By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
s in my region still start at about 18K, add the options and the price take leaps and bounds. reddog you are not going to convince anyone that a loaded TAcoma can be had for under 20K.
I am curious to see what Tacoma fans have to say about resale now? spoog? hind? wsn?
P.S. I was given a price on a very nicley equipped (but not loaded) Tacoma of just under 20K. Yes Way. Not everybody lives on the overpriced West Coast.
Go check Edmunds for the resale value of the Tacoma.
Recall that I said it STICKERED at about $26K. I paid $22K for it last June.
As mviglianco1 pointed out, how much do you think a Ranger would fetch at that same auction? Out here in the "overpriced West coast", trucks are auctioned off almost as much as cars, btw. But putting resale value aside, let's talk about demand. Two years ago I attended an auto auction; I've noticed that Toyota/Nissan pickups get roughly 2-3 times the number of bids than your S-10's, Dakota's, and Rangers. Whether this be due to reputation, brand loyalty, etc... there is a higher demand for import pickups than domestic ones. Of course, I'm talking about compact pickups, the Fords and Chevy's rule in the full size category. Just calling it as I see it.
An absolutely bare-bones, no options Tacoma V6 4x4 will have a dealer invoice price (what the avg consumer should set as a good target price) of slightly under 18K. This is a truck with no A/C, no tach, steel wheels/hubcaps, a non-adjustable steering wheel, no stereo?!, and no ABS.
To say that you can get a LOADED 4x4 V6 Tacoma for less than 20K is absurd. Try less than 24-25K.
Now I know the first was giving me a MSRP and the second a legitamate price. Both V6 5sp 4x4 xcab.
Just because it may not be this way in a particular part of the country does not mean it does not exist. This country is much bigger then your hometown.
good. The latest 2000 Consumer Reports Reliability
Ranking ranks the Ranger (and I quote) "Worse Than
Average". In fact, only two trucks ranked in the
"Above Average" category for reliability. Tacoma
and Frontier!! And before you go spouting off about
how it's a biased ranking you'd better think
again. The results are taken from surveys by actual
owners. That's right - Ranger owners ranked their
own trucks "WORSE THAN AVERAGE" LOL! Have a nice
day.
Use these exact same data I used. I basically used my truck.
Ranger XLT Supercab (4D)
Toyota Tacoma Xtra Cab
with these options.
V6, 5spd, 25,000miles, 4wd, offroadpkg,A/c, pwr steering, windows, doors, seats, tilt, cruise, am/fm stereo, CD, ABS, sliding rear window, stepside bed (Toyota doesn't offer this), running boards, bed liner, tow pkg, premium wheels, offroad tires, Excellent condition.
Trade in value for Ranger is 16,535, Tacoma is 15,155!!!!!. Looks like the higher resale value crap is over Tacoma fans. Keep punching the numbers and see for yourself at Kelly Blue book.
Punch away!
Well Ranger owners....sadly.....your beloved Consumer Reports now rates the Ranger below average in reliability.
The coveted Consumer Reports, Vinnie and Cspounsers favorite source, rates the Ranger below average in reliability. OUCH! But thats not a surprise to me , seeing as how I proved that over and over and over and over.
www.carpoint.msn.com contradicts everything consumer reports says. Visit the reliability data section on the Toyota before the Tacoma years, yikes! ouch....
Also the longterm Ranger data, wright up right here at Edmunds.
Spoog, punch my numbers at Kelly Blue book yet?
Just a little Reminder
Have you read what cr had to say about the tacoma, how about posting back here with a report.
This unimpressive small truck sticks out conspicuously in
Toyota's otherwise excellent product range. Handling is
unimpressive, and the ride is choppy and uncomfortable.
Bumpy curves make the Tacoma leap and bound. The
seats aren't comfortable, and in extended-cab models, the
forward-facing rear seats are useless for adults. Nor is there
a rear door to aid access, either. What's more, a Tacoma
with antilock brakes may be hard to find. Three good points:
The optional 3.4-liter, 190-hp V6 is responsive; the controls
and displays are excellent; and the Tacoma is a very reliable workhorse.
among compact pickups. But neither lets you forget you're
driving a truck. Handling is good, though the ride is stiff. The
4.0-liter V6 performs adequately; the 3.0-liter V6 is more
pleasant. The seats are low, however, 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-side air bag when you install a
child seat there. Reliability has improved to average for all
versions.
It simply isnt built very well at all.
As for the Ranger you mentioned, make sure it doesn't have the "wrist-pin problem" which surfaced in some 4.0s in the '98 and '99 model years (engine redesign during mid-'99). The engine makes noises similar to marbles rolling around in a tin can. I haven't heard of (and no one has provided) news of any mechanical malfunction due to the problem. It just creates what some would consider "excessive noise" and it can only be cured by swapping in a new 4L motor. Keep in mind that 4.0s are not known for their quietness either. They are a reliable, long-lasting engine, but they are nowhere near as refined and quiet as the OHC offerings from Toyota and Nissan.
Also, a 4L will pull a 3000lb boat with no problems. I tow just over 2000lbs worth of snowmobiles and gear up to Wis a couple times a year. My truck, a '98 4x4 4L, has no problems cruising along at 65-75mph. It also gets pretty good gas milage when towing, about 17-19mpg. A V6 Toyota should also be able to tow the boat the 20 or so miles. You'll probably have to downshift and run it in a lower gear, though, due to lower torque that peaks at a higher rpm.
Just make sure that you test drive, test drive, and test drive. Only you can decide which truck that you like better.
Exactly where is this survey that puts the F150 dead last? Or, are you just talking the poop, as usual?
Also Cthompy, lets not forget that the Tacoma has more max rear wheel torque than the Ranger......
They don't even let anyone know what their sources are. They are undisclosed.
Transmission expert?! If you believe that, Mr. Gullible, then I've got a bridge that I'd be willing to part with.
You still don't understand torque???? It's been months now. I would have hoped that by now you'd at least pick up a book or ask somebody about it. I believe that I and several others on this board including Toyota owners have explained it to you, but you still don't get it????
Carpoint is now a biased, unreliable source? If it were the other way around, you'd be singing its praises all day long. At least attempt to be somewhat consistent.
I checked out Carpoint because it was the only sight I could think of during my 10min lunch break that had reliability ratings for the F150 for the past 5yrs. I looked on the J.D. Power website but couldn't find any reliability ratings.
No complaints. I'm contemplating switching all fluids (oil, tranny, differential) to synthetics. Any comments or good/bad experiences? I'll probably do it when I next service the truck at 21K.
Its back on this list. The FORD f150 finished way below average.
Vince- You are right. If you want to tool around the logging roads and go skiiing, the ranger is a good value.
If you want to tool around on the logging roads and offroad for ten years...then the Tacoma is your choice.
Also does anyone have towing specs for all three trucks. It would be appreciated. Anyone tow over mountain passes with either truck?
I also go to the beach a lot, which brings up the question of resistance to the elements. Living in the northwest we have rain 9 months out of the year and rust is a concern. And going to the beach a lot in the summer only makes things worse (salt water and sand).
Off-road however, you need a truck that isn't bouncing and bottoming out requiring you to drive 1/2 a mile an hour. All here that criticize the TRD need to drive one off-road first before you post an opinion. You're probably the same people that try to argue that a corvette or a 300ZX aren't worth the extra money because they don't handle any better than a Camaro or a Mustang. It's easy to say when you haven't driven one to see the difference.
If that site actually had anything that said the F150 to be a vehicle that was terribly built and fell apart after 5yrs, you'd be singing it through the hills.
allknowing, I have a friend who owns a TRD Tacoma and he swore he was going to "pound my Ranger into the dirt" up in the Cascades. Well, hate to burst your bubble, he didn't. My Ranger went everywhere, trailed, climbed everything he was willing to take his Tacoma through. POP! I heard the bubble burst! In the coming days pictures will be posted of my Ranger out and about in the Cascade Range. Every heard of MT Hood, MT ST Helens, or MT Rainer? I live in some of the harshest country in the U.S. for offroading. Proof is on its way.
CP, I am trying to find the post where you said folks can send you pics. Please send again.
Special, check out www.carpoint.msn.com, and www.crashtest.com, the Tacoma finishes LAST@! at both sites.
It's obvious to me that you've never driven a TRD Tacoma. As far as the crash test rehashed over and over, yes the Ranger fares better. When someone buys a sports car, they know that a porshe will not do as well as Camaro or Mustang in a crash test but the Porshe's superior performance keeps people buying. The TRD Tacoma handles better both off-road and on than a Ranger. I've driven the Ford and the TRD Tacoma off-road in the same area now and the Tacoma a no brainer winner. The Ranger has it's advantages too but not in those areas.
Since the rest of these guys were busy throwing rocks at each other again, I'll give you my opinion.
YES, the Tacoma has a choppy ride. In addition, it has uncomfortable bucket seats, is noisy, and shifts hard (some might say crisply). Anyway, that's my opinion, and why I just dumped mine. I can't speak for the Ranger or Frontier.
As far as all this "off-read capability", ask your self what percentage of time do you go off-road? Bet its less than 2-3%! So why suffer with a terrible ride and bad seats for 97% of the time???
http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/CCC/CCC_main.html
Oh What a Feeling!
-wsn
That was me on my '76 KZ900 Kawasaki. Blowing out the carbon after a long winters nap. Old bike but it moves out real fine. . .
wsn:
I hear you but you do realize there has been no follow-up as to any PROBLEM existing on the Edmunds Ranger. Also, one would expect if there was SERIOUS problems, they, Edmunds would REPORT it. And the vehicle, with SERIOUS driveline problems would not be in a condition to drive.
Conclusion?
No problems. Most people who have driven the vehicle for Edmunds like it.
BTW, Fords and Ford engineered engines took first and fourth in the last Winston Cup race.
Where was Toyota?
rick:
Consumer Reports cited uncomfortable seats in marking the Tacoma down a bit in it's review. Also, in fairness, there are minimal (under 2%) problems reported in the April issue as reported by Tacoma owners.
CR did rate Ranger "recommended" as to a buy.
Vince:
Will get to your pics in a bit. Have to find my PKunzip (it is still on my old computer) and still have work in the bathrooms to finish.
Be patient.
http://www.jdpower.com/releases/80401car.html
Oh, and ah.....just for kicks Cthomp...Im posting your comments abour REddogs post to me after his link was posted:
"1) Open mouth
(2) Insert foot
Before you run off your mouth and play Hindsite's
little cheerleader again, maybe you should actually
read through the stuff he posts.
The Mazda (Ranger clone) was ranked first.
Just a little F.Y.I. for ya there, buddy.
-C"
hehe........
apparently it does look like Ford makes a mean van.......