a hostile Republican Congress has enraged many Western members of the GOP.

"I'm sure that when all is said and done, you'll see a flurry of executive orders crammed right down our throats," including the roadless initiative, said Josh Penry, spokesman for Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo."

Next thing you know there will be an executive order that requires all people to buy Rangers. . .