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
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
They are all just trucks, nothing(except my Super Duty. LOL!) is perfect.
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.
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.
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.
Which seems more likely?
Thanx for the kind words. If only the "out of this world" and "crimson tide" toy owners were as wise as present company. LOL!!!
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...
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. "
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 Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
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.
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......
I can give you dealer names and addresses to about 12 dealerships that have dozens of used Tacoma trucks on their lots..
http://cartalk.cars.com/Tools/survey-results-rc-top-bot.pl
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.
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?
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.
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.
So at best, your links are very subjective. In objective comparison tests, the Tacoma has proven to outperform the Ranger time and again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm glad stang made me aware of the publication "American Woman Road and Travel." How did I ever get along without it?