Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - X

1789101113»

Comments

  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

    Here 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
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    WINNER: TOYOTA TACOMA TRD



    Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.

    Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running.
    As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.




    It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.

    Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    ollowing in the footsteps of its close relative, the '98 Ranger adopted many of the mechanical modifications incorporated into the Explorer two years earlier. Among the biggest changes include an entirely new double A-arm front suspension with light-duty torsion bars. The new IFS, combined with an all-new rack-and-pinion steering setup (which offers its own steering fluid cooler), won high praises from our testers over our 800-mile test. Specifically, the Ranger scor ed well in Highway Performance categories that centered around maneuverability and long-distance cruising. Testers noted the new steering proved especially quick to react in tight-chicane situations. No doubt about it: This new Ranger out-handles, out-ste ers and out-corners any Ranger before. By a mile.


    We would characterize the drivetrain, specifically the transmission, as biased for highway performance as well. All 4.0-liter Rangers (and Mazdas, for that matter) ordered without the manual tranny get the first five-speed automatic transmission offer ed for any pickup. Our testers split over the need and/or usefulness of a mileage-biased transmission geared for empty-load flatland running. Those in favor noted the nearly seamless transitions from one gear to the next, and how the transmission itself c ould, if the vehicle was driven right--no jackrabbit leadfoot starts--tack on another 50,000 miles of life to the engine.

    On the trail, we found the automatic transmission to be a double-edged sword. The smoothness of the First-to-Second shift, combined with the inherent low-end grunt of the engine, was almost enough to overcome the taller gearing. And in the end, voting followed individual preferences for manuals versus automatics. Two testers noted both the manual transmissions (Mazda and Toyota) felt more "in control" on the twisty low-range trails of Truckhaven, where face-down compression braking was very helpful o n steep-trail crawling. In low-range, our automatic Ranger offered a rather delicate 22.8:1 crawl ratio (First x axle gear x low-range); the Mazda and Toyota offered 34.4:1 and 40.4:1 gearing, respectively.


    Likewise, where the stiffened front suspension cleanly handled all paved-road obstacles thrown in its path, the Ford IFS had trouble keeping up with the broken terrain of dry washes, hill climbs, and washboards. Admittedly, it is a rare vehicle that c an manage all the extremes with equal aplomb, but several testers commented that the Ford liked to spring a little bit quicker (and hop higher) off the rolling whoop-de-doos. For the most part, we found the sacrificed off-highway capability to be greater than the gained on-highway performance, and for that reason it didn't score well in the parts of our test that are most heavily-weighted; however, that isn't to say testers weren't squabbling among themselves to get into the Ranger for the highway drives up the mountain.

    Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up.

    Like any good four wheeler, we found the Ford Ranger could do several things quite well, scoring highly in On-Road Ride and Handling and Interior Comfort. To us, the new Ranger is a nice-looking, comfortable truck that is easy to drive and easy to own . And it's made in plants with a reputation for quality. But the Pickup Truck of the Year has to do it all pretty damn well, and it has to be great off-highway. And so we introduce our 1998 winner.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Ford's 4.0-liter overhead-valve V-6 gave our Regular Cab Ranger plenty of off-the-line motivation with 168 lb.-ft. of rear-wheel torque at 2500 rpm. Mazda's 3.0-liter/five-speed manual transmission gave the Regular Cab B-truck the slowest 0-60 time, but the best fuel economy of the group. Although the middle-sized V-6 of the group, the Toyota 3.4-liter DOHC 24-valve V-6 pulled all the way through the torque curve like most small-blocks.

    The Ford five-lug 8.8-inch rearend comes standard with the 4.0-lite/five-speed auto combo. Leaf springs and 3.73:1 axle gears are rated to carry 1,180 pounds. Mazda's 7.5-inch rearend is standard with the 3.0-liter V-6. Not surprisingly, our ride-quality vastly improved with 12 bags of landscape rock in the compact's bed.
    Toyota's TRD Tacoma comes with the only factory offered rear locking differential on any (full-size or compact) pickup. We found it a huge asset for trail adventures.
    FORD & MAZDA TOYOTA

    Ford's new compact frontend uses F-150-style short- and long-arm IFS, with torsion bars. The setup offers big gains on pavement--but not without trail sacrifices.

    The new Pulse-Vacuum Hub (PVH) used exclusively on compact Fords and Mazdas allows for true in-cab-controlled shift-on-the-fly capability.

    Toyota's double A-arm/coilover frontend handles pavement cornering and trail flex with equal skill. We like the six-lug axles and big-caliper front discs.
  • phatmikephatmike Member Posts: 21
    Hey Vince8 it's been a while since I've posted in here but I would like to know what you are talking about in post 619. Are you saying that the ranger is not a 3 wheel drive?? I'm not going to argue about limited slip vs open diff. I think with all things being equal, ie. driver, driving style, the limited slip will do better that an open dif in limited traction situations on pavement. I will say that for a person who is not experienced with a lim slip could get themselves into trouble because they might try to push it to hard. In other words, just because you have limited slip, it doesn't mean that you will not be able to get the back end to break loose. Enough said on that.

    As far as off road, the hard locker in the rear will be better than a limited slip. I'm NOT saying that everyone who gets the TRD uses the locker. But for those of us who do, the locker will out-perform the limited slip under any conditions. Granted, with the limited slip, you have it all the time. I only use the locker on steep, rutted hills, or straight runs through deep mud, but to be honest, I don't need it otherwise. So yes you have the limited slip all the time but I am sure your ranger would make it through those conditions with an open diff as well, but when it mattered the most like my examples before, the locker would outperform the limited slip. By the way, you have to engage the locker below 5 MPH, but you can go faster than 5MPH when it is actually engaged. I have experience with this. Just wanted to set the record straight as far as that goes. I'm not trying to flame you (I don't know why,I'm sure you will not hesitate to flame me saying all your crap about enjoy your sticker, see you in the hills,etc,). Oh well have fun ridiculing me and telling me what a piece of crap truck I have in the "Tinoda". Just trying to bring some facts to the table, but to be honest when has that ever mattered on any of the Tacoma vs Ranger threads?

    Phat Mike

    PS, What is the new rear diff gonna be on the offroad ranger?? Haven't heard anything about it and am just curious??

    Thanks...Have Fun
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    the ranger is a 3 wheel drive also. I don't think there are many trucks that have a locker or LS in the front diff. (unless you add it aftermarket)
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    Nothing gets me more excited than those TSB posts!!!!!
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Wow. Someone who tells like it is with no BS. It's been a long time since I've seen any of that in this room.

    I agree with you on all counts. For me a LSD would be better, as I only do light off-roading. I didn't even bother to get a LSD on my current truck, as I felt I didn't need it. To date, I've been correct. A 4wd with the open axles has been completely sure-footed in every situation I've been in.

    I hear that the new Premium Off-Road Package to be offered in the Ranger supposedly sometime in the next couple of months will have front and rear limited slip differentials, a manual transfer case, bilstein shocks, 31" tires, complete skid-plate package, and a few other things that I can't quite remember. But, these aren't truths in fact yet, and I'm sure things will change. Ford (except the Special Vehicle Team) seems to only care about the bottom line and not the automotive enthusiast. So, we'll see...


    From what I hear, the old 80s Rangers used to have front and rear limited slip differentials.

    As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with spoog?!?!?! My pop's old '90 Ranger with the venerable 2.9, 5-speed, 4.10s, and all of the off-road goodies is/was a much better off-road vehicle than the current Rangers. That little truck could go just about anywhere without breaking a sweat. It would trounce my '98 Ranger out on the trail (if he still had it).

    It seems like both the Ranger and Tacoma have become watered down versions of their original iterations. I guess this is what happens when something goes mainstream. Too bad... :o(
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Well, the older Rangers did quite well for what they had.
    If you recall the white 87 in some of my pics, he has over 185K on the original 2.9. He can outclimb mine but he does have 4.56 gears. . .

    Wait...Someone here said Rangers cannot do that. . .

    But I will submit my 99 does real well.
    35.8K puring like a kitten. . .
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Were you most concerned about the TSB that states you cannot mount a 15 inch tire on a 16 inch rim

    or

    the one about what glazing compound to use when replacing a windshield?

    I AM more concerned about the Tacoma TSB where the transfer case locked up, causing injury. Heck, I could be following that Tacoma and scratch my paint as the parts fly. . .

    What do you say?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    What size tires did that '87 have on it? It looked pretty damn good.

    I recently saw a '95 or so Ranger with a suspension lift, a solid front axle, and some 33" tires. Quite a difference. It would be fun to watch (or drive) it out on the trails.

    I'm not saying that later model Rangers can't handle the rough stuff. I just like the way that those pre-91 Rangers were put together as a package. It just meshed incredibly well.

    Hopefully, Ford has found that great formula again with the new Cammer and HD 5-speed tranny. I spent $300 to get my powertrain where I wanted it. I'll spend another few hundred on tires next fall to complete the package. At 18.5 and loaded to the gills, it's still the bargain, tho.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Glad to see that you're still hanging in here CT. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like your twisting of my words and such but you've been in here a lot longer than me and I'd hate to see you leave on my account. I was hard on you but I still think that you're a really a smart guy just being a jerk for whatever reason rather than dense as I implied. I still think it's a waste of my time debating with you, however, I do regret that we lowered ourselves to personal insults and I apologize for that.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Pretty good. Toyota make the most reliable rubber band engines.
  • phatmikephatmike Member Posts: 21
    Thanks for the response. I am amazed that vince hasn't answered yet, but that's OK. I'm sure he will by tomorrow :) As far as the premium off road package for the ranger, that would be sweet! I hope that trucks start getting more of these features. Gosh if only they would start coming with solid axles again! Unfortunately, they don't and probably never will again, as trucks have turned more into grocery getters. People want more comfort, ride quality, etc. in their vehicles today regardless if it's a truck or car. Not to mention the fact that most people with 4x4's never even take it off road (especially SUV's) In reality, only a small portion of those who do get the newer models will ever see rugged enough terrain that they would actually benefit from a solid axle. But I can dream can't I?

    Oh well. To each his own, I'll have my Tacoma, Vince and cpousnr can have their rangers and we will all be happy with our decisions. I paid more than I would have for a ranger, but the "perceived" toyota quality has paid off so far, plus it really was the truck I wanted. I consider myself very lucky that I was able to pick a truck based off of what I really wanted instead of money being the main issue. That doesn't mean the Ranger is a bad truck. In fact, it probably fits the bill for most of the people who are looking for a compact truck today, thus the higher sales numbers. But the toyota fit the bill for me, so I got it. It is that simple. It wasn't about number of lemons, number of TSB's, sales numbers, etc.

    As a final note, enjoy your 4x4's while you guys still can. With trail closures continuing, all of us 4x4 guys are going to have to stick together to keep the trails open. Ford guys next to chevy guys, next to toyota guys next to jeep guys etc. standing up for keeping the trails open. If you don't already, talk to the guys you meet on the trail. They are most definitely a lot nicer than the people can be on this message board. LOL! Hell go out wheeling with some guys who own different makes of vehicles. Give em a little hell when you get up something that they can't or they get stuck and you have to pull them out. That is what it is all about!

    Take it easy guys
    Phat Mikey
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    spoog does not think any trails are closing.

    I have been over trails that are not going to be maintained by the forest service.


    Yeah, just a little humor on the engine repair kit. . .

    The 87 had 35's with a 6 inch lift.

    The twin I beam was a better suspension for offroad.
  • sparkplug1sparkplug1 Member Posts: 35
    I was able to pick the truck that best suited me without money being the deciding factor also. Thats why I chose the Ranger. The large dollar savings was just a bonus. Actually the Toyota's higher price gives it snob appeal. That's what Acura and Lexus are all about. Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar and the list goes on. Ford is perceived as the average Joe's choice. The guy who can't afford better. But if you can "afford better" and still choose Ford than I think that says something about the brand or at least the model. I started out sold on the Tacoma based on perceived quality and I can't deny that the snob appeal entered into it as well. But the more homework I did the better the Ranger seemed in comparison. That is what brought me to this site and all the comparison sites out there. Homework pays off and that homework lead me to the Ranger. Like you said though, to each his own. The rear doors were a big deciding factor for me as I have two kids and carry a lot of gear around. As you stated, most of these vehicles won't see much off road action but having one that is competent is going to tempt me and I can see me getting into off roading often with my new toy even though I haven't done much before this purchase.
  • phatmikephatmike Member Posts: 21
    Uh oh I hope you're not calling me a snob! LOL. I think I was somewhat misunderstood about the whole money thing. I think that people who can afford to get whatever they want are going to get what they want. In my case the tacoma, and yours the ranger. In my case, I like the looks of the toyota better, and I liked the overall package of the toyota better. I didn't mean to say that the ranger or fords for that matter are the average joe's choice. I guess what I tried to say was that the ranger actually fits the bill of most people who are looking for a compact truck today. NOT because of the fact that it it cheaper. I think they have better ONROAD ride, I think the seats are a little more comfortable, I like the torque curve of the ranger v6 better than the tacoma. (That hurts for me to admit, but hey, I'm not here to say that ford sucks and toyota rules or something. Based on my experiences with them, I won't go with ford again, but I do know people who have had nothing but reliable ford vehicles. My past two toyotas have been flawless. (148k no probs on my 91 and 36k on my 99 4x4 TRD) If I have a bad experience with a toyota (yes it DOES happen, toyotas are not bulletproof vehicles) I will start looking for a different make. I don't want to be perceived as a ford hater and a blind toyota fan. There is enough of that from both sides already here on this board.
  • sparkplug1sparkplug1 Member Posts: 35
    No I didn't mean to suggest that you are a snob. My point was that there are vehicles out there that have "snob appeal" and Toyotas have more of that than Fords. Marketing targets ego more than logic. I wonder if Spoog hears this?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I'm sorry too for anything I said that might have been offensive. I think the problem stems from debating different things.

    I think about handling as the general feel of driving a car. You equate handling with a vehicle's performance on the track. ABS is up for grabs. Are we talking about laboratory testing or everyday conditions with people's usually erratic decisions? Too many differences, variables, conditions, etc... As for manufacturing, I don't think my point and arguments were very clearly presented.

    Although you might think I was being a jerk, I wasn't trying to be. My posts are usually light-hearted and many times joking. I guess sometimes my posts might come across otherwise.
  • phatmikephatmike Member Posts: 21
    OK cool I didn't think you were but i just wanted to make sure..plus make my original point a little bit more clear...I will agree with you on the snob appeal as you say it. I won't say much else on that except I see an awful lot of tacoma 4x4 TRD's out there that have never seen an unpaved road. Not that I've never seen a ranger that hasn't been offroad. But common! You got the TRD package and a 4x4, and you dont use it!!!That in my book is completely stupid.

    Take it easy!
    Phat Mike
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    I'm as guilty as most other Tacoma owners. I bought the TRD package and never took that '99 off-road once in the nine months I owned it (too busy working/commuting). I don't doubt that the Tacoma is possibly better in certain off-road conditions (e.g. where the locker can be used), but IMHO, the Tacoma suffers as a daily driver BECAUSE the suspension is "tuned" for off-roading.

    I wanted 4x4 capability for the long commute in the winter. Just my luck that we had a VERY mild winter in Denver last year and I only put it in 4-wheel drive once.

    If I had the decision to make all over again, rather than blindly go to Toyota and spend extra money, I would take extensive test drives over my daily-driven roads in many trucks and see which truck rides/handles/etc. best. I would then buy the truck that met my needs best. Maybe I would keep it longer than nine months.
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    I don't get it. Why won't you answer some simple questions? Why respond with rubbish posts that no one bothers to read any more?

    Why continue to post the JD Power 5-year survey, when the TACOMA is NOT part of that survey?

    As far as I'm concerned, you've lost any credibility you may have had regarding your "opinions" of trucks.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    In reality, you seem like a pretty good guy most of the time, even if you do drive a Ranger. I'm not above admitting that I can be a jerk sometimes and glad we're not out to kill each other.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Even if I do drive a Ranger??? :oD

    hahahaha

    I love trucks. I've just started working on my wife, so I can get a Lightning next summer. We'll see. I'm 3 for 3 so far. Don't you just hate it when people are sensible? Well, I guess somebody has got to keep me in line. I just blew a chunk of change on a couple of snowmobiles this summer. Oh well, ya only live once, right?
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I'm here!! haven't gone anywhere, even though I know some in here wish I would go to he...
    Diffs, LSD vs locker.
    I have over 10 years of offroad experience under my belt now. I visit the Cascade range, coast ranger, deserts of Eastern Oregon and Washington with the Rangers I have owned. I have gotten myself stuck, who hasn't? I would be a fool to say an LSD is better than a locker in severe, keyword severe offroad situations. Lockers are found mostly on Jeeps and older 4x4 vehicles that are taken into areas a locker is going to get its full use. The locker on the Tacoma can only be engaged in 4low. How fast can you go in 4low? When the locker is not engaged you have an open axle that doesn't help in towing or hauling. The locker is severly limited to maybe at most 2-5% of your time. A very expensive option in my book.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    I wasn't finished, wife had to use the phone. Sounds like its time for another phone line.
    With LSD's you have this all the time, unlike lockers. Lockers must be used in straight away motion and do not do well in curves or tight turns. I have said this over and over again. Tacoma is a spendy truck, TRD's cost from 22K on up in my region. I can't see anyone taking a 22K+ truck into an area that their locker will get its full intended use. Bilstiens and springs are also part of the "tuned" package Toyota offers. Toyota wants too much money for what I can get at an offroad shop for even less than half the price. I bought my Ranger in 1998, I had 22K CASH to spend. I could have afforded the Tacoma, the Ranger was the better value. This is why the Ranger stays on top VALUE. Somthing Toyota has lost. As far as resale. I have given you option packages to punch at Kelly Blue book. Toyota Tacoma resale isn't that wonderul anylonger.
  • skipper300skipper300 Member Posts: 4
    I used to own a 95 ranger long bed reg cab 4x4 with 4.0 and 5 speed, limited slip differential. Bought the truck new. I recently traded it for a 2000 Tacoma xcab TRD. I recently got back from a deer hunting trip in NW Colorado. I scouted the area this summer with the Ranger. The area is extremely rough blm land. Here are my opinions between the two pickups.

    The tacoma's off road ability is considerably better than the ranger. The gearing and the suspension make it better. The 4X4 engagement is better on the tacoma, no clunks, and no backing up to disengage. The tacomas'sdiffential is a locker not a limited slip. I also like the fact that it can be shut off. The engine seems more powerfull, but some of that is due to the gearing. My ranger had 3.73 gears, the lowest available in 95s,but that wasn't enough, especially after I put 31s on it.

    As far as comfort and interior, I must say that the ranger was better. My tacoma has bucket seats but they are not comfortable on long trips. I also liked the layout of the Ranger's control better than Toyotas.

    As far as price, I don't think the toyota cost me much more than a new ranger would. The difference is probably less than a thousand dollars. I will probably get that back on resale.

    As far as reliablility, I am hoping the Tacoma is better than the ranger. The ranger has numerous problems. I ended the deer scouting when the front hub started making a cracking sound. I also replaced the unit that engages the 4X4 at the transfer case. I had numerous problems with the ranger's computer. Apparently 95s were the first year for that setup and it needed recalibration. It never was right and would load up on fuel during long trips. Check engine light would come on. Also, mileage dropped after new calibration settings. Had problems with the climate control, throttle position valve, etc. Not good for 65000 miles.

    That has been my experience.
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    Why not compare a 2000 Ranger to a 95 Toyota,you toyota people kill me.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Did you have the "wacky wipers" and door dinging/dome light problems too?

    For some reason, 95 Rangers had various electrical problems. There were a lot of bad turn signal stalk modules floating around out there, and the door latch mechanism always seemed to stick making the truck think that the door was still ajar.

    The CEL on my '95 came on too. I ended up replacing the PVC valve and problem solved.

    The new pulse lock vacuum hubs on current (98 and up) Rangers seems very reliable so far. I haven't heard of any engagement or disengagement problems with them. The old system used to have problems if it went for long periods without use. I've heard it's recommended to run at least 10 miles once a month in 4wd to make sure everything is properly lubed.

    I can't say I agree on pricing. By most accounts (including my own when last buying a truck) the difference is about 3K in what you'd actually pay for comparably equipped trucks. As a percentage of what you originally paid, the trucks are just about the same in resale (give or take depending on condition, locale, options, etc).
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Pricing is a given and no secret. The Tacoma costs more option for option than a comparable Ranger. Its all over the magazines and reviews also. In my region (The NW). I looked at the ads today and a Tacoma still costs about 2-3K more than a Ranger! They want 24,599 (on ad) for a new 2001 4 door Tacoma!!! I had to do a double take because I thought this was a Tundra. 24.5K for a compact pick-up!! You are into full size territory at that price range.....The price some will pay for a perceived advantage.
    95 Ranger vs 2000 TRD! not a fair comparison by any means.
  • sparkplug1sparkplug1 Member Posts: 35
    I agree that the comparison is unfair. From what I've read the Ranger has improved greatly in areas that required attention. The 2001 off-road package has a 4.10 rear end and the 4.0 engine is a different engine altogether. The quality issue is one which I can't argue and will learn about first hand when I take delivery of my new XLT. I've got my fingers crossed (a statement in itself I guess). When I did my shopping the Taco was $5k more than the comparable Ranger up here in the Great White North. I suppose value can describe the Ranger and quality is the word for the Taco, however the Ranger is closing in with regards to quality more so than Taco is gaining on the value scale. As far as your 95 Ranger goes, that year is the only one which isn't a recommended buy in the consumer guides.
  • skipper300skipper300 Member Posts: 4
    yes, my post does compare apples to oranges. That is why I added the last sentence. Had I traded a 95 Toyota on a 2000 Ford, I would still have posted my impressions. I do suspect the final drive ratio on a 2000 Toyota is still better for offroading compared to a 2000 Ranger.

    As far as price, I did seriously price a Ranger at a couple of places a few months earlier to my purchase. The trade difference on the Toyota was $900 more than a very similiar equiped ranger. No, the toyota didn't have 4 doors or keyless entry, but the Ford didn't have a tailgate extender. I don't recall the Ford having the new 4.0 but might be wrong. The toyota also had a rustproofing, paint protect, scotchguard package that the Ford didn't but that wasn't much of a selling point to me. Both trucks were five speed manuals. I like manuals. My trade difference was around $14100. The tacoma listed for almost $24000 and then the dealer had added another $1000 to the list for the protect package. I know, kind of a joke. It should be noted that the 2000 tacoma's price had dropped from 1999 price. Could be something to do with the release of the Tundra? I also dealed on an s10 and an f150 but wasn't to serious. Didn't like the s10 and the f150 was too expensive.

    As far as Kelley blue book, I wish I could have gotten that out of my ranger. I think Kelley is high for the midwest. My ranger was an xl and I felt lucky to get what I got. Of course, I might have done better with a private sale even after the tax savings.

    As far as reliablility, the Ford salesman made the comment how the 2000s were much better. Can I believe him? Everybody can make the claim and it might even be true. In my opinion (my opinion) the past reliability of the tacoma has been better. Past performance means more to me than future promises. I could be wrong. I will have a better idea 5 years from now.

    I would like to add that my job involves me using a large assortment Ford, Chevy, and Dodge pickups. Mostly full size. I am very impressed with F150s and Super Duties. I do not think much of Dodge but that is another story. LOL.

    I have nothing against ford owners and do not wish to offend anyone. I am just reporting my opinion/perception.
  • sparkplug1sparkplug1 Member Posts: 35
    No problem. I am not here to pick fights either, just compare vehicles. That's what this site is here for no? You checked out the 2000 Ranger, the 2001 has a new engine (SOHC 4.0 with 207 hp and 235 ft lbs of torque at 3000 rpm), new front grill/hood and you can get a bed extender. I've ordered one fully loaded plus hard tonneau and bed liner for $18.5k.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Your price of 18.5K is awesome. In 1998 I purchased a loaded Ranger XLT supercab with a stepside bed for 19.6K cash. I have everything under the sun on this truck too. I have a 4.0 5spd, power everything, 3.73, offroad pkg, tow pkg, A/C, cruise, and the list goes on.... I thought I was getting a good deal. Have Ranger prices actually dropped??
    The new 4.0 SOHC is a winner and a long time coming. I am seeing quite a few 2001 Rangers on the road these days in my area.
  • sparkplug1sparkplug1 Member Posts: 35
    As far as seeing these units on the road goes, I haven't seen one yet. Maybe I'll be the first kid on the block to have one up here (8 week delivery!).I saw my first 2001 Tacoma 4X4 yesterday though. Nice.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Excellent post!@ It's nice hearing views from someone who has owned both vehicles. Yes you are correct when you state the Tacoma is much better offroad than the Ranger. Everything about the Tacoma is designed from the ground up to be that way.

    Ford puts highway suspensions on their trucks. The 4wd systems are not very durable, and if you spend enough time on the trails, your Ranger will start to fall apart. Ask Edmunds.com . They will tell you the same thing.

    BUT, I do agree that Ford has made HUGE strides in their interiors! I Once laughed at the FOrd interior compared to the Tacoma interior. Now...things have changed. Toyota has been using the same damn interior design for 6 years and getting away with it. While the Ford interior may have parts that break more often, it just looks really sharp.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    \\have front and rear
    limited slip differentials, a manual transfer case,
    bilstein shocks, 31" tires, complete skid-plate
    package, and a few other things that I can't quite
    remember. \\


    Funny. The most basic, 4cyl, bare-bones 4x4 Tacoma has a complete skid plate package. When you BUILD A FOUR BY FOUR, you should NEVER exclude a skid plate package.

    This is yet another glowing example of design philosophy between Toyota and Ford. Toyota builds their trucks to withstand 10,000 miles in the outback with nary a repair. Ford builds their trucks to haul stuff on the highway.
  • pocahontaspocahontas Member Posts: 802
    The time has come to freeze this forum and start up a new Toyota Tacoma vs Ford Ranger forum. Please continue this discussion in Pickups Topic 2447, Toyota Tacoma vs Ford Ranger, Part VI.

    Thanks for your participation. ;-)

    Pocahontas,
    Edmunds.com/Roving Host
This discussion has been closed.