Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - X

allknowing · October 2000

The Lightning is a cool truck but I'd be afraid to put anything in the bed and use it as a truck. It would be more of a collector's item.

doug103 · October 2000

I own a 99 Tacoma 4x4 Extracab, after looking at the Ford and the Toyota there was no hesitation in buying the Toyota! First of all the price, my truck was 3,000 lest (Sticker Price) than a similar Ford. The other deciding factors, Quality, the ride, and yes RESALE VALUE. Toyota's by far hold the resale value better.

cthompson21 · October 2000

Well, I don't haul too much. It would have pleanty of power for my towing needs. I'd better buy stock in rubber if I bought, though.

If it had AWD and was about 3-4K cheaper, I'd be driving one as we speak.

cthompson21 · October 2000

First of all, sticker prices are meaningless. In reality, you'll pay approximately 3-4K LESS for a Ranger than a comparatively equipped Taco. You're also likely to pay a couple thousand LESS in financing costs for a Ranger than a Taco.

Second, if you look at resale as a percentage of actual purchase price, the trucks are just about even. It seems that Tacos do a bit better in 4cyl trucks, and Rangers do a bit better in 4wd trucks.

Third, why should anyone be so concerned with resale value? Any vehicle (except rare collector vehicles) is a terrible investment.

Enjoy your truck. You seem happy about your purchase, and your opinion is the one that matters about it.

tacomafrank · October 2000

I'm pretty sure that a Ranger equipped like my Tacoma could make it thru that fast river crossing to the other side. The difference is in the consequences to the truck. I can do it a dozen times in my Tacoma with confidence that there is no water damage to my wheel bearings, power steering, differentials, etc. The guys in my Tacoma group with MANY more crossings than me are the basis for this confidence . The tight manufacturing tolerances keep water and sediment out of those critical parts in Tacomas.

I don't know that I would have that same confidence in a Ford or Chevy

tacomafrank · October 2000

When comparing prices,keep in mind there is currently no comparable Ford Ranger to a TRD Tacoma. You can't get an electric locking rear differential on a Ranger, which is the primary feature of the TRD Tacoma package. A limited slip diff is just that, limited, and is not comparable to a locking rear. You may never need a locking rear, but it needs to be considered when comparing price on "comparable" models.

You can,by the way, get everything in the Rangers "off road" package on a standard, non TRD Tacoma.

tacomafrank · October 2000

Dealer markup stickers are meaningless, but factory sticker prices(MSRP) are proportional to actual dealer cost and the best "deal" that you can get. Dealer cost, excluding dealer options, is roughly 85-87% of MSRP. Most other "fees" are fluff that are recovered by the dealer at some point. If you take 85-87% of MSRP and add $500 to $1000 over that (excluding dealer options ), you got a reasonably good deal. There are times when you can do better, and there are times when you can't do that well (for high demand vehicles). Dealers in some areas have to pay a "lot tax" on unsold cars at the end of the month, and there are other factors that can affect the bottom price. If you have 4 Ford dealers competing with each other in your town and only one Toyota dealer, chances are you will get a better deal on the Ford, i.e., pay a lower percentage of MSRP.

Between the Fords and Toyotas I compared, there was about $2000 difference at the most in "deal" prices

spoog · October 2000

"The difference is in the
consequences to the truck. I can do it a dozen
times in my Tacoma with confidence that there is no
water damage to my wheel bearings, power steering,
differentials, etc. "

This is SUCH an excellent point Frank. It is things such as this that add up to really complete a TRUE MACHINE.

scape2 · October 2000

All this talk about how Toyota being a "True Machine" makes me laugh!! All those Toyota
s at the Nevada 2000 didn't own up spoog, or TacomaFrank? Why not? Toyota didn't win by the way.
All this talk of sediment in the diffs and how Rangers and Chevy can't take it!! LOL!! I don't snorkle my truck for a reason. But had my truck and have had my diffs and suspension pretty well burried in snow, mud, and muck and have NEVER had any diff or seal problems. Maybe because I take the time to rinse it off afterwards and maintain it properly. For those of you Toyota fans who think you can just keep snorkling your trucks and not ever have any problems, time my friend, give it time. Especially if you don't clean them up and maintain them properly. Oh, I forgot Toyota's don't need to maintenance.. LOL@!
Price is a given, its not secret the TAcoma is thousands more than a comparable Ranger at any level.

tacomafrank · October 2000

" All those Toyotas at the Nevada 2000 didn't own up spoog, or TacomaFrank? Why not? Toyota didn't win by the way. "

You don't honestly think there is any relation between the hand built vehicles in those race events and the trucks manufactured by the corporations that sponsen/own the teams, do you ?

cpousnr · October 2000

There is no problem with the Ranger in regard to mud/water/snow crossings. The seals are fine.

With ANY vehicle that is placed in that environment, you must check and assure that your differential, tranny and transfer case vents are extended as high as you can.

This includes the vents on the Tacoma.

Also, if your vehicle is used in that environment it is WISE to check and if necessary change your differential, tranny and transfer case fluids at an accelerated rate. Check the level after every extended outing where those components are under water/mud/snow.

It is pretty easy to check these and the alternative of blown components is not worth the small time expended to check.

The ONLY problem I have ever heard about Rangers is with the aftermarket differential covers that are chrome. I understand the can leak.

In regard to differentials, yes there is no locker for the Ranger from the factory.
HOWEVER,
there are at least 2 lockers available for after market installation. One an air system the other a centrifical initiated system(i.e. ya spin the wheels, the locker locks). Do not know if there is an electrical system.

BUT, check back on my posts. I went by an accident where a Tacoma had departed the road. The info from the accident was that his rear differential engaged without warning, throwing him into a spin on a curve, hitting another vehicle and ending up on it's side in the ditch.

I think lockers are BEST used on vehicles that you tow to a 4 wheel drive area. Kind of can be seen in the FACT that lockers are used in ATV's and John Deere tractors, NOT in the average, on the pavement type vehicles. On a primary use vehicle, there is NO reason for a locker 99.9% of the time and when used, it CAN cause problems, depending on where the vehicle is when it is used.

A Limited Slip in my opinion outweighs the value of a locker, hands down, on the average use every day vehicle. However, LS's need to be replaced when the clutches wear out AND require Friction Modifier when you changed the fluids.

rickc5 · October 2000

You said:

"Your link doesn't work. WHEN will you learn? you
have not provided ANY pic that even COMES CLOSE to
the ones Tacoma Frank and I have posted. Everyone
here has already tld (sic) you that."

Well, even though the link didn't work immediately, it only took me about 15 seconds to figure out how to get to the site cpousnr posted.

IMHO, the photos of the 2000 Anniversary Ranger Run were easily the equivalent of ANY photo you have posted, and while most of those Rangers were modified, they were no more modified than the Tacomas you posted.

At least cpousnr has posted photos of his Ranger four-wheeling. We have yet to see ANY photo of your Tacoma. I still wonder if you even own a Tacoma????

spoog · October 2000

spoog · October 2000

The best truck in there was a modified pre-93 Ranger.

The pic of the Red Ranger in the water hole was nice, but if you compare the non-pushed water level at the rear wheel, you can see thet my Tacoma pics are MUCH deeper, same with Tacoma Franks.

I DO agree that that mud/water pit was of a higher skill than any of Cspounser's previous pics. But it still doesn't compare to the granite driving, mud and boulder slopped pit photo's I provided.

That is a pretty tame area except for that mud in Cspounser photo's.

By the way, I didn't see his truck in those photo's either.

tacomafrank · October 2000

Great pics spoog. Makes me want to go get muddy

barlitz · October 2000

There was a guy with a white trd checking out my new ZR2 today he even went as far as to look under the truck,til I hit the panic button on my alarm that will teach em a lesson.There's another good feature on the ZR2 I don't know if Toyota has it, armor coated brake.

barlitz · October 2000

that should have read armor coated brake lines.

cpousnr · October 2000

seeing that Goodyear has had and has hid, by not issuing a recall, tire problems, i.e. the tread peels away from the case, does that mean that Toyota, a heavey user of thier tires, is to blame.

Think about your comments regarding Ford and Goodyear before you answer.

Remember, people are dying on Goodyear tires. . .

rickc5 · October 2000

So where are the photos of your Tacoma???? I know you HAVE seen photos of cpousnr's Ranger off-road, and I'm sure he would re-post them if we asked him to.

Was your Tacoma in ANY of the photos you posted? I think NOT! Since you were not actually present at any of these REAL 4x4 events, and your opinion of the toughness of any particular 4-wheeling trip is only based on photos, how can any of us who have actually BEEN there take you seriously? It just doesn't make sense.

It looks like cpousnr is right about the tire issue too. According to YOUR logic, Toyota MUST be just as guilty as Ford when it comes to covering up the problem of "death" tires.

cpousnr · October 2000

were not my vehicle. However I am associated with that organization. Did not have the desire to drive 1,400 miles just to wheel for a weekend.

I have, however, often, posted pictures of MY Ranger wheeling with Colorado members of RRORC.

Spoog pics nice Tacoma pictures he sees or that other people post and then reposts them.

While very nice pics, the fail to show his vehicle or any vehicle that he may wheel with.

The conclusion is obvious. . .

ALSO, waiting for the high altitude pictures from hitch/site or hind/er
sorry, hitcher, gotta get it right. . .

eagle63 · October 2000

what color is your ZR2?

scape2 · October 2000

Spoog doesn't own a Tacoma. When the Ranger vs Tacoma room first started up, now about a good year ago. Spoog entered the room several times never mentioning he even owned a Tacoma nonetheless one with the TRD pkg and supercharger package. I proved this by refereing once to all his posts from the first room. Don't you think someone who really owned this type of truck would enter the room lambasting the Ranger initially? If memory serves me right he didnt' mention his Tacoma until his 4th or 5th post. Since then he has made some serious slips as to what Toyota offers on the Tacoma, how to offroad and other subjects. He won't post a picture (I have, and other Ranger owners have posted pics of their trucks). Folks like to hammer me, yet, I have proved I live in Oregon, along with I own a Ranger, along with I use my Ranger as a 4x4 not a commuter.

barlitz · October 2000

The color is light pewter which with the black accents looks real sharp also added a black tonneau already.The color sparkles in the sunlight.So far I'm really liking the truck only got a 100 miles to date.You've got til the 31st to still get the 0% financing thats what sold me on the deal 5 years at 0% its like free money.I will be honest I was a little leary about buying an S-10 but after some research on the truck and talking to my buddy's friend who is a GM mechanic thay have very few if any problems.I would have liked to try the new Ranger, that will probably be next in a few years.If you have a Chevy dealer in your area and they have a ZR2 take it for a test drive.I won't be on line as much in the future there was a nice shiny box on my porch when I got home and in it was the new playstation2 ordered back on 5/10.I'll read every few days and keep up on the posting I would really like to hear about the new Ranger premium off road package,if Ford does build that it will be a huge seller. Good Luck Everyone

sparkplug1 · October 2000

That's a good question barlitz, does any one out there know when Ford will offer this option. I am shopping for prices on one and as far as I know at this point the current 2001 XLT 4X4 Off-Road Group option includes; 4.10 axle ratio, bulge body shocks (what ever that is), "Off-Road" decal, skid plate package, P245/75Rx16SL OWL all-terrain tires (Firestone) and 16" 5-spoke cast aluminum wheels. I just picked-up the December 2000 issue of Motor Trend's Truck Trend magazine and the article on the '01 Ranger mentions an off road package which includes; 31" BFGoodrich all-terrain tires mounted on Alcoa wheels, torsen torque-biasing gear-type differential, Bilstein shocks in rear, special conventional shocks up front, front skidplate from the South American Ranger, better seats (with a God-awful pattern), stainless tow hooks, and a funky gear shift and transfer case lever. It only says that it will hit the dealers "several months after the initial Ranger launch.

icemancometh · October 2000

I bought a 2000 Chevy S-10 ZR2 late in 99 and thought it was the greatest truck ever. Until I broke it in the engine and drive train that is. If you take the truck off road and really get the front tires up in the wheel wells you will hear the rear of the front tires rubbing on the fender flairs. After several attempts at the Chevy dealer and talking to General Motors Enginers they told my dealership to loosen all the body mounts and pull the truck back as far as they could. This fixed the problem for about six months or so because when the fire season was over and I took it off road the problem returned. I looked at several ZR2s and they all have this design flaw. Needless to say after talking to Chevy again and with no resolution agreeable I had to call the BBB finally in the end the BBB found that the truck was defective and order General Motors to buy it back from me minus the five hundred miles that it had when I first reported the problem. But the truck sure looks nice though just don't take it off road and you will be fine.

cpousnr · October 2000

Why do you not check over here?

http://www.homestead.com/therangerstation/index.html

Off one of the "Ranger Station" boards you may be able to get that info.

Also, you meet some very knowledgable Ranger and Bronco owners. Check out the boards etc and do not forget to go look at the Ranger pictures and RROC members section. . .

jessiemai · October 2000

I thought buying a new vehicle would be a pleasant experience. I am dead wrong. I find myself in the unusually frustrating position of not being able to decide between these two trucks.

Ranger Pros:
1. More comfortable ride - feels more like a car than a truck.
2. Can get four doors without getting a full-size double cab, like the Toy.
3. Engine feels smoother, shifts nicer (5 spd). 4. Good low-end torque.

Ranger Cons:
1. Not crazy about the vacuum sensor transfer case.
2. Off-road package is over-kill just to get bigger tires.
3. It's a Ford.

Tacoma Pros:
1. Engine, suspension and drivetrain will last forever and the odds of getting a lemon are lower than with the Ford.
2. Can get bigger tires with off-road package than on the Ranger.
3. I like the looks better than the Ranger's.

Tacoma Cons:
1. Rides like a pogo stick.
2. Doesn't shift as smoothly and has less low-end torque. Pulling out of a stop in second gear is difficult (not that I make a habit of this). I will be downshifting alot with this truck.
3. I tow a boat, so torque is important to me, but it's a small boat.

My question concerns the rears in these trucks. It seems I am stuck with 4.10 rears in the Tacoma but I can get 3.73's in the Ford. I want a 5 spd and my boyfriend tells me a manual trans with 4.10 rears will make my engine a real screamer. Since my boat isn't that big, should I go with the Ranger to get the 3.73's and forego the off-road package or shouldn't I worry about this. I do want good gas mileage, and don't plan on taking it offroad (much).

Someone help me make this decision. Thanks!

cthompson21 · October 2000

Well, don't look to either truck for wonderful fuel economy (unless you get a 4cyl but then you can't tow your boat).

If you really want a Ranger, wait a few months for the SOHC 4L V6 to be offered with the manual.

If you really want a Tacoma, you're gonna have to give up some conveniences.

4.10s would very much be overkill for your application. 3.73s are a very good all around performer. 3.55s are great highway biased (much better cruising rpm and fuel consumption) gears for 4L manual-tranny Rangers (not with 3L Rangers). They should tow smaller loads with no problems.

In the end, I wouldn't base my decision on gearing alone. Which of these factors weigh the most with you and what are you not willing to compromise on? Just answer this question, and you'll have your answer.

scape2 · October 2000

jessie, patience will pay off believe me. The 5spd SOHC 4.0 is just around the corner. Match this to 3.73 limited slip rearend (Something Toyota doesn't offer) and this will do you just fine. A limited slip is much better for towing than the open axle Toyota offers. Ask yourself also, do you really need the 4x4? If so I highly recommend you dump the Firejunkers first thing and get some P265x75R16 all terrains. Ford is going to have a new offroad pkg also that will best the Tacome TRD pkg and for a few thousand less at that I'm sure in about 4-6months.
If you don't need the offroad pkg, definetly get the tow pkg. Any questions feel free to ask. I am on my second Ranger. My first went to 96K with no problems whatsoever. My second is now at about 31k With not one problem. The RAnger is a good, reliable truck, wouldn't have stayed number one for 14 years if it wasn't. I own a 1998 Ford Ranger XLT Supercab with the the stepside box. I have the tow pkg, offroad pkg, 4.0 5spd pretty much loaded. I dumped my Firejunkers for some all terrain 8ply Goodyears P265x75R16's and this made a huge difference in the trucks stance and offroad performance. Hope I didn't make your choice any harder. Good luck in what ever you choose..

scape2 · October 2000

Toyota boys don't like nor understand what a HP/Torque curve is. The older 4.0 has a much better HP/torque curve than the present 3.4 from Toyota, the new SOHC has even a better HP/Torque curve than the 3.4. TRDfrank talks in HP not torque, he knows better. The 3.0 offers 192ft/lbs of torque, the Toyota 2.7 offers 177ft/lbs of torque, and once again the HP/Torque curves are better on the 3.0. No Frank, just changing your intake won't give you and extra 15HP and 25ft/lbs of torque, nice try though.
I fully agree, trucks are supposed to be used for work, not racing. But Toyota has brainwashed these guys into thinking their trucks are race cars.. LOL!@
Nice try spoog, we already went that route. The S/C is NOT FACTORY!

barlitz · October 2000

It seems like you would have that problem with any truck.If you do some serious offroading your front tires may rub the fender flares on any truck.If you check out the trd there is less room for clearance with the front tires and the fender flares.I think you're making this one up, show some documentation to back this or I'll just assume you're spoogs brother spoon.

spoog · October 2000

Look at these numbers, this will decide for you
:

Enjoy your new Toyota Tacoma:

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

Fourwheeler Ranger verse Tacoma test:

llowing 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:

INNER: 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.

Technical:

ord'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
Look at these numbers, this will decide for you
:

Enjoy your new Toyota Tacoma:

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 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.

HOW FOUR WHEELER TESTS

It's our assumption that pickups are made and bought, at some point, to do work. That's why we run our PTOTY test on the track and trail, with beds loaded and unloaded--and separate from sport-utilities, which we regard as primarily made to carry people and their gear.

After weighing each truck at a commercial scale, we subtract that amount from the factory-rated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) to arrive at an actual maximum payload number. We run track testing with truck beds both empty and with half their calculated payload, this year using 35-pound bags of landscaping rock. In this case, the Ford and Mazda each ran with 16 bags, the Toyota with 18. We think it's valuable to see how each truck performs when carrying a load; that's why they have a bed. For a significant portion of the rest of the test, we run the trucks at half maximum payload. This also allows us to see how mileage is affected, as well as how the engine and chassis react.
At each stage of our test, drivers rotated from truck to truck during a variety of terrain changes--recording comments and scoring each truck as they go.

In the end, each tester scores each truck in 38 different categories with "Mechanical" accounting for 25 percent of the book total;
"Trail Performance" accounting for 30 percent; "Highway Performance" 20 percent; "Interior" 15 percent; and "Exterior" 10 percent. Each logbook accounts for 80 percent of overall scoring, with the remaining 20 percent centered around our nine "Empirical" tests you'll find in chart form: Ground Clearance, Noise at 55 mph, Payload, and so forth.

Finally, we've printed point totals so readers may weight their own "paper test," awarding points for those aspects of a truck they find most valuable. Some may appreciate interior or highway feel more than we have. Change the percentages around and choose your own winner. Of course, that certainly won't be as much fun (or difficult) as running around the countryside with a group of brand new four-bys.

jessiemai · October 2000

Hope I haven't started another war here.

I spoke with a guy at work today who had a Ranger which he back to the dealer for problems 9 times in three years. He traded it on a Tacoma and he said he likes the Tacoma much better in every way. According to him, I should get the Toy.

Anyhow, I looked up the 2000 Tacoma rears and they are 3.91 axle ratio. Yes, I do need the 4x4 as I live in a small Northeast town where they wait for the snow to melt rather than plow! I leave for work at 6:30 a.m. and plow trucks never make it to my road until mid-morning. So 4x4 is necessary. Unless you guys think limited slip with 4x2 is enough for good traction in snow, ice and slush. I've had enough slipping around in my Honda Civic.

Thanks for all your help. If I can find the Toy I want, I'll let you know.

allknowing · October 2000

Also in respect to Vince8's comments, if safety is really an issue, keep in mind the vastly superior braking system on the Tacoma. Thanks to a link provided by Ranger owner cpousnr a few weeks ago, we know that the Tacoma's superior brakes will take you from 55 to 0 in 110 feet while the deadly Ranger brakes require an additional 30 feet at 140 feet from 555 to 0. Good brakes have kept me out of accidents and saved my hind end many times in the past.

allknowing · October 2000

That should read "140 feet from 55 to 0". If the Ranger could do 555 mph to 0 I'd buy one too.

jessiemai · October 2000

Thanks for the brake advice. I really am leaning toward the Tacoma more and more.

One thing I forgot to mention is that the guy from work who had the Ranger used to off-road quite a bit. He said that by the time he traded it in, you could see daylight between the front and back doors due to all the rocking and rolling.

jessiemai · October 2000

By the way, were those ABS brakes or regular? I have been told I shouldn't get ABS brakes if I am going to tow something.

sparkplug1 · October 2000

I have wrestled with the same issues as you jessiemai. I started out thinking the only vehicle for me was the Tacoma. But the more I learned the more I was convinced that the Ranger is the best choice for me. Keep in mind that the book that spoog reproduced for your benefit was from '98 and this is now 2001. The engine in the Ranger is not at all the same. The transfer case lever is a real lever. The vehicle has been improved many ways. The Tacoma is still an excellent machine for the serious off-roader as is the Ranger. How much serious off-roading are you going to do? Very little? Keep that in mind. Although the Ranger is very comparable in it's off-road capabilities, these machines are used for the most part as cars if we are all honest, and with that in mind the virtues of the Ranger shine. The rear doors on the extended cab will be something that you will appreciate everyday, trust me. The Taco doesn't have any. The 2001 Tacoma looks like a catfish. The new ranger 4X4 with the mesh grill and the bulging hood looks quite handsome (the previous Ranger looked like poop). There's a great factory tonneau cover available, check it out. The Ranger is about $5000 less than a similar Tacoma. The Ranger has ABS standard, the Taco doesn't offer it at all. The Ranger is factory pre-wired for a trailer. You can get a kick-[non-permissible content removed] 6 CD player, the Tacoma is a single player unit. If you are heavy into tunes, there is a Tremor package coming out which is a factory sound system that is rated for 560 watts (yikes....that's more than Nirvana had). All in all, the Ranger seems to me to have more going for it if you are going to use it for a multi purpose everyday vehicle. Did I mention $5000 less? I'm going out in the morning to get prices from dealers in the area for one myself. I believe that the '01 Rangers with all the goodies are available in 8 weeks but I will know more tomorrow. Good luck, it is a tough choice and I know that the Toyotas have a great reputation but the Rangers do as well and seem to me to represent the better choice as far as value is concerned.

barlitz · October 2000

Could you please post the # of each vehicle sold from 1989 to 2000 for real comparison's.The Tundra and the Tacoma bring up the rear with very few units sold compared to the big 3.Its like 5 to 1 with the Ranger per year x's 11 years would be 55 times as many Rangers on the road as Tacoma so obviously you'll have #'s like that.Do you think if it was reversed the #'s would be the same.I doubt it.For the record I went out and measured the heights on the ZR2.From the top of the 31" tires its 9.6" to the bottom of the wheel well and from the inside of the tire its 10.6" to the inside of the wheel well.With the front axle ground clearance of 11.4" its vertually impossible for the front tires to scrape the bottom of the wheel well unless you put oversized tires on the truck or you are jumping with it and you some how bottom out without snapping the front axle.Curiosity Spoog what is the clearance from top of your tires to bottom of wheel well.As you can see more lame writeups by toyota owners bashing American quality.

cpousnr · October 2000

Let me offer a few things here.

1. The Ranger Pulse Vaccume Hubs work flawlessly. I have heard of ZERO problems with them. IF you get a Tacoma, they have some sort of electronic, MON-MANUAL hub system also for engaging 4X4 high.

2. The 2001 Ranger 4.0 liter engine exceeds the Tacoma 3.4 engine by 8% in HP and 11% in torque.

3. The cost is in excess of 5% lower for the Ranger, maybe closer to 10% for an equally equipped vehicle.

4. I have 4 wheeled my Ranger in some of the worst areas of the Colo. Rockies and had no problems. More importaintly, I will back up my claim with pictures while spoog will only cite a 2-3 year old article as many on this board do not believe he even owns such a vehicle. Want to see my pics of my Ranger at 10,700 feet in the Rockies let me know.

5. Edmunds at http://www.edmunds.com always has selected the Ranger over Tacoma and in a current article from that site selects RANGER NOT TACOMA for the must have small pickup. Off the same page the review of the 2001 Tacoma 2.7 4 cyl is, at best, a condemnation of the vehicle.

6. Tires? on the off-road package for Ranger, the tire size is less than 1 inch difference between the Tacoma with the TRD package. With the Tacoma you get either an open differential or for around $2K the locker. Ranger offers the Limited Slip which is more in tune to where you drive a vehicle 99% of the time.
You engage a locker in snowy condetions and I assure you that your vehicle will depart the road.

7. Consumer Reports, has never selected the Tacoama as a Best Buy but with the exception of only a couple of years has selected Ranger for that honor for the last 10 or so years.

8. The magazine that spoog cites often, Four Wheeler, has selected Ranger/Mazda more often in the 8-10 years in it's awards than the Toyota or Tacoma pickup configuration.

Also, sparkplug is new to this board but he seems to look at things honestly and offers fair assesments.

cpousnr · October 2000

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

This is MY Ranger, not something from an article or from a club website.

MY ranger and the territory where I take it 4 wheeling.

That Ranger has been on up to Class 5 4 wheel drive trails and in excess of 11,000 ft in elevation. Only area I could not traverse was very loose dirt/gravel at about a 30 degree angle. But that same area stopped a Bronco, a large Chevey too. However, 4 Rangers, an 87, 89, 93 and a 95 made it through the same area.

Ill. where spoog resides has a total elevation rise of 1,200 ft for the entire state. Cow pastures are the norm in that state.

tacomafrank · October 2000

jessimai, you would be better off heeding the advice of someone who has actually has that tire and ratio size. Tire size changes your final gear ratio dramatically, so someone using smaller than a 31" can't tell you what is a good ratio for that size. What is good for a 245 will not perform as well with a 265/31".

My 4 cyl 5-speed Tacoma has 4.30 gears from the factory. I'm not sure what "screamer" is supposed to mean, but my rpms are not excessively high, not even at 80+ mph. If you want to run 31 inch tires offroad, you will be better off with 4.10 or better when accelerating, passing on the highway, and especially when driving thru mud. With a smaller tire a higher ratio would be OK, or if you prefer better gas mileage vs power.

Some stock 150 hp 4cyl Tacomas come with 4.56 ratios for 31s, and that is from the factory. These engines are the longest lasting of any auto on the road, even with the higher rpms of these ratios. With a V6, I think 4.10 is ideal for 31" /265 if you are performance minded.

Just to give you an idea of what difference it makes, my buddy has a V-6 auto Tacoma that came with smaller 225 tires and a 3.92 ratio. He upgraded to 31" tires. My 4 cyl truck is now as fast or slightly faster than his in acceleration, with 40 less horespower, a 5-speed, and the same tire. My gear ratio makes the difference.

allknowing · October 2000

It's pretty hard if not impossible to find a Tacoma with ABS. Keep in mind that ABS is not designed to make the vehicle stop in less distance and if there is any benefit, assuming you don't lock up the non-ABS brakes, it's negligible. The Tacoma just has a much better braking system. Both the Ranger and the Tacoma are good trucks and have their strong points so you have to decide which are the most important to you. I would also caution you to check out the info. given in this forum yourself as sometimes it can be swayed to promote a particular viewpoint. For example, the previous statement that the Tacoma was never selected as a Best Buy by consumer Reports and the Ranger has blah, blah. What he didn't tell you is that all years of Tacomas are selected as a recommended vehicles in their latest "Recommended Used Vehicle" section but the Rangers are not. Several years of the Ranger are also on the Consumer Reports "Used Cars to Avoid" list while the Tacoma is not. In all fairness, the later year Rangers are on the Consumer Reports favorable lists so they are apparently improving in long term quality. The point is, many in here should be politicians as they are good at twisting facts to support their viewpoints.

spoog · October 2000

Also be sure to check out consumer reports and their "red dot/black dot" reliability systyem. The Tacoma trounces all trucks in that category.

Look at it this way. Here is what Edmunds.com says about the Ranger after some use:

" Rattles like a diamondback offroad"

Do you want a vehicle that will still be rattle free and tight in 4 years? Or a loos-e-goos-e vehicle with rattles, warbling drivetrains and inferior seals?

" only a few miles into our long term test, the center console broke off in the Ranger"..........

Also be sure to check out the JD powers long term 5 year reliability study, in which the Tacoma won yet again. The ranger placed nowhere near it.

The Ranger is the lesser vehicle, and priced almost the same as the Tacoma.

Get the vehicle that is built like a tank. That would be the Tacoma.

jessiemai · October 2000

Thanks guys for your viewpoints. I appreciate the comments and advice.

I test drove another Taco today - this time in almost the configuration I wanted. V6 Manual XCab with TRD. I didn't like it as much as I thought I would. Still rode like a pogo stick even with the added weight from the cab and longer frame (the first one I drove was a 4 cyl, reg cab), although not quite as bad.

The fact that the limited slip is not available, which I really wanted and ABS, which would help my insurance rates, also isn't available, turned me off. Plus, I don't need the TRD's Bilsteins, and I like being able to pick my rears (no pun intended), which I can do with the Ranger. I don't want 4.10's, I want 3.73's.

The worst part came when I sat down with the dealer after he ran his report and found exactly the 2000 leftover I wanted. Things were looking up now. But not for long - he offered me a crappy price on the truck and I had to practically GIVE him my car in trade. He offered $3500 for my 95 Civic, which Kelley lists at 5450 for good condition which mine is in. He wouldn't budge on either figure. So, no deal. It came in way too far above my ability to pay. And from talking to others, it seems that when it comes to Toyotas, no one is willing to deal.

Needless to say I walked away very dissapointed, ready to run crying into arms of a handsome Ranger.

Now, for CPounser: Very nice Ranger pictures on your site. Your property is breathtaking! Question: did you HAVE to replace your tires after 14,000 miles, or was that just because you wanted to "dump the Firejunkers"? Also, I know what you mean about Illinois, my ex boyfriend is from Chicago and thinks I am the best driver he has ever seen in his life, because of our hilly terrain here in Eastern PA. Maybe not hilly like CO, but hilly. He's amazed by the speed limits here for such winding roads.

- Jess

cpousnr · October 2000

SUV edition, Compact Pickup Trucks, on you news stand right now, regarding the Tacoma:

"While no one thing for the Tacoma stands out. . ."

Also, it basically stated that the bare bones Tacoma cannot be optioned up. No AC, tachomemter, only a bench seat, AM radio...not a pretty picture.

Ranger has standard ABS on it's 4 wheel drives. Standard AM/FM, standard AC on it's top of the line the XLT. Seriously, check out what you get in the Ranger vs Tacoma.

I also mentioned a while back that I saw what happens when the Tacoma TRD locker engages without warning. The truck spun off the road and ended up in the ditch on it's side.

It was not the best review I have seen for a vehicle.

Other factors:

1. The Ranger for either the 3.0 or 4.0 engines develops it's max torque at about 2700rpm vs around 4000 rpm for the Tacoma 3.4. That means that your engine is working less in the Ranger.

In that light, did spoog bother to tell you that the Toyota 3.4 engine is prone to blowing head gaskets? There are many sites out there on Tacoma that STILL refer to the gasket problem.

2. http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/dunlop/tacoma/00.toyota.tacoma.sp.html
I would not call this a real good review.

3. Most wanted compact truck, Ranger:
http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/editorial/mostwanted/2001/trucks.html

differentials:
While it is true that the size of the tires do effect final drive ratio, going with something in the 3.73-4.10 is ok. Anything lower and unless the tranny is compensated, your looking for trouble. I have 3.73 with 31 inch tires. I think the 4.10 is a better match for those size tires but I do ok

cpousnr · October 2000

Eastern PA eh? I grew up in W. NJ but have aunts in Lawton and LeRaysville near Tunkhanock(spelled wrong I think)and Towanda.

No, I just wanted the BFG Radial TA KO's and found a guy in need of any tire for his 88 Ranger, with 168,000 original miles I may add, orig. engine. I did not like the firestones at all.

At any rate, I would seriously recommend to anyone, change to synthetic oil after 10,000 miles.

My truck runs great on Mobil 1. Powerfull acceleration, no noise at all, runs cooler etc.

As for problems with my Ranger, in 35,000 since Jan 99 have replaced the wiper switch, one door interlock switch and a broken front turn signal lens (snapped while 4 wheeling hard).

That is it except for fluid changes.

Original brakes at 35K, no problems.

cpousnr · October 2000

Other pics of my Ranger can be found:

http://members.aol.com/Cpousnr/cc1.jpg thru cc7.jpg, just substitute the numbers for the "1"
and
http://members.aol.com/uncchrisb/ccA.jpg thru ccG.jpg again, substitute the letters for the "A"

also:
http://members.aol.com/uncchrisb/hayden.jpg and hayden1.jpg for pics on Hayden pass in the Sangre de Cristo range, taken at about 10,000 ft. The summit of that pass is 10,700.

Either vehicle is good. Tacomas as you find, do not have a lot of deals. Rangers do have some deals.

cpousnr · October 2000

out of central city colo. at an elevation as per my GPS of 11,700 ft.

I like ccG.jpg the best.

tacomafrank · October 2000

"I also mentioned a while back that I saw what
happens when the Tacoma TRD locker engages without
warning. The truck spun off the road and ended upin the ditch on it's side."

I have heard of no verified occurances of a Toyota locker doing this. If it did malfunction and engage it would not cause a truck to spin off the road on dry pavement. If it was TRD, most likely the driver foolishly manually engaged it on an icy road. Locking rears should never be engaged on icy roads, because if both wheels spin, it will suck the truck sideways. Other non Toyota types of locking rears engage automatically with wheelspin, but the TRD is an electric locker that can only be activated in 4WD low at very low speeds.

"In that light, did spoog bother to tell you that
the Toyota 3.4 engine is prone to blowing head
gaskets? There are many sites out there on Tacoma
that STILL refer to the gasket problem."

This is incorrect. There has never been such a problem with the 3.4 V6 used in Tacomas. The head gasket recall you are thinking of was on the 3.0 V-6 used in Toyota trucks before '95 (pre-Tacoma)

Toyota TACOMA vs Ford RANGER - X

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles