Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

tbunder · February 2002

you're starting to show your early 20's behavior. why would you say im not liking where the discussin is going? the ranger is still selling more than tacoma, that's the facts and bottom line. the only reason i mentioned the s10 is because someone mentioned that the tacoma beat the s10 in sales so far (i said it i believe), but im just saying that at the end of the year, one who thinks the tacoma will outsell the s10 has to be hallucinating. why bring economics into this? this is a discussion on sales and who is leading. i never mentioned anything about who is making money and who isn't. you all think ford is about to come crashing down. i got news for you, that's not going to happen. people love their products, if that weren't true, why would they have five out of the top ten selling vehicles in the usa? sure, they're going to take some losses, but they're going to recoup those 'fore long. yep they discontinued four models, big deal. the models they discontinued are still very accessible to the buyer. cant get a villager? buy a windstar. cant get a zx2? buy a zx3 or zx5. no cougar? who cares, those sucked anyways. the lincoln will be brought back next year. the new cobra with 390 horses will sell like hotcakes with its new supercharger. the mustang is selling like hotcakes as is the escape and new explorer. also, the five star crash ratings on nearly all its vehicles give ford a huge advantage over products from other companies, especially toyota and gm.

sc0rpi0 · February 2002

Heh....I am in my early 20s, so what?
You are steering away from the discussion not willing even to engage in conversation about the economics of it all. All you can say is that "Well, Ranger still sold more". I guess Simpson education is overrated, if a graduate with 3.5 GPA doesnt know basic economics. This isnt about Mustang or other models, this has been a discussion about Ranger and Tacoma. And so far Ranger isnt looking so good. It's always hard to companies to make it out of the slump of recession. We'll see how well Ford does with Ranger. Ford can sell all the minivans they want, that has no relevance here.

midnight_stang · February 2002

A statician is in the kitchen trying to bake up a storm. His significant other complains because it's getting too warm in their little home. The statician looks around for a second, and then sticks his head in the open freezer. Then he sticks his feet in the pre-heated oven, trying to simulate the mean average of the interior. His head is freezing, and his toes are burning, but "Honey, on the average, the temperature is just right".

Ok, I just had a root canal, so I'm so drugged up I don't really care about one months sales numbers. But if that one month seems like such a matter of worry, I'd recommend you check out November statistics, and why not the whole of 2001. Like my example above, it's also all in how you want to spin the statistics. Like Enron's financial wizards were doing not so long ago.

Also I agree with Scoprio, it is just a debate on Ranger vs Tacoma, but how come it seems to be boiling down to a big Rooster fight. (Just think of a synonym for Rooster).

plutonious · February 2002

one vehicle is better than another. The VW Beetle is one of the best selling designs of all time, but I wouldn't want one. Suppose more S-10s were sold in June and November than Rangers. Does that mean for June and November S-10s are better than Rangers? The VW Jetta is the best selling European nameplate in the US, but I think a Passat or BMW 3 Series is better. Just because McDonald's has served "billions and billions," doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have a Fuddrucker's burger. Get my drift?

issisteelman · February 2002

Most car/truck buyers don't look at sales statistics when buying a vehicle. You have to give people like Tbunder a break. All signs point to a Tacoma being better so he's latched on to the sales thing. Let it go, the rest of us know the truth, a Tacoma is a better truck. Take care.......Steelman.

Kirstie_H · February 2002

Reminder...

Town Hall Chat tonight! It's "Open Mic" night tonight, but in the next few weeks, we're looking to have a chat pitting Import Trucks vs. Domestic Trucks.

kirstie_h
Roving Host
Edmunds.com

sc0rpi0 · February 2002

Sure, 1 month sales don't mean squat.
How about a 10 month?
Link here
HIghlights:
In 10 month in 2000 Ranger sold 295K trucks. In 10 month 2001 Ranger sold 240K trucks.
Tacoma sold 122K and 137K trucks respectively.
Both trucks took a hit in sales in 2000. However, considering the 2001, Tacoma sales rose 12%, and Ranger sales fell 18%.
Both trucks took a sales hit of about 5% from 1999 to 2000.
What does this all mean? Absolutely nothing, according to tbunder. It may not mean anything, and Ranger will suddenly bounce back up in sales. However, what would be a reason for such a drop in sales? You can't blame recession for all of it, because then Tacoma sales would have dropped in 2001, but they didnt (In fact, if that trend continued, then Tacoma would have come out ahead of 1999, pre-recession sales. I didnt look too hard for the figured for full 2001). So what would be a reason for a best-selling truck (Ranger) to take a hit on sales when a tincan Tacoma was luring in more and more buyers? tbunder, any ideas?

tbunder · February 2002

why doesn't toyota still sell 181,000 trucks like it did in 1990? or even 204,000 as it did in '94? and those weren't even tacomas. i suppose you'll blame it on the "full-size" offering from toyota, eh?

pluto- "luring in more and more buyers"

pluto, a drop from 1990 sales of 181,000 to 147,000 in 2000 is gaining new customers? maybe that's why someone said the older toyotas (non tacoma) are in big demand. maybe buyers know something tacoma owners don't, maybe they're built better or something. something has to explain the huge sales drop over the ten year period. however, look at the ranger sales numbers- 280,000 in 1990 to 330,000 in 2000. seems the new customers went to the ranger don't it? even in "just" ten months of 2001, the ranger had a smaller drop in sales as compared to 1990 numbers than toyota did compared to the same year's numbers. what's up with that? i agree with you that the compact market is slowly dwindling (somewhat) away, and this may explain why sales are slowing down over ten years, but to say the ranger is falling on its face, is ludicrous. if anything is falling on its face here, its the tacoma. why else would it have such a huge difference in sales over ten years? please remove foot- again. did you take statistics at tech.?

sc0rpi0 · February 2002

My guess is: introduction of a new, more expensive truck. Toyota ditched the Toyota PU at that point, and went with Tacoma. New model, higher price, thats probably why.
And perhaps you were replying to me, not pluto (or do you still think there's a conspiracy theory that all these toyota people here are just one person, maybe two?)

plutonious · February 2002

build quality, longevity, resale value, performance, RELIABILITY and to an extent styling were what influenced my decision. The trucks' sales numbers and the economy had nothing to do with it. In 1998, if Toyota only sold 1 Tacoma, I would rather have that Tacoma than any of the thousands of Rangers sold. 'Nuff said.

midnight_stang · February 2002

Scorpio--->So toyota's sales went down when the Pickup became a Tacoma. Rangers sales have dropped recently, but let's not forget the inclusions of the Escape and Sport track onto the Ford family too. See there could be a reason for everything, just depends on how hard you look (or want to look).

sc0rpi0 · February 2002

Thats true, SportTrac could have had something to do with it. So if Ranger drops in sales again and again, will new models be to blame? All this still shows that "bestseller" has nothing to do with quality, etc. Price, yes, overall package, not really.

tbunder · February 2002

i meant you scorp. sorry pluto if i offended you.

saddaddy · February 2002

When I was younger, I tagged around with my dad on several vehicle buying trips. He always had these certain criteria that he would base his decision on. NEVER EVER was one of those criteria the number of that type of vehicle sold. Until I came here I had never thought of such a stat as being significant. I will never use numbers sold as a way to help me make a decision of any kind, especially a decision that involves over $15k.

plutonious · February 2002

Yeah, I will grant you guys a point there, but overall, safety-wise, the Tacoma is no slouch. In fact, according to some sources, it's been rated #1. I think some of the safety problems that has plagued Ford recently are much more serious than anything the Tacoma has experienced.

midnight_stang · February 2002

No one ever said they bought a Ranger because everybody else is buying them. Sales figures only do substantiate which make and model is meeting customer demand more effectively, or in greater volumes.

If Ranger sales drop again, to answer Scorpio's query, newer models will not necessarily be to blame. I can say that I doubt the Ranger will go away any time soon, even in the light of other models by Ford stealing it's sales. This was only brought up as an example of possible reasons for sale figures fluctations, such as a newer model version coming out that was altogether new and more expensive (I.E. '95 Tacoma).

In summary, the best selling vehicle is not and should not be considered a selling point for said vehicles. It is, however, completely within bragging rights territory for each said vehicle.

eagle63 · February 2002

I heard somewhere that the Ranger will be gone in about 3 years or so. Have you heard this? apparently it will be replaced by a larger model.(probably mid-sized like the dakota) I for one am against this as I think there's a great size variety right now. I don't see a need to make compacts any bigger, but oh well.

sc0rpi0 · February 2002

Ranger is being replaced in 2003 with a new midsize Ranger,that'll have a V8, possibly a 4.6L (?) from F150.
Same is happening to Tacoma, which will move into midsize range with a new engine. It'll be either a 3.7L V6, or Tundra V8 (At the last autoshow in Chicago, new redesigned bigger 4Runner was shown with Tundra V8 in it. 4Runner and Tacoma have shared many components, including the engine, and therefore it may carry over into 2003 models)

tbunder · February 2002

the 4runner's 3.4 is only rated at 183 horses, and the tacoma's is rated at 190 horsies?

you'd think with the added weight of the suv, it would have more power. what's up with these numbers?

oac3 · February 2002

the v8 in the tundra is rated at 245hp (and 315 Ib ft of torque), in the sequoia it is rated at 240hp (and 315 Ib ft), and in the lex/lc it is rated at 230hp (and 320 Ib ft)?

include in the above the fact that the engine in the tundra and sequoia uses regular unleaded gas, while the one in the lex/lc uses premium....

so any ideas why all of these differences ??? same reason as your question wrt tacoma and 4runner !

eagle63 · February 2002

I don't know why the 4runner's 3.4 has slightly less power - must be de-tuned or something. It's sort of the opposite of Ford's SOHC V6. It's rated at 210 hp in the explorer, but 203 or 204 in the Ranger.

midnight_stang · February 2002

Every vehicle gets it's own exhaust system, with dual, or single cats, inline or dual exhaust, different bends, and muffler configurations. Even different tuning for NVH concerns, or even unique exhaust notes per vehicle.

Probably not the single reason for the peak HP difference, but I would bet a major contributor.

tbunder · February 2002

ranger sohc has 207 horses.

anyone have any experienes with a '99 or later grand cherokee?

saddaddy · February 2002

I have heard but I don't remember the exact explanation. I seem to think that it has to do with the exhaust like stang said. I think the 4runners, right now are a little underpowered, unless you charge em. Haha.

smgilles · February 2002

I agree with the 4runner thing, I would buy a Pathfinder in a heart beat over a 4runner.

250hp vs 183hp for the same $$$, it is a no brainer

eagle63 · February 2002

It is hard to beat that 250 hp in the pathy, but I think I'd still take the 4-runner. The pathfinders have become way too delicate and luxury-esque for me. Now the older style pathfinders, well now that's a different story...

rickc5 · February 2002

My wife and I have been discussing the purchase of another pickup. We previously owned a '95 Tacoma and a '99 Tacoma. Both trucks had many problems, and Toyota even took back the '95 and gave us a T100, Which we didn't care for as it was too big.

Anyway, I mentioned that we could get a really good deal on a Ranger right now (like $7000 off MSRP), but it isn't the world's best truck if you consider reliability (I'm sure most of you will agree with that statement).

Her response: "We don't need to pay thousands of dollars extra to buy the best, whatever that is these days. But, if I hear the word Toyota come out of your mouth, I will beat you silly." Looks like she has learned the lesson too.

I laughed so hard my stomach hurt.

dbdunn1 · February 2002

I own a '93 2wd Ranger now w/110K mi. Had a '82 4wd Toyota. Also a great truck. Will buy whichever (Ranger or Tacoma) I find the best deal on 1st. Am looking at a loaded '00 TRD pkg with 70K for less than 15K. Would you recommend (or not) buying one with that many miles on even if it is a Toyota? Seems like a price. Thanks!

saddaddy · February 2002

that my stomach hurts too. Big deal, man. So you had bad luck with some trucks. Means nothing to me. Keep up the sorry maintenance schedule with the Ford and you'll learn what a pitiful truck is.

At least your woman does know what the best is.

There are some things that you should buy the best you can afford. You seem to already realize that quality-wise Toyota is better (you already admitted that), why skimp on the new truck? I don't understand? I mean even after saying you had bad luck with Yotas, you go and say that they are the "best." Haha, you kinda talked in circles. There are tons of folks with the same experiences with every kind of vehicle made, your case is no more special than theirs.

dbdunn1 · February 2002

Yes I could argue that Tacoma that is better than Ranger; and so could they since their prices reflect that. Then again I could also argue for Ranger fr my own personal exp. Either way, would you buy a late model with high mileage if seemed like a GREAT deal (b/c of their reputed reliability); or wait for a later possibly with 20K less?

saddaddy · February 2002

Yes i would, i know a ton of folks who have Yotas, and they say that they don't really get broken in til about 60-70k miles. It'll be fine.

Ummm, that guy said himself that the Taco was the best. Now, I've never made that claim, but he came right out and said that he wouldn't pay more for the BETTER truck. His loss. Both sides have an argument as to what's best -- I was just kinda going by his own admission. Relax.

tbunder · February 2002

did you not see his statement saying that his previous toyota was so bad that toyota took it back? is that the best? if so, your claim as being the reliability king isn't worth much at all. if toyota is the best truck, why has their sales declined over the last ten years? when ford's ranger's have went up substantially since '90?

dunn- my dad has an old ranger he's had since '88. it now has 205,000 miles on it, is a 4x4 with the little 2.3 in it. runs like a top and has never done any engine work on it. it still has the original clutch in it. so don't listen to these naive toyota guys talk about their trucks being the "best" or "most reliable", it just isn't true. rangers will go just as long if not longer than any other vehicle out there. it all depends on all how a vehicle is cared for. toyotas are overpriced, made cheaper, are more expensive to get parts for and maintain, and rust out ALOT quicker. and unless you get the 3.4, they are drastically under-powered. go compare frame thickness, door metal thickness, under-carriage skidplates, features for the dollar, etc. the ranger has the clear edge, at any price. ranger also has more horsepower (since '01) and more torque (has always). ranger also has bigger and deeper bed and can tow more.

sc0rpi0 · February 2002

Their sales have not declined. The pickup truck sales took a hit when Toyota introduced Tacoma, and have been rising ever since. You love distorting things, don't you? For all it matters, Tacoma was a brand new model from Toyota. If Ranger is so grand, why have it's sale figured dropped over the last year, while Tacoma ones went up? And none of that "it still sold more units" stuff, please. When a brand loses 20% of revenue, it doesnt matter how many units they sell.
About underpowered I4s: get the numbers straight, 'cause if I4s are underpowered, then Fords 2.3L and 3.0L plain suck.
Ford I4: 2.3L: hp 135, torque 153.
Ford V6 3.0L (I'm throwing it in here for Fords' embarassment): hp 154, torque 180.

Tacoma 2.4L (that's only put in 4x2 models): hp 142, torque 160
Tacoma 2.7L (For 4x4): hp 150, torque 172.

Pretty nasty, isn't it? A Toyota I4 thats almost as strong as Fords 3.0L V6, that is still sold in Mazda 3000 and Rangers. Ford's I4 is even more underpowered. And both vehicles weight about the same (not 600 lbs. difference).

plutonious · February 2002

having to clean up after tbunder's misinformation all the time, isn't it?

saddaddy · February 2002

He said "we don't need to spend the extra thousands of $$$ on getting the BEST, don't even say Toyota." That is what I was goin by.

Im not saying Taco is best, I don't make claims like that. However, he referred to it in that sense. True, he had a hellish experience with Yota, but he still refers to the tacoma as the best over the others, at least, thats what he said. It was just an unintelligent post. Anyone can go on and talk about their bad experiences, I take litte stock in it. This is dumb, forget it.

Every review of the Ranger v. Taco comparo that I have read, gave the Taco the advantage on fit and finish. Just go and look at the fit and finish of the two. Its night and day difference to some who have a keen eye for such things.

sebring95 · February 2002

Toyota 4cyl's are superior in power which is why you don't see 4X4's available with a 4cyl from Ford or Chevy. Someone needing a 4X4 that gets good mpg only has two choices: Toyota or Nissan. The 2.7L is one of the only 4cyl vehicles I was satsified with enough to buy. My fathers '91 Ranger is a 4cyl 4X4 and power is terrible which is why they probably don't sell them like that anymore. Dual sparkplugs or not, it's in 3rd pulling the same hill my ext. cab tacoma would pull in 5th.

My brother recently traded his Ranger for a 4.7L Ram and is getting 17mpg and not crammed into a small truck. Maybe that's why everyones going to bigger trucks, why would I buy a small truck when a big one gets the same mpg, more power, and is more useful? Maybe they should develop some fuel efficient & more powerful engines for the smaller trucks which seem to get ignored for the most part.

tbunder · February 2002

saddaddy- he said "dont even say toyota", im assuming that what he meant when he said this comment on spending extra thousands for the best, that he was NOT talking about toyota being the best. i think he was making a very distinct comment that he does not consider toyota as the best even though it does cost thousands more for the name.

scorp- thanks for the numbers. so basically, this is what you said as you so joyfully typed your post, that in your mind, was a very strategically placed argument. lets see:
you say that since the toyota "pickup" all of a sudden got a name, people stopped buying it cuz, in your mind, it jumped like $10000 in price (your theory as to why its sales numbers are down so drastically over the last ten years, right?). this is the only reason (yours) why it stopped selling as many units as it did earlier, right? do you really think people cared that it finally got a name? you have to come up with something a little more believable than that. did you show pluto how much toyota's pickup sales have decreased since '90? and how much ranger's sales have increased? id love to hear what he has to say. why did people stop buying so many toyota trucks, and more start buying rangers?

anyway, you also state this:
the ford 3.0 has more horsepower and torque than toyota's 2.7. am i correct? thought so. ill grant you the ford is a V6. a very small one. the 2.7 is an I-4, a very large one. but you have to remember something else. these are both company's STANDARD 4x4 engines. so with the ford, you get the torque of a V6 (which is more than toyota's standard engine) and also more horsepower. ford doesn't even insult its buyers by offering a 4-cylinder in a 4x4 (why should they when they have a proven 3.0 V6 with more power than toyota's standard 4-banger?). they know 4x4's need torque to pull and work. and lets talk about the optional engines. ranger has a 17 horse advantage and nearly 30 more lb/ft of torque.

its funny how you draw a distinction between sales decline, and taking a hit in sales. anyway, why don't you re-post that little link so we can look at it again. yeah, ill admit that the ranger sales were down last year, but ford offered more optional vehicles in the same category,(giving buyers more buying options) as compared to toyota still only having the tacoma. and the tacoma still was down in sales compared to its early 90's numbers. anyway you look at it, the toyota pickup isn't selling near the numbers it sold back in '90, whereas the ranger has risen drastically. why is this if the toyota is so superior? the buyers are the ones who decide.

pluto- everything i have said is a fact. if it isn't, please point it out to me. please?????

sebring- oh yeah, my past ranger once got a best of 21.5 a gallon. or 340 miles before i filled up. and it had like 2 gallons or so left. id like to see a ram get that.

smgilles · February 2002

I averaged 25mpg out of my Tacoma on a trip to Yellowstone and back, don't forget that is with a S/C. Sure, I didn't break 70, but I was following my grandparents in their camper. Wish I had the discipline to drive that slow all the time. Sure would save on gas.

Again for the record, I wouldn't buy a Ranger if it was FREE. Yes, I know you can't buy something free.

tbunder · February 2002

do you think you'll be able to buy a pickup bed for free for your ultra-fast tacoma in about ten years after yours is rusted out?

smgilles · February 2002

1.) Never said my truck was ultra-fast, just a lot faster than yours or any other Ranger, S10, Nissan, Mazda that I have ever came across.

2.) I really hope I can get 10 years out my truck, at 20,000 a year I would be more than happy.

3.) Just washing your vehicle once a week (undercarriage) and some good wax will alleviate a majority of rusting problems.

4.) You want to talk about rust, that would be my old Nissan, sure the drivetain never failed, but the box on the inside was shot, along with the rockers.

5.) It's late, don't you have some crime fighting to do???

rickc5 · February 2002

Its been over a year since I posted here, back when Spoog and Cpousnr used to go head-to-head with the same fervor saddaddy and tbunder do now. Not much has changed except the players.

Let's not misquote my wife. She said ".... the best, WHATEVER that is." Now, if YOU wish to believe she meant Tacoma, that's OK. BUT, I KNOW she didn't mean Tacoma.

BTW- I forgot to mention that the T100 suffered from the infamous leaking head gaskets. Aside from that, it wasn't a bad truck. But, it was made in Japan, not the U.S.

sebring95 · February 2002

You said "best" you got was 21.5 which is the norm for a 2.7L 4x4 ext. cab. I regularly averaged 22-23 with a mix of highway/city. My brother does a 100 mile commute every day and he was lucky to squeeze 17mpg out of his 4X4 3.0L 5-speed ranger. We both had our trucks at the same time and for general driving, they felt very similar power-wise. Obviously the 3.0L is going to tow better, but if I have to tow more than once or twice a year I'm not buying a compact anyway. The 2.7L sounds less "grunty", but as far as moving the vehicle they performed similarly.

He's averaging the same with an automatic that's not broken in yet and he says it has much better acceleration. Daily driving mpg is much more important than squeezing a few miles out on a long trip. His Ranger wasn't exactly "perfect" as you claim they are, but it wasn't bad either. It was an OK truck but he did need a clutch and fuel pump which is kinda silly IMHO for a 70K truck, but certainly not bad. I thought a clutch should go longer especially with alot of highway driving but it didn't. It's not his driving either as the Ram is the first automatic he's owned since he was 16 if I remember correctly. The clutch was about the only thing he didn't replace in his bimmer:)

midnight_stang · February 2002

saddaddy--->I think you're being too critical on rickc5's statement. But I do wonder why they are looking for a new truck when they owned a 95 and (presumably) own a 99. Wouldn't that be just breaking in the highest quality truck?

ddunn--->Sounds like a pretty good deal on that 2000 TRD, the milage is high, but you should be able to bargain down. If a mechanic checks it out, and gives the green, you should be pretty well off, especially if you off-road.

Scorpio--->You would never believe it when I say the Ford I-4's (2.3/2.5l) are pretty stout engines. Sure they are not the most powerful of the bunch, but they do last a long time. 200 or 300 thousand miles before a rebuild is very common. Also, it seems you forget the value of cubic inches on your comparison of available engines. Sure the 3.0l v6 only has 8 more torque than the 2.7l, but that is Peak values. More cubic inches will give you more low-end power (idle to ~3000 RPM).
My engine (93 2.3l) makes 100 peak HP at 4600 RPM. I never reach that RPM unless I'm on the highway (which is good because I can pass and merge reasonably well at highway speeds). But my Torque peaks out at 133 lbs at 2600 RPM. Maybe that's why I hardly ever go past 2500 RPM, and get over 20 miles to the gallon in the city with 138 thosand miles on the engine.
Rangers also have v6's standard with all 4x4's.
Rangers also offer the v6 with a Regular cab.
"Declining revenue" or not, I think those options are definite plusses for the Ranger.

Sebring--->In 91, the 2.3l made 100 horses, and 133 pounds of torque. While this is not "superior in power" it does satisify "Someone needing a 4X4 that gets good mpg"

smgilles--->I think you were drafting the camper to get that kind of milage...

(joke)

rickc5 · February 2002

We dumped the Taco after only 8 months (of pain). We haven't owned a pickup since April of 2000.

Hey, any Ranger owners have any experiences with the new FX4 package????

smgilles · February 2002

A few people have, but that have lost the rear end to the pavement. The 5 speeds were having a little bit of trouble, so Ford recalled all of the FX4's and I imagine the problem has been rectified.

saddaddy · February 2002

Exactly where in the hell are you getting the bed rust problem. I honestly have never heard of it unitl I started listening to you. You have never even had one, so is this just more of the heresay that you flame us for exploiting. Sounds like it to me. Practice what you preach, man. Also, why these days are you soooo adamantly against the very truck you consider buying. Are you just trying to be an a-hole, come on man? These people come on here looking for some help in making a big decision and you give them such a one sided story. Why don't you tell them that about 2 months ago you declared that you would buy a d-cab Tacoma? You really are starting to show some of the qualities that you seemed to hate so much.

A thought regarding the 2.7 vs 3.0. These are small engines and I understand that trucks are trucks. But what can you do with one that you can't with the other? Its like saying that my corolla would come closer to pulling a 20 ton yacht than your vw bug. Such small power differences on already small motors are pointless. Therefore, you must look to quality/longevity of those particular motors. Care to take a stab at who has a leg up in that department? Go ahead - I wanna hear this one.

plutonious · February 2002

Tacoma or Ranger will do their research on both trucks and find as a whole Tacoma owners are MUCH happier with their trucks, especially long term, than the Ranger owners. They will also find the Tacoma holds its value MUCH better, especially for the long haul.

You get what you pay for. 'Nuff said.

tbunder · February 2002

laughing, sad- all you must do is come to iowa. every old toyota truck you see most commonly has a homemade wooden flatbox on it cuz the bed has rusted off. ive seen a few where i could see thru to the frame. if you haven't heard of old toyota beds rusting, while the cabs stay in relatively good shape, you've been under a rock since, say '84.

as far as the 3.0 vs 2.7, i was just stating facts about both. scorp started the whole debate. i just wanted to point out that the 3.0 has more power and torque, and is standard in 4x4 rangers, while toyota only offers the under-powered I-4 2.5 in its 4x4's. a V6 is optional with the toyota. i agree both are anemic, but id rather have a V6 anyday over an I-4 that i know struggle to pull anything. a friend of mine (now has a highrider) use to have a '94 toyota 4x4 with the I4 manual. he pulled two jet skis and he never went out of 4th gear just to get to the lake. myself however, in my baby blue reg. cab ZR2 with its potent 190 horsed 250 lb/ft of torque 4.3 would sail over there pulling two skis as well and never think twice about setting my cruise.

yep, id consider buying a tacoma, but i will not pay a premium just to satisfy the whole toyota persona of having a better vehicle than everyone else. its simply not true. and im a ford man, so i will debate to the death with the ford. its so easy to point out the advantages range has over tacoma, that's why i come here day in and day out. i like the tacoma, ill admit. but when it comes time to choose between the two, ill take the ranger simply because ford stands for trucks. and they know how to build them. the toyotas, imo, just seem kind of thin and weak. but they do look good.

pluto- id love to see your scientific poll where you found your results about toyota owners being MUCH happier, and some proof that the toyota holds its value MUCH better as well. cuz if im not mistaken, nissan has the resale value dept. covered over everything, and then the ZR2's, high-end rangers, and toyotas are thrown in there next, with no huge majority going to any. id love to punch up numbers at kbb.com on all three and post them for you if you want. but i want to see where you got your results at.

sebring, im not saying the ranger will get as good as or better mileage than the tacoma, the 3.4 is smaller, it should get better mpg. but the ranger is no slouch if you stay out of it. put on a tonneau or open the tailgate and id bet a 23-24 mpg figure wouldn't be that far off.

eagle63 · February 2002

did you like your ZR2? how about compared to your ranger? I personally like the ZR2's, but I've always been skeptical of chevy's quality/reliability.

tbunder · February 2002

the two ZR2's i had (one brand new '97 reg. cab, and one used 45,000 ext. cab '95) were both very solid trucks. i put 45K miles on the '97 before selling it. the only warranty item i had replaced was a leaky gasket in the rear axle. i heavily abused them, bouncing the front of the blue one big time in some huge ruts, and they take abuse very well. the ZR2 is VERY DIFFERENT from an ordinary S10 4x4. they have a totally different frame, drivetrain, cv axles, ring and pinion, they have the silverado rear axle, etc. they are somewhat numb steering-wise and braking-wise (only small truck to offer 4-wheel abs disc brakes i believe), but they get the job done. the big 31's probably make it this way. they don't put on any larger brakes to stop the bigger tires, so you kinda suffer there. but they do walk the walk so to speak. they also jump extremely well. i use to jump an overhead railroad bridge at about 45 mph, and get air every time. very smooth landing and not bouncy. these trucks were built as baja chase trucks, so they are ready for serious off-road speed. they also climb good. i had a manual t/c in my '97. it was awesome. the '95 had the push button, and wasn't as fun. they're good trucks though. fit and finish on them are excellent. they're a bit pricey though, with no rebates or anything on this pkg. expect around $26K for a totally loaded one. used would be the way to go. they've been the same for sometime now. in '99 they went from aluminum skidplates to carbon fiber composite, and different mirrors. interiors same since '98 (when interior and front-end got refreshed), different front-end in '98 as well. same since though.

Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles