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

1141517192036

Comments

  • issisteelmanissisteelman Member Posts: 124
    Is it really true that Vince8 is back under a new name? Please confirm. It will be interesting to see both Vince8 and Tbunder defending their beloved Ranger. Speaking of that, where has Stang been lately?
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Because there are two different agencies that perform 2 different tests, Ranger people pick the worst ones and call them the truth. Of course, Tacoma people pick the best ones and call them the truth. And since neither party can convince the other one why one test is better than another (I still think offset crash tests are more real-life), the arguement is here to stay.
    What Ranger fans call "great crashtests" is something from 1998 when Tacoma got a 1 star rating somewhere somehow. Considering that the truck has stayed the same from 1995.5 until now, with few cosmetic changes, that's very surprising.
    Yeah....we all might as well sell our Tacos, because obviously Ranger is superior. Since Ford is completely innocent of the tires fiasco, and Torsen is to blame for the FX4 rearaxle fiasco, it has all been a great misunderstanding.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    There's a lot of truth to your post........BUT, isn't that the same as blaming an outside supplier for the rotted out sheet metal on the toys? Or the infamous leaking head gasket? Wonder whose fault the toy V6 sludge problem will be???

    They are all just trucks, nothing(except my Super Duty. LOL!) is perfect.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    In Firestone case, both share responsibility: Firestone for supplying bad tires, Ford for letting them through. In case of Torsen, it isn't clear. It could be:
    1. Torsen supplied 800-something bad lockers that Ford put on. Again, fault lies with both companies.
    2. Torsen supplied good lockers: by good I mean they satisfied specifications they had. Then it's entirely Fords' fault for putting them on and not making sure that they could take torque and not snap in the parking lot.
    Whichever way you look, both companies are at fault. As for the engines: they are produced by Toyota. I don't know the particulars of the head gasket case, so I can't say anything other than it seems like Toyotas' fault.
    Yeah, your SD is the [non-permissible content removed] :)
    Wait...my Taco is also perfect. Thats right. Mine and mine alone.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    I think we both know better, haha.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    I honestly don't know how the corporate structure works. I know what Ford has been accused of, but I also know that according to some we didn't land on the moon, a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon and Klinton didn't have sexual relations.....

    The tire debacle I have mixed feelings about. It wasn't like the Explorers came off the assembly line, drove 10 minutes and rolled. There were millions sold and a very small percentage this happened to. When is the point of action for a corporation?? One incident? A hundred? It seemed to me when it was clear there was a problem, Ford replaced tires. The media has a way of making a villan of whoever is on top at the time.

    Again, only speculation but if I'm running Torsen, or Firestone, I'm not going to blindly put my name on a product that I know won't do the job. I'm still thinking manufacturing defect as opposed to under-engineered.

    I'm glad you said lockers/diffs breaking. I've been biting my tongue on all the "experts" saying the axles were snapping.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    I knew what he meant, it was better than some saying the axles snapped.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    I think line gets drawn when those vehicles start methodically flipping over on a highway. There's a pattern in those firestone rollovers, and thats what is bad. If one SUV rolls over because they blow a tire..thats fine. When 100 does because 100 same tires blow, thats not fine.
    Replacing tires afterwards is a nice thing to do, but it should have been prevented. We aren't seeing other cars, like Camry, regularly blow tires made by the same company.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    And I would like to thank you for being a very level headed guy. Such are in short supply. U2 vince. And I agree with alot of what you said in the last post.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    I think(?) that's my point. When did it become an epidemic? We knew that X amount of tires blew and Y amount of Explorers rolled AFTER THE FACT. did Ford get wind of EVERY SINGLE blowout as it happened? Did it take 25? 50? 100 to see a pattern? Hindsight is great but I think Ford(like toy on the current sludge problem) didn't have 100 incidents thrown on a CEO's desk during a 10 day span. These accidents have been over 10 years and are still a very small percentage of the total vehicles/tires produced.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Don't know if I've been slammed or complimented...LOL!!!
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    would think I was slamming you. but i wasn't
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    Either Goodyear received a different set of specifications for tires than Firestone did, or Firestone had some manufacturing problems which caused faulty tires.

    Which seems more likely?
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    the thing to remember is that none of the Goodyear equipped Explorers had problems. (and Goodyear even recommended 26 psi)
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    No problem, I was just commenting on that was one of the first times someone didn't erroneously say that Rangers were snapping axles.

    Thanx for the kind words. If only the "out of this world" and "crimson tide" toy owners were as wise as present company. LOL!!!
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    of Ford's problems with their tires, roll-overs and exploding axles. It's like when I invest my money in stocks/companies - there are losers and there are winners. I don't care why the losers lost, I simply put my money where it will do me the most good.

    Sure, the anti-Toyota crowd will bring up the bad head-gaskets and rust. Thanks for the trip down memory lane. You know, since Toyota has been selling cars in the U.S. since the 70s, I find it amazing these are virtually the only legitimate complaints people can think of. Do you really want me to get out the score-board for the past 3 decades and compare the domestic screw-ups with those of Toyota?

    I simply find it amazing the Ranger folks would defend their beloved Ford who somehow let thousands of their vehicles leave the factory with slashed tires. Maybe Ford really should be producing ALL and not SOME of their products in Mexico, as the quality control in Ford's American factories seem to leave a lot to be desired...
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    Well since I don't have the blind brand loyalty that we talk about so often, I have no problem saying that "mr. crimson tide" is an idiot half the time. I have no idea where he gets off saying some of the stuff he does, and I will never defend the Tundra against the other 1/2 tons. So sorry. That confession was just for you, buddy.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    Legitimate complaints? In the eye of the beholder. But definitely the latest ones brought up...

    I think you're just domestically racist. :)

    "Who cares about the cause and details" ???

    People who own and drive Fords Dummy.

    "of Ford's problems with their tires, roll-overs and exploding axles."

    Please post your information supporting such arguments.

    I'm confused. You left out the '60 mustang gastanks and the Pinto's. I thought that was also in your "arsenal" of the same media hyped, gossip induced, uninformed information?

    And about your comment on Mexico products having better quality than American... let me quote YOU "I think the general quality of EVERYTHING in [Auburn, WA] is good, as compared to down here, Texas-Mexico, the armpit of the world. "
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    I said prove it, not reiterate.

    Prove Explorers roll over more often than other SUV's.

    Prove tires explode because they are on a Ford.

    Prove wheels fall off all Fords.

    Prove axles that snap.

    You don't have to own a Ford to be knowledgeable. You just need to be able to know the difference between media hype, and proven facts. Look at the evidence. Look at the statistical facts.

    Everyone is deaf and dumb when they don't agree with you, aren't they?
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Time to give the personal stuff a rest guys....




    PF Flyer

    Host

    Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    I saw my first FX4 in person last night in a parking lot. I was checking it out as best I could without drawing too much suspicion from other passersby. Overall, it looked pretty good, although I do have 2 complaints: I didn't like the wheels at all. I'm not sure if they are part of the FX4 package or not, but they were kinda ugly. Also, it had these plastic bed rails that I didn't like all that much either. -Again, not sure if the owner added this later or if it's actually part of the FX4 package. Anyway, just thought I'd share.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Those things would be hard to prove.
    1. Explorers don't roll over more often. Probably Mitsubishi Montero holds that record now, with sucky handling.
    2. They don't explode just because they are on Ford. Just seems that Ford was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and got shafted for it. Someone had to.
    3. Pluto covered that one with Expedition lugnuts. You can't just say "all". Not all, but some, and having a persistent problem on some is enough.
    4. Axle snap or LSD blowup: doesn't matter in case of FX4, because entire rear axle has got to go. So in a sense, it's equivalent.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    here is Toyota doesn't have some kind of magic dust that makes them a better offroading vehicle. Granted the locker is an advantage. But, lets look at the locker a minute. A locker is only to be used offroad, in a straight away motion and at slow speeds under 15 mph or so. How often do you take your truck into a spot that a locker is going to get its full use? Maybe 2% of your entire driving time?
    As much as Toyota owners want so badly to believe Tacoma's are "better" than Rangers its just not true. I have over 50,000 miles on a 1998 Ranger 4x4 that has been used as a 4x4 to prove it. I also don't believe the Ranger is any better than the Tacoma by the way...
    See you in the Cascades......
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
    on that one Scape. The locker is not for everyday driving. It is, however, the best diff configuration offroad. That is why it is only available with an offroad package. The only thing is that too many buy the TRD and have no idea what they have. I think its pretty queer too. I have a prerunner with a locker (no TRD sticker though). I could not afford 4x4 cuz of insurance and other things, but I can say that they locker has helped out numerous times. My truck is awesome offroad and the locker never ceases to amaze me. I do alot of driving in fields with terraced hills, and the locker climbs those better than my dads 1/2 ton Chevy 4x4. It is impressive. You were exactly right, though, it is only a benificial option in offroad situations (it also helps to do some mean donuts). Just to clear some things up, it can be used at any speed, and when turning as well. It just causes one tire to spin when turning which, offroad, is already happening, so you lose no traction. have a good one man!
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    how 'bout those Gophers?? off topic I know, but it needed a bump.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    I was driving by and saw a what looks like 1996 Taco 4x4, lifted (3" not more) with mud tires at a used car dealer lot. I didn't stop by to ask the price though, might do that tomorrow.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    where do you live??
    I can give you dealer names and addresses to about 12 dealerships that have dozens of used Tacoma trucks on their lots..
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
    Austin, TX.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Member Posts: 566
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
  • kbtoyskbtoys Member Posts: 62
    Has anybody hear anything about the new Tundra's coming out? I heard a rummor that it will have option of a 5.4L V8 and a diesel option. Now that would be cool.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Member Posts: 897
  • smgillessmgilles Member Posts: 252
    Looks like the Tacoma is the cheapest in 1999.


    http://cartalk.cars.com/Tools/survey-results-rc-top-bot.pl

  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Interesting link. In 1999, the average repair costs of the Ranger were more than six times the average of the Tacoma. It also shows that the Ranger is only a bit below the average mark for repairs while the Tacoma was over 6.5 times below the average in repair cost. How many studies and surveys do we need to demonstrate that the Tacoma is superior in quality to the Ranger? It's obvious!! Mr. stang, tbunder, scape2??? Is this just another biased source? The Ranger is a good truck but it's clearly got a way to go to get close to Toyota's general quality.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    All re: that link--->I'm curious about the methodology of that link. I wonder why you don't see any Tundra's in there at all?

    Also answer this question seriously, if consumer A owned a vehicle with no problems, and Consumer B owned a vehicle with many problems, which consumer would be most likely to complain or post their beef with the vehicle, say by taking an online survey?

    Factor that in with the amount of vehicles on the road.

    If you look at the breakdowns, they become convoluted. For instance, 1999 Fords compared with 1999 Ranger shows an average of 580 Dollars spent on Fords, and 360 spent on Rangers. But the breakdown into system components become suspicious. Ford Cooling system, exhaust system, and Air conditioning show little to no problems (well below industry average). Engine, Brakes, transmission(auto), Electrical and suspension all show above 1999 industry average costs. However in each instance, the Ranger shows 0 cost per category.

    So how does 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0 = 360 for the year of 1999? Is this factoring in old 1983-1999 Rangers with repairs made in 1999, and comparing that to 1995-1999 Tacomas? Something doesn't add up.

    I'm not discounting the Tacoma has a better reputation, but I don't think we are looking at a broad population of consumers to make this one of those rules to live or buy from. It does make a good supporting argument, however.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Give me a break stang. You're too intelligent of a guy to resort to "politician type" excuses like that. I like the Ranger too, however, my experience of owning both the Ford and the Toyota supports the quality superiority of the Tacoma that most (if not all) publications conclude. I'm obviously not alone in my finding. There's too much supporting evidence to the contrary to take your point of view.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    stang doesn't just simply posts links saying the Ranger is better. Perhaps lack of such information is the reason?
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    OK, Since EDMUNDS wants to limit words to 115 Characters (which sucks), Goto WWW.AUTOVANTAGE.COM

    Under Car Buying and Research, Select Ford or Toyota, select "New Car Summary", and then check it out.

    The Tacoma gets a "Recommended" label,
    The Ranger gets a "Best Buy" label.

    And I Agree. :)

    Can we all be friends now?
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    No mention of Toyota here
    http://www.awroadandtravel.com/awards/2001/mostathletic.htm

    I wonder what's the best way to earn loyalty?
    http://www.polk.com/loyalty/index.asp#

    Ranger#17 Tacoma#21
    http://www.25bestnewcars.com/awards.php

    Edmunds most wanted 2000-2001

    Tacoma did earn most wanted in 2002 I believe.

    So here's just a few more opinions. Not everything puts Tacoma over Ranger. More can be posted if requested...

    Remember, I would recommend the Tacoma. But I still think the Ranger is the Best Buy.
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    If one is interested in ONLY reliability and/or 4-wheeling when considering which small truck to buy, then by all means, they should buy a Tacoma.

    However, if one is willing to put up with the "potential" for a few additional problems, wants to save a boatload of money, and wishes a better "all-around" small truck, then they should seriously consider the Ranger.

    In addition, there are a multitude of subjective differences that IMHO, favor the Ranger. Some day I'll list those.

    Of course, this might be all BS, but don't forget, I have owned TWO Tacomas prior to buying the new Ranger, which so far has been trouble-free.
  • smgillessmgilles Member Posts: 252
    I agree completely with both of you.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    pluto about now. he asked for it, stang delivered.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    With all due respect, I don't see the value in your links. The first one didn't post anything about the Tacoma and said something about the S-10 winning their "athletic" award. The second link about loyalty IMHO is worthless because historically people who own Toyotas keep them for the long haul and don't buy new Toyotas every year or two.. Ford owners seem to buy and trade in their vehicles frequently which would account for Ford's "loyalty" rating. And the third even said you can't buy a tougher truck than the Tacoma.

    So at best, your links are very subjective. In objective comparison tests, the Tacoma has proven to outperform the Ranger time and again.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    My links are worthless, where have I heard that before?

    The first one could have chosen Tacoma all day long, but didn't. Ford owners don't always tend to trade in their Fords, That's your humble opinion. The point was LOYALTY. If everyone got burned like Frey44, do you think their Loyalty would be as great?

    On the third link I did a search for the word Tacoma. It only appears once on my screen, and that is on the ranking of the 25 most wanted cars in America.

    Yes my links are very subjective. As subjective as every opinion that is posted on this site. However the above subjective opinions come from a variety of sources, with everything from Edmunds, NHTSA, to Consumer Reports involved.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    Your first link from, AHEM, American Woman Road and Travel (are you a subscriber?), awarded the S-10 with their prestigous (LOL) "Athletic Award." I'm crushed my Tacoma TRD 4x4 wasn't a contender!

    Second link on loyalty - what can I say? Toyota owners keep their vehicles for the long haul, what could be more loyal?

    And your third link was nothing more that a buyer's guide, and it didn't even categorize vehicles in their ranking order. #1 on that guide was the Honda Accord. Now why would a truck guy even care about their vehicle rankings?

    To be honest, your postings are on par with tbundy's nonsense. It's almost like you guys are competing for the "stupid post" award or something.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Here I am Tbund...
    I have no problem with those responses as I too think the Ranger is a good truck. It has advantages in several areas over the Tacoma. When it comes to general quality, however, Ranger isn't at the same level. On the other hand, I'll agree that if you're looking for a lot of options for the money on an above average truck, the Ranger is a good choice. I just think the attempts to discredit every post supporting the quality advantage of the Tacoma are a bit asinine.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    "#849 by plutonious
    I don't know why stang doesn't just simply posts links saying the Ranger is better. Perhaps lack of such information is the reason?"

    You ask for links. I gave you links. Now you question the links? Good.

    Now you also question the Polk's loyalty award? You do realize you are getting all heated up in a debate about trucks, by guess what? Just one (and others) loyal Ford owners... :)

    Also, if you question the "Ford Ranger" Loyalty award (for 2000-2001) saying Toyota owners are in it for the long haul, how come during the first 6 months of 2000 Toyota Tacoma was in the lead?
    www.polk.com/news/releases/2001_1023.asp

    So can we discount it or not? The one fact is that more people keep coming back to Ford Rangers than any other Compact pickup in 2001. People who buy Ford Rangers seem to like them enough to buy another one.

    You should research more on what you criticize. The "Athletic Award" was just another alias for "Pick Up Truck". Did you think "Most Likely To Change The World" was another literal category too? (It's really for Electric or alternative fuel vehicles).
    www.awroadandtravel.com/awards/criteria.html

    More "subjective" opinions/accolades:
    carpoint.msn.com/Browse/win_4018597.asp
    Kiplinger's personal finance says the Ranger is Best in class (Dec 2001)

    carpoint.msn.com/Browse/win_4018922.asp
    More Fuel Efficient

    Carpoint's reader reviews even show the Tacoma leading the Ranger by 0.1 point (out of ten).

    Finally, just letting you know that the Tacoma isn't the end all, be all solution for all compact trucking needs. It's just a highly recommended one. The Ranger, (and Ford) is not as bad as you make it out to be. If it was, then why all the effort to discredit the Ranger? Let's just enjoy our trucks and show the empathy to understand differentiating opinions.
  • tbundertbunder Member Posts: 580
    dont even try. pluto is one of those guys that if you caught a 30 lb. catfish, he's caught a 31 pounder. everyone on here knows how he is, and probably feels sorry for him. at least other toyota boys can admit fault (if they have any) with their trucks. he either blames it on someone else, or just accepts it as not being a problem at all. he is obviously is scared of the competition, or jealous because his truck is now old and basically obsolete as compared to what is out now. even toyota recognized it's own truck's safety problems and made it better, according to scorpio anyways. in '98 it got a 1 star safety rating for side impacts. that's got to make him feel safe when driving eh? yeah, im sure he'll come back with some argument about his tacoma being the best quality or best off-roader or something. its all he's got. you provide him with real world links, and he just discredits them. its just how he is. just be thankful we're not like that. and at least your links were current, and didn't stop at the '99 model year.
  • plutoniousplutonious Member Posts: 799
    Just last week I caught a 32 pounder!

    I'm glad stang made me aware of the publication "American Woman Road and Travel." How did I ever get along without it?
This discussion has been closed.