Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!




  • eagle63eagle63 Posts: 599
    it's pretty obvious that you don't own a ford or any other american vehicle. you're just here to troll the forums with your garbage and post flamebait.
  • smc13smc13 Posts: 52
    A few things, since you the ranger doesn't come with leather seats you should have chosen the SR5 package on the tacoma. Also since you chose the off road package on the tacoma you should have chosen the off road package on the ranger which is $3013 more and for some reason forces you to have auto transmission. Your ranger ends up with an msrp of $24530 including a $1500 rebate assuming you buy before 07/09/2001. For the tacoma I subtracted the limited package and added auto trans and the SR5 and get an msrp of $24,835.

    Like I have been saying the ranger is only slightly less expensive at the high end.

    Steve Cohen
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    \\And Spoog you're wrong on the Chevy trucks getting spanked.What was the fullsize truck of the year \\

    Yeeeehaw my friend!!!! Yeeehaw!!!
    The Tacoma whooped a FULL size Chevy and a compact S-10. - " The Tacoma opened a can of whoopa@@ on the Chevy's ( note the plural here) amd Nissan.

    Yes, The Tacoma STOMPED a full size Chevy, GMC Deisel, and s-10.

    Click on comparisons and read the 2001 comparison.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    \\Barlitz said, "For the same price as the TRD option you could put a powertrax locker and a 2" lift on a 4x4 offroad ranger and spank that little taco silly. " THANK YOU! \\

    That would be like building a mansion on a mobile home foundation....

    You still have the highway suspension, and all the cheap Ford parts that won't take constant abuse.

    " In all of our offroad tests, we vote the Ford most likely to break"
  • I own both glad to see the heavy ST is just as quick as the Taco. but the ST is not a ranger its
    a beefed up smoothed out Explorer frame extended 14 inches and an Explorer cab with a Composite Plasic rear bed much more refined than a Ranger and more expensive than both Taco and a loaded Ranger my 4x4 ST was 25k and that was over 4k below list while my 4x2 XLT Ranger was 13k almost 3k below sticker. Love both trucks, both 2001 and have 14k miles combined not a single problem.

    PS did have a hood striker recall on the ST and Ford bought me some nice Perelli Scorpion tires for the ST. Coolest feature on the ST power rear window on the cab(standard) 2nd the power Moonroof(option). STs also come packed with all the power goodies and Dual media CD ,Tape Stereos as standard and still offers some nice upgrades like the Standard Explorer (leather and power seats,overhead console,rear air and stereo controls,nerf bars ,cargo extender, and locking hard bed cover.
  • yota01yota01 Posts: 6
    I love this statement -And once again I get the typical Toyota response of "Your Ranger will break down" garbage. I'm going on 43K now and waiting for it to breakdown.. First Ranger went 96K and never broke down.- I am glad you are back too, I was getting a little board myself. So, you want to talk reliability huh? The question is, do you read any of the reliability survey results? You must not if you think as a whole, the Ranger is more reliable, or even as reliable as a Tacoma. Let's not reference our truck, our neibhors truck, or even your friends trucks, but let's reference something more. Something that is even linear with all these surveys that you seem to ignore. Do you know what a warranty claim is? Let me tell you if not. A warranty claim is what is issued everytime you take you vehicle in and get it repaired while being under warranty. Who do you think has a higher percentage rate of warranty claims, the Ranger, or the Tacoma? I am unsure what you do, or if you are even in the automotive industry, but I can tell you that I am, and I have access to an obundance of info relating to reliability history. I also receive numerous engineering magazines and component data sheets that are only available to supplier engineers. So, from what I can tell you are a die hard Ford person, who will never admit that other manufactuers have a leg up on your boys at Ford. That is okay, but the fact is Toyota is more reliable than Ford. I haven't seen a survey say otherwise yet, independent, or proffesional. Seems to me that you get a little upset when someone starts talking reliability, and for good reasons. Besides, you have 43k on your Ranger, and I assume you sold your other one that had 96k. Do you really see those numbers as impressive? If an automobile doesn't go 100k without any major/minor problems, then something is wrong.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    Hey thanks for the input and clarification.

    I was not suggesting that a Sprottrac was a Ranger, that comparison was done by Consumer Reports. I do realize that the ST is based on the Explorer, however Explorer is derived from Ranger. There are differences, as in the rear suspension etc. My personal choice of the two would be the Ranger as I now have no real need for a family type vehicle.

    As the Ranger is much lighter than ST, but has the same engine, the suggestion is that Ranger would preform better in acceleration and 0-60 etc times.

    Question on the ST front suspension. Springs or Torsion Bars? Ever seen one lifted?
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    100K without major problems?

    Hmm, why do engines usually need a main drive belt change at 60K?

    I do not dispute your contention of reliability having owned a few Toyotas in my time. I would hope you would not dispute my opinion that when you DO have to fix a Toyota, it is generally far more expensive than a Ranger. Like $450 for a pwr steering pump, $700 for a cat converter, $300 to adjust valves. . . the list goes on for the very expensive repairs I have done on Toyotas that I have owned. Parts are easily double for Japanese vehicles. Granted the do not break as often, but repair is very expensive.

    You can find many Rangers that have mileage far in excess of 100K and are running fine, with minimal repairs. Same for Toyotas, except they rust bodys off of frames and seats are falling apart at that high mileage.

    Before you dispute that comment, remember, I have owned 7 Toyota vehicles from 1971-1987, including a Toyota pickup.

    -71 Landcruiser...dead cylinder at 90K, valve job required.
    -73 Celica...valves and cam were shot at 90K, fenders rusting off.
    -76 Corolla...engine leaking like a seive and burning quart of oil every 500 miles after 136K. Front fenders and in back of tires rusted through.
    -78 Corona...Valves and cam needed replacment at 120K
    -81 Pickup...engine and tranny shot at 56K. Replace both rear axles at 30k, they bent and took the brake drums with them.
    -two 87 Celicas...worked fine for 160K, but everything is starting to break/leak and one auto tranny going($2,100 for the parts).
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Posts: 124
    You said it perfectly Yota01. And you have now explained what all of us who own Yotas already know, that nothing can beat the reliability of a Yota motor. In fact (and I've mentioned this before) I know many Yota's with well over 150,000 miles that have given their owners very little problem (particularly engine problems). I agree, with today's engineering expertise, an engine should easily reach 100K with no major problems. And, as one of my satisfied Yota owning friends once said, "You just cannot kill a Yota motor". He is 100% right. I guess Ranger owners just don't know that joy. Take care and I'll see you in the mud holes............Steelman.
  • steelman--->My 2.3l is surpassing 136 thousand miles and the valve cover has come off once for pure curiosity. Still get 20-21 city miles per gallon. I don't think any toyota mystery metal found it's way in my engine bay...

    tony22--->All your talk about the ford 3.8l v6, and it's not found in either the Ranger or the Tacoma. I think everybody know you hate Ford and had your head gaskets blow. BUT check out this page,
    Looks like in 1995, your superior Toyota had some head gasket problems as well.

    Allknowing--->I read on that it was a known issue and Toyota knew it. It read 4x4, TRD's with oversize but stock tires needed to carry a block of wood for their stock jack to lift enough. It's practically hearsay, but I wouldn't know one way or the other... Hence me asking.

    spoog said "You still have the highway suspension, and all the cheap Ford parts that won't take constant abuse." Boy you just plain ig'nant. I've taken my 4x2 2.3l 93 Ranger everywhere from North Dallas TX, to south padre island, to arkansas to Big Bend national park. While I was running circles around 4cylinder Wranglers on the beach, and helping stuck imports in the mountains of Arkansas, Buffalo river valley, I've done nothing but abuse and torment my poor Ranger. Still running OEM a-frames, shocks, springs, bushings, etc. This is just one of many accounts available. Have you driven a ford for any long term period of time? Have you subjected it to any endurance or strength tests? Didn't think so. So quit living behind your magazine quotes, and why not test drive one so you at least have an idea of what you're putting down.

    yota--->You said "Who do you think has a higher percentage rate of warranty claims, the Ranger, or the Tacoma?" Sure Ranger vs. Tacoma claims no problem. But you have to go one step figure for a ratio that is more true to life. Factor in AMOUNT OF VEHICLES ON THE ROAD. Roughly there are three times the number of Rangers on the road, vs Tacoma. You also then have to account for each model year. Then you will get the actual percentage of vehicles with problems, not just rating who has more problems in totality. Why do we cite personal experiences, because that is what fuels your and my perception that our truck is the best. But what we've seen and know. But since you like reports... try this one for size

    1995 and up Rangers (They are used too, Spoog!) all get 5 stars out of 5. 1991-'94 4 out of 5. Now look at Toyota Pickup/Tacoma. Tacoma has 5 stars in the years with data available 96 and up. Pickup '94-'95 4 out of 5 stars. But pickup's '91-'93 and earlier are a dissappointing 3 stars. This does not support the "long reliability" toyota fans are stating. Since I know my 93 Ranger was a true performer, isn't it logical and reasonable to say that the higher rated years (1995-2000 and future years) would be better?

    Blast from the past (1995):
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Posts: 124
    You two should be roommates. You'd never have an argument and there would never be an imported truck in your driveway (that is a shame). I'd be willing to bet that the statistical percentages quoted by Yota01 were determined using the # of claims vs. the # of vehicles purchased which would mean that you were looking at apples vs. apples and not apples vs. oranges. In other words, if 30% of Ranger owners had warranty claims and only 15% of Tacoma owners had warranty claims, then this would lead one to logically conclude that Tacomas are more reliable (no matter how many of each were on the road). Yota01, please explain further so that we can once and for all convince Ranger owners that Tacomas are better........thanks Steelman.
  • Just checked on my old job's delivery trucks. It was a local Auto zone that used Rangers for delivery. Were talking Texas 110 degree+ summers in bumper to bumper stop and go traffic, and of the 5 rangers they have, the mileage ranges from 116 thousand miles to 248 thousand miles. All original auto transmissions, engines, cold A/C, This includes a 92 Extended cab up to a 99 regular cab. And you know these trucks aren't pampered by those who drive them. And you know these bumpers have been used(and don't implode like other models!)

    Steelman--->Let's not speak for others. We'll see when he makes his source of these numbers public, and specifies the particular method the statistics were derived.
    And I think Vince and I are like minded, as we both appreciate the better value the Ranger represents, as well as the overstated quality issues that we just can't find.
  • yota01yota01 Posts: 6
    Actually I beleive that when I said 'percentage rate of warranty claims', that means ratio, a percentage, etc.. As far as accounting for each individual year, I agree whole heartedly, and that was also taken in consideration when I made that comment. I will elaberate on this a little later. As for the 248,000 miles, my best friend has a '92 Toyota pickup, with over 340,000 miles, only two problems to date. The alternator went out at 30,000 (under warranty), and the starter at 230,000.
  • Ratio/percentage could have meant claims vs. claims, not necessarily number of claims/number of vehicles vs number of claims/number of vehicles. But we will all know once the source of this report is made publicly available.
    As far as the milage debates, that was apart of my continued retort that Rangers can last just as long as a Tacoma. This was in reply to your post #1687 and steelmans 1690, which inferred that Ford's Motors/vehicles couldn't do the same. This is to also back up my personal experience with that of a fleet of rangers.

    Ok, All, so other than the "my car lasts forever so it's the best" or otherwise the quality debates, what other differences or advantages does your truck offer that the other make cannot?
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Posts: 124
    thats all that needs to be said. Toyota = better quality. When are you going to come out of denial and admit it in a post. Please, I dare you to. Or, do you still believe (much like Vince8) that your lower cost vehicle is the same quality? And I'm not referring to "value" as you like to put it, but I'm strictly referring to "quality". I'd be willing to bet that a higher percentage of Tacomas reach 200K than Rangers. I rarely ever see anyone brag about their Ranger motors lasting forever but I've seen firsthand Toyotas that you just cannot kill (and everyone knows that is their reputation). I'd give my right arm to see either you or Vince8 admit that this is true. Before I finish and you send your reply, I will repeat that a Ranger is not a bad truck, it is simply just not a good as a Tacoma. See you in those hard to reach places.............. Steelman.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    The fullsize truck of the year was the Chevy Heavy duty 2500, last year is was the Tundra.
    SMC13 I did chose the 4x4 XLT offroad,there are 2 packages I went with the first one because most offroaders like the manual trans.And my objective was to supposedly build a better offraod truck for less money and thats exactly what I did. If you want to start from the ground up we can do it that way to,don't forget to add the $50.00 option for the clock on your taco.Plus the auto trans is also an expensive option in the taco.

    Spoog if a 4" lift is to much we can go 2" and add a paxton supercharger and still be less. Kids they never learn.
  • ebbgreatdaneebbgreatdane Posts: 278
    Before you begin picking on the Tacomas and their problems post you should go through and read them and compare them to the Ranger problems post.

    Let me know if you need help getting that foot out of your mouth.

  • smc13smc13 Posts: 52
    A Few things. First of all ignore spoog, maybe he'll go away.

    Anyway, I am looking at I select ford ranger and type in my zip code. I select 4x4, extended cab, regular side. I look at the model options. I do not see a 2dr 4x4 xlt supercab (ford's extended cab). I see a 2dr 4x2 xlt regularcab for $16455. I see a 2dr 4x4 edge supercab styleside for $19925. I see a 4dr 4x4 xlt supercab $20765. This is without any options. How did you get your low price? Which vehicle did you pick? I selected the supercab xlt and I see 3 package two labeled "off road" and both of them with auto trannies. There was another one with a manual but it didn't say "off-road" so I didn't choose it (I want the cool off road sticker). the package I chose was the most expensive one because I was choosing the top of the line which is $3013 (I don't feel like looking at what the packages actually contain because I am not trying to buy a ranger - at least not for five years).Anyway, I also choose this limited slip differential for $251 giving me an MSRP $24530. Now they do say that there is a $1500 rebate through 7/9 and it says I should be able to get it for $20998. Given that they say the invoice is 22998 I am suprised by the low target price - that $1500 rebate sure is sweet.

    Looking at the ranger I am a little suprised. I thought it would have more options than it does. It seems to only have a 60/40 split bench and cloth seats. It seems to only have two radio choices (a cd in dash and a 6 changer in dash) and 4 speakers. From what I can tell if I want a 4x4 xlt I have to choose the 4dr supercab. If I want the off road decals I need to get an auto (what else is in these packages?). Anyway, I am not impressed.
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    I will go back and look it up,

    Spoog we are on a different page, you are referring to 4wheeler 4x4 of the year, I'm refering to motor trend where the Chevy was fullsize of the year while the Tundra won it last year,I do not know who was compact of this year or last year.
    In Vinces defense you say in the Ranger problems post, there are more than in the Toyota's section,I think you're forgetting to multiply by 2 on the Taco's seeing there outsold by 2 to 1 so far, and by the end of the year it will be about 4 to 1 like it is every year.
    Spoog I will read read your article after I finish reading my weekly subscription of the national enquirer.
  • rickc5rickc5 Posts: 378
    is number 1700. From now on, please make ALL your posts as good as 1700. It should be your new standard. Anything more is more than we want to see.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    going wheeling this weekend if you want to go, atleast one other Ranger.

    I lost you home phone when my wife cleaned house.

    Interested? Just down to Castle Rock but am planning a Ranger run on Mosquito Pass in the near future, elevation 13,182, highest mountain pass in North and South America!


  • Don't forget that in the "ranger problems" posts, there have been many people, myself and a certain toyota owner as well, posting in there offering suggestions and advice. Don't count advice or suggestions as problems.

    Steelman--->I'll state the facts. Toyota has the reputation for fewer defects. And I'll restate a previous post of mine saying that Value is a derivative function of Quality over price(Quality/Price) or even (Quality*Quantity/Price). I and the Fords I know must just be the cream of the crop, because they don't hold up to the rule Toyota's are better. So if you want a truck that statistically has less problems, go get a Tacoma and spend your bucks(2-3 thousand more, plus 1-2 thousand more in interest too). If you want a truck to give you much more for the money, and is JUST below toyota in quality, then Ford Ranger is the answer. You will save yourself a bundle immediately and years to come, if you get a Ranger.

    "quality, quality, quality midnightstang...... thats all that needs to be said. Toyota = better quality" That's good, and I agree, although not to the extent that you may think. This seems to be the only thing that is really brought up recently, and maybe that's all you have. Nobody seems to have replied about carpoint's used truck quality. Seems to me Ranger is on par, and in the early 90's (as in 10 year old trucks) holding up better and with much less financial strain than Toyota "pickup"/tacoma.

    From our own backyard of Edmunds:
    "Generally, we like the Tacoma, but question the value it represents." I wholeheartedly agree.

    Value: An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable:

    In other words, Nice truck, but the price tag does NOT equate how much nicer it is.

    That's as close as you're gonna get it, steelman, have a nice day.

    I must of missed what spoog said, because his post appears blank now... ? Will some kind gent give me a idea of what went on? Too bad I missed it... or maybe it's a good thing.

    smc--->Decals? We don't need no stinking decals... :) Instead of limiting yourself to a 4x4 4dr xlt, why not go with the edge??? From what I can readily see the XLT has Color coded visors, speed sensitive wipers, and a different exterior. You can get a 4dr 4x4, edge with manual or automatic(1000 more) 5 speed with 4.10's and a 4.0l all for $21525 MSRP including $2000 incentive(. Next time try in addition to's build your own vehicle. Of course if you order invoice, you have even more options that websites will never show... I'm just not sure of what exactly is the difference between basic/plus/off-road and appearance packages. I do know the edge trucks have most of the 4x4 and off-road components, even on 4x2.

    barlitz--->enquiring minds want to know! lol...
  • barlitzbarlitz Posts: 752
    Or anybody for that matter if you're interested in a Ford, join eaa and you'll get the x- plan price. eaa is $40.00 a year. When I was shopping for 2001 lightning somebody told me about the x-plan. before x-plan $32610 silver lightning w/ tonneau. After x-plan $ 28790.00 out the door.I think it comes out to 4% below dealer invoice, with current rebate and special financing you can get a great deal right now. I'm still thinking about lightning, but with so many new vehicles coming each year its hard to chose and I'm waiting to see what happens with the inline 6 that GM came out with this year. There's a rumor that they'll be a new syclone and typhoon with the inline6 and twin turbos. Probably cost a small fortune though.
  • 1busman1busman Posts: 33
    I bought the xlt instead of the Edge because I wanted the rugs and better quality cloth interior. The rubber floor covering is ok if you plan on going out into the mud, snow etc. I would rather just put in some rubber mats when I need them. The Off-Road Package includes skid plates for one, but I don't recall the other differences. Also if you look at the edge and the xlt, the price difference is only a couple of hundred dollars. By the way mine runs great.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    Check it out gang! The ultimate 4x4 Comparison is u pat!

    Click on Trucks and events, then road tests.

    You will also find the 2001 pickup of the year competition there.

    Needless to say, the Tacoma wins both competitions rather soudly.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    Ok for four wheeler(lower case has a meaning) but Consumer Reports again rates the Tacoma 3rd in it's review, just ahead of the S-10. . .

    spoog, I can out post you 2-3 to 1 for articles that favor Ranger and all you can post from is four wheeler. I will say this, at least the latest four wheeler review was a bit less biased than that 1998 one you refer to so often.

    The verdict is in, Edmunds, Consumer Reports, Carpoint, J. D. Powers, and even four wheeler select the Ranger much more often than the Tacoma.

    You forgot to mention the Edmunds quote, when comparing the Tacoma, to " the Ranger and a Waverunner with the money you save..."

    Well, will not dispute your facts, but consider this. You question options or lack there of on Ranger? Well, most things that are options on the Tacoma are Standard on Ranger. There are very few options to be had, they are not needed. Now a Tacoma you need to "...option up..." to get a tachometer on a 4X4. Thats rather stupid as it is one of the more important gages I look at while 4 wheeling to set my speed close to the max torque curve of the engine.

    In regard to price, the ones you quote are out the window. Dealers here in Denver very often discout the Rangers. When I paid $17.3K the sticker was around $20.5K. Could have gotten it for 16.3 K but gave up the 1K for 2.9% finance charge, it was more to my advantage.

    You can buy a nice Ranger XLT 4X4 4.0L all day long in Denver for right around $20K or less.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Posts: 1,611
    up for tomorrow afternoon? Would love to see how the Ranger works against an Explorer.
  • spoogspoog Posts: 1,224
    \\up for tomorrow afternoon? Would love to see how the Ranger works against an Explorer. \\

    Neither vehicle is properly built for offroad use.They both flounder in off-trail situations.
This discussion has been closed.