Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Compact Pickup Comparison: Frontier, Ranger, Tacoma, S10, Dakota, B-Series, & Hombre
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The lightning does the 0-60 in 5.5 like 2K1TRD stated and finishes the 1/4 mile in 14.0 seconds, stellar for a truck, but by no means making it one of the fastest "cars" on the road. I named 27 models that were as fast or faster 0-60 and of which ALL topped out at higher than 140 MPH, the supposed top speed for the Lightning. To my knowledge, no one has actually driven it that fast yet.
Here are the domestic bashers that come to mind:
Spoog
Bamatundra
Rwellbaum
in addition to the ones you mentioned.
The actual foreign BASHERS seem to be:
justtheone
mgdvhman
Barlitz
Like I said before, except for maybe Barlitz, those guys seem to not want ANY money going overseas not just Japan.
John
You keep telling us the same thing--foreign makes are expensive to "repair and maintain", this taken from your post above. This does not prove anything. It is an accepted fact that to repair or to maintain a honda civic, for example, versus a chevy cavalier is going to be more expensive (import parts are more expensive). The point that needs to be made is that the honda in 100K-200K miles will most likely need nothing more than routine and SCHEDULED maintenance as attested by thousands of reliability studies of actual owners (i.e. Consumer Reports). When you factor in all the UNSCHEDULED repairs the cavalier will require, it becomes apparent which car, in the long run, will be the better value.
And with due respect to your vast experience, you cannot use it to prove anything other than you've either been stupid or wise in your own decisions. You must take into account every owner's experience, good and bad, in order to get an overall reliability rating for a particular model. This is what J.D. Powers and Consumer Reports spend all their time doing, and yet, all the domestic owners spend their time discounting it because it does not corroborate with their own experience.
I hope you know I still respect you, Amora. I just don't like being called a GEN-Xer. If you want to insult me, call me a GM loyalist or how about closeminded?
Here's a few examples of vehicles I've been involved with; '95 Bronco 302 currently at 186,000 miles. Did a fuel pump last summer....'93 302 bronco 125,000 miles. Did injectors($99 for all eight from a Mustang site off the web) and a fuel pump...maybe not needed but we were shotgun trouble shooting a ping. My '97 Cobra at 40,000 miles AND DRIVEN HARD including driving to drag races and racing it. NEVER BEEN IN THE SHOP. My '96 F-150 with a decent suspension and run hard off road....One steering box after stuffing it into a hole at 60 in the desert..covered under warranty...and front wheel bearing seals. under warranty. Current truck ....flawless. One domestic I wasn't happy with was my '87 GMC 454.
Friends Honda Accord; CV joints at 80,000 miles, not sure of the cost but had to remove a lot of stuff just to get to them. Friends mom's Sentra just this week needed an injector(singular) $165. Recently had alt. go out, various oil leaks all under 65,000 miles. Early 80's Toyota pick up vs. my '83 Ranger V6 when we were both 20ish. Same jumps, same off road adventures. Toy, bent axles, Ranger..nothing. Toys rusting in the 80's, blown head gaskets.
My only reason for posting is I don't buy the perceived quality differences.
We all speak of blind loyalty here, yet I see it more from the owners of Japanese vehicles. Stop and take a look around you. Take notice of all the older domestics on the road in comparison the the older Japanese vehicles. When is the last time you saw a 1977 Toyota corolla? I honestly believe that stats play a huge role in the quality game.
Someone called the Tacoma a superior vehicle, I believe it was Amora. Enlighten me how the Tacoma is superior to the Ranger? Like your open axle, terrible crashtest results, cheap interior, shallow bed box, lack of a decent HP/Torque curve for a truck. Value has been taken out of the Toyota name. You who own Tacoma's know you paid 2-3K more for a comparable Ranger. I also speak from experience. This is my second Ranger. I now have 36K trouble free miles on my truck. I also use it as a truck not a Toy. I live in the NW and visit the Cascade Range to the deserts of Oregon at least 3-4 times a month. My Ranger (that is not supposed to be able to offroad as Toyota owners wish to think) has never let me down. My first Ranger went to 96K with NO PROBLEMS..
Personal experience means nothing if you do not include every other owner's experience. Vince8 and Mod, I'm not just picking on you. Amora seems to be bitten by the anectdotal bug as do a lot of others, import and domestic, in Edmunds.
If you compare, impartially and objectively, the reliability data concerning MOST imported and domestic models of the past 30 years, you will find a major discrepancy between what you feel have been great vehicles and what is actually the truth.
How long a truck stays on the highway is not a measure of how reliable it is or was. This simply demonstrates the owners loyalty and/or determination to keep the vehicle on the road. Any vehicle, given enough money, can be kept around for ages. To say one spent 5 grand keeping their Nova in running order so it could achieve 150,000 miles does not prove reliability. How a vehicle performed during its tenure with its owner is a reflection of how reliable it was. And again, you have to look past your own world and see the big picture.
There's a reason why Toyota and Honda, and in most cases, Nissan, are regarded around the world as well-built, highly reliable vehicles. The collective experiences of those owners point to a decided advantage that these companies have in building automobiles.
For example, troops, militias, and terrorists around the world trust themselves to one SUV above all others because it has proven deadly reliable. I'm, of course, talking about the Landcruiser.
American automobiles are just not known for their reliability. It's just that simple. And it is not unpatriotic to admit to this. Before we can build better autos, we first have to realize this.
I'm not saying we haven't come a long way in the last decade or so, but we are generally behind still and recent surveys and studies show this.
I better end this before I put you all to sleep.
My version of what is valuable may be different as someone else's may be. I value long term reliablity, craftmanship, performance (as does everyone probably) in this order. I want the best regardless of price because from my experience, given a "valuable" or cheap alternative to a superior product, it always pays to take the best if one wants to avoid future headache. I'll always pay more for the item that will not let me down. This, of course, is not to say that the highest-priced item is always the best. But with the Ranger and Tacoma, it was for me.
I owned a 95 Ranger. It was a good truck by all accounts. The ranger according to consumer reports and various other studies is of average to good reliability. The Tacoma consistently ranks higher, though, and with my value system, it becomes my truck of choice.
So to argue what you consider to be valuable (lots of items) with what, probably, toyota buyers consider valuable (reliability), is futile. You would be better off and, just as effective, arguing religion.
BUT, to address one item which you consistently post about--the hp/torque curve. The ranger's, now history, 4.0 OHV engine has 223 lbs of torque available at 2800 rpms and 158 HP at 4200. The toyota 3.4 has 220 lbs. available at 3600 rpms, and it tops out at 190 HP at 4800 rpms. So we have 1% more torque by the ranger, but 20% more HP for the tacoma. (By the way, because I'm sure you'll address this, the tacoma, in a 4Wheeler magazine test, had 180 lbs of torque at 2500 rpms.) Now factor that the tacoma's engine is 18% smaller, and what does this all mean?
It means the Toyota produced much more HP and almost identical torque with less than proportional cubic inches.
Now, of course, the ranger has the 4.0L SOHC engine. It produces more power, but (again, efficiency), per liter, the tacoma still produces more HP (56 vs. 52 per liter) and more torque (65 vs. 60 lb/ft per liter).
with my wife's truck too. My sister's sway bar on her 94 Mustang broke. Maybe you're thinking of when I
posted that. All I can say is that I am a Ex-stanch defender of American cars. I used to Race Chevys and I know the small blocks very well and I was also a fan of many of the Ford V8's. I love the design but I gave up on GM after having too many stupid little things fail due to poor assembly on vehicles built in the 70's and early 80's. I had much better luck with Ford in the 80's but when I got a Nissan if 1990 it
changed my opinion for good. I just have better luck these days with Nissan and Toyota. I like Ford
Trucks and I think they're the best of the American made vehicles. I do however, think the little extra cost is worth it to those, like myself these days, that want to deal with repairs as little as possible.
barlitz -With 0-60 times like that, it's a lot faster than I realized. Pretty impressive.
Web, your Land Cruiser comparo is flawed simply because the 3rd world and military products are NOT the same vehicles sold in the states. same goes for Nissan.
I always find it strange that the "data" on Toys seems to omit the rusting sheet metal of the last decade and the head gasket problem.
The new SOHC 4.0 trounces the 3.4 Toyota offers also at 205HP and 240ft/lbs of torque!
By the way, do you know how much .6 cu/inches is?
Value is what the Ranger offers. Value is what Toyota has forgotten.
You get more options, more choices, more configurations from the Ranger. You won't pay out the nose either! This is why the Ranger has been the number one selling compact truck for 14years straight! Why hasn't the Tacoma taken this spot yet if its so great? Its had almost 6 years to achieve this number one standing... The consumer makes the choice, not some magazine....
Vince8, if you bothered to read any of the numbers, you will see that I stated that the new Ranger 4.0 SOHC is MORE POWERFUL, but what I zeroed in on was its power per liter. The only advantage to this engine is its 1000 lbs increased towing compacity. If you consider that the ranger 2wd reg. cab has a payload of 1260 lbs, and a COMPARABLE (this comparison is directly from Ford.com) tacoma has a payload of 2009 lbs., then the only advantage is a total of 251 lbs for the Ranger. And the old 4.0 OHV had 158 HP and 223 lbs. of torque, again, directly from Ford.
And if you bothered to read anything else I said, you would see that I stated value is a relative term. What you are considering value (lots of stuff) and what I consider valuable (reliability) are two different things, which explains why you drive a Ranger and I drive a Tacoma.
Mod, the reason reliability studies aren't affected by rusting sheet metal and blown head gaskets is because those problems did not affect enough vehicles to bring down the overall reliability of the toyota truck. The blown head gasket only applied to model year 95 and 96 tacomas, as the engine was new in 1995 (not an excuse, just a fact).
Of course, since this is the only major problem the domestic car owners can point to concerning a toyota truck aside from the older models' (80's) propensity to rust fast, it gets spread to all toyota trucks, and all of a sudden we'll hear Barlitz telling us things like the Tundra has a blown head gasket problem.
Value, I see value as reliability, quality, and quantity for your hard earned dollar. Both of my Rangers along with several other people I know have Rangers that have been reliabile, quality vehicles. And option for option far less expensive than a comparable Tacoma. What do you say to someone who purchased a Ranger for 19K and has had if for 125K miles with no problems. Then you have the Tacoma person who purchased thier truck for 22K with the same options that has 125K miles? I would say the Ranger person had the better value wouldn't you?
The stigma of Ford bad, Toyota good is fading. Toyota isn't all cracked up to what you want it to be.
Second, I compared the old Ranger's 4.0 OHV engine because there are only several million owners out there (you'd be one, right?) still using this engine as it was just discontinued this model year. I was trying to cover both Ranger engines in the pursuit of fairness. The 158 HP and 223 torque figures are directly from FORD, and not magazines. The 3.4 is rated at 190 hp and 220 torque by Toyota. Yes, in the 4Runner, this engine produces 183 HP due to exhaust restraints put in place to make the interior quieter. Who are you going to believe? I thought the manufacturer was the authority in a case like this.
It's funny that your engine, according to you, is now outdated because it has been replaced with one better, but before it was replaced, it was superior to the tacoma's. Now you only want to debate on the new engine and forget that old, outdated version propelling your current vehicle.
But to continue the debacle, how much difference is 18%? When you ask how much is .6 liters, this can be deceiving. When you put it in perspective, an 18% larger engine is a noticeably (not visually) larger engine and a porportional power response should follow.
If you refer to 4Wheeler magazine's (the manufacturers do not provide engine curves, that I can find) independent engine curve charts for both the Ranger and Tacoma (the Ranger curve in this article was for the old 4.0, so I won't bother with it), you will see that the tacoma produces over 82% of its torque at just 2500 rpms. It's peak is 600 rpms higher than the Ranger's (referring to new SOHC now). I only mention this to highlight the tacoma 3.4L's efficiency. It produces excellent HP (and excellent HP/per liter) and good low-speed torque, items both necessary to tow and to accelerate.
If you read my posts better, you'd also discover that I am a fan of the ranger, but I want the best reliability regardless of price for my money. I agree with you that you get a lot more options for your money with the Ranger. But this does not make it more valuable to everyone unless everyone considers getting more options to define what is or is not valuable.
"Value" is a very subjective term, and it must be left up to each individual consumer to determine what is valuable to them. "Value" as defined by the dictionary is a "fair return or equivalent in money, goods, or services for something exchanged." Your "options" would be "goods" in this definition while my "reliability" would equate to "services."
And, please, don't tell me that I'm arguing semantics now. I'm trying to be as clear and objective as I can, so I won't have to keep repeating myself.
Oh, I have a Ranger.
Steve.
18percent, .6 liters, whatever.. Fact is the new 4.0 has 15more HP and 20more ft/lbs of torque. Granted the old 4.0 is outdated but so is a 486 processor... but it still runs...
Besides, I know I have old engine technology. But my old engine does fine by me, is reliable and does what I ask of it.
The auto industry is always changing. The old 4.0 pushrod reaches peak torque at 2750 rpms of 225ft/lbs. The 3.4 reaches its peak of 220ft/lbs at about 3400rpms. The 4.0 reaches 200ft/lbs at about 2200rpms. (I say about because there are so many different sources that may say less or more rpms depending on where you read). The fact is the 3.4 has to rev harder and work harder. You can play with numbers all you want. The torque curve for the old 4.0 is still better than the 3.4.
I have a friend who owns a TRD. We kid each other all the time about our trucks. I have already gone up against him in the Cascades. I could climb or go anywhere he could. It was up to him to take my Ranger into areas that he felt it could no way follow his TRD. After seeing that the Ranger could do anything his TRD could and for less money. I would say I got the better value.
So, your saying that value has nothing to do with the money you spend for options? A/C is not of any value? or a tow pkg, or a CD player? I always thought you wanted to get the most for your money when you buy anything? So, your saying a stripped down Toyota Tacoma costing 16K is a better value than a Ranger costing 16K that has A/C, CD player, bucket seats, tow pkg, offroad pkg, tinted windows, sliding rear window, stepside bed, power windows, door locks, seats, p/s, p/b.... and so on...?? This is all hypothetical of course..
But what I do not agree with, and nor do the manufacturers of each vehicle, are the numbers you are spouting. It is obvious when you start using words like "about" you don't know what you are talking about and are getting "subjective" instead of "objective." The Toyota 3.4 makes 190 HP at 4800 RPMS. It makes 220 lbs of torque at 3600 RPMs (not 3400, which actually hurt your argument). The ranger makes 158 HP and 223 lbs of torque according to Ford. Magazines round up, hence the numbers you are getting from them.
I never said your old 4.0 wasn't a capable engine. I said that it was interesting how you changed your argument in light of the new SOHC engine coming out. You called your own engine old, but you were vindicated by the presence of a new, more sophisticated engine but one you didn't even own.
And to address the question you posed to me concerning the 16K stripped-down tacoma vs a loaded 16K ranger. If you READ my last post, you would see that what I said was "value" is not defined as more options for your money. "Value" is a subjective term. It hinges on the individual consumer's value system. For you, yes, the 16K loaded ranger is more valuable because you place a high value on more options for less money. For me, I value the highest craftmanship, i.e. reliability, regardless of price, so I would take the stripped-down tacoma.
But if you won't these people to read your long posts, you're gonna have to break up your thoughts into small paragraphs. See some of my longer posts back in this discussion to get an idea. But, mind you, even doing this does not guarantee than everyone will read and comprehend everything you post. I'm starting to feel like some just read the last paragraph and then target it for their less-than-accurate rebuttals.
As for this..."as trucks go, the fit and finish and durability of the Toyota is definitely superior to anything made by anyone else"
A matchbox car has better fit and finish as far I can tell.
Most Dependable 1996 Models by Category
Compact Pickup Toyota Tacoma
Full-size Pickup Toyota T100
JD Powers collects information from thousands of owners and is not the opinion of one person. This tends to decrease bias and provide a greater degree of factual information. The fact is that Toyota builds a high quality product. T100 included. T100 was not perfect and I would not have purchased one. It needed a bigger motor, etc., etc... But the Tundra is better.
Value, I keep asking you. A person buys a Tacoma for 22K. A person buys a Ranger like optioned for 19K. Each truck goes 150K with no problems. Who do you say got the better value?
Resale is a joke here also. I keep telling Toyota fans to visit Kelly Blue book and type in a like Ranger to a comparable Toyota. Surprise! Resale is within 2-300 bucks! And, the person who bought the Toyota payed thousands more at initial sale.
As far as old 4.0 vs new 4.0 debate. I agree the old 4.0 has less HP. But the old 4.0 has a better HP/Torque curve than the present 3.4 in the Toyota. This means, better pulling, better hauling, better towing. The 3.4 has to work harder. The new 4.0, why can't I bring this into this debate? Because I don't own one? Ok, lets pit Toyota's old 3.0 against Ford old 4.0?
J.D. powers 5-year reliability study results:
Toyota (Lexus included) cleaned house with a #1 rating in 9 of a total 14 categories including best full-size truck (i'm gonna hear it on this even though EPA sets the standards and J.D. just follows), compact truck, mini-suv, compact suv, large suv, luxury suv, full-size suv, compact car, and more.
AND, here is the 2000 model year reliability study. You'll notice that neither of the Big 2 placed in the top 20 (Ford was 21), and DaimlerChrysler's only saving grace was Mercedes, which came in at #7. Lexus placed first for 6th straight year followed by porsche, infiniti, and Toyota, respectively. Ford at #21 had 48% more problems per 100 vehicles compared to Toyota.
Here's the link: http://www.jdpower.com/global/jdpaawards/releases/110200.html
Car and Driver did a comparison test between a '99 model Prerunner V-6 and a Ranger Splash with the old 4.0 OHV engine. The ranger bested the tacoma by 4 tenths in the 0-60 sprint (8.8 vs. 9.2) due to gearing (5-spd auto vs. 4-spd auto). Then they loaded each with an 800 lbs. ATV and did the run again. This time, the Tacoma bested the Ranger by more than a second because, despite shorter gearing on behalf of the ranger, the tacoma 3.4 produces 32 more HP. When you factor in that the Ranger already had a .4 sec advantage, the Tacoma made up over a 1.4 second difference, despite long gearing, due to HP advantage. (Sorry, there's no link for this one at this time. More to follow.)
Now you want to compare the old 4.0 to an engine 3/4 its size? How fair would that be? But for the sake of argument, the old 3.0 produced 150 HP, 8 HP less than the 33% larger ranger engine, and it produced 185 lbs of torque, 38 lbs or 17% less, at 3750 RPM's. And I never said we couldn't compare the new 4.0. I believe I actually did. Do you read anything?
And the issue of resale value. I went to Kelley Blue Book and did two separate comparisons. The first one was between 1998 2wd regular cab models with manual transmissions and nothing but air conditioning for options. I gave both 30K miles (national avg is appr. 15K per yr). I classified each as being in "good" condition. Here are the results:
Tacoma--$7970.00
Ranger--$6020.00
-----------------
Difference of $1950.00
My second comparison was between the most expensive models, 4x4's with auto transmissions, power everything, largest engine, towing pkg, sliding rear window, premium wheels, over-sized off-road tires, and 4-wheel ABS. They each had 30K miles again and were classified as being in "good" condition. Here are the results:
Tacoma--$17,930.00
Ranger--$14,175.00
-------------------
Difference of $3,755.00
Of course, this is just an attempt at sarcasm to break up the monotony of having to post objectively all the time.
I don't know where the heck you are getting your Kelly Blue Book numbers.
I went into Kelly. Please punch these in:
1998 Ranger splash supercab 2D
4.0, 5spd, 4WD, 30K miles, offroad pkg, A/c, P/S, P/B, Tilt, Cruise, CD, Premium sound, dual air bags, ABS, power seat, sliding rear window, running boards, stepside bed, bedliner, tow pkg, premium wheels, over size tires.
Trade= 13,430, Retail is 19185.
Toyota with same options is T= 15,050, Retail is 20,480! This is a 1,620 diff in trade in value and a 1,295 in retail value. Once again I prove a Ranger COSTS LESS for same options!! And for those of you who bought the TRD package. The resale is even worse. Add the TRD pkg and and T=15,195, and retail is 21,380! So for those of you who paid the extra 2-3K for the TRD pkg, you loose! You always forget to mention that the Tacoma costs more at inital sale. I don't understand how you Tacoma boys can tout resale when you paid more to begin with???
Here are two examples of the cheapest and most expensive model tacomas and rangers for 2001:
A '01 tacoma regular cab with nothing but A/C costs $13,310.00. A ranger XL with just A/C is $13,075.00.
A Tacoma Xtracab 4x4 V6 Limited with the TRD Off-road package is $25,810.00. A 2001 Ranger XLT 4X4 SuperCab 6' box 4.0L Styleside Off-Road with bedliner and stepbars is $24,685.00.
In your comparison, 1998 Tacomas did not have stepside beds, so the value you got for your Ranger would have been higher than it should be versus a comparable tacoma. And the TRD package costs between $810-$1360, depending on the model of tacoma you're buying.
go figure!
Webbd, I notice you didn't answer my question as to "value". I will ask you once again. A person buys a Ranger for 19K and goes 150K with no problems. Another person buys a Tacoma for 22K and goes 150K with no problems. Who got the better value?
As far as the comparison at Kelly. I included items on the Tacoma (4wheel ABS) that were virtually non-existent or plain non-existent in 1998. You forget I shopped both Ford and Toyota throughly in 1998 when looking for a truck. (Even after owning a Ranger and having outstanding reliability). These comparisons were fair and like. You can't tout resale when you pay more for a truck to begin with.
I went to a Toyota dealership today just for kicks. I looked at the sticker for a TRD. 24,897!
C'mon you guys, you guys are fooling yourselves and making yourselves look bad when you claim to have purchased a TRD for 19-20K!! Just the 4cyl 4WD Tacoma's also had stickers of 19-21K! The price thing is over I'm not going to argue this anymore. Its no secret the TAcoma just plain cost more.
You asked my the "A person buys a Ranger for 19K and goes 150K with no problems. Another person buys a Tacoma for 22K and goes 150K with no problems. Who got the better value?" question already, and I answered it. Are you that absent minded that you have forgotten already? But I'll answer it again as I have become accustom to doing with you.
I stated that "value" is a relative term. Do you know what "relative" means? This means that to you it may mean getting more options for less money and, to me, more trouble-free service (reliability). What I think of your question is inconsequential because my definition of value differs from yours. And because it does, this does not make my decision better or worse. You're just going to have to accept that some people are willing to pay more for intangible items such as reliability, dependability, and reputation. I know this concept may be hard for you to grasp as you probably mistrust anything you cannot touch or see.
With my posts about pricing, I made no assumptions or conclusions. I only highlighted that the Tacoma has better resale value period, regardless of whether you are a seller or a buyer. But my new truck prices were taken directly from the Ford and Toyota websites, which allow one to build, configure and price their dream truck. They did appear to be rather close. Yes, the most expensive comparison I performed was about $1500 more expensive for the tacoma. But, again, toyota owners are obviously willing to shell out the extra money for what they perceive as "value"--Toyota Reliability.
As a side note, the sticker prices you see in toyota dealerships are always higher because they include things like window etching, sound shields, paint luster and seal, and so on. The vehicle, though, can be had for $250-500 over invoice as with any other vehicle from any other manufacturer, provided the buyer is aware of Toyota's pricing scheme and how they option their vehicles. I must admit, my first time around, being unaware of how Toyota did things, I did not get the best price and I'm sure this is what Toyota banks on from first time buyers.
Good Luck
By the way, I was up on MT Hood today buried in 2-3 feet of snow, in 4low and moving right along. Kind of wish you were here to see that Rangers can 4x4..
I never said anti-locks were not available for the Tacoma, just hard as hell to get or find. Ford made them standard on every 4x4 that year.
Enjoy your open rear axle and don't spin that one tire too much... remember to rotate your tires..
See you in the Cascades..