Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Toyota Tacoma vs Ford Ranger - II
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
Consider this. With consistence, repeat, consistence, Consumer Reports magazine, of the Consumers Union a non-profit, non-advertising agency there for the "consumer", you and me, looking at all configurations of light trucks, 2X's, 4X's, longbed, shortbed, 2.5L/3.0L/4.0L for Ranger and all Toyota/Nissan/GM truck configuration/engines, given all the government studies/reports and most importantly, given the input from users of the product, read into that "owners" of the trucks, selects Ford Ranger as a "Best Buy", year after year. Inputs from owners suggest that the defect rate for the two vehicles of this topic are basically equal.
Also, Four Wheeler magazine selected Ford Ranger XL 3.0L as one of its "Best Buys".
I assume that you feel that this independent agency that WILL NOT accept advertising or allow their ratings to be USED in advertisments is also wrong?
Unlike some people on this board you can, at any time, see documentation of my truck, what it can and does do. Objective evidence my friend.
The board awaits your comments.
I just want a reliable truck, and I don't have a lot of faith in Fords, because almost everybody I know has had many problems with Ford vehicles. I had one 10 years ago and it was a lemon.
I have a 10 year old plymouth sundance now with 96k miles on it, and it's falling apart on me --- doesn't start sometimes, engine problems, etc.
The car's just getting plain old! And it's time for me to get a new vehicle, and I've decided on a vehicle with a good reputation for reliability. That's why I've picked the Tacoma. I've looked in the conferences in this site at Rangers, Dakotas, and Tacomas. It seems very obvious after looking at these conferences, that the FEWEST complaints people have are from Tacoma owners. I also checked the consumer complaints section at the nhtsa.dot.gov site, and Tacomas again had the lowest number of reported complaints (I think it was Ranger-90, Dakota-40, Tacoma-13). So I'm getting a Tacoma. At a great price!!!
LEts see.....that will be 290 Ranger technical bulletins and 70 or so toyota pickup bulletins.....
That will be 100's of Ranger safety recalls.....
and 15 Toyota pickup safety recalls.......
As for Toyota engines, everyone with a brain knows they make the most rock solid engines in the Business. Ever watch those safari documentRIES i nthe artic or Africa?
How about Himalaya?
All landcruisers or toyota pickups with the occasional land rover tossed in.
There is a reason why.
Well I had a 89 Camry I sold to a person I know with 174,000 plus miles on the odometer that didn't burn oil. He has 216,000 plus miles on it now and it still doesn't burn oil. Only problem is that the light for the temp & AC controls doesn't work when the exterior lights come on.
No uproar with that comment. It is an accurate statement about the Japanese trading practices.
-wsn
Check the reported troubles for Ranger in Consumer Reports and you will find them basically equal to the Toyota truck.
spoog:
Maybe tell people where to Go rather than posting. HMM you HAVE told me where to go often. . .!
8^).
Best Buy to me means for the money, it goes the longest way on this vehicle considering price, quality, features, reliability. It is tough to beat a 4X4 XL for 12-13K vs 20-21K due the math and that is 7-9K in your pocket and your still out 4 wheeling.
Camry is a VERY bright spot in the Toyota line from the mid 1980s but read the Edmunds long term test and there have been some problems.
Toyota does make good engines, with the exception of that 81-82 diesel which, I will repeat, self destructed around 35K and was not backed by Toyota at all. And maybe the 3.4 that had a head rather than a headgasket problem? The 76 Corolla I owned still ran at 136K but that engine leaked/burned oil badly.
Well wsnoble, I cited my source, Consumer Reports and Four Wheeler. I was just adding those to your comments. What were your sources? No sources, they are opinions. And I know you have never said it was a bad truck.
http://www.therangerstation.cjb.net/
You can ALSO search on the Tacoma in some cases.
BEST
Pronunciation: 'best
Function: adjective, superlative of GOOD
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English betst; akin to Old English bOt remedy -- more at BETTER
Date: before 12th century
1 : excelling all others
2 : most productive of good or of advantage, utility, or satisfaction
3 : MOST, LARGEST
buy
Pronunciation: 'bI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): bought /'bot/; buy·ing
Etymology: Middle English byen, from Old English bycgan; akin to Gothic bugjan to buy
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 : to acquire possession, ownership, or rights to the use or services of by payment especially of money : PURCHASE
2 a : to obtain in exchange for something often at a sacrifice b : REDEEM 6
3 : BRIBE, HIRE
4 : to be the purchasing equivalent of
5 : ACCEPT, BELIEVE
intransitive senses : to make a purchase
- buy·er /'bI(-&)r/ noun
- buy it or buy the farm : to get killed : DIE
- buy time : to delay an imminent action or decision : STALL
1998 1999
Ranger-8 Ranger-6
Tacoma-1 Tacoma-0
Looks pretty obvious (at 14 to 1!!!) that Rangers have more defects, and therefore, more problems, than Tacomas....
And all this info comes from the NHTSA, instead of someone's Ford homepage. Hmmm....
The past and present models of the Ford Ranger pickup truck have been the center of legal disputes for years. Many lawsuits have been filed concerning the Ford Ranger Pickup Truck's high rollover propensity, excessive amount of roof crush to the roof pillars or roof supports, significant excessive seatbelt slack (looseness) problems with the shoulder belt, suspension problems contributing to steering and handling, poor directional control due to inadequate / malfunctioning shock absorbers and too high of center of gravity contributing to the high propensity to rolling over.
Ford Ranger Pickup Truck- Rollover Problem
The original Ford Ranger Pickup was designed to replace the Ford Courier pickup, which was a downsized pickup manufactured by Mazda and sold in this country with a Ford label. Ford's decision to replace the Courier was based on the anticipated CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) rulemaking that would have excluded domestically imported vehicles from industry calculations.
Most Ford Ranger Pickups have a Twin I-Beam and Twin Traction Beam suspension system used since the early 1970's. This suspension system has been a noted problem in many rollover cases, due to the fact that the Twin I-Beam can actually enhance the jacking or lifting during sideway movement during a hard braking , steering / avoidance manuever. This jacking or lifting increase the height of the center of gravity ,helping to encourage a rollover. The rollover is just the beginning. When the pick-up rolls onto its roof, the many times the weak roof pillars collapse, trapping or crushing down onto the seated upright occupants with CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES. The magnitude of the vertival compression onto the occupants, can result in severe head /brain damage, spinal cord damage, brusting fractures to the spinal cord, causing quadriplegia, paraplegia, closed head injuries and even death.
The roof supports were not designed to act as a roll bar, as the industry states that rollovers are not foreseeable events, capable of being tested and reproduced in a controlled testing enviroment.If one examines the inside of such roof supports, one find them hollow, with made up of nothing but folded/ corrogated light gauge metal. Not designed to withstand the force of a rollover. EVEN THOUGH FORD KNEW BY THEIR OWN TESTS THAT THESE RANGER PICKUPS HAD A HIGH PROPENSITY TO ROLL AND THAT THESE ROOF WILL COLLAPSE IN MANY ROLLOVERS!!!
Ford Ranger-- Seatbelt Injuries
The seat belt system in the Ranger for the two outboard seating positions(driver & passenger) consists of a 3-point belt with a lap and attached shoulder restraint and the middle seating position having only a lap belt.In some older models the shoulder belt has what is known a a comfort feature or window shade retractor device that allows for slack to be introduced into the system as one moves about in the vehicle.The problem is excessive slack in the shoulder or lap belt can cause serious injuries in case of a frontal collision or a rollover. Good engineering practices teaches that a safety belt should be so designed and positioned that it allows the body to move forward and ride down the deceleration of the impact in order to protect them from moving forward and possibly striking an unfriendly object or structure inside the vehicle.
In 1979 NHTSA proposed an outright ban to these devices, but U.S. auto makers including Ford fought the restrictions but,finally agreed to voluntarily limit the amount of slack and to poist warnings in new vehicles, instead of fixing the problem !In one such case in Texas a young boy properly seated and belted in the front seat of th Ford Ranger Pickup Truck was rendered a quadriplegic when during a frontal collision his head impacted the dash , due in part, of TOO MUCH SLACK in the belt belt system. The Ford Ranger Pickup trucks of the 1990's are not equipped with this dangerous slack producing belt system.
Middle Seating Position Lap belt can also be a killer in frontal accidents in that it allows the occupant( usually a child) to be severely whipped or jack-knived, in the sudden deceleration of a frontal collision. Many times severe abdominal injuries, spinal cord and head injuries can result from the upper torso being violently thrusted forward, instead of restrained with a shoulder belt.THIS TOO WAS WELL KNOWN TO FORD even as early as 1967.
Lack of Head Restraints. Most of the early Ford Rangers and the earlier Ford Courier pickup trucks were not equipped with head restraints or high back seats. The failure of Ford, General Motors and most of the truck industry in deciding NOT to install these safety devices, costs 100's of occupants their lives , in moderate to severe rear end collisions. For $15-20, head restraints could have been added , but the auto industry fought this safety regulation, until 1988, when it was mandated, that all outboard seating positions be equipped with them.
Put it on your web site. I don't give a hoot, but if you constantly have to jibe that you have a web site you sound kind of pathetic to me. Pictures can be copied from other sites.
" Why dont you just tell us where to go to find the sats, and not posat them".
Cspousner? Have you been paying attention? I have posted the NHSTA link throughout this thread.
Awhile back weh nI posted the 270 technical repair bulletins to the Tacomas 60, I gave the link.
Here you go Cspousner, for the 300th time:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/
A completely unbiased, completely up to date inventory of defects and safety recalls for every vehicle ever made.
This site has always been my source. Its the site where I proved you wrong way back on the 70 Ford safety rcalls and the 11 yota recalls
(89-99)
,and the site where I got the 270 Ranger technical bulletins, and the 60 yota technical bulletins(89-99)
YOu might want to bookmark it so you dont look like a fool again.
what are you hiding?
Who is Cspousner?
Spell check, please!
Yes I know you posted the link a while back just was requesting you not copy the whole 9 yards again. And in #168 I posted the place off of Ranger Station where you can get to the site you reference. Why did you waste precious space repeating what I just did?
Unbiased? Well one would THINK that some of those submissions would flow over to the Consumer Reports assessments. And if you READ the text of some of the NHTSA posts, they refer to, what I consider, minor issues such as missing labels, chattering windows, etc. Now the one BIG issue, the fuel rail line, was promptly repaired by Ford, simular to the head design/head gasket (no one has told me which it is) problem on the 3.4L Toyota engine.
Sure, I can quote Edmunds but you cannot sell a vehicle for what Edmunds says. They said my 94 Intrepid was worth $8500 well it sold for $7400. That is a 13% error in their estimated value vs reality. Also, I was offered $4K trade-in value where $5.6K was reported by Edmunds for trade-in value, a 29% error. Read into that that you cannot sell or trade for what Edmunds lists as the value of your car.
hindsite:
First, for future history of the Ranger, you might try here:
http://www.homestead.com/therangerstation/RangerHistory.html You will find such things as:
1985:
Ford also continued to stress that the Ranger was truly a small scale version of the F-150, down to the same ladder-type frame construction and twin I-beam front suspension, a Ford trademark for more than 20-years.
1998:
Another '98 change that positively influenced the ride and steering quality was the front-suspension's overhaul. Ford replaced the veteran twin I-beams with a new wishbone-style front suspension that uses coil springs or torsion bars. New "Pulse Vacuum" hub-locks enables virtually silent 4x4 engagement on the fly with a flick of the dash switch.
Is there such a thing for Toyota?
Web site? True I could copy but. . . Well I am not ashamed of showing the beauty of my state and just happen to have my ugly mug but pretty truck in the pic. Next time out, I will give you and spoog a personal message on a pic to let you know its me.
Clarification, read my post again. Consumer Reports and 4 wheeler mag state the "best buy" on those particular vehicles, not specifically the 4 wheel drive. Over all assessment.
I have never said the Tacoma was a bad vehicle nor questioned its ability as a 4X, other than mine will basically go where it goes too. But have agreed with most assessments that it is fine but 1. Expensive, 2. uncomfortable front seat and 3. questionable vehicle control.
(ziggy10)
Well, first, there are more Rangers sold so more
reports would be expected. Second, READ THE REPORTS...missing labels...glaze for glass...how to SERVICE break rotor...power window chatter...do not put these refrigerents in...
Now I can agree on your first sentence -- barely (considering the FACT that more Japanese cars are sold than American worldwide, probably means that Toyo sells MORE trucks overall --- prove me wrong!!!)
In your second sentence "READ THE REPORTS", I did. AND YOU DIDN'T- Obviously, because besides the "small" stuff in there, there's also MAJOR EXPENSIVE problems, such as fuel injector leaks (potential fire hazard), sticking speed controls (that could definitely cause accidents), and the transmission not going into park (not safe on a hill is it???).
The evidence is overwhelming, and if you can't see it now, then you don't have an open mind. Or you're saying things just to try and get the last word in, or whatever. If you like to argue so much, become a lawyer.
All I know is that I WAS going to buy a Dakota, and then started researching and checked every small truck there is (Dodge, Ford, Chevy, Nissan, Mazda, and Toyota) and quickly came to the conclusion of which truck offered the better
1. Engine
2. Power
3. Hauling capacity
4. Best reported customer satisfaction
5. Lowest number of customer complaints
6. Resale value
7. Reliability
Tacoma
Plus, mine is almost the same price as an equally equipped Ranger --- 900 dollars more if you get the 3.0 engine, and ONLY 100 dollars more if you got the 4.0. Now when I trade it in, according to you, I'll get 1,500 more back than you would on a Ranger. Hmmmm. Sounds to me like I'll get more than my money back and eventually (because of the higher trade in value) I'll actually PAY LESS than a Ranger buyer would overall. Want me to do the math for you???
Also, Ranger doesn't have twin-I beam anylonger. Come into the new Ranger please.
The excuses that the Ranger is less expensive and its Ford financing that creates all the sales is a joke. Toyota also offers financing and rebates in the NW.
Fact is the Ranger offers more of what people want. A good, reliable, quality product at a FAIR price. Sales continue to show this. The Ranger is in the top 10 vehicles/Cars sold, where is the Tacoma after all these years?
The Ranger has been the number 1 seller in its class since introduction. Toyota has had plenty of time to reverse this, why hasn't this happened?
Tacoma owners are just miffed because they paid too much!
. . .for around $18,000?
If so, buy it, its a deal.
Man, tell me where and I will come buy some for resale down here and make 3 grand a vehicle.
"The 1998 Ranger changed from the twin I beam to IFS. Please come to the future."
Well that is true and the head gasket is old news, but yet you like to bring it up. It is fair game to put on Edmunds anything negative about the Ranger if you choose to rehash old news. If you want to play the game it can go either way.
Ford does have a trademark for recalls and technical bulletins. Take that to the bank.
Just like you have said in the past Spoog does not have the truck. I can say in the same vane that your web site is a fraud. How do you like them apples? Photos can be copied from other sites.
"But haveagreed with most assessments that it is fine but 1.
Expensive, 2. uncomfortable front seat and 3.questionable vehicle control."
Questionable vehicle control? The tacomas
suspension and steering control are top of the line. Didn't you ever read the Four Wheeler
pickup of the year comparions? Please dont tell me
we have to go into that again. Also, your ranger wont go everywhere my tacoma can. I have the optional locker and the 4:10 gearing which basically leaves you in the dust(or mud).
Its options like that that seperate vehicles.
See you in the hills
And how come I never have heard of the under the hood balls before. I would have never known unless I was on the edmunds site. Is there more sites besides toyota talking about it.
Thanks
From a man that wants to drive a reliable truck with balls.
Well it appears to be a good deal you got.
First, you forgot to mention that the base engine on the Tacoma is, an I quote from Edmunds, 2.4L I4 DOHC MPI 16-valve engine. And the prices for the 99 2WD V6 Extra cab are, directly from Edmunds:
7153 Extended Cab Base V6 (5M) 2-Dr
Invoice = $14,690
MSRP = $16,208
Sooooo, they are selling the 2000 Tacoma for less than the 99s?
I will be direct. You are just flat wrong on your prices and anyone with access to Edmunds or Kelly Blue Book can see you ar.
hindsite:
Well, when I develop the roll, there will be a picture of the 1999 Colo Aspens with a note above my bumper stating:
EDMUNDS #867 227
Look, I do think anyone can bring up whatever they want and if the bulletins are the deciding factor, so be it. With the exception of the wiper switch, NONE effect my 99 XLT, many are service alerts on HOW to accomplish service of the vehicle. How do you address a complaint on a chattering window when it effects a small number of vehicle and MAY be c
My comment on the Ibeams was just that the suspension has changed. MANY on Ranger.com or Ranger Station hate the new suspension as they like the twin I beam in a 4X situation.
I was in the mud last and this weekend, 100-200 feet sections last weekend on some roads, forest service road 360 San Isabel forest to be exact and a few short spots this weekend, forest service road 206 in Routt and Arapahoe NF. And yes, if i was in places that was mud boggs, a locker might help, but I do not go there.
I didnt see you in the hills this weekend, just an F250 and F150 and a couple of ATV's, 2 deer an elk 3 falcons and a load of chipmunks.
Got pics of the deer and elk.
"Come to think of it when I go out into the Cascade
Mountains I RARELY see any Tacoma's in places that
I go. I see plenty of them in the city or parked
by rivers but never actually on trails. Wonder
why?"
Figure it out. You yourself said the ranger outsells the Tacoma 7-1.
You answered your own ignorant question.
Those animals you did see now are probably dead.
Topic 688 is nice
Ford Ranger 4.0 engine problems.
Joseph26
First of all I don't have a supercharger on mine so I can't really advise you. So get a life and go search the web.
and has a warranty equal to that of your engine.
Before the charger I had 190HP @ 220 torque.
Right now I am looking at around 260 HP and 260
torque, or so the yota dealer told me. I havent had my truck dyno'd.
The 4.3 engine sounds quite different with the charger installed. There is a very slight whislting sound when starting up the truck now, but you can really feel the power when you give a little gas in neutral.
The acceleration is intense. If your looking for
something to force you back into your seat, this is it. My truck is a 4x4 extended cab, and I have beaten several mustangs off the line.
It eats a little bit more gas, depending on how heavy your foot is.
As for towing, I dont know. A rear wheel drive truck on wet pavement with the charger can be a chore. I never use my 4 wheel drive on rainy paved surfaces, so wheelspin can be a problem.
What size boat do you have? how much do you plan on towing?
If you want freakish acceleration, and more horsepower and torque, get the charger. Its a hell of alot better than messing around with bogus chips and air filters. If your gonna do a job, do it right.
If you do get it, be prepared to have the fastest stock 4x4 on the road.
The look on mustang and coupe owners faces when you blow by them in a "rice burner" is worth the price of admision. lol.
Have questions about reliabilty? Want to end the myths and rumours?
HERE YOU GO. Enjoy!
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/
Just do a little search for the vehicle your looking for.
OK, tack on another 3K to an already price tag of 23K-24K and walla! a 26K-27K Tacoma! This is a compact truck for a full size price. This is over 7K more than I paid for an absolutly loaded and factory ordered Ranger XLT 4.0 5spd.
Now, you can knock K&N, but most people who are into performance parts know K&N and their reputation.
Also, I have already proven that the chip and K&N combo work. I have had it dyno'd. and all for $2400 less than a supercharger. Granted the torque and HP are not the same. But there is improvement.
I have passed this supercharger by 4x4 shops and they all ask why?? most of all why on a pickup??
This is a marketing ploy by Toyota and I guess it has worked on a couple of people.
First of all Pentax uses a K-mount and the FD lens mount was introduced concurrently with the original Canon F-1 camera, and superceded previous FL-mount lenses. FD lenses fit and function properly on all Canon cameras from the FT and TL models, to all the A and T series camera bodies (A-1, AE-1, AE-1P, AT-1, T50, T70, T90) all the way through the T90, which whas the last Canon camera to accept an FD mount. FD lenses have a chrome ring at the rear (that is, the end that attaches to the camera). Mounting the lens required seating the lens into the camera body and turning the chrome ring until it locked.
The only camera that accepts the K-mount are
PENTAX: ME. ME-SUPER. MV-x. MX. KM. KX. K2. MG-x. K1000
RICOH: KR-2 KR-5 KR-10-x
Also... CHINON, COSINA, MIRANDA, VIVITAR AND CENTON (K-x) Cameras that do not offer program mode/s.
I read pretty much the same info that spoog told ya about the supercharger. There was a chat site on here (edmunds) about it. By the way, I'm 32, gainfully employed, and am not acting like a child, but trying to get Cpousnr to open his eyes to the fact that there are other trucks on the market that are as good as his Ford, and also to the fact that a Tacoma isn't as expensive as he says it is. I pick up my new Tacoma (hopefully) tomorrow. I'll try and keep the folks on this site updated as to my progress on it, and how the truck runs, etc.
Cpousnr--
The prices I quoted you are from here --- edmunds.
they are a 2000 Tacoma Base V6 Ext Cab 2WD for 13,805 invoice (notice that IS a V6???)
versus
A 2000 Ranger XLT 2WD supercab SB model for 14,244 invoice --- note that the base Ford is only a 4 cyl, but 300 bucks more than a V6 Tacoma. Also note that the Ford HAS to be upgraded to a V6 to even make the comparison, and that the 3.0 V6 is 336.00, and that the 4.0 V6 is 1101.00......
Which means that my numbers are right if you are looking at edmunds as a price guide. Instead of arguing, why don't you look up the prices, so you have your facts right.
You see I have a Pentax SpotmaticII I bought in 1972 at Cubi Point Naval Station equiped with the 135mm Tac_what_cha_ma_call_it lens and When I upgraded to the Cannon AE-1 in 1983 I am too cheap to buy a Cannon lens. Plus, I think the Pentax lens is a better lens.
ziggy10
well if I go to this URL:
http://www.edmunds.com/newtrucks/1999/toyota/tacoma/basev62wdxtracab.html
edmunds, tacoma 2wd extracab, the price is:
VEHICLE PRICES (MSRP AND DEALER INVOICE)
(All Prices in US Dollars)
Tacoma
7153 Extended Cab Base V6 (5M) 2-Dr
Invoice = $14,690
MSRP = $16,208
Destination Charge: $420
Gas Guzzler Tax: NA
I am not sure where you are getting your data, as this is for the V6, 2WD, extracab Tacoma for 2000 We are for some reason $900 off but remember, Toyotas option up from there and I am quoting Base Price at $14,690 invoice, no options.
They are a fine truck and I am sure you will enjoy it.
Ford Ranger xl Supercab located here:
http://www.edmunds.com/newtrucks/2000/ford/ranger/xl2wdsupercabsb.html
is listed as:R14 Extended Cab XL 2-Dr
Invoice = $13,672
MSRP = $15,145
Destination Charge: $510
Gas Guzzler Tax: NA
with the V6 option priced at:
99V Engine: 3.0L FFV V6 (2WD)
Flexible fuel capable. Includes Securilock. NOT AVAILABLE with X87, 44D, XR5, 95S, 95P, 41H.
Invoice sticker $336 $395
for a total of around $14K and change invoice price for a bottom of the line XL with a V6, no air no options, no nothing. That is no where close to the equipment on my XLT.
But remember, there is one step lower than the XL, the basic Ranger, the equivelent to the Tacoma you cite and those prices are not listed in Edmunds right now.
You see I have a Pentax SpotmaticII I bought in 1972 at Cubi Point Naval Station equiped with the 135mm Tac_what_cha_ma_call_it lens and When I upgraded to the Cannon AE-1 in 1983 I am too cheap to buy a Cannon lens. Plus, I think the Pentax lens is a better lens.
ziggy10
well if I go to this URL:
http://www.edmunds.com/newtrucks/1999/toyota/tacoma/basev62wdxtracab.html
edmunds, tacoma 2wd extracab, the price is:
VEHICLE PRICES (MSRP AND DEALER INVOICE)
(All Prices in US Dollars)
Tacoma
7153 Extended Cab Base V6 (5M) 2-Dr
Invoice = $14,690
MSRP = $16,208
Destination Charge: $420
Gas Guzzler Tax: NA
I am not sure where you are getting your data, as this is for the V6, 2WD, extracab Tacoma for 2000 We are for some reason $900 off but remember, Toyotas option up from there and I am quoting Base Price at $14,690 invoice, no options.
They are a fine truck and I am sure you will enjoy it.
Ford Ranger xl Supercab located here:
http://www.edmunds.com/newtrucks/2000/ford/ranger/xl2wdsupercabsb.html
is listed as:R14 Extended Cab XL 2-Dr
Invoice = $13,672
MSRP = $15,145
Destination Charge: $510
Gas Guzzler Tax: NA
with the V6 option priced at:
99V Engine: 3.0L FFV V6 (2WD)
Flexible fuel capable. Includes Securilock. NOT AVAILABLE with X87, 44D, XR5, 95S, 95P, 41H.
Invoice sticker $336 $395
for a total of around $14K and change invoice price for a bottom of the line XL with a V6, no air no options, no nothing. That is no where close to the equipment on my XLT.
But remember, there is one step lower than the XL, the basic Ranger, the equivelent to the Tacoma you cite and those prices are not listed in Edmunds right now.
New 1999: Pickup truck
Toyota Tacoma
The Tacoma sticks out conspicuously in Toyota's
otherwise-excellent product range. Handling is unimpressive,
and the ride is choppy and uncomfortable. Bumpy curves make
the truck leap and bound. The seats aren't comfortable. In
extended-cab models, the forward-facing rear seats are useless
for adults. There's no rear door to aid access, either. A Tacoma
with antilock brakes may be hard to find.
unbiased opinion
you want the review on the ranger?? here it is :
New 1999: Pickup truck
Ford Ranger
Civilized trappings like air conditioning and power accessories
can't disguise the truckiness of the Ranger and similar Mazda
B-Series. But among compact pickups, they're the best. Handling
is good, though the ride is stiff. The 4.0-liter V6 performs
adequately. The seats are low, and their padding is thin. Four
doors are available in extended-cab models, but the rear seat is
fit only for cargo. A cutoff switch can deactivate the passenger's
air bag when you install a child seat there.
ok now feel free to argue with CR.
thanx :)p
CR's small truck Ratings
Ranger very good
mazda b-4000 very good
chevy s-10 Good
gmc sonoma Good
Toyota Tacoma Fair
reliability ratings... digging a hole for myself here but i wanna be fair..
tacoma 40% above average
ranger 10% above average
mazda 10% above average
Dakota 15% below average
S10 20% below average
and someone at somepoint here said that ranger owners were being short sighted when it came to cost of owning a truck. they were claiming that the repair cost of a ranger would catch it up in cost to a tacoma. But Parts AND labor Have ALWAYS been Higher for Japanees cars and trucks... so that to me seems like a level playing feild to me..
and in my experience (85 bronco II) i have had no problems other than replacing the valve cover seal. 100000 and 15 years in Summit county CO. lives at 9300 ft and had done passes at greater than 12000.. Now i just cant wait for the Ranger to come in
Gov't front-crash test:
Driver / Front passenger = very good / very good
Gov't side-crash test:
Driver / Rear passenger = POOR / N. A.
RANGER
Gov't front-crash test:
Driver / Front passenger = very good / very good
Gov't side-crash test:
Driver / Rear passenger = Excelent / n.a.
let see what have we established... a better truck, a less expensive truck, a safer truck, and more reliable than most. hmmm seems like a no brainer to me.. and the best part is i help my own economy therefor helping my money make ME money.. this ranger is just getting cheaper and cheaper.
have fun with this kids
"We are for some reason $900 off.........."
Yes, we are. Because you are pricing a 1999 Tacoma price against a 2000 Ranger price. The 2000 Tacoma price DROPPED from 14,690 down to 13,805. That's an 885 dollar price drop, and that's why your numbers are off. You're looking at the wrong year Tacoma. Look at a 2000 Tacoma (V6 2WD ext cab) price here at edmunds.
Sredman
CR stuff you quoted is welcome. It sounds to me as if both trucks have a stiff/bumpy ride, small back seats, and uncomfortable front seats. Both CR writeups read very similar to me. Thanks. Toyota reliability still beats a Ford. Any day of the week..... And the price is comparable if you shop right. I'm also paying a bunch of workers (American) at a factory in Fremont.... Not a whole lot of difference between either truck, if you ask me.
"let see what have we established... a better
truck, a less expensive truck, a safer truck, and
more reliable than most." Scredman's quote
Are the rear seats in the Ranger useable for adults? Did you not leave off the passenger cut-off switch for the air bag in the Tacoma? Since we are talking about Tacoma and Ranger in this topic the Tacoma comes out more reliable. If the 4.0 performs adequately, then the 3.4 in the Tacoma is a Godsend of power. I have anti lock brakes and saw quite a few in the lot. Maybe they should have tried a different dealer?
About safety the NHTSA came out recently with a the Ford Ranger roll overs. By the way if the Tacoma is more reliable then I guess the repair cost would be lower. Now that is a no brainer as you so aptly like to state in your subjective opinion.
They left out in the Tacoma is that the automatics come with ECT as standard. The Ranger has one 12 volt dash mounted for one accessory, while the Tacoma has three 12 volt dash mounted for three accessories. The Ranger uses an anolog odometer in the dash, while the Tacoma has a digitial odometer with two trip settings. Plus all 4x4 come with skid plates front and back, while the Ranger has it as an option. The Ranger come with 5 lug wheels, while the Tacoma comes with 6 lug wheels. Ranger has no locking fuel door, while the Tacoma has. Ranger does not have an on/off overdrive button, while the Tacoma does. Ranger comes with Firestone tires, while the Tacoma has Goodyear treads. Also add the fact that the Tacoma has a spiral antena for better reception over that regular antenna.
Why dont you go to four-wheeler.com and click
on the 98 pickup of the year award. You bet, the tacoma and Ranger go head to head.
And im sure you already know which truck wins.
4wheeler even went so far as to say the ranger just couldnt keep up, and lolly gagged in the ruts.
Ziggy, your reachin bud, it is all over every mag and review that Tacoma's are more expensive, actually the most expensive compact truck on the market. Pasted all over every page in a large Northwest paper at every Ford dealer, a S/C Ranger 4x2 XLT range from 11,888 to 12,199 depending on dealership. This is with the 2.5 of course and after a 1K rebate. The V6 XLT 2wd S/C I found on add for 12,999, dealer had 5 of them.
In no way are you going to convince anyone the Tacoma is actually LESS than a Ranger.
I read the rollover review and it was a joke. No way anyone would drive a truck in the way they drove it. They drove it like a damn sports car! ANY truck would roll over with the way they drove it.
And another thing, Ford has done away with the live front axle for the 5th time.
Shall we talk head gaskets?
Dollar for dollar the Ranger is the best value on the market. The best handling, the most comfortable, the most affordable. This is why it has remained Numero uno for over 10 years. The Tacoma has had 4 years to reverse this, why hasn't it happened?
Hind, I have already gone up against one of your "superior" 4.3 Tacoma's in its TRD package. I was not impressed. As you know I went everywhere he was able to go, climb, trail anywhere he could go. He was a stout Tacoma fan, thought his truck would run circles around my Ranger. After our runaround, he was actually surprised and gained new respect for the Ford Ranger. Granted, he would still stick with the Tacoma, just because of past experience.
See ya in the hills.
so I offer an unbaised opinion on this debate:
That Tacoma is a piece of j*p crap, go with the Ranger, a real truck. Read just about any article on mid-size trucks and the Ranger always blows away the competion (even over the Chevy S10).
I wouldn't even classify a Tacoma as a Truck, its
more of a compact car with a tiny bed! And for
all you Tacoma owners, good luck on that keeping
that head-gasket in 1 piece!
As for the tacomas being made here: yeah workers are getting paid, but where do the profits go?? straight to japan. to a country that spurns every US made product. that is how buying american helps me .
everybody smile this place is way to uptight. Just smile if you love YOUR truck
Profits . . . Lets talk about the slave labor the garment industry has outside this country manufacturing. Well you must not earn too much cash . . .gosh that is a bummer. Hehehe... If so you got to buy what is cheaper. Then again you can learn some tricks from Cpousnr on how to cook squirrel if you are short of cash. He can teach you what tone is also.
By the way, the Ranger doesnt handle better.
I dont know where you got that info from.
Did you even bother to read the technical info on the 4wheeler of the year award at four-wheeler.com?
oh..heres an exerpt...kind of debunks your
handling MYTH
http://www.fourwheeler.com/newtrucks/ptoty/98/ptoty.html
fourwheeler
"Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.
Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running.
As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.
It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.
Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year. "
Yeeehaaaww!!!!
to QUOTE again:
" The tacoma is the best(for the dollar) on and off road package of any compact truck(_or even full size)."
I wonder what happened to the Ranger on this test? lol.