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 XI

1414244464768

Comments

  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    Great spoog, I found your article. Looks like your 2001 Tacona crew cab is higher rated than the EXPLORER SPORT TRAK. But look at the forum, it's Tacoma vs Ranger, but I see no Ranger comparison. Sport Trak came in 3rd. Tacoma came in 2nd place. And the Dodge DAKOTA came in first.


    "Off-road, [the Tacoma] it was very good, but maybe a little too stiff. It felt too tippy and nervous, even though it handled everything we threw at it. On-road, it had that same nervousness, like the suspension is just a tad too tight. "

    "[The Tacoma] had the worst seats of the group, designed to fit those with small frames. The seat bottom is almost non-existent."

    "Toyota likes to entice buyers with a low base-price vehicle and option it up. Our vehicle was no exception."


    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/46966/page007.html

  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    "Off-road, it was very good, but maybe a little too stiff. It felt too tippy and nervous, even though it handled everything we threw at it. On-road, it had that same nervousness, like the suspension is just a tad too tight. However, again, it never became a serious issue, and it handled the slalom at the track very well."
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    oH YEAH, The nonsense Spoog posted in post #2141, only affects two thousand Rangers. He cut and pasted the Recall, but seemed to have left out this part.

    Owner notification is expected to begin December 1, 1997. Manufactured From: AUG 1997 To: SEP 1997 Potential Number of Units Affected: 2000

    Looks like a fix was in place 2-3 months after the problem was found.

    Looks like you are getting desparate in finding Anti-Ford web articles to post, spoog. Tsk Tsk indeed.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    "What about the fuel line fire problem in YOUR Ranger? Hanve't you realized yet you can't play this game anymore? The Ranger just has way too many bad things documented about it. You have been playing with a shirt hand this entire time."

    Really? I OWN A 1999, the recall you posted is for a 1998. And before you search the 1999 datat, the only fuel recall was on the 3.0 engine, I have the 4.0.

    As usual, worng again.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    What I have been saying all along, low base price but you cannot get any vehicles like that. . .most are optioned up. And even if you COULD get one, it would be missing many many featrues that are standard on the Ranger, like a tachometer, FM radio. . .you know, needful things.

    Ranger has very few options, most is standard equipment.

    The Sport Trak is an EXPLORER, different engine, different suspension, different body, different tranny. . .
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    "Providing the muscle for the Tacoma is Toyota's 3.4-liter double overhead cam 24-valve V6. The most modern engine in the test, it is also the most efficient in terms of power versus displacement (if we don't count the supercharged Nissan).

    But the downside

    of a multi-valver is that it usually makes its big power at higher rpm —

    not a desirable characteristic in a truck, which needs low-rpm grunt for hauling and handling off-road duty."

    HMMM NOT DESIRABLE IN A TRUCK?!? Last time i looked, the Ranger and Tacoma were trucks.

    "The Tacoma, however, didn't seem to be lacking at all and, indeed, had a fat, useable powerband that made for lively performance all 'round. Again, the relatively

    light curb weight of the Tacoma helps out in this respect."

    HMMM LIGHT CURB WEIGHT. That desirable in a truck? Oh yeah i remember the Consumer Reports article where the bed crumpled. And look at that frame compared to the Ranger, it is about 2-3 inches narrower in mass on the Tacoma.

    "Also making the most of the engine's ability was the cooperative automatic transmission that features "normal" and "power" shift modes, and when in the latter position it furnished quick and firm (though sometimes abrupt) gear changes."

    Soooo no report on the 5 sp manual? Hmmmm a true off-roader would not TOUCH and automatic as it destroys the crawl ratio. . .

    AND THIS:

    "What surprised us was the brake fade we experienced after hustling the Tacoma through some Los Angeles-area
    canyon roads. It got to the point that the brake pedal's travel doubled, and the ABS was impossible to invoke. After we
    cautiously completed the long and twisty descent, the brakes had a chance to cool off and were fine once again. In
    fairness, this was a rather extreme scenario (the route was marked with "steep grade" signage) that we attacked
    aggressively, one that most drivers wouldn't experience too often. And as this did not occur on the test loop (an editor
    took a short cut through the canyons on his way home), it was not held against the Tacoma in the scoring, but still
    bears mentioning."

    SEVERE BRAKE FADE?!?! By that is desireable on a 4X4 on places where your life depends on brakes. . .

    Yeah, great article spoog, can't even figure out an Explorer is not a Ranger.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Yeeeeehaww!!!

    Im just having some fun here boys nailing the 30,000th nail in the Rangers coffin....yeeeehaw!!!
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Well gang, Edmunds has compared the crew cabs from all the makers, and it has faired very very well.


    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/46966/article.html


    "The Tacoma was by far the most capable truck in this test when it came to off-highway performance. "


    -Edmunds.com, 2001 crew cab test


    Of course, we all knew this already, right?


    "Off-road, the Tacoma is simply awesome. The tightly controlled TRD-tuned suspension dispatched every obstacle with ease, and the high ground clearance made scaling large boulders a much less threatening affair than most of the other trucks in the test."


    - Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison


    "This engine is the best of the bunch, hands down. It offers the best compromise between fuel economy and power. "


    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison


    "In addition to its solid overall performance, the Tacoma also boasts Toyota's long-standing reliability record. One editor noted: "You could probably drive the hell out of this thing every day for 10 years, and it would still serve you well, asking only for gas and regular maintenance."


    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparisons


    "It was the general consensus that the Toyota was the most capable off-road of all the trucks. "


    Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparisons

  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    The following quotes taken exactly from Edmunds.com-

    "There are certain areas that I think Ford could improve upon, however. Unloaded ride quality was poor; the truck was too bouncy and generally unpleasant to drive. Even more worrisome was the lackluster build quality found on our test truck. Interior trim pieces were loose and had large gaps. The driver-side window switch pod popped out easily, exposing the wires beneath. Our truck was also leaking transmission fluid during our test.

    Ford has been criticized recently about declining levels of quality. Maybe it's time to bring back the old Ford tagline. You know, where "Quality Is Job 1"?"

    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison

    " We voted the Expedition most likely to break"

    -Edmunds.com

    " The ranger rattled like a diamondback offroad"
    -Edmunds.com

    " the ranger center console broke off"

    -edmunds.com

    Anyone see a pattern here?
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "This engine is the best of the bunch, hands down. It offers the best compromise between fuel economy and power. "

    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    Is it easy to speak with all those feet in your mouth Spoog?

    You just don't seem to get the point, or even understand the arguments presented against your nonsense. You don't even respond, yet you post it again.

    BUT IT'S NOT
    Tacoma VS. Ranger it's

    Tacoma VS. EXPLORER SPORT TRAC!!!

    GET IT?

    GOT IT?

    GOOD.

    I do enjoy the fact that you forgot to mention that Dodge Dakota is Ranked #1 over Tacoma #2.(in crew cab comparison)

    (Do mental institutions offer internet access? If so I think it should allow incoming data only!)
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Edmunds.com:
    Toyota hopes to attract buyers with the handsome styling and rugged image of its Tacoma as well as its reputation for quality and reliability. Generally, we like the Tacoma, but question the
    value it represents.

    The Tacoma's basic styling, which dates back to 1995, is mostly easy on the eyes. But that grille! What was the inspiration there — a sci-fi horror flick or a Lhasa apso?

    What surprised us was the brake fade we experienced after hustling the Tacoma through some Los Angeles-area canyon roads. It got to the point that the brake pedal's travel doubled, and the ABS was impossible. . .

    The Tacoma handled well on pavement but occasionally felt somewhat jittery, especially
    without passengers or cargo. Most staffers felt that the steering action was somewhat slow but smooth, and acceptable in this class of vehicle. In off-road driving, a quick, twitchy steering response is not an ally on loose, precarious terrain where smooth, "easy-does-it" movements are preferred. We all agreed that the ride felt as if the wheels were bolted right
    to the framerails — a bit firm to say the least — though again this truck had the off road suspension package.
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    All you've really succeeded in doing is destroying your own reputation.

    If you really owned a Tacoma, you would be able to give us your own opinions, not opinions from people you don't even know (magazine writers).

    Poor baby.......
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Rick5 - your opinion and mine is worthless on a forum like this.

    The data and comparisons hold the water here.

    Correct me if im wrong, but isnt that 4.0 in the sport track the same in the ranger?

    And imagine that Cspounser! a Truck, driving like a truck! Who woulda thunk it! LOL!

    You can post all the negative things you want. My point is already made -

    The Tacoma is built better, is more reliable, and better offroad than the Ranger.

    These are the things I have argued again and again on this forum, and everything in the world backs that up.

    Heck, even fourwheeler.com named it the "ultimate 4x4" over a hummer, wrangler and range rover. Thats a tall, tall order.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    You made your point. Your continued reiteration is tiresome, and makes less of your point because you keep making it over and over again.

    It's like that homeless guy on the corner of the street, wearing an aluminum hat. And every time you walk by he keeps on mumbling the same old thing about aliens trying to disrupt his brain waves.

    Yes it's the same engine, but not the same vehicle. The Ranger is smaller, lighter, and with different suspension, and that makes the same engine feel like a different animal. Once you get your learning permit, you may find out for yourself. Sport Trac 2wd is 4103 pounds as tested, and a loaded 4x4 supercab ranger is 3658 pounds. Same engine, different power/weight ratio. You do the math.
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Member Posts: 124
    Well I'm back, and nothing has changed. Although nobody seems to like his opinion, Spoog is correct. The Toyota Tacoma is a better vehicle than a Ford Ranger. I know, I know, it may not be a better "value" because it is more expensive, but "value" is difficult to measure. However, "quality" is not. Ford is no longer touting "Quality is Job #1" because it is obvious to most people that they have major quality related problems on many different makes and models. They seem to sacrifice quality so that the price is lower which helps Ford owners think that their vehicle is a better "value". Well, I'll continue to enjoy my Toyota "quality" while Ranger owners can continue to enjoy their Ford "value". I know I sleep well at night knowing I made the right vehicle purchase. Can you say the same? Hey Spoog, keep hitting them where it hurts. Take care........Steelman.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    But quality is subjective to everyone's personal maintenance and use of their vehicle. The way you and spoog talk, my Ford must really be Toyota's underneath because I've had little to no problems with anything. So I financed less, which equates to less money to the Company and less money lost in interest alone. Plus in the unlikely event that I need to start replacing parts, guess who wins the price war again? Toyota quality might only prove itself to me if I ever decided to keep a truck 12 years or over 200,000 thousand miles, THEN I believe the quality would be cost effective. But since I like to drive something no more than a decade old, I guess I'll stick to Ford and maybe buy a new computer with the money I saved.

    WELCOME TO ECONOMICS 101

    People want a truck. This is called demand.
    Companies supply their trucks. This is called Supply.
    People buy the truck they want, out of the available supply. This is the interaction of supply and demand.
    Ranger remains best selling truck since 1987. By April 2001, Ford Ranger is the 4th best selling vehicle IN the USA.
    I guess the MAJORITY don't care about the MINORITY of difference in quality.

    You mean I might get MORE in a truck, for LESS money??? But the only catch is off the showroom floor it's not the BEST compact truck for off-road(Doesn't say anything about being good, just one's a bit better)? Or maybe I'll need to be a little more careful about preventative maintanence? If you want to argue statistical chances of breakdown, show me the figures. Don't say you've heard of more Ford problems than others, that's because there are more Ford's on the road. Duh. If you want to argue statistics, look at MSN.COM's used car reliablility statistics. The older the trucks are, the more Rangers take the lead in problems and cost to fix!
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Member Posts: 124
    a minority of difference in quality? Hah, you just made me laugh out loud. How many lawsuits has Toyota been involved in lately regarding quality related issues? How about Ford? I rest my case on that matter.

    As far as economics go, how about my Toyota lasting for 10 years and 200,000 miles with minimal maintenance. That will mean 6 years without a truck payment. Hum, let me see, I think I'll buy two snow machines and a trailer to haul them in behind my Tacoma with all the money I'll save. How's that for economics?

    Take care...........Steelman.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    \\But quality is subjective to everyone's personal maintenance and use of their vehicle\\

    This is WRONG. Quality is judged by data, and by monitoring scams such as the Ford cheap ignitions melting!

    The Consumer reports, NHSTA, Edmunds, and fourhweeler.com all know the Toyota quality is no myth. It is simply phenomenal!
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Well gang, yet another example of Ford cutting corners and risking the safety of those who purchase their vehicles. RANGER's are effected.

    Year: 2001 Make: FORD TRUCK Model: RANGER Recall Date: 07/17/2001

    Type of Report: Vehicle
    Potential Number of Units Affected: 1400000

    Defect Summary:
    VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, PICKUP TRUCKS, AND MINIVANS. EQUIPPED WITH SEAT BELTS SUPPLIED BY TRW. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE DRIVER'S AND/OR FRONT PASSENGER'S OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE MAY NOT FULLY LATCH.
    Consequence Summary:
    IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE RESTRAINT SYSTEM MAY NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OCCUPANT PROTECTION, INCREASING THE RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY TO THE SEAT OCCUPANT.
    Corrective Summary:
    DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE FRONT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLES AND IF THE BUCKLE FAILS THE INSPECTION PROCESS, IT WILL BE REPLACED.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "There are certain areas that I think Ford could improve upon, however. Unloaded ride quality was poor; the truck was too bouncy and generally unpleasant to drive. Even more worrisome was the lackluster build quality found on our test truck. Interior trim pieces were loose and had large gaps. The driver-side window switch pod popped out easily, exposing the wires beneath. Our truck was also leaking transmission fluid during our test.

    Ford has been criticized recently about declining levels of quality. Maybe it's time to bring back the old Ford tagline. You know, where "Quality Is Job 1"?" "

    -Edmunds.com
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    With America pumping out 10 lawyers for every 1 engineer, what do you think would be the logical result? So my 9 year ford truck with 137 thousand miles must be about to collapse in 1 year or 63 thousand more miles, then huh? I should of paid about 2 grand more, or financed an additional 3000 dollars or more? And for what? A toyota badge, and the personal security blanket that I own something with a reputation? I'm not telling you how to spend your money, I just know that I've made the wisest decision because it has lasted, and proven the test of time, milage, and teenage abuse, and still gets milage like the sticker says on the window.

    Spoog--->You are a fool or idiot to believe the review of one truck (out of all they make) stands for the entire fleet of all vehicles made by the company. You're also just repeating the same crap, without responding to prior retorts that point out the flaws in the stuff you post.

    I'm going to name a disorder after you. RPD. Or Repetitive Post Disorder.

    And finally, quantity doesn't make up for lack of quality. But Ford's quality, no matter how your eyes view it, seems to be acceptable to the general public, because it's consistently the top seller. People vote with their pocketbooks, not with their mouths and a back pocket filled with articles and magazine quotes.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    also, if you think by posting only the negative comments, from an article on "crew cab comparison" containing the Explorer sport trac, is "The official Edmunds word on Ford", well you're living a lie and putting words into Edmunds mouth.

    I wonder why, edmunds praised FORD RANGER as MOSTWANTED in 2000 AND 2001.

    Ford Ranger 2001 First drive "The interior remains the same, with utility in mind. We were impressed by the fit and finish, and although it looked the same as in our long-termer, everything seemed more tightly screwed in."

    Quit generalizing, you're wrong everytime you do. And everytime you post you get all high and mighty, thinking "I've just nailed the 30,000th nail in the Ranger Coffin". If that was true, then why are you still here posting the same thing over and over like a unwanted Jehova's witness? If what you say carries weight, say it once and it'll leave its mark.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Unwanted Jehova's witness!!!!!

    RPD!!!!

    That's some of the funniest stuff EVER on Edmunds!!! ROTFLMFAO X 10!!!!!!
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    your both wrong according to JD Powers the GMC Sonoma is the best rated truck as far as customer satisfaction, least in repairs, best in quality, best in price. I think a sonoma can be had for about $8000 less than a tacoma. and you can use that $8000 right away and not after 4 years as steelman suggests. Oh its a great feeling to buy an american made truck ( especially best in customer satisfaction).
  • bessbess Member Posts: 972
    Steelman writes:
    'As far as economics go, how about my Toyota lasting for 10 years and 200,000 miles with minimal maintenance. That will mean 6 years without a truck payment. Hum, let me see, I think I'll buy two snow machines and a trailer to haul them in behind my Tacoma with all the money I'll save. How's that for economics?'

    --------
    Did your Tacoma actually reach 200k miles yet, or are you projecting?

    My 89' Ranger is still going with over 220k miles and minimal maintenance and is driven every day.
    Thats 9 years with no payments for a truck that cost less than the equalivalent Toyota offering (Tacoma didn't exist then by name).

    ----------

    For every long lasting Toyota truck story, there are at least 3 Ranger similar stories. Basically both are good trucks that if maintained (oil changed at 3k miles etc) will last a long time and have very satisfied owners.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Toyota owners hate when they are proved wrong about the "Toyota is god" syndrome. Thank-god for the internet. I have enlightned many, many people that thought for sure the Tacoma was sooooo much better than a Ranger. When I point them to Edmunds and MSN.carpoint just for starters they can't believe it!
    Toyota HAD the edge in the 80's over Ford/Dodge/GM products. Can you say "POOF"! There goes those "Toyota is god" bubbles... LOL!
    I didn't know RAnger made a 4door??? spoog?? I also notice you run away when challenged and cannot answer a question, support your owning a Tacoma even with a fake photo!
    knownothing..... fits you to a T~~ :-))
  • 2k1trd2k1trd Member Posts: 301
    Well toyota's might not be god but will always be better than the blue oval.
  • smgillessmgilles Member Posts: 252
    It isn't that we think Ford is terrible and Toyota is God, it is the uncertainty that comes with buying the Ford. Why take a chance if you don't have to. I think Frey44 is the perfect point in case, saved money up front but got burnt in the long run. Nobody wants that bad taste left in their mouth. It is the slight edge that has let Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc... take a larger share of the automobile market each year!

    By the way, Vince you are just as bad as Spoog. It is like having a far right wing republican and far left wing liberal, all you hear is blah, blah, blah and then spew some more rhetoric that fits your agenda. Sad really!
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    At least your post never changes. As always, keep studying and maybe you'll learn a few new words so that you can add to your repetitive paragraph. I have faith in you vince. You can do it.

    2k1trd, smgilles - Don't forget that vince is enlightening millions of people to the evils of the Tacoma (must be true because he said so). Why won't you guys give in and join with vince in destroying this evil force?

    vince - Rather than harass spoog on posting a picture of his truck, why not post a few pics of these people that you've enlightened? We have a hard time believing that they exist too.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    That was a fair post. The only thing I'd like to add is that all mechanical things can have problems. Toys have ROTTED in the past, I've heard about it and seen it. The head gaskets come to mind. Buddies T100 caught on fire, toy said it's never happened, call your ins. company. A Honda timing belt failure will yield MAJOR damage to the head. I've done many CV joints on FWD Japanese cars that had less than 100K on them.

    The problem here is that the toy boys think we should give up our steeds because of some study. They won't accept the fact that maybe our Fords and GM's haven't let us down!!! Until Ford lets me down I'll continue to buy them, tailor them to what I want and save thousands in the process.
  • midnight_stangmidnight_stang Member Posts: 862
    But did you think for every frey44, there is a midnight_stang, cpounser, bess, vince8, and modvptnl? (Forgive me if I missed anyone else).

    Of course he (frey) could of probably avoided that lemon simply by taking his selected truck on a test drive on the highway before purchasing. I believe he liked everything about the truck, except a vibration at high speeds.
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    Having owned a rotting Toyota truck, I uncovered the reason for the rot & rust. Its quite interesting.

    Any of you Toyota bigots know why so many older Toyota trucks had such rusty beds???? Post your answer if you know, otherwise, stay tuned......
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    http://www.dusy2001.homestead.com/


    Look at the 5th picture down...new option, 8 wheel drive. Must be 8 wheels, 4 on the passenger side or did that bad boy, best of the 4 wheelers at least according to spoog, fall over on that rather mild road?


    8^)

  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    Reason for Toyota rust:

    - getting our recycled steel cans back again?

    - built in obsolescence?

    - no nickel in old samurai swords beaten into truck beds?
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    answers a comment or question directed specifically to him.

    Cannot say that much about spoog.

    And to answer stang, so far my truck has done well. Last tank of gas was 21.5 on a 316 mile trip that combined some off-road, some highway. Coming up on 47K on a 99, I use it a lot!

    I have some beefs:

    I think the clearcoat paint is rather soft on the truck, scratches easy with what is called "desert pinstriping" psst, thats when scrub oak brushes the length of your truck when your going thru tight spots.

    Not a flat surface on the dash to mount clinometer or CB. Minimal area to mount switches for rear floods or light bar lights.

    Dang turn signal releases too quickly.

    Wish the long tube to the air sensor was shorter.

    Changing plugs are not easy so I hear.

    Adding a suspension lift to this IFS vehicle costs a fortune...over $2K when your done so I hear. Gonna be satisfied with a body lift I guess.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    This is great gang! Ford safety recalls up the wazoo, Tacoma winning all offroad competitions, fourhweeler's. "ultimate 4x4"

    Yeeeeehaaaaw!

    The facts baby! Nothing but the facts!
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Your referring to the INITIAL quality survey...


    Lets take a look at the last JD LONG-TERM 5 year reliability study, shall we?


    http://www.jdpa.com/studies/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=292&CatID=1

  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Well gang, Edmunds has compared the crew cabs from all the makers, and it has faired very very well.


    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/46966/article.html


    "The Tacoma was by far the most capable truck in this test when it came to off-highway performance. "


    -Edmunds.com, 2001 crew cab test


    Of course, we all knew this already, right?


    "Off-road, the Tacoma is simply awesome. The tightly controlled TRD-tuned suspension dispatched every obstacle with ease, and the high ground clearance made scaling large boulders a much less threatening affair than most of the other trucks in the test."


    - Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison


    "This engine is the best of the bunch, hands down. It offers the best compromise between fuel economy and power. "


    Looks like Edmunds rates the Toyota v6 over the new ford v6


    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison


    "In addition to its solid overall performance, the Tacoma also boasts Toyota's long-standing reliability record. One editor noted: "You could probably drive the hell out of this thing every day for 10 years, and it would still serve you well, asking only for gas and regular maintenance."


    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparisons


    "It was the general consensus that the Toyota was the most capable off-road of all the trucks. "


    Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparisons

  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    The following quotes taken exactly from Edmunds.com-

    "There are certain areas that I think Ford could improve upon, however. Unloaded ride quality was poor; the truck was too bouncy and generally unpleasant to drive. Even more worrisome was the lackluster build quality found on our test truck. Interior trim pieces were loose and had large gaps. The driver-side window switch pod popped out easily, exposing the wires beneath. Our truck was also leaking transmission fluid during our test.

    Ford has been criticized recently about declining levels of quality. Maybe it's time to bring back the old Ford tagline. You know, where "Quality Is Job 1"?"

    -Edmunds.com 2001 crew cab comparison

    " We voted the Expedition most likely to break"

    -Edmunds.com

    " The ranger rattled like a diamondback offroad"
    -Edmunds.com

    " the ranger center console broke off"

    -edmunds.com

    " If buying a used ranger, take one for a very,very long test drive"

    -Edmunds.com

    Anyone see a pattern here?
  • issisteelmanissisteelman Member Posts: 124
    buy a Tacoma. It is that simple. Toyota = quality = customer satisfaction. You have to love that equation. Take care and I'll see you all in those nasty places that only Toyotas dare to go.........Steelman.
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    on the wrong side of the ocean.

    Answer tomorrow morning. I promise!
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    If you try to blame it on steel sourced outside of toy(US steel perhaps) you're going to get laughed off the board. Every excuse on Ford or GM quality issues can also be blamed on outside suppliers.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Why be so hard on smgilles. He's just a guy that has had better luck with Toyota and prefers Toyota. Seems no different than the Ford guys that prefer Ford.

    CP - I don't recall many occasions that vince has answered a question directed at him. He usually disappears when challenged (just like spoog), only to return a few weeks later with the same post (just like spoog). That's what smgilles was pointing out. Spoog is annoying but he doesn't accuse people of saying things that they haven't like vince. I'll respect almost any opinion or arguement except a defense of that guy's posts.

    As far as the Toyota on its side, Toyotas are so tuff, you can do that to perform maintenance without damaging the truck. I guess that guy just didn't have a jack.:)
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Huh???? Who was hard on anybody? Smgilles post was actually comical after I've thought about it more. There are plenty of troubles documented on toys. Does that mean because we've heard of someone's misfortune a whole company has an "uncertainty" about it?? I could see your point if it were his personal experiences he was basing his opinion on, not frey's.

    You should not buy toys because of my friend's troubles!! LOL!!
  • acf2001acf2001 Member Posts: 28
    I am not going to hand out anymore rotten personal comments about anyone anymore, K?....but I do have a ?:
    Since the dealer I bought my 2001 Tacoma from seems to cut me no breaks on the oil changes (about $35 - shame on them after I dropped $20K), should I go to the instant oil change place? Oh, and, have a nice day.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    You have to base your opinion on something and he's basing his on his good experience plus the experience of others that he feels are relevant. I'm sure that most of the Ranger supporters base their opinions in the same manner. I feel completely justified, for example, in staying away from the 94-98 Ford Mustang because of the experience of many others I've come across. It's full of design problems which I don't have experience myself to know exist. Anyway, I just thought that Smgilles opinion was as good as anyones. Your opinion is equally as good.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    You might try a different dealer if you can as their prices vary considerably. If you go to an "instant oil change" place, make sure that they use a decent oil and oil filter. Some of these shops use really cheap oil filters. If not, you can also purchase your own oil and filter and just have them do the labor.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Member Posts: 1,352
    Please re-read my response. I said it was a fair post. I didn't think I was being overly critical. I just made it known that the trucks/cars mentioned have had their faults also.

    BTW, I had a 95 GT Mustang, I thought it was a good car. I now have a '97 Cobra, longest I've EVER kept a vehicle. FYI there were really very little mechanical changes from 79-85 and then from '86-95 concerning Mustangs. In '96 the 4.6 was added but was still basically the same car sans OHC powerplants.

    Acf, one of the most rewarding things you can do for you and your vehicle is change the oil yourself. You'll take more care and you'll know it's done right.
This discussion has been closed.