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
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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... (
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. . .
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Take it easy!
Phat Mike
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
95 Ranger vs 2000 TRD! not a fair comparison by any means.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for your participation. ;-)
Pocahontas,
Edmunds.com/Roving Host