Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII

18911131436

Comments

  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    tbunder: From what I gather, Toyota pickup didnt just get a name. It seems it was a complete redesign of a truck, with new pricing and everything. Thats why the sales went down. You can expect the same thing with new Ranger in 2003 and with new Tacoma.
    As far as engines go: you said Tacoma I4s were severely underpowered. So in a comparison, Ford's I4 is really really bad. And the 3.0L is not much better than Toyota's I4. Please don't steer the conversation to "Well, my 4.0L has 17 horses more". We've all heard it before. Thats not the point. You wrote that I4 was severely underpowered: that makes Rangers I4 even worse. I still see plenty of Mazda B2000s around....so what about them?
    Ranger sales: I hate to break this to you, but " the ranger has risen drastically" does not get supported by numbers. From 280K in 1990 to 330K in 2000...wow, a whooping 25% increase in -->10<-- years. And if you take a 1995-2000 period, when Tacoma was introduced, that makes 21K units more for Ranger....A whooping 7% increase in 5 years? That doesnt sound like a bestseller truck to me. The rate of inflation is higher than rate of Ranger sales increase :)

    stang: I've agreed before that a V6 in regcab is a definite must for Toyota. They've done it up to 97 or so, and discontinued it. Ford has a winning hand there. As for having V6 standard on a 4x4.....why is that a plus? At least Toyota owners have a freedom of choice, and if you go ask ttora guys, most of them would not have traded the 4-banger for a V6.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    I can honestly say that that was exactly what my conception of the Yota name was b4 I got my truck. I then started reading tons of articles about how they offroad and the huge OR following. It dwarfs any similar group of Ranger owners. That, coupled with the bumps that I have hammered with my truck that is still squeak free (100%), made me see that these "[non-permissible content removed] traps" are the real mccoy. Everyone says the same as you, tbunder, about the foreign vehicle not being tuff enough. Just cuz they "seem thin and weak," though, is simply not true.

    If that many trucks in Iowa have that problem you talk about, then I'll go out and count the full size Fords of the same age with similar problems here in MS. Seriously, the only rusted Yota I have seen was a first year PU, that had 300k on the odometer on the original everything that still ran fine. Ill take body work over a new engine anyday.

    Did you have a tonneau cover on your Ranger? I am thinking of one for my truck ($700 fiberglass job), simply to get better mileage. I am not displeased with the current mileage, but for college students, every little bit helps. Are they really supposed to help much???

    The reason I was getting mad about your comments was that you just kept listing alleged probs. Similar claims from me have always seemed to be discredited without any backup or anything. Its easy to debate that way, try to debate over specific topics, its alot more fair and two-sided to the ones who really come here looking for info.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    In '90 the Toyota trucks were redesigned and the engines were 2.4L 4cyl (116hp) or 3.0L V6 (150hp). They also were released with galvanized beds which pretty much eliminated the rust problems associated with Toys. I see no more rusted toyotas '90 and newer than I do any other trucks, which are very few. Biggest rust buckets I see are Explorers, Caravans, and GrandAms in the '90 and newer category.

    Half-way through 1995 the Tacoma was released with three engines: 2wd trucks had the 2.4L 4cyl, and 4X4's had the 2.7L (150hp) and the 3.4L (190hp). So Tbunders buddy was pulling the Jet skis with a 116hp 4cyl, a far cry from the 2.7L and 3.0L for that matter. I didn't make him buy the thing with a 4cyl and then try to pull a trailer.

    The Tacoma was also a completely different vehicle than the pickup, although they didn't change the looks much. Any joe on the street probably can't tell the difference between a '90 pickup and a '97 Tacoma just by looking at them. The late 80's models even look the part on regular cabs. Now '98 and newer is a different story and I think the looks went to hell in a handbasket.

    I test drove all engine combos on 4X4 ext cab trucks back in '96 when I was looking for a truck. I didn't see a huge difference between the 4.0L and 3.4L acceleration wise. In fact the first automatic 4.0L I drove I thought the dealer stuck me in a 3.0L as it was not near the power I expected. I popped the hood and it was in fact a 4.0L. The next 4.0L I drove was a 5-speed and it felt on-par with the 3.4L but wasn't blazing saddles by any stretch of the imagination. The 2.7L or 3.0L weren't much slower so I bought the 2.7L 5-speed and stuck 80K trouble-free miles on it averaging 22mpg. Can a 3.0L ranger turn 23mpg? I suppose it could but doubtful on a constant basis. Like I said my brothers was averaging 17mpg which was 5 less than my similar performing 2.7L. One-trip wonders and inflated EPA numbers do nothing for real-world day-to-day driving.

    The only 4X4 trucks that can routinely turn 22-24mpg are 4cyl, and their power is not all that far off (if any beyond towing) from the entry-level V6's of the competition. So your choices if you want good mpg and decent performance is a Toyota or Nissan. And unlike some that preach the gospel on trucks they've never driven or even know what engines they have, I'll say I know nothing about the Nissan besides I think it's ugly and I don't want one.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    I don't think you'll save $700 in fuel in less than a couple million miles if you really want to talk savings. Everything I've read indicates that the tonneau's don't really do much for mpg. And Tbunder's putting the tailgate down is actually worse on mpg in every physical and computer simulated test I've seen. Once the air is trapped in the bed, it swirls deflecting the downward air over the top of the tailgate. The same thing a tonneau cover does except without the added weight, which is substantial on a a hard cover. If you flop the tailgate down, all the air drops straight into the bed causing additional down-force.

    I noticed no difference in mpg with a Tonneau on my 2.7L Tacoma. Mine had one on it when I bought it and after unsnapping and resnapping the thing a couple dozen times I got redneck on it threw it in the trash. Worthless if you use the bed of your truck regularly. And I noticed no change in mpg which I was watching quite closely when I first bought it.
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Member Posts: 172
    i have a tonneau on my 2000 Ranger. I don't notice much, if any, difference in mileage. The only time I think it may help is highway, if you're going for long drives. But like someone already said, that doesn't help your commute to work. It would take about 600 years to pay for the tonneau with the mileage "savings."
    It's nice to have a cover but I think if I did it again i would opt for the hard top "trunk" cover. I also notice that the frame of the tonneau scrapes the top of my tailgate when I close it, so now I have nasty scratches on the tailgate top. NOT a satisfied buyer.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    who taught you physics? tailgate up and you get better mileage? what? with it catching all that air and slowing it down? it is common sense that if the gate is down, the air will just slide right over it, creating less restriction on the truck and the air it's pushing. where's your logic?

    you say that the air "swirls" around in the bed. how can this happen since the bed is open and nothing is there to even trap it in there? no sides, no top. face it, the air comes in over the cab and goes right to the tailgate. if its up, gas mileage will suffer. if its down, it is more aerodynamic and mpg will improve a little.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Do a little reseach and see what you come up with.

    I believe I've seen some posts on this at cartalk.com as well as a few others. Was several years ago I ran across a discussion like this and that's the consensus. I believe the air inside the bed pressurizes from the air coming down into it and basically the airflow then goes from the cab and off just as you'd imagine with a bedcover. And I don't think the air flow hits right at the tailgate, it's about middle of the bed. So with the gate down the air flows down further then has to roll out further across the tailgate. But like I said, do the research. If physics were just simple "common sense" there would be nothing to learn.

    Lets end this anyway before this forum goes back to it's previous bottom-feeder levels.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Numerous tests have proven there is no advantage either way. The theory is that a boundry layer of air fills the bed with the tailgate closed. Basically the air flows over the bed. Have you ever been laying down in the back of a truck while moving. It's pretty still. Also notice loose items that are light enough go up and out, they don't get slammed to the front of the tail gate.
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Member Posts: 172
    i agree with you most of the time, but who taught YOU physics? maybe you should do the research before you pick.


    http://cartalk.cars.com/Columns/Archive/1997/October/05.html

  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Member Posts: 172
    when your tailgate is down and it flops heavily every time you hit a bump, i wouldnt want to be the one behind you, getting a tailgate in the radiator when yours cuts loose. lol
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Good post, that's the first one I've seen that says the that the tail gate closed INCREASES MPG!!!

    I've always read that there was no measurable diff in MPG.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    there will be ANY improvement with a hard tonneau. I am not getting it for that sole purpose, and I don't want it to pay for itself. They look very good, and was just looking for any reasons to justify the expense. Thanx
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    I don't think there would be any improvement, possibly a decrease but probably not worth mentioning. The hard ones are rather heavy in the scheme of things.

    If you like the way they look and can afford it, just do it. I did silly stuff like that when I was in college and don't regret it. Memories of having a cool car are worth the few bucks you'll probably never miss. In a few years you won't give a crap about your daily driver, but will have your eye on much more expensive toys and $700 will seem like a joke.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    good job guys. proved me wrong. however, on the rangers and other trucks ive had, towing two jet skis or not, i always got more miles per tank when the tailgate was DOWN. most recently, like 340 miles on one tank in my '01 ranger with the gate down. ever since, i was lucky to get even 300 with tailgate up. since gas got cheaper, i stopped doing it. now it's gone, so who cares. im still a NON-believer. ;O)
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Member Posts: 172
    i believe you. here's why: when someone makes a change like opening the tailgate, for the reason to improve mileage, that person starts to TRY to get the best mileage possible. for instance, you want to prove yourself right (unconsciously). so you take it a little easier on the hills, try not to hit all the lights, etc. and when you get home you say "wow, the tailgate got me an extra mile per gallon." simply put, when youre paying close attention to your mileage it makes you more aware of driving habits and you change them. i have caught myself doing stuff like that too. guess i gave away my psychology studies, huh? lol
  • 2k1trd2k1trd Member Posts: 301
    Untill someone does some wind tunnel testing,i don't think anyone will know whats better.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Heh....you think we could launch a campaign on ttora site? We've had dynotests that members contributed to :)
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Member Posts: 124
    Imagine that, Tbunder doesn't believe published information that proves him wrong. Are any of us really surprised? All published information says that a Tocoma is better than a Ranger and he doesn't believe that, so why should he believe that the tailgate being down doesn't help the gas mileage. Let's face it, the truth seems to allude this gentleman more often than not. Take care.........Steelman.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    The biggest differences you'll ever find in mpg is during acceleration which would have nothing to do with aerodynamics for the most part. On my diesel Ram I can switch the computer over to give me constant mpg data. I can get 4mpg giving it full throttle, 7mpg giving it normal throttle, or 10mpg going very light on the throttle. Once up and running, it will stabalize on flat roads around 23mpg until I exceed 55mph. Those are all empty numbers. Once I hit a 10,000# trailer, I can't accelerate and get more than 2mpg. But anyway, just lightening up your foot will make the biggest change in economy.

    When I drive my wifes car I'm usually frustrated for the first half-hour because her transmission has learned her light-footed style and doesn't like to down-shift quickly. She gets about 3mpg more than I do driving her car so driving style is pretty substantial.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    for the past week and was blown away by the number of tacomas I saw. Here in MN I really don't see too many, far more rangers on the road than tacomas. But in phoenix I would almost go so far as to say it was 2-1 tacomas vs. rangers. A fair number of Tundras too, but not way out of proportion like the tacoma. anybody else notice this? maybe this is normal and where I live tacomas sell below average, I don't know.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Here in California the Tacoma outsells the Ranger too. I guess the West is just a few lightyears ahead of the Mid-West in knowing how to pick a small truck.:)
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=11087


    Of course this link doesn't cover specifically Ranger vs Tacoma, but Californians are definitely registered more Ford Trucks than Toyotas.


    "Ford Division has captured 25 percent of the truck market [In California] (252,021 registrations), led by four of the 10 best-selling nameplates&#8212;F-Series, Expedition, Explorer and Ranger&#8212;and two other segment leaders&#8212;Escape and Econoline."

  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    do you really think that in one of the largest states the tacoma actually outsells the ranger? id like to see some proof of this. could it be that one day you just happened to see a lot of tacomas? or is the ranger really dead out of the water in california? and why is it that the lifeguards use rangers? let's see some proof that the west is lightyears ahead of the midwest in knowing how to pick a small truck. i want some proof for your obviously scientific claim. :o)
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Mileage:
    Well think and calculate whatever. When my soft tonnaeu cover is on, I get maybe a mile or so more mileage. I am somewhere around 18-19 in town, 20-21 on the highway. Coming up on 55K so should be changing out the plugs soon, suspect it would boost the mpg a bit.

    The Ranger is still working fine. The recent Consumer Reports marked it down in Electrical issues, for which I would agree. I have had a GEM module(wipers came on un-commanded), door chime came on(un-commanded), my temp. sensor went out, the gage read too low and my gas gage goes down too fast(also a sensor). So that is a fair assesment by CR.

    Still enjoy the Ranger. It is a good value for a truck. I did add a 2002 Toyota Corolla to my household for the wife. It was a good deal and suspect it will last quite a while.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    Who has seen these?

    I went and looked at the ratings. Not many people have voted. Everyone do so. Also, one guy had alot of complaints on the Ranger that I have never heard of. Problems that tbunder always brings up as probs with the Taco occur on the Ranger as well it seems. Things like bad seats and bad paint. These trucks have alot in common, huh, man.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    so where is the URL to these?
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Tbunder you want proof of everything and then you won't always accept it when it's given to you.
    Too bad that you don't "prove" all of your facts before you print them.:)

    midnight_Stang & tbunder - For the last year I've heard the Tacoma commercial over and over stating that the Tacoma is the best selling small truck in Southern California. I haven't heard Ford complain or challenge the commercial so I tend to think that it's true. I tend to see at least twice as many Tacomas on the road here than Rangers when I take a drive, but that's not really a scientific study. Full size trucks, on the other hand, seem to definitely go in Ford&#146;s favor.

    Tbunder - I'm too lazy to look for something in print for you. I'm just telling you what Toyota advertises. How about you finding some proof that Toyota is making false claims about So. California. I doubt that you'll succeed.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    Ford sells the most trucks, full size and compact, hands down, and for God knows how long.
    Well I can take your word for it allknowing, commercials are not known to be the best source of knowledge, but companies do seem to put all the bravado slogans in they can.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    I see a lot of Tacos here. But then again, Austin is the opposite of Texas. Even contractors here use 4x4 Tacos. I do see a lot of Rangers sitting in fields with a sign "4 Sale" when I drive to San Antonio.
    As for commercials: Toyota can not say that they are bestselling if they are not. If Ranger outsold a Taco by 1 vehicle in SoCal, and Toyota claims that Tacoma was bestselling, Ford would take them to court and win big. But I thought that we established already that sales numbers don't mean squat? I know tbunder doesnt like that, but tough luck.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    No one seems to dispute any Tacoma sales leadership (best selling compact truck) in California, and no one can dispute all Ford Truck's sales dominance across the Nation.

    To me, Sales still mean the greater amount of consumer demand is being filled. (My economics teacher would be proud) If consumers didn't demand a Ranger so much, the Ranger would not be the best selling compact for over 15 years.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    I could really care less whether Tacoma is a best-selling truck or not. If everybody drove Yugos, would you drive one, because they would obviously be best-sellers?
    Personally, I think that if you throw enough ads at people promising low APR deals and insane rebates, as well as low prices, then enough people will buy your product. It has nothing to do with quality of a product, it has everything to do with presentation. McDs food is extremely bad for you, yet it's convinient and cheap...thats why McDs is the biggest fastfood chain. It's a lot more convinient to go and buy a Ranger when you can drive it off the lot the same day, instead of having to wait 2-3 weeks while the dealer pulls it from the port. Not to say anything bad about Ranger, but on average consumers are very ....gullible. Thats why things like "Personal EZ Abs trainer: 5 minutes a day and we guarantee you'll have a 6-pack abs in a month" are still around.
  • oac3oac3 Member Posts: 373
    love that yugo remark.... best selling does not mean best built, best quality, best value, best in anything except best selling .... reasons for higher sale is an amalgamation of many factors, most of which you all have alluded to in various posts on this forum...

    i had remarked in a post way back several months ago about seeing more Taco's than Rangers in San Diego county (roughly 2 million people). Allknowing is absolutely correct: Tacos outsell Rangers in So Cal. Here in San Diego County, it is even more obvious: By my unscientific evaluation, there are almost a 10:1 Taco's to Rangers on the roads. You'd be hard pressed to find a Ranger on our freeways here... They are scarce, compared to Tacos that are everywhere. Proof ? I don't have sales numbers but the evidence is pretty obvious on the roads here, just as allknowing wrote...
  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    Perhaps it's so seldom seen that one may have forgotten what they look like.....would be a good reason to come up with 10:1.... =)
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    But it is a stretch. How about Starbucks coffee? They are the best seller. You can't deny consumer demand. I guess that irks you, so the consumers are all gullible. There must be a reason, low APR, awash in a sea of incentives!

    "instead of having to wait 2-3 weeks while the dealer pulls it from the port." I thought Tacoma's were American made too?
  • kg11kg11 Member Posts: 530
    from a row of Tacomas at the dealer.They had everything but a base model.It was kinda scarey buying the first one in town.I had sold my '53 willys PU cuz I hated the attention it drew ,then the first place I parked the Taco someone was looking it over in the parking lot.I just sold my '95 std cab 4x4 v6 5spd for $7500 with 106k on it.
    kip
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    "American made" has nothing to do with this. There's always demand for Tacos.
    As for McDs analogy: I'm making a counterexample to the obvious belief of some that "bestseller is the best of all".
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Member Posts: 124
    We all know that sales numbers don't mean anything, but that is all that some people can hang on to so let them have their argument. I've never gone to a dealership and had them say to me, "You really should buy this truck because it is the best selling vehicle in America". Give me a break, who really cares how many units are sold. Let's face it, Tacoma owners are looking for quality, Ranger owners are looking for a cheap deal. Well, you get what you pay for. Take care......Steelman.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Yeah, I've tried putting it in not-so-direct terms, but that's essentially the idea.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    blue Rangers than green ones, are the blue ones better?
  • kg11kg11 Member Posts: 530
    The black ones are best.
    kip
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    The best selling statistic is only an accolade. Why would scoprio be telling us about 7% declines here, and revenue decreases there, if sales don't mean anything. Nobody is making the argument that the Ranger is best because it is the best selling vehicle. That is reversing the definitions of cause and effect. The Ranger must be better overall, because they sell more units (or meet the customers demand), not the contrary.

    I have never gone to a dealership where they say "You really should buy this truck because it is the best selling vehicle in America". I have heard best value, most options, and best quality statements from both dealerships, however. The dealership just wants your money, and will do and say whatever it takes to get it.

    Maybe Ford just has better sales people? That might as well be your argument, because if the quality gap was so great, Toyota would have the sales to back it up. Maybe Toyota needs to tell it's sales people to start marketing the quality thing, since is so obviously in Toyota's favor.

    The fact of the matter is that no one really does care how many units were sold, when they go to purchase their own ride based on what fits their wants and needs. More people choose Ranger.

    Most people just look for the better priced vehicle, with more options, better safety, more doors, more power, larger pickup bed, larger interior room, standard A/C, better seat, better interior, better towing, better looks, a full instrument gauge, a free clock you can easily see while driving, an automatic shifter not modeled after a joystick, and a non funky front fascia, you know the little things.

    I still am on the receiving end of something I don't pay for any more. We will see what you all think when your trucks are 10 years old. You may call it a cheap deal, but I call it one hell of a tough and dependable truck.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    Scorpio just said why he made those comments about 7% declinese here and there. In post 541 he said,"Yeah, I've tried putting it in not-so-direct terms." I think there is your answer.

    More people choose Ranger simply cuz you can get one with white paint and absolutely nothing else for the price of a power wheels barbie car. The majority of Rangers I see on the road are just that. Granted, most are prolly fleet vehicles, but Ford counts them, too, in that stupid little statistic you keep quoting. Tbunder kept saying how there were so many TRDs on the road. That's easily explained. If someone wants a nice truck they get a Taco. If they want the cheapest vehicle with a bed, they buy a Ranger. Seems to me to be an obvious excuse for why there are so many Rangers sold.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    the volume of sales is not the factor, but the growth is whats important. I believe I've said that numerous times. When a company sells 300,000 units one year, and 200,000 another year, even though it's ahead of the rest of competition, it means the company has declining growth of 33%, and lost market share. And that is not a good position to be in, because next year the company has to have a 50% growth just to GET BACK to where it was 2 years ago.
    The big question mark in this whole Ranger issue is this: if Ranger is all that it's hyped up to be, why did its sales fall a whooping 20% given:
    1. Patriotic ad campaign for few month (which later was found illegal and companies were asked to stop)
    2. Incentives.
    3. Low price, compared to its competitors.
    Think about it: Tacoma sales fell not anywhere nearly as much as Rangers, and Toyota didnt run an ad campaign to keep America rolling with patriotic music in the background, nor were any rebates given. Heck, I only started seeing Tacoma commercials on TV few month ago.
    So there is something to the Rangers decline. Part of it can be blamed on new SportTrac. What else should be blamed?
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    BAREBONES PRICES(IN DFW, TX):
    Ford Ranger $12,940
    Toyota Tacoma $12,435

    Of course if you ever want any options, the Tacoma quickly rises in price. Might as well just open that checkbook up wide.

    Oh yeah, for 2002, your clock now costs 82 bucks. Since you like percentages, why the 2.5% increase?

    Just buy one from radio shack, $4.99. It even has a timer, but may not live up to Toyota Quality.

    Compare FEB 2002 sales.
    Ranger 2002 vs 2001
    18,497 > 20,099 -8.0%
    Tacoma 2002 vs 2001
    11,079 > 12,039 -8.0% (mostly loss in 4x4 sales)

    I thought Tacoma was know for it's high quality, and being the best 4x4?

    Ranger might have to grow 50% to be were they were last year, (in reality it's only 13.5%), Tacoma will have to grow 50% in sales to equal the Ranger.

    All this talk, and I thought no one cared about sales... If that was true, this would be a dead topic.
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Member Posts: 172
    nice, stang. good points.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    so why are you quoting 1 month data? What happened in 2000 vs 2001?
    As far as cheap: you are destroying whole tbunders arguement line from before about how overpriced Tacomas are.
    Somehow I don't get a feeling that Toyota wants to beat Ranger in sales. They are taking it slow and easy, steadily up, and not having to fire 30,000 employees.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    Are you guys gonna keep saying that the Ranger is so much cheaper or more expensive. How bout you pick one and stay with it. Can't be both buddy.

    The only reason I even got into this sales argument is to show you how "dead" your side of the argument is. Im not the one quoting endless data. I simply gave an anwer for the reason why Rangers sells so many: more people wanna spend $13k on a truck than much more, and kick quality aside.

    By the way, can you make up some numbers right quick on which manufacturer sells more trucks at that $12k price range. I wonder if my hunch is correct.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I just saw some "bare bones" Rangers in the paper advertised for under $10,000. I haven't seen any Tacomas that cheap. I agree that the Ranger is a good truck but I think we can't deny that at least a portion of the Ranger sales are attributed to cheap prices like this.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    it doesn't matter what you post, these guys just downplay everything. notice how they didn't comment on your little post where the tacoma 4x4's were down in sales.

    and for whoever said that "if they wanted a nice truck, they'd buy a tacoma". what do you consider nice? a truck with less than 200 horsepower? a truck with a clock that costs over $80? what i call nice is maybe a 6 disc in-dash cd changer, 4-door cab, factory security system, step bars, blah blah blah. etc. if you want to compare niceties between tacoma and ranger, there is no comparison. everything on ranger is standard if you buy xlt. sr5 doesn't even include power windows. its all extra with toyota. here in iowa, they're advertising '02 ranger xlt 4.0 sc 4x4's for $17995. lets see, that's like $6000 or $7000 less than ANY trd tacoma.

    id be willing to bet a lot that more 4x4 rangers are sold than 4x2's. i RARELY see anything other than a 4x4.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    You said it Tbunder !!! All of those Ranger owners that purchased their Ranger before 2001and have less than 200HP, i.e. cpousnr and approximately two thirds of the other Ranger owners that post here, don't have a NICE truck (at least by your definition in post #552). By the way, I think that includes stang too so you may want to apologize to him for your post.
This discussion has been closed.