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
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html
It talks about how reliability statistics are often slanted by the biases of both car publications and also those of owners of certain vehicle makes. General point seems to be that all those stats are to be taken with a grain of salt because people have different maintenance habits and differing perspectives of what constitutes serious reliability problems worth reporting in surveys. Even insinuates that maybe owners of foreign vehicles leave stuff out when responding to surveys because they don't want to suggest that the foreign make they paid a price premium for is not as perfect as they thought. I was particularly itnerested in the section where it says CR rated certain American luxury cars as not recommended while recommending foreign makes when they had not actually tested either.
I gave the complete maintenance schedule for my '85 Toyota.
You might be surprised.
John
Of course Toyota owners are not going to want to believe ANY data that may not show the Tacoma better than a Ranger in anything. Fact is the data is all over the net. Ranger is the better value truck and is actually reliable.
Second, show me where I came to ANY conclusion after my link. I simply summarized what I found to be interesting points in the article. The point is, many Toyota owners quote anything from JD power and associates to CR as well as other publications to support their assertions that their vehicle is superior. This was just a reminder that even magazines have their biases.
ebbgreatdane... I'd love to see your Toy's maintenance history. My grandfather's 87 went without anything more than oil changes before traded for a Frontier at 100 K. No mechanical trouble. The only serious problem was the bed sheet metal was so rusted thorugh it looked like Swiss cheese. The Toyota's are real nice, reliable trucks, I just get a bit skeptical when some owners claim they are vastly superior and then base their assumptions on questionable stats.
I won't go as far as to say it's never happened but I don't recall any Toyota owner bringing up CR's opinion. Some, like myself, have commented on posts where CR has been brought up by Ranger owners though. CP, for example, often brings up CR as lately it's rated the Ranger a best buy. It also rates the Tacoma as above average quality. So what. The Ranger is a good truck as well as the Tacoma. Why is the CR opinion only suspect when it states something good about a foreign vehicle? Why aren't the favorable comments on the Ranger suspect too?
The Ranger guys, like in post #1807, need to mature a bit and realize that happy Toyota owners are not part of a giant conspiracy. I didn't join a secret underground society when I bought my Tacoma that forbids me to say anything bad about my truck. If something goes wrong I have no problem admitting it. I just haven't had anything go wrong and there are lots of others with the same experience. Why does that drive you guys so crazy? If you're really happy with your Ranger, great. Why not act like it, spend more time enjoying it, and less time trying to find something wrong with the Tacoma?
Matt Kennell posted an example:
"Oh I bought a Toyota, so this problem that I'm having really wasn't a big deal as I know Toyotas are reliable cars and the dealer tells me so and so do all the magazines."
eharri, allknowing.
Consumer Reports takes input from it's subscribers which is not a pure sample of the population, however, it is the opinions of certain people.
The mag also tests vehicles at a testing facility and each vehicle is subjected to the same routes so you do get a consistant test. If you review road tests in different mags, they are not consistant.
The director of Consumer Reports has 25 years experience in testing of auto's mostly in Europe.
With most of the vehicles I have owned, I can agree with the ratings in the areas selected by Consumer Reports. They are an indicator of where problems could exist within a given vehicle.
Use the data you find as a guide. I would say for example, a coworker's husband bought a 95 Chevy S3500 diesel truck. Consumer Reports reviews on that vehicle are very bad. They went through an engine, front differential, rear differential, 2 transmissions one transfer case and then a second engine in 125K. They had to take a loan out to fix the dang thing. Had they followed the Consumer Reports rating they would not have experieced the problems as every area of failue was listed as a black dot in Consumer Reports.
Allknowing: I don't believe in conspiracies. You'e getting aweful defensive here when all I did was post an opposing point of view. My point is, everone has their biases. Magazines have their sweet hearts. And nobody who has just spent 20 thousand dollars on a truck is going to allow themselves to believe that is 20K misspent, no matter how hard anoybody else tries to convince them, unless it turns into a true lemon. And what is anybody's first instinct when someone else tries to convince them they just threw their money away on a bad product? To try to convince that other person that they did the same.
My personal opinion is that you cannot say which is the mroe reliable truck until you can say that there is an equal number of Tacomas and Rangers out there driven by owners who all maintain them in the same way and drive them in the same way. Then you base which is more reliable on which truck has more stuff break. That will never happen.
So everyone will always base their assumptions that one truck or the other is superior over anecdotal evidence and biased magazine reports such as that Peterson's off road article that Tacoma owners love so much, where they seemed to me to test the trucks in the most ridiculous way possible by by driving the vehicles the way you see them driven in SUV commericals on TV, at 40 mph or mroe over bumps and through mud, when most off roading isn't like that. So of course the vehicle with the best combination of a controlled, comfortable ride and power to weight ratio will win, but that ve\hicle is not necessarily the most unstoppable off roader.
I always learned that whoever tried to act better than others actually feels insecure. Most Tacoma owners in here try very hard to act like they have the better truck, most Ranger owners try to admit they are both well built, capable vehicles.
NO CONCLUSION HERE ALLKNOWING... just the philosophy I was always taught and the circumstances in this thread. Draw your own.
To quote: "A few years ago, they had the [2 domestic nameplates and one foreign nameplate all of the same car] owner's satisfaction. The [domestic nameplate] had the least owner satisfaction of these three. Next was the [domestic nameplate]. The best owner support was for the [foreign nameplate]. There was a fair spread between them. Funny thing: all of these are built at the same American plant, only varying, primarily, in "hood ornaments." How can the same car be perceived differently when the only real difference was the label?"
"... many people will have a subconscious need to justify their purchase of a Japanese auto over of a domestic one, and they could do this by believing superior reliability is the reason they bought it. Because of cognitive dissonance, they would tend to overlook or down play anything that would attack this mind-set. We do see many people who vehemently defend Japan's cars' reliability and smear that of others."
No one report or magazine should be taken into account as biblical scripture. It is simply another test/review by undoubtably different analyitcal means. Any consumer needs to take in all the available sources, both personal and third person, before he concludes which make and models can truly be called the better one.
The last part of your post 1809 kinda troubles me.
Ranger owners need to mature? And your opinion must be that much more valid. There is nothing immature in Vince's post, but I can understand why you might think so. Because it is in contrast to your post that you never had any problems, so he must be full of it right? Vince simply stated he knew someone who fell into the maxim, presented in eharri's posted webpage on allpar and quoted above. Or maybe it was just the headgasket failure that pushed your button. Who accused you to be apart of a giant conspiracy? You seem to dismiss anything that CR says about Ranger, and you admit it gives stronger rating to the Ranger, and you dismiss the Dr Zatz's on CR's unreliable data as chysler propaganda??? Can't the dictum in your questions not be applied inversely to the Tacoma, and it's owners, and be valid as well? "I just haven't had anything go wrong and there are lots of others with the same experience. Why does that drive you guys so crazy? If you're really happy with your Tacoma, great. Why not act like it, spend more time enjoying it, and less time trying to find something wrong with the Ranger?"
You also failed to see that eharri's said twice that he was summarizing the webpage he linked, and not extracting his own conclusions. If you read the link he posted you would of seen that.
Or maybe this is another of your "jokes" not to be taken seriously?
eharri -
Well it's too far back and I don't feel like typing all that s@#! out again so basically in a 15 year period:
(1) Valve cover gasket
(1) Radiator
(1) Water Pump
(1) Clutch
(1) Exhaust manifold (warped after a 1200 mile drive in 1998 (moving) but it kept going for a week, although loudly, till I got it fixed)
Normals include Tuneups, brakes, air filters, a couple of $.69 PCV valves, tires before it began putting out the James Bond smoke screen (needs a ring job but I'm donating it) at 230K miles of hard labor, college and gruelling Bay Area and So Cal commutes.
No squeaks, rattles shimmies or shakes. Had some folks in the extra cab and when getting out they kicked off a plastic trim piece that covers the seat runner. I snapped it back in.
Washed it for the first time last weekend and glad I decided against the Full Size. ;-)
John
now at 73,000 miles.
Tires, brake service, 1 temp gauge, all engine belts, and oil changes. Yes, it has had more done to it than many people on this board claim for their older trucks, but I take lots of long 2 hour plus long trips so I do all dealer recommended maintenance rather than waiting for things to break. Also, I don't push my luck on things like engine belts, and I am an aggressive driver, so I quite hard on brakes and tires. The only thing that wasn't normal dealer recommended maintenance or caused by my aggressive driving was the temp gauge, normally a 300 dollar repair but Ford paid for most of it and only asked me for a 50 dollar deductible though the truck was bought used and out of warranty.
The new Tacoma is quite a nice truck. I've always liked the V6, the only thing holding me back would be that I think the new grill is a step backward in styling and I've always found the seats flat and unsupportive.
Best Value=Ranger
Best Reliability=Tacoma
Hey Vince, I too have a friend but he owns a Ford Ranger. His __________ broke and he tried to hide it from me! LOL!!!
Oh, and Vince, there are MORE disgruntled Ford Ranger owners out there simply because there are MORE RANGERS out there. Actually there is no way you can tell how many more disgruntled owners of one truck their are than the other. So please, stop trying to portray all Ranger owners as happy while all Tacoma owners are disgruntled.
By the way, that's a funny word 'disgruntled'. So if I'm 'gruntled' does that mean I'm happy?
The bottom line is as I've said all along. Different people have different preferances. Cars (and trucks) break down, it can't be stopped. I believe that both the Ranger and Tacoma are the best compact pickups out there right now. The Ranger is definitely the better value while the Tacoma is more reliable. It's not a huge reliability gap and Ford is closing in; but they're not there yet. On the other hand, the Ranger isn't an overly seductive value either. They're both pretty close. If you bought either of them and are happy, good for you! If you bought either and aren't happy with it for whatever reason, what makes you think that buying the other will solve all the problems you had with the first? Furthermore, who's to say that buying the other won't put you into a whole new set of things to be "disgruntled" about. Cars break, for whatever reason they just do. Every so often someone gets lucky and gets a good one that goes XXX,XXX miles and has few, if any problems. It could be a Ford, Toyota, Chevy, Nissan, Dodge, etc, etc, etc.
;-)...Dealer out of my town. the service rep suggested putting the wheels on their hunter 9700 balancer. he wants to ID whether i have a driveshaft problem. i wonder how many bad shafts are on Rangers (actually,mine is a 2000 model). you listed part number for updated shafts that are different than mine. maybe i have a bad driveshaft that is numbimg my feet at highway speed. otherwise, i LOVE this truck. what i like most is the engine-tranny combination (4.0 pushrod + 5 speed auto, tall gearing, regular axle): GREAT for towing my 1500 lb. boats. enough torque to pull them in OD easily, and i love the shift points. fuel consumptions on the highway is 16 at steady 65 while towing (not bad !) and about 19.5 to 20 while not towing (i have an ARE cap installed...that gave me about .6 to .8 mpg). if i can get the shakes out and keep the truck, i will get better shocks, like Monroe or Edelbrock. the Ranchos seem to be too stiff. wow, how i love this 5 speed auto, in spite of the bad press. i STILL hate the steering; it is not self-centering. it seems as though you must fight the truck all the time to keep it centered. maybe this is typical 4x4. thanks again for your help and suggestions. by the way, i just did a change and put in 5-30 Mobil One with a Fram. i am going to see if it improves my MPG (i may be hard to measure it accurately).
Unlike Tacoma owners, I honestly DO NOT feel qualified to say one truck is more reliable than the other because I have never seen a survey that accounts for all variables and leaves out all biases. (Such a reliability survey actually does not exist.) I also know better than to extrapolate based on personal or anecdotal experience. You want to hear about Tacomas and other Toyotas that have very real, very costly mechanical failures? Go to TUndra solutions.com.. There are many happy Toyota owners there, but there are also plenty of disgruntled ones who feel more free to whine to other Toyota owners there than on sites like this one, where they would be sure to take flack from domestic owners asking them what happened to that awe-inspiring Toyota reliability.
The arguments here are always the same and it's the same cycle over and over again. First Tacoma owners say their truck is mroe reliable. When they are unable to show definite proof other than "MY '87 went 1 gazzillion miles and I never even changed the oil so that means mine is better than yours" they are unable to do so.
So then they switch to saying the Tacoma is better off road. When Ford owners question this and show pictures of their trucks handling some terrain that Toyota owners swear Fords could never traverse, its back to the reliability thing.
My personal experience is that both are very good trucks with the everpresent possibility of a lemon popping up, but long term reliability largely depends on driving conditions and maintenance.
There is no way to prove which brand of truck is most reliable. When I said, in the above post, that the Tacoma is more reliable; I obviously have no proof to back this up. It's the same thing as Ford owners saying their trucks are almost as reliable as Tacomas, or even that their trucks are a better value. The reality is that the Tacoma COULD be miles ahead of the Ranger in reliability. The reality also may be that the Ranger COULD be way ahead in terms of reliability. How can it be measured accurately? It can't.
Value is where the consumer sees it. I believe consumers base it on a lot of things. Usually a consumer will rely on their own experiences and knowledge the most. Outside sources of information are usually taken with a grain of salt. Nobody is taking CR to the car dealers and saying "I want this car because CR says it's the best." We buy what we like and want.
Ranger owners can tout value all they want. I actually believe the Ranger is the better value, but that's just my opinion. I don't need CR or some magazine to tell me that. Just like I don't need some magazine to tell me my opinion about the Tacoma. It's my opinion that the Tacoma is more reliable than a Ranger. It's not fact. Others can choose to agree or disagree. But don't come on here and say, "XYZ magazine says this truck is only SLIGHTLY more reliable than that truck," because that is THEIR opinion, not yours and they are not basing it on any more fact than you are.
So basically all of the points we are arguing are based strictly on opinions. In that sense, how can anyone be "wrong".
Both trucks are good and it's just plain silly to try to say one is better than the other based on facts.
Midnight_Stang & eharri3 - Give me a break guys. First, to attempt to justify post #1806 is pretty sad. It states that people that own foreign vehicles don't tell the truth and the proof is that he has a friend that lied to him. Substitute any race, gender or whatever in place of "foreign vehicle owners" and the statement would carry the same poor logic. Are all women liars because I have a woman friend that lied to me about something? Hardly. As I said, think about your supporting argument and bring it up a level. This kind of supporting argument is simply pretty sad. As far as the article being written by a so-called "expert"; with a PHD, ha!!!. Having a PHD doesn't necessarily produce good journalistic skills and/or common sense. His site, which he admits is a pro Chrysler site, is full of the same great evidence as the post I previously mentioned. He uses names in the article but they all pull the same lame tactics. Each person named supposedly has a "friend" that did this or that. Generally this article is without source because these "friends" are not named. To insinuate that Toyota receives a higher quality rating because Toyota owners, having paid so much for their vehicles, as a general rule won't admit problems that they've experienced is plan stupid. I've seen Ranger owners lie about problems that they've had too. What would mental wonders like the author of this article conclude from that? Using similar logic, could I say that it must be the fact that they paid less and don't want anyone to know that they also got a lower quality vehicle?
In reality both trucks are good quality trucks and I'm sure that a majority of the owners of either make would have no issue of sharing problems that they've experienced. If you wish to support posts like #1806, as well as poorly constructed and researched articles like the one mentioned, don't expect many to take you seriously. I've seen many similar sites with the opposite viewpoint but I don't link them here because I have the same low opinion of them. I'll concede that I used a poor choice of words to eharri3 when I used "your conclusion". It was poor american slang in an attempt to describe the opinion represented in the article he posted and not necessarily his personal conclusion. May I add that although most of the Toyota owners here prefer the Tacoma over the Ranger, you'd have a hard time finding many that believe that all Toyotas never experience problems. That's an image people like the author of this article and post #1806 perpetuate. Don't be foolish enough to believe them.
indakurl2K: Very rational, well thought out post. In all honesty, I show up and take part in debates here every few months because it's fun, but I could really care less what anyone else thinks about Rangers. I've heard bad stories about every single make of truck in person and on line, and if I took them all too seriously I'd probably never be able to decide on my next truck. I've had almost nothing but good experiences, and so I will probably keep buying them until/if something happens to change my opinion of the truck.
I don't recall if you have had an alignment, but would recommend one if you haven't. Take your truck to a respected front end shop, NOT your Ford dealer, IMHO.
None taken, I agree with what you said. CR is a source but not the only source one should look at. That is why I try to point to multiple sources. The best source is current owners and the test drive.
1busman:
I have the RS5000's ane really like them compared to stock. Lifetime warrenty...stabalizes much better than stock and not too stiff like an STX model. RS9000's have 5 settings, #2 is like the RS5000, but they are about 60 bucks each. If you install yourself I have see tne RS5000's for $32 at Truck Performance Center online. I cannot speak for the other shocks. Some people I know like the 9000's, some like Heckelthorne's. It would be good if you could find a truck with the Ranchos or what every your looking for and take a ride.
Thing about shocks and tires, they are not real cheap and your stuck with them for a while if you decide you do not like them. But I can just tell you in my opinion, you will not go wrong with the RS 5000's.
Vince's post, well you can't say he isn't allowed to exercise his 1st right as an American. Vince was stating what he knows/heard, and everyone should realize that is not a generalization, but a test with a size group of 1. So with that rationale, and his opinion, how is your opinion any better?
"Stang seems like a good guy but he's suckered into this generalization, wound himself up a bit too tight, and takes the Toyota owner myth too seriously."
For the record, I Never Said the article pertained to Toyota or Tacoma owners specifically. I said it only related to people in general. And while that is a generalization, it isn't a hard and fast rule that applied to every living soul. I've said as much in the last few previous posts because of quotes like above. I guess you also missed the posts with Steelman where I've stated that toyota definitely is known for being reliable cars and trucks(Specifically in the drive train).
"... even attempts to defend post #1806." and "First, to attempt to justify post #1806 is pretty sad."
All this and all I said was Vince's post and ranger owners aren't immature as you put it. Also I was drawing the link for you, that he was giving an example of ONE person he knew that supported "the article". It's one personal account, and one opinion and he has all right to say so. Had I agreed and said " yeah, Toyota's are all full of crap!" Then I could have understood your reply.
Anything else beyond that is YOUR personal extrapolation. Who's generalizing now?
I just like to call those things that I think are wrong. And I'm very happy to tell you why I think you're wrong too. But don't put words into my mouth. My posts are conceived in the desired purpose of disputing vague, misleading, and untrue information, and presenting supporting facts on why I like Rangers better.
I think indacurl2k's statement sums it up nicely "So basically all of the points we are arguing are based strictly on opinions. In that sense, how can anyone be "wrong"."
We are having some fires here in the NW. At the base camps there are plenty of Ford, GM even Dodge products. NOT one Toyota product... Hmm....
Facts about how impractical his TRD package really is just burnt him up.
Gotta love those open axles on those Toyota's..
LOL.. He also paid a premium for some Bilstein shocks and springs to have that TRD sticker on the side of his truck... LOL!
Finally got the RS5000 installed front and rear. They are more firm than the stock (non-TRD) shocks but I like the ride better especially off-road. Hwy ride doesn't seem to be affected too much but my wife says it does rides stiffer. The biggest difference was this past weekend over Redcone (12,800 ft). A very rocky trail and the truck was much more in control with less jarring going over the rough stuff. Webster Pass was still closed so we went down the other side to Montezuma. Wheeled with my neighbor's F150 Super Crew. Even with his size he was able to get through some very tight spots and never had clearance issues. It does sit a lot higher than an Expedition.
Btw, the TRD package contains P265/70R16 BFGs, 5 spoke alloy wheels, locking rear diff, and overfenders in addition to the great shocks and the incredible looking TRD decal. The Ranger also has an off-road package which has 5 spoke 16'' alluminum wheels (with a 15'' steel spare according to ford's website), P245/75Rx16SL OWL all-terrain tires (firestones right?) , bulge body shocks, and a skid plate package. Looks to me that the Tacoma off road package is better so if us people who bought the package were stupid, what does that make the people who bought the Ranger off road package?
I read these posts for a good laugh. Vince here keeps making the same posts over and over again just trying to convince people that HIS truck is almost as good as MY Taco. It makes me realize that I really made the right choice.
Steve Cohen
The other thing is that you once again admit that Tacoma is more reliable than the Ranger. It doesn't matter that you think the Tacoma is only SLIGHTLY more reliable than the Ranger. The point is that you think the Tacoma is slightly MORE reliable than the Ranger.
Did you trade your truck in yet dude? With the money you purportedly saved when you bought it, you may have enough for a down payment on a new Tacoma!!!
It'll be too bad when you have to get rid of your truck. I think I can speak for most people here when I say we're sure going to miss your wit around here.
I'm a Toyota owner. Do I think my truck is better than everything on the road? Yep, otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my money. I assume Ford owners feel the same way. So who is right?
To quote indacurl2k:
- So basically all of the points we are arguing are based strictly on opinions. In that sense, how can anyone be "wrong".
That pretty much sums it up for me. Just out of curiosity, what kind of tires are you all slapping on your Rangers with the 4X4 packages? Tacoma owners as well with the TRD package. I'm not sure how long these BF Goodrich's will last me but I like to do my homework ahead of time.
John
(my weak attempt at humor).
It is kind of an interesting subject, shocks, as you buy them so infrequently and the cost is fairly high given labor. Any of the premiums would work better than stock.
To beat spoog to the punch, Ford has done a blanket recall on vehicles, including the Ranger, for seat belt problems. Seems your 2001 vehicle will need the check.
They recall all vehicles, I would suspect, because seat belts are common to all vehicles. This is another kind of non-problem problem that has to be done due to it impacting a safety item. I know in my business, if something is suspect on one item all items that use that one thing become suspect until checked. You may have just few occurances but you check them all.
I have made many Toyota owners angry because of facts. Fact is the locker on the TRD can only be engaged in 4low. A locker is very specialized and cannot help you tow, pull or haul anything. Try to take a sharp turn with your locker engaged.. Hmmm... The TRD package is a spoof. LImited in use and for image only. The average person doesn't even know when to engage a locker. I would love to see a $26K TRD in the terrain a locker and its suspension would get most of its use. Toyota Tacoma owners spent more on image and in the hopes of more quality/reliability. When proved wrong, they come out swinging.
smc 13. In your small mind your Tacoma is better than a Ranger. Over the years while offroading in the Cascade Range to the Deserts of Oregon I have proved many of your type WRONG. And I love doing it!!
barlitz - I've got to admit that the Union comeback was good. I guess we support the Unions either way whether we like it or not.
You know, I have not see a TSB post from spoog since...yeah, thats right, since he was taught the folly of modern math. . .
"...if a number is below a number determined to be the "...average..." that is good. . . "
SMC13 - Like I said, your little mind, your little world. Get out a bit and read the reviews around the internet praising the Ranger.
I guess I am going to have to live with my stamp of being a Ranger fanatic. Even though I have said over the years of being in this room, over and over again the Tacoma is not a bad truck. I will readily admit I am sick and tired of this stigma of, if it says Toyota on it its just plain better, no questions asked. And this huge quality/reliabiltiy gap Toyota owners want so badly for people to believe exists when it doesn't. I will however continue to respond to those who honestly feel a Ford RAnger just cannot offroad like a Tacoma because it has a Ford name.
I visit other sites and continue to argue with people who are Toyota fanatics that honestly feel their trucks are more powerful than the new 2001 Ranger with the new SOHC 205HP, 240ft/lbs of torque V6!
I'm off to Trillium lake today to do some rafting. Look it up on a map, lots of places to play with your truck on the way. Gee.. according to some, my Ranger shouldn't even be able to make it into some of these places..
Cheers.....