Remeber there is a huge difference in assembled and built. The Tacoma is assembled in Fremont CA. And its only certian models. I believe it only 2wd versions. I fully agree though Ford, GM, Dodge are exporting jobs to Mexico, Brazil, Chile. Its funny how we all never think about this until we loose our own job to over sees competition. Heck, there are plenty of people in Malaysia, Mexico, Brazil, Singapore that will work for 2 bucks a a day and be very happy.
I'll agree with the Carpoint opinion with the exception of Con #4 and #6. Funny how lots of publications rate the braking extremely better on the Tacoma even without ABS. In my own experience, the stopping distance of my non-ABS Toyota is , in my estimation, somewhere in the area of 10 - 20 feet less from about 55 - 0 in comparison to my Ford. As for the "high center of gravity of 4x4s makes curves dicey" comment, that's why I chose the TRD package which, in my opinion give the truck "car like" cornering ability although also a rougher ride. The rest I can agree with though. The torque advantage of the Ford, for example, is admittedly there but I've only noticed it on extremely steep grades. Both trucks have their advantages and disadvantages.
I am very aware of where my truck was built, and it appears that it is more "American" than most domestic trucks. Fit and finish and no spotty reliability were what sold me on the Toyota, it appeared to me that they pay attention to small details. I have never witnessed myself any problems cornering with the TRD suspension, but I don't know what the other Toy suspension is like. As for braking I have ABS and this thing will stop on a dime compared to any Ranger.
I have never stated the Ranger is a bad truck, but it is definitely not the truck for me. The interior just appeared cheap to me, and as my brother-in law warned me, with all domestic trucks you run the risk of having to make the dealership your best friend. He puts in plenty of time on Rangers and he said he will quit his job if the new SOHC 4.0 has the same problems as it did in the Explorers. Not a chance I was willing to take, I am not about to spend more time at the dealer than I am with my truck. I am getting the supercharger put on next week, so I won't have to worry about the whole hp/torque debate. Sure it is a chunk of change for parts/labor, but it is covered under warranty for 5yr/60,000. I figure why not live a little:)
I am glad you guys love your Rangers, but I honestly feel that you guys are far and few between. I agree lots of people buy a lot of Rangers, but I wonder how long they actually own them??? What do you think 2-5 years if they are lucky. Ask Frey how long he will own his! I know there are excpetions to every rule. But I hear lots of stories of people who have their Toy 10+ years. When I buy something I expect it to give me a good 8-10 years of hard service. I just don't see a Ranger or any domestic compact truck doing that.
I spent a good 3 months looking at every minute detail of the Nissan, Ford, and Toyota and when came down to dollars to dollars the Toyota was by far the best of the bunch. Except for the stock radio. It was the worst of the bunch, but that was my only draw back for that truck. Which I have already exchanged for Boston Acoustic speakers and an Alpine head unit/amp/and sub. Enjoy your trucks guys!
I am well aware that you feel the Tacoma has a slight edge where reliability is concerned. Others think that edge isn't so slight (I'm not really one of them though). It's a matter of opinion. You have yours, they have theirs and I have mine (Do I sound like the theme song to Different Strokes here, or what?)
But you even admitted that overall, the Tacoma is a slightly better truck than the Ranger. These are your words Vince. So how then, can you put Tacoma owners down for choosing the Tacoma over Ranger? You're basically saying that all Tacoma owners fell for Toyota's marketing and that we're some sort of sucker. Yet you also state that the Tacoma is better than the Ranger (albeit slightly better in your opinion). That's why I asked if you're a politician. I think you're just upset because a lot of people consider the Tacoma a better truck than the Ranger and you know better, but nobody seems to listen. (BTW I'm just kidding with you dude).
I just saw the Jeep Liberty today for the first time. I did a total double take. It looks like the Ford Escape a little bit.
CPO, I would have to agree that getting into the Xtra Cab takes some flexibilty. I'll also agree with the turning radius, I do find that annoying at times (I have an Xtra Cab). I've never really had a problem with erratic braking, though I think they're about ready for a tune up at 63,000 miles. The crash test stuff means nothing to me. I really don't consider that when buying a vehicle (knocking on wood here).
I'll say it again. I like the Ranger, a lot, when I test drove. But I hate driving automatic trannies. I love the 4x4 mated with a 5 speed and I could not locate a Ford with the 4.0L mated to a standard 5-spd. I found 3.0L all the live long day, but if I wanted a 4.0L; I had to get the auto.
I too think the Tacoma has a SLIGHT edge on the Ranger and I believe it's in the area of reliability. I think there are other minor advantages too. I think the Tacoma's engine isn't as noisy and I think it's more comfortable to drive. These are my opinions though, and not necessarily yours.
I think vince 8 was trying to say that Ford Ranger offers the best value, or bang for buck. I am looking forward to spending under 16 grand for a 4.0l 5 speed manual 4x2 regular cab Ranger. Plenty of power, plenty of towing ability, and the much more standard features. I can't even find a v6 regular cab toyota, but maybe I just haven't looked enough. Heck with the money I'd save I can invest in a catback exhaust, tonneau(sp?) cover and liner and still come out saving money.
yep. the trend i notice is this: to b oil it all down, i have finally concluded that when you buy a Japanese vehicle, you can assume that THEY have gone through a debugging process bofre the truck gets to the customer. when you buy an American brand, you must assume that the CUSOMER HIMSELF must take the time and effort and money to de-bug it. i have spend numerous hours trying to get my Ranger reliable and tolerable to drive. i have given up. i am going to trade it for a taco Tundra. i am not anti American, but just anti-lousy quality control. i enjoy reading your posts, and don't mean to offend you. but, Rangers or F-150's don't hold a candle to Taco quality. period.
i hope you get a better new truck than i got. it's your money. hope you have a good Ford experience. but, do me a favor. before you guy a Ranger, at least take a Taco or Nissan for a spin. like the old saying goes, "you can pay now, or you can pay later".
www.msn.com they list reliability data for Toyota trucks, Tacoma's and Rangers. Every time I bring this up it gets shot down because people just can't believe it, just how close it really is. Also take a look at JD powers. The Ranger wins in initial quality. If the RAnger is such a terrible truck why is it the best selling compact now for 14 years straight. Don't you think after 14 years people would have found out it was a terrible truck and sales would have fallen? The Tacoma has been out now for almost how many years? Nissan??!! LOL. Don't get me started on the Supercharger bandaid to keep up with Toyota, Ford and GM in the HP/Torque arena... And even with the S/C it still looses 0=60 to both Toyota and Ford! Along with the Rubbermaid bumpers and fender flares, along with the weakest top of the line V6 engine in its class.. along with the lowest torque in its class.. along with its Rubbermaid styling....
i think Rangers sell mainly because they are much cheaper to buy. also, recall that i posted that my Ranger is basically a nice design, if i could get it driveable. i also stated that i believe i got a lemon. as far as Nissans, yep: the ugliest truck out there, no arguments from me. initial quality ?? i haven't seen the data, so won't comment. maybe it also boils down to which local dealer can treat you well and help solve your problems. my Ford dealer service manager is a total [non-permissible content removed] [even though he has decent techs working for him]. i have to jump "hurdles" to get my truck even looked at. also, just because i said my Ranger was a demon, i believe (as i posted) many happy owners are out there. i STILL believe for long term durability (in terms of engine reliability) Taco and Nissan handily beat anything Ford makes. only time will tell. i have an 89 Nissan 2 wd 5 sp. 4 cyl with 170 000 miles on it. it has had a starter (at about 160k) and an alternator (as i recall, at about 125k or so). as far as the "horsepower race", i don't care. number one importance to me: drivability and being able to enjoy my truck. no 2: reliability long term.
ok. like the first message says. 95% of the time people dont get there trucks off road. i have only gotten my tacoma off road a couple times and i have only had it stuck once. and for what i (along w/ most kids) like to do (lower them) the tacoma is so much better. it rides better lowered and if u ablosluty want a good ride u can drop a mazda rx2 ind. rear sus. under it and be ok for anything. and oh yeah. i leased mine for $169 a month. that includes tape deck and air, its a 5spd and thats it, for a ranger w/ no air, 2wd, 5spd and a tape deck it was more like $230. witch do you think is the better deal??????
JD power rates the sonoma best in initial quality and customer satisfaction over the taco and ranger, You might want to take your slammed tacoma over to the kids section of Edmunds,
Daniel Heraud is regarded as one of North America's leading automotive authorities. An active automotive journalist for more than 20 years, Heraud’s work includes a weekly automotive column, a radio program and four annual car and motorcycle buyer's guides. Heraud's operation is based in Quebec.
A former electrical engineer, Daniel brings a critical and trained eye to the vehicles he evaluates. Each year he and his staff test more than 200 cars and trucks. The results of these tests are published annually in Road Report, a 400-page book.
Active for 20 years...how long has Four Wheeler magazine been in business, surely not 20 years.
The compact pickup award for initial quality went to the GMC Sonoma with a tie for 2nd between the Chevy S10 and the Toyota Tacoma. The Ranger did not win place or show for initial quality.
Reading The JD Power summary leaves me with a few questions about the worth of the study. Here's how they rate vehicles:
"2001 Initial Quality Study Summary
The Initial Quality Study (IQS) contains comprehensive and analytically rich information to help auto manufacturers position their company’s image and products. Consumers are surveyed regarding problems they experienced after 90 days of vehicle ownership. All problems are weighted equally and overall performance is summarized with “problems per 100 vehicles” designations. Performance is compared across models and platforms, and by manufacturer and assembly plants. "
Given that they do a survey of owners, isn't it possible that they don't ask enough people to make a valid study.
Also, If they rate all problems equally than if 100 people complain that the horn in vehicle A is not loud enough and 100 people complain that vehicle B's transmission broke down in the 90 day window, the two vehicles would get rated the same.
Although you got a lemon for a Ranger, doesn't mean that everyone else does.. I have an 89' Ranger (well, I gave it my dad recently), which now has 220k miles on it.. No serious problems at all during this time. Most serious problem was water pump, fuel pressure regulator, and rear u-joint, but all occured well after 150k miles. It still has the origional clutch, and the engine still runs smoothly without burning any oil at all. And there are no squeeks rattles etc..
So my opinion differs from your because I believe that for long term engine durability Ford is every bit as durable as the Nissan and Taco.. For frame/chassis/body durability, I think Ford might even have an edge.. (pardon the pun).
I often see Toyota fanatics making general or wide scoping statements implying that Ford doesn't do quality control etc.. However no one showed any significant evidence to support this. (Spoog, save your posts, I've already proven the TSB data your pulling is not reliable).
I'm not disputing the opinion that Toyota puts out a high quality truck, but I believe Ford has similar quality based on my experiences and that of my family and friends.
they have reliabiltiy data dating way back on all types of models of cars and trucks. MSN has a section rating Toyota trucks, pre 1996, before Tacoma and after 1996. When you look at this data the huge quality gap that some Toyota owners want you to believe exists doesn't. I have shown this over and over again for the last 2 years but everytime I do it gets pushed aside.
past reliability/performance/comfort and more ratings is right in your own backyard here at Edmunds. I compared my 1998 Ranger 4WD 2Dr stepside to a 1998 Tacoma 2D 2wd SB. The Toyota rates a 9.5, the Ranger an 8.7 in reliability. A second site that shows the reliability gap is not as huge as Toyota owners want you so badly to believe.
My ideal small truck: a Ranger extended cab with 4 doors, a toyota motor (V6 5 speed) and Nissan running gear and interior (seats and dash). the Ranger is a great piece of sheetmetal. but, the seats kill my back, and the whole runner gear shakes and vibrates. maybe the answer to all of this is a Toyota tundra or Ford F-150. i think a lot of the Ranger problems with suspension is too much axle and suspension mass and not enough total vehicle weight. the suspension compliance seems to be tuned for a Ranger with a thousand pounds of weight on it.
\\what i HATE about it is it is impossible to get the vibration and shakes out of it, and the vague "wandering" steering feel.\\
Like edmunds.com says - " if you are considering a used ranger, take it for a very,very long test drive".
\\ WHAT I LIKE ABOUT TACOS: Impeccable assembly quality, VERY smooth V6 engine, VERY high reliability, very high quality interior and seats. \\
Yep. All clearly a notch or two above the slapped-together-Ranger.
\\ why did i buy the Ranger ? MONEY. it literally cost 3900 bucks less than the Taco. would i do it again ? NO !! i am KICKING myself for not having bought the Toyota \\
So are alot of Ranger owners who settled.
\\i am going to try to sell my Ranger and buy a Tundra. no more Fords for me [numerous defects and 11 trips to the dealer have worn me out..bad tires, defective rear door latches, warped driveshaft, FUBAR'd turn signal switch and windshieldwipers, shorted wiring harness (leaving me with no headlights), defective "gem" module, rear window leak, and SHAKES. in less than 8000 miles]. \\
Yes, this is Ford for you. Im surprised you havent had your rotors wear out yet.
\\my next American truck will be a Toyota. my next American car will be a HONDA. good luck all\\
frey-->I have taken a 2000 tacoma for a spin. Even though I want a 5 speed manual, it was a automatic. The transmission stick looked felt like a computer joystick. Plus I just don't like the looks of the hood and grill, or the interior styling. That's why the Ranger's Edge package really agrees with me. Plus the standard ABS, Air-conditioning, Tilt steering, cruise control, CD-player, alloy wheels, tachometer, and larger interior (I'm 6'2"). All this, and a 4.0l v6 for under 16 grand. The only thing I am debating is if I want to trade in my '93, or just drop a 5.0l v8 in it. I'll save my money by going Ford, and because down the road, parts will be more available for the 4th best selling vehicle in the US in 2001. As far as reliability, my first vehicle purchase was a 93 4cyl, automatic ranger. It is now up to 135k miles and only had the transmission replaced and water pump and radiator at 120k. All in all, the repairs cost still don't make up for the price difference.
spoog--->"Yes, this is Ford for you. Im surprised you havent had your rotors wear out yet." So the fact that I just put on my 2nd set of rotors at 120,000 miles, I must be the exception? Rotors wear from excessive braking, i.e. panic stops, where the heat alone warps them. "Like edmunds.com says - " if you are considering a used ranger, take it for a very,very long test drive"." You would be an idiot not to take any used car for a very long test drive. Thanks for stating the obvious. "Yep. All clearly a notch or two above the slapped-together-Ranger." pure personal perception.
Spoog, do you work for Toyota?
slamedtacoma--->So you lowered your truck and take it offroad occasionally? Yeah it rides better lowered, until you try and pull up a sloped driveway, or a country road. Also why are you lowering a LEASED tacoma? Nevermind, I don't want to know.
eharri--->Rangers seats feel great to me! And isn't seat comfort one of the common complaints of new tacoma owners?
You're gonna be hard pressed to find really good seats in this segment. Up until the last 2-3 years, none of the manufacturers seemed to really know what "lumbar support" really meant. Between the Ranger and the Tacoma, I give the Ranger 60/40 split bench the nod because it had better thigh support and comfort, but I have to admit, my truck's bench seat still isn't all that great.
I took the Explorer with the 4.0 in this weekend to correct the tensioner problem. My dealer here (Cerritos Ford) is pretty good and took care of it in a few hours. The fix seems to be working so far so I would recommend that you get yours upgraded before you have problems. I let ours go too long with the noise but the dealer claimed that there was no damage to the rest of the engine. At the very least, if yours gets noisy at idle take care of it right away as it doesn't take the dealer long to upgrade the tensioner and replace the intake gasket. The way the last notice was worded got us a bit worried that it would take more than a day. I guess they're preparing you in case they have to rebuild the whole engine.
You're wrong, according to JD Powers, Ford is above industry average. Ford wouldn't even be on the list if it wasn't above industry average. Check the last graph on the link you posted. And these figures also cover all models(cars and trucks) under each brand name. So Tacoma's and Rangers are only a small fraction of those figures. Also the Tacoma appeared in 1996, did it not? The first graph shows 1994 vehicles, and so much has changed since. So to sum up, that's 2 and a half year old data on 5 year old trucks(and cars), and another duplicate and irrevelant post of yours.
And what's wrong with phone calls to check on intial quality? You think people are lying? You think JD Power's home testing is 100% real world?
I agree the Ranger is the better value, but the Tacoma is the better truck; even if by a small or diminishing margin. Vince has admitted this even. The problem I have is that Vince makes Tacoma owners out to be some kind of suckers who were "taken" by "Toyota's marketing genius". On the one hand he admits the Tacoma is better, albeit slightly. Then on the other hand he apparently feels that people who bought a Tacoma, for whatever reason, aren't as smart as those who bought a Ranger. That's just out and out silly. I wouldn't have a problem if Vince had said, "I think the Ranger is the better truck," but he didn't do that. He has ADMITTED that the Tacoma is a better truck (albeit only slightly).
I checked out MSN's carpoint, it's not telling me anything I don't already know. JD Powers' site was mildly shocking with the GMC info. I know there is NO huge gap in reliability between the two. I understand that the Ranger takes a close second to the Tacoma.
I've said this before. I think Rangers and Tacomas are great trucks. If you take care of either of them, they'll last a long time (100K+ miles). I think they both look good and are capable of going anywhere the other can go. I think Ford's reliability and credibility has been less than admirable over the years, but it is improving and is better than ever right now. I think the fact that Ford is one of the 3 biggest automakers in the world is a big reason why it sells it's vehicles for less. The Ranger is the highest selling compact p/u, true; but in which trim? I'm curious as to how many Ranger 4x4's and Tacoma 4x4's are sold on an annual basis. To be fair, I'm sure the numbers are close; closer than the overall sales numbers (in units), which include 2wd models. I can only speculate though.
I don't think there's a huge difference between the two trucks. I don't think the Tacoma is indestructable. I don't think the Tacoma is a far better truck. I don't think the Tacoma will take me places I could never get to in a Ranger either. I agree with Vince that the Tacoma has a slight edge. I agree with Vince that the Ranger is the better value. I agree with Vince that the TRD package is pretty much a nonessential for 95% of the people buying a compact 4x4 p/u (but I do not consider those who bought it t obe suckers). I do not agree with Vince that Tacoma owners were "taken" by Toyota's marketing. People buy what they want and not necessarily what they need. If you criticize them for that then you must be some kind of super-conscientious consumer yourself. People don't NEED lots of things they don't buy. Does this make them suckers? I think not.
good to hear that the tensioner problem is not a major fix. I might be selling mine soon, so I don't know if I'll even bother taking it in. (unless it starts making some noise)
do any of you guys use, or believe in, data on reliability from Consumers Union ? if you look at the Ranger, the GOOD news is that it's documented reliability seems to have improved a lot over the last few years. if you get a chance, check out Toyota or Honda: they are about the best of any brands. that data, as i understand, is collected from owners. GM and Dodge trucks, according to CU, seems to be the worst. i don't pretend to be an expert; only reading and trying to get your opinions on how to use this data. if i can get the vibration out of the floorboard of my 2000 Ranger, i will keep it. i am still working on it. i Really want to keep the truck: a great overall package.
indacurl2k--->If Ranger offers a better value, and Toyota's quality is only slightly better than the Ranger, the point can be taken one step further. You are paying a 1 to 3 thousand more for a truck that is only slightly less prone to problems? Finance that amount, and you're paying more in interest! Let's not kid ourselves, all mass-produced products have a flaw here and there, but there are numerous accounts on this forum alone on the Rangers that are lasting pretty much forever. Personally speaking: My repairs started after 100,000 miles, and of the only one that cost more than 120 bucks to fix was a transmission. But I ragged the hell out of it in my first years of ownership. Overall I paid less for aparantly no less of a truck! I'm getting off subject, so why pay more for only slightly better percentage of problems?
As far as believing Toyota buyers are getting had, or just not smart, that's not my opinion. I do think it is smarter to go with the better value. The saved money can go for performance upgrades, vacations, or even used to get the next new car a year or two sooner. 14 years straight Best selling compact truck in US. If vote ballots were wallets, there would be no need for a recount. This is how the value speaks for itself. And isn't value essentially quality / price?
And the count of 4x4's could be more toyota favorable(even though I doubt it), but why not go ahead and see how many Black Rangers are sold vs. Black Tacoma's.? That's just dicing the numbers, and not looking at the whole picture. Granted 4X4 may be important to you (and spoog aparantly), but as stated many posters here, 95% of drivers don't need or use it. That's why we pay taxes for paved roads. Besides with two and a half times more varieties found in Rangers vs. Tacomas, it would be hard to find matches(Like a v6 in a regular cab)
I looked at the msn reliability ratings. It shows that Ford's have had engine problems for every year except for '98 and '99 plus other problems. The '98 and '99 years seem to have been fine for the Ranger (so far). Except for a problem with accessories in '95 the Toyota record has been spotless (what to they mean by accessories?).
Looking at this data I conclude that the Taco has a better history of reliability but the Ranger is catching up.
Anyway I am happy with my Taco purchase (can I get some hot sauce with that?)
these had a nightmare head gasket problem. it took a lot of dealer hassles to get proper fixes from Toyota. i repeat, do NOT buy a 95 taco V6 for any amount of money [UNLESS you know accurately its repair history]. many of these motors are damaged to to overheating, warpage, or both before the factory fix occurred. you will see a reliability drop in all the 95V6 motors, one of Tacos "dirty little secrets".
"Big 3" truck fans are always saying... Chevy has more torque, Dodge can tow more, Ford has more comfy seats... blah blah blah. So WHAT?!
It doesn't matter HOW much more horsepower a Chevy, or Ford, or Dodge has. Because in a few years that Ford, Chevy, or Dodge will be sitting on jackstands or bricks on your driveway or lawn! Hahaha! Producing ZERO horsepower! Because it'll be all broken down! Inoperable.
You want blown head gaskets after 50K? Buy a Ford (might as well spec it with Firestone tires too). Ford has more comfortable Seats??!! Hahaha! So when your Ford breaks down you'll be sitting real comfy in your broken down F-150 waiting for the Tow truck! Ford Quality is JOKE One!
Wanna rebuild your tranny after 40K? Buy a Chevy! Like a Rock?! yeah right! more like dead weight! Get a TH-700R4 overdrive tranny, you'll be rebuilding it every 2 years!
Want electrical problems? don't like air conditioning? Buy a Dodge! You'll get electrical shorts, failed AC compressors, weak ignition/starter systems, you'll get shocked every time you touch your door. You'll feel like you just got RAMmed once you start having to take your truck back to the dealer for all the Factory Recalls and TSB's.
Want your trim/weatherstripping to crack? knobs and controls to fall off and break? Like to see that "Check Engine Soon" light flashing all the time? You like leaky Oil Pans? Want oil & tranny fluid all over your garage floor? Take your pick, buy ANY of the "Big 3" trucks and you'll get ALL those problems! free of charge. Wanna find out just what Punks those dealership service centers can be like? When your Ford, Chevy, or Dodge breaks down and you try to get warranty repairs done you'll find out. You WILL end up spending Thousands of dollars on repairs, recalls, parts & service not covered by the recall, rental cars, wasted time, etc, fixing your vehicle. When you buy a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge it will end up Owning YOU!
It don't matter how much "Big 3" trucks can tow, cargo capacity, horsepower, torque... all that doesn't count for CRAP when that big hunk of junk breaks down. Just look at all the Factory Recalls on Fords and Chevies. Pure junk man.
Ok, if you're just leasing/renting for a couple years... then who cares? Buy whatever you want; go crazy and get yourself a Ford Explorer with Wilderness tires if you like. After a couple years, lease is over, it'll be somebody else's problem anyways.
But if you plan on keeping your truck for more than a couple years and want a RELIABLE truck, then do yourself (and the environment) a favor. Buy a Toyota or Nissan. The junkyards are already over-populated by big, broken Ford, Chevy, and Dodge junk.
I'm pulling the trigger on a 2001 lightning, used the X plan and got $3800 off sticker. For the record, Lightning owners are the most customer satisfied : ) . Spoog and all you other Taco owners .... see you.... in my rear veiw mirror.
Boy I sure get tired of reading how great toyotas are and everything else is junk. Their all good truck, just some are better than others. I still own a 1981 toyota 4x4, and it had to have the tranny replaced at 67k along with a few other probems. I bought a 2001 Ranger 4x4 because the toyota was just plain ugly and everything I've read said the ranger was the best value. I know several people that have rangers with anywhere from 137k to 224 k miles without any problems other than a water pump and one heater core, another friend has 235k on his chevy, he just changes oil on a regular basis and it keeps on runnig. There is some good info available here but arguing which is the best truck isn't going to keep me interested. Whats better looking a blond or brunette? Get the message
Does anyone know the state and city where the Tacomas are built, also the rangers too, A buddy of mine and I are probably going to tour the two factories. thanks.
By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.
Comments
95 2.3, reg cab, long bed, 5 speed. 72,000 miles
The Tacoma is assembled in Fremont CA. And its only certian models. I believe it only 2wd versions.
I fully agree though Ford, GM, Dodge are exporting jobs to Mexico, Brazil, Chile.
Its funny how we all never think about this until we loose our own job to over sees competition. Heck, there are plenty of people in Malaysia, Mexico, Brazil, Singapore that will work for 2 bucks a a day and be very happy.
The rest I can agree with though. The torque advantage of the Ford, for example, is admittedly there but I've only noticed it on extremely steep grades. Both trucks have their advantages and disadvantages.
than most domestic trucks. Fit and finish and no spotty reliability were what sold me on the Toyota, it appeared to me that they pay attention to small details. I have never witnessed myself any problems cornering with the TRD suspension, but I don't know what the other Toy suspension is like. As for braking I have ABS and this thing will stop on a dime compared to any Ranger.
I have never stated the Ranger is a bad truck, but it is definitely not the truck for me. The interior just appeared cheap to me, and as my brother-in law warned me, with all domestic trucks you run the risk of having to make the dealership your best friend. He puts in plenty of time on Rangers and he said he will quit his job if the new SOHC 4.0 has the same problems as it did in the Explorers. Not a chance I was willing to take, I am not about to spend more time at the dealer than I am with my truck. I am getting the supercharger put on next week, so I won't have to worry about the whole hp/torque debate. Sure it is a chunk of change for parts/labor, but it is covered under warranty for 5yr/60,000. I figure why not live a little:)
I am glad you guys love your Rangers, but I honestly feel that you guys are far and few between. I agree lots of people buy a lot of Rangers, but I wonder how long they actually own them??? What do you think 2-5 years if they are lucky. Ask Frey how long he will own his! I know there are excpetions to every rule. But I hear lots of stories of people who have their Toy 10+ years. When I buy something I expect it to give me a good 8-10 years of hard service. I just don't see a Ranger or any domestic compact truck doing that.
I spent a good 3 months looking at every minute detail of the Nissan, Ford, and Toyota and when came down to dollars to dollars the Toyota was by far the best of the bunch. Except for the stock radio. It was the worst of the bunch, but that was my only draw back for that truck. Which I have already exchanged for Boston Acoustic speakers and an Alpine head unit/amp/and sub. Enjoy your trucks guys!
Pros
1. The front suspension is less sensitive to road faults
2. Steering is much more accurate
3. Briskier performance of the last 4.0-liter V6 engine
4. The smooth shifter of the manual transmission
5. Good hauling and trailering capabilities
6. Standard ABS improves braking stability
7. The efficient windshield wipers
Cons
1. The weak performance of the 2.5-liter engine
2. The absence of V8 engine (vs Dakota)
3. Stopping distances are far too long
4. V6 engines are real gas guzzlers
5. The jumpy ride of the 4x4 models
6. Steering is too slow and turning radius too wide
7. Four-wheel drive system is rather crude
8. The rudimentary comfort of the base bench seat
He gave the Ranger a 56% and the Tacoma a 61% So according to this guy (who ever he is) the tacoma is slightly better
I get 18-23 mpg on my 4.0, thats better than I expected. Last trip, 319 miles on just over 12 gal of gas, interstate driving but that aint bad.
The Pulse Vaccum Hub 4X4 system is new as of 98, dont know what he considers crude.
Otherwise, I agreed basically with the two reviews.
But you even admitted that overall, the Tacoma is a slightly better truck than the Ranger. These are your words Vince. So how then, can you put Tacoma owners down for choosing the Tacoma over Ranger? You're basically saying that all Tacoma owners fell for Toyota's marketing and that we're some sort of sucker. Yet you also state that the Tacoma is better than the Ranger (albeit slightly better in your opinion). That's why I asked if you're a politician. I think you're just upset because a lot of people consider the Tacoma a better truck than the Ranger and you know better, but nobody seems to listen. (BTW I'm just kidding with you dude).
I just saw the Jeep Liberty today for the first time. I did a total double take. It looks like the Ford Escape a little bit.
CPO, I would have to agree that getting into the Xtra Cab takes some flexibilty. I'll also agree with the turning radius, I do find that annoying at times (I have an Xtra Cab). I've never really had a problem with erratic braking, though I think they're about ready for a tune up at 63,000 miles. The crash test stuff means nothing to me. I really don't consider that when buying a vehicle (knocking on wood here).
I'll say it again. I like the Ranger, a lot, when I test drove. But I hate driving automatic trannies. I love the 4x4 mated with a 5 speed and I could not locate a Ford with the 4.0L mated to a standard 5-spd. I found 3.0L all the live long day, but if I wanted a 4.0L; I had to get the auto.
I too think the Tacoma has a SLIGHT edge on the Ranger and I believe it's in the area of reliability. I think there are other minor advantages too. I think the Tacoma's engine isn't as noisy and I think it's more comfortable to drive. These are my opinions though, and not necessarily yours.
If the RAnger is such a terrible truck why is it the best selling compact now for 14 years straight. Don't you think after 14 years people would have found out it was a terrible truck and sales would have fallen? The Tacoma has been out now for almost how many years?
Nissan??!! LOL. Don't get me started on the Supercharger bandaid to keep up with Toyota, Ford and GM in the HP/Torque arena... And even with the S/C it still looses 0=60 to both Toyota and Ford! Along with the Rubbermaid bumpers and fender flares, along with the weakest top of the line V6 engine in its class.. along with the lowest torque in its class.. along with its Rubbermaid styling....
i also stated that i believe i got a lemon. as far as Nissans, yep: the ugliest truck out there, no arguments from me. initial quality ?? i haven't seen the data, so won't comment. maybe it also boils down to which local dealer can treat you well and help solve your problems. my Ford dealer service manager is a total [non-permissible content removed] [even though he has decent techs working for him]. i have to jump "hurdles" to get my truck even looked at. also, just because i said my Ranger was a demon, i believe (as i posted) many happy owners are out there.
i STILL believe for long term durability (in terms of engine reliability) Taco and Nissan handily beat anything Ford makes. only time will tell. i have an 89 Nissan 2 wd 5 sp. 4 cyl with 170 000 miles on it. it has had a starter (at about 160k) and an alternator (as i recall, at about 125k or so). as far as the "horsepower race", i don't care. number one importance to me: drivability and being able to enjoy my truck. no 2: reliability long term.
witch do you think is the better deal??????
A former electrical engineer, Daniel brings a critical and trained eye to the vehicles he evaluates. Each year he and his staff test more than 200 cars and trucks. The results of these tests are published annually in Road Report, a 400-page book.
Active for 20 years...how long has Four Wheeler magazine been in business, surely not 20 years.
Reading The JD Power summary leaves me with a few questions about the worth of the study. Here's how they rate vehicles:
"2001 Initial Quality Study Summary
The Initial Quality Study (IQS) contains comprehensive and analytically rich information to help auto manufacturers position their company’s image and products. Consumers are surveyed regarding problems they experienced after 90 days of vehicle ownership. All problems are weighted equally and overall performance is summarized with “problems per 100 vehicles” designations. Performance is compared across models and platforms, and by manufacturer and assembly plants. "
http://www.jdpower.com/auto/summary.asp?StudyID=517&CatID=1
Given that they do a survey of owners, isn't it possible that they don't ask enough people to make a valid study.
Also, If they rate all problems equally than if 100 people complain that the horn in vehicle A is not loud enough and 100 people complain that vehicle B's transmission broke down in the 90 day window, the two vehicles would get rated the same.
Btw Vince, what msn study are you talking about?
Steve Cohen
It still has the origional clutch, and the engine still runs smoothly without burning any oil at all. And there are no squeeks rattles etc..
So my opinion differs from your because I believe that for long term engine durability Ford is every bit as durable as the Nissan and Taco.. For frame/chassis/body durability, I think Ford might even have an edge.. (pardon the pun).
I often see Toyota fanatics making general or wide scoping statements implying that Ford doesn't do quality control etc.. However no one showed any significant evidence to support this. (Spoog, save your posts, I've already proven the TSB data your pulling is not reliable).
I'm not disputing the opinion that Toyota puts out a high quality truck, but I believe Ford has similar quality based on my experiences and that of my family and friends.
Like edmunds.com says - " if you are considering a used ranger, take it for a very,very long test drive".
\\ WHAT I LIKE ABOUT TACOS: Impeccable assembly quality, VERY smooth V6 engine, VERY high reliability, very high quality interior and seats. \\
Yep. All clearly a notch or two above the slapped-together-Ranger.
\\ why did i buy the Ranger ? MONEY. it literally cost 3900 bucks less than the Taco. would i do it again ? NO !! i am KICKING myself for not having bought the Toyota \\
So are alot of Ranger owners who settled.
\\i am going to try to sell my Ranger and buy a Tundra. no more Fords for me [numerous defects and 11 trips to the dealer have worn me out..bad tires, defective rear door latches, warped driveshaft, FUBAR'd turn signal switch and windshieldwipers, shorted wiring harness (leaving me with no headlights), defective "gem" module, rear window leak, and SHAKES. in less than 8000 miles]. \\
Yes, this is Ford for you. Im surprised you havent had your rotors wear out yet.
\\my next American truck will be a Toyota. my next American car will be a HONDA. good luck all\\
Good choices.
spoog--->"Yes, this is Ford for you. Im surprised you havent had your rotors wear out yet." So the fact that I just put on my 2nd set of rotors at 120,000 miles, I must be the exception? Rotors wear from excessive braking, i.e. panic stops, where the heat alone warps them.
"Like edmunds.com says - " if you are considering a used ranger, take it for a very,very long test drive"." You would be an idiot not to take any used car for a very long test drive. Thanks for stating the obvious. "Yep. All clearly a notch or two above the slapped-together-Ranger." pure personal perception.
Spoog, do you work for Toyota?
slamedtacoma--->So you lowered your truck and take it offroad occasionally? Yeah it rides better lowered, until you try and pull up a sloped driveway, or a country road. Also why are you lowering a LEASED tacoma? Nevermind, I don't want to know.
eharri--->Rangers seats feel great to me! And isn't seat comfort one of the common complaints of new tacoma owners?
The initial quality study is done by PHONE CALLS to purchasers of vehicles in first few months.
The JD Powers LONG TERM 5 year Reliability test actually tests the vehicle for 5 yeras and charts the reliability of the vehicle.
In the JD long term test, Toyota finishes ahead of all other truck makers. this is not a surprise:
http://www.jdpa.com/studies/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=292&CatID=1
Oops !Ford finishes below the industry average.
And what's wrong with phone calls to check on intial quality? You think people are lying? You think JD Power's home testing is 100% real world?
I checked out MSN's carpoint, it's not telling me anything I don't already know. JD Powers' site was mildly shocking with the GMC info. I know there is NO huge gap in reliability between the two. I understand that the Ranger takes a close second to the Tacoma.
I've said this before. I think Rangers and Tacomas are great trucks. If you take care of either of them, they'll last a long time (100K+ miles). I think they both look good and are capable of going anywhere the other can go. I think Ford's reliability and credibility has been less than admirable over the years, but it is improving and is better than ever right now. I think the fact that Ford is one of the 3 biggest automakers in the world is a big reason why it sells it's vehicles for less. The Ranger is the highest selling compact p/u, true; but in which trim? I'm curious as to how many Ranger 4x4's and Tacoma 4x4's are sold on an annual basis. To be fair, I'm sure the numbers are close; closer than the overall sales numbers (in units), which include 2wd models. I can only speculate though.
I don't think there's a huge difference between the two trucks. I don't think the Tacoma is indestructable. I don't think the Tacoma is a far better truck. I don't think the Tacoma will take me places I could never get to in a Ranger either. I agree with Vince that the Tacoma has a slight edge. I agree with Vince that the Ranger is the better value. I agree with Vince that the TRD package is pretty much a nonessential for 95% of the people buying a compact 4x4 p/u (but I do not consider those who bought it t obe suckers). I do not agree with Vince that Tacoma owners were "taken" by Toyota's marketing. People buy what they want and not necessarily what they need. If you criticize them for that then you must be some kind of super-conscientious consumer yourself. People don't NEED lots of things they don't buy. Does this make them suckers? I think not.
if you look at the Ranger, the GOOD news is that it's documented reliability seems to have improved a lot over the last few years. if you get a chance, check out Toyota or Honda: they are about the best of any brands. that data, as i understand, is collected from owners. GM and Dodge trucks, according to CU, seems to be the worst. i don't pretend to be an expert; only reading and trying to get your opinions on how to use this data. if i can get the vibration out of the floorboard of my 2000 Ranger, i will keep it. i am still working on it.
i Really want to keep the truck: a great overall package.
As far as believing Toyota buyers are getting had, or just not smart, that's not my opinion. I do think it is smarter to go with the better value. The saved money can go for performance upgrades, vacations, or even used to get the next new car a year or two sooner. 14 years straight Best selling compact truck in US. If vote ballots were wallets, there would be no need for a recount. This is how the value speaks for itself. And isn't value essentially quality / price?
And the count of 4x4's could be more toyota favorable(even though I doubt it), but why not go ahead and see how many Black Rangers are sold vs. Black Tacoma's.? That's just dicing the numbers, and not looking at the whole picture. Granted 4X4 may be important to you (and spoog aparantly), but as stated many posters here, 95% of drivers don't need or use it. That's why we pay taxes for paved roads. Besides with two and a half times more varieties found in Rangers vs. Tacomas, it would be hard to find matches(Like a v6 in a regular cab)
Looking at this data I conclude that the Taco has a better history of reliability but the Ranger is catching up.
Anyway I am happy with my Taco purchase (can I get some hot sauce with that?)
Steve Cohen
In your post above about JD Power you said:
"The JD Powers LONG TERM 5 year Reliability test actually tests the vehicle for 5 yeras and charts the reliability of the vehicle."
No spoog, that isn't true. You should read their Summary section:
http://www.jdpa.com/studies/summary.asp?StudyID=292&CatID=1
In part it says:
"Owners are given the opportunity to rate their vehicle based on the same problems included in the Initial Quality Survey."
See Spoog, it is the same test as the initial quality survey just over a longer period of time.
The Toyota is a precision machine, built for years of abuse and offroad.
The Ranger is built for kids who want to pick up stuff from home depot and for lasting 5-6 years.
It doesn't matter HOW much more horsepower a Chevy, or Ford, or Dodge has. Because in a few years that Ford, Chevy, or Dodge will be sitting on jackstands or bricks on your driveway or lawn! Hahaha!
Producing ZERO horsepower! Because it'll be all broken down! Inoperable.
You want blown head gaskets after 50K? Buy a Ford (might as well spec it with Firestone tires too).
Ford has more comfortable Seats??!! Hahaha! So when your Ford breaks down you'll be sitting real comfy in your broken down F-150 waiting for the Tow truck! Ford Quality is JOKE One!
Wanna rebuild your tranny after 40K? Buy a Chevy! Like a Rock?! yeah right! more like dead weight! Get a TH-700R4 overdrive tranny, you'll be rebuilding it every 2 years!
Want electrical problems? don't like air conditioning? Buy a Dodge! You'll get electrical shorts, failed AC compressors, weak ignition/starter systems, you'll get shocked every time you touch your door. You'll feel like you just got RAMmed once you start having to take your truck back to the dealer for all the Factory Recalls and TSB's.
Want your trim/weatherstripping to crack? knobs and controls to fall off and break?
Like to see that "Check Engine Soon" light flashing all the time?
You like leaky Oil Pans? Want oil & tranny fluid all over your garage floor?
Take your pick, buy ANY of the "Big 3" trucks and you'll get ALL those problems! free of charge.
Wanna find out just what Punks those dealership service centers can be like? When your Ford, Chevy, or Dodge breaks down and you try to get warranty repairs done you'll find out.
You WILL end up spending Thousands of dollars on repairs, recalls, parts & service not covered by the recall, rental cars, wasted time, etc, fixing your vehicle.
When you buy a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge it will end up Owning YOU!
It don't matter how much "Big 3" trucks can tow, cargo capacity, horsepower, torque... all that doesn't count for CRAP when that big hunk of junk breaks down. Just look at all the Factory Recalls on Fords and Chevies. Pure junk man.
Ok, if you're just leasing/renting for a couple years... then who cares? Buy whatever you want; go crazy and get yourself a Ford Explorer with Wilderness tires if you like.
After a couple years, lease is over, it'll be somebody else's problem anyways.
But if you plan on keeping your truck for more than a couple years and want a RELIABLE truck, then do yourself (and the environment) a favor. Buy a Toyota or Nissan.
The junkyards are already over-populated by big, broken Ford, Chevy, and Dodge junk.