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
All we have to do is put our truck in drive and cruise on down the road and know that our trucks are elite. Face it Ranger guys, your trucks are like rice, they are the "staple food" of the automotive industry. They are just common, budget vehicles that alot of people buy because of the low price tag. You see, these people don't take pride in their vehicles and just buy what's their in front of their face. "UGHH, DUH, IT's a Ford dealership, UGGHH, DUH, They Got PICKUM-UP trucks, UGGHH, UMMM, DUHH, They BE CHEAP".
scorp--->Eclipse vs. Mustang thing? Who cares, it's Tacoma vs. Ranger. Maybe they liked the "styling of the eclipse" or the latest commercials. "Put your body in motion". Most likely you are confusing the RS and GS models with the 200 horse GT models. A BASE Eclipse GT costs 21,147 MSRP.
Dannyc--->Since you spank 3.0l v6's all the time with your 2.4 or 2.7, please let me know how You identify the different engines on a Ranger without popping the hood.
Pluto--->Maybe your neighbors are just richer than you and can afford newer vehicles more often. 5 fords vs. 2 Toyotas. Your argument would be valid if it was (2 Fords and 1 Toyota) vs. (2 Toyotas).
"What do sales volumes have to do with who makes the best truck? Does McDonald's make the best burgers because they sell the most? NOOOPE. I suppose you're going to tell me a Miata is better than a BMW 3 series convertible because more Miatas are sold. What an impressive argument!"
If you are comparing McDonalds VS Wendy's VS Burger King, yes. If you are comparing McDonalds vs Bennigans, that's equivalent to Kia Sportage vs Hummer. Every rule has an exception, and every debate must be kept to similair disciplines. You can't keep throwing in two wierd comparisons, you must compare apples to apples.
Your Expedition is having problems holding it's lugnuts? Tighten them with an Impact wrench not joe blow's tire iron!!! You do know what an impact wrench is, right?
ALL SUV's have a roll-over problem, NOT just explorers. Do you work for the Media?
Read this pluto!
http://www.auto.com/autonews/roll30_20001030.htm
http://media.ford.com/article_text/Explorer_Final_6-8-011.pdf
Oh, and thousands of Explorers leaving the factory with slashed tires?
And NOT ONE reached a customer. Not one was sold. Not One was ever involved in an accident. Not one tire issue. All were replaced. Problem found and fixed, so Please quite trivializing and being so dramatic. At least I found someone worse than my girlfriend...
Rav4 is a one funky looking SUV. Escape looks more like the normal SUV, which could be one reason why it outsold a Rav.
If Ranger sales are so high because of the reliability and great price, why arent we seeing the same happening with Mazda B-series pickups? You are not going to deny that they are Rangers with a Mazda logo on it, are you? The name brand is what is selling Rangers.
As far as pluto's comment about Expeditions:
So, when you buy an Expedition, you have to get a special tool for the tires? I guess the stock one is "just there"?
And sales volumes don't have anything to do with having the best truck. Ford got 4.6K dealerships around the US, Toyota has 1.2K, it's the volume of things. Ford is like McD: burgers arent that good, but they are everywhere, and they are real cheap, so everybody can have one.
when in 4 wd only 2 wd.. I think they
changed it in 94. The abs in my 90 didn't
work in 4 wd either. Dealer told me it
wouldn't.........
Any body know for sure ?
The problem isn't that the lugs weren't torqued down properly. The problem is that they're not beveled, and the rim hole isn't beveled either. So the lug fits FLUSH against the rim, instead of slightly INSIDE the rim, like it should (if it were beveled).
By the way, our mechanic DOES torque them down, and every so often they need to be retorqued. I've seen them so loose I had to hand-tighten them before taking the lug-wrench to them so I could make it back to the mechanic's garage.
So that comment on Ford recalls being for minor problems in WRONG.
All SUVS have a propensity to roll over. TRUE. But how come they're not ALL getting sued like Ford is right now? And Ford is settling the lawsuits for undisclosed sums.
I know us Toyota guys can be kind of fanatical at times, but anybody who says Ford is equal to or better than Toyota is living in DENIAL.
When was the last time Toyota had class-action lawsuits filed against them? When was the last time Toyotas had problems with wheels falling off? When was the last time thousands of Toyotas left the factory with something as obvious as slashed tires? When was the last time Toyota made cars with exploding gas tanks in rear-end collisions (remember the 'stang?)? When was the last time Toyotas had more recalls than Fords? When was the last time Fords had better resale values than Toyotas? When was the last time Fords came with a longer standard warranty?
If Toyota had such a crappy history like Ford, yeah, I would believe the two are equal. But that's just not the case...
At least on my 93 S10 Blazer the ABS is supposed to work in 4x2 and 4x4, but apparently it doesnt. I can slam the brakes and it wont work.
The Tacoma has beaten the Ranger in every offroad test, every reliability test, and in recalls, defects, and TSB's.
Case closed.
when was the last time toyota produced as many vehicles as ford? more productions, means more recalls. its common sense you weirdo.
last time i checked, firestone just recalled every wilderness AT tire. point? the tires were the problem.
standard warranty? both are 3/36000 miles.
dragon4x4- how many regular cab 4.0 rangers have you stomped? you know, the one with 210 horsies? i cant even believe i just responded to your worthless post.
so what you uneducated and naive tacoma owners are saying is that the general public is stupid for the most part because they buy more fords than toyotas? good concensus guys.
i just laugh at each and every post provided by you toyota guys. it seems that when actual information is posted around here, like a link to the facts, it is provided by a ranger owner. lets see some actual information provided by the tacoma guys. WHERE'S THE ARGUMENT ON THE SAFETY OF THE VEHICLE? AFTER ALL, THATS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF A VEHICLE, IS IT NOT? PLUTO, YOU COULD TAKE THIS ONE SINCE YOU'RE NOW THE KING OF THE MOST FACTUAL STATEMENTS ON THIS FORUM. NOT! BOY, YOU GOT A BLOODY NOSE. HEHE
Ranger = Garbage (but at least its cheap)
I'm off to the woods this weekend to bag a moose. Wish me luck and I'll see you in all those hard to reach places......Steelman.
-how does production volume have anything to do with recalls? If there is a design flaw somewhere in the vehicle, or if a faulty part is introduced, it doesn't matter how many vehicles are produced. a recall is a recall. and if you check out www.nhtsa.org, you'll see that in the last 5 years, the ranger has had 19 and the tacoma only 2.
"standard warranty? both are 3/36000 miles."
-tacoma has a 5 year/60000 mile warranty on the powertrain. ranger doesn't.
Hey, it's Friday! Just a reminder that the Friday Freeway Chat & Trivia Game chat is on tonight (5-6pm Pacific/8-9 pm Eastern). Hope to see you there!
http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/freewaychat.html
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
And about the idiot buyers: According to you, the Toyota buyers are the idiots here, since we are obviously overpaying for Tacoma when we can have a great American-build (NOT) Ranger for less.
I guess there are just people who can pay more for something they believe is better. This is why Lexus exists, otherwise everyone would be driving Toyota Avalon.
If you want the comparison so much, fine:
Compare the Taco 4x4 Xtracab V6 with a Ranger 4x4 SuperCab XLT V6 4.0
Tacoma has a 3.4L engine that pulls 190hp using 17/20mpg
Ranger has a 4.0L engine pulling 207hp using 16/19mpg: 1mpg loss, .6L extra for measly 17 horses.
Ranger has Tacoma on the standard features.
Taco has 4in. shorter wheelbase. (121.9 vs 125.9). Implication: smaller turning radius.
Taco is narrower than Ranger by 4inches, but this only affects things like rockcrawling when you do it at the extreme angles. Please don't say that Taco is easier to rollover.
Taco has 3! inches higher ground clearance. So much for a 4x4 Ranger. What are you driving through, grass? The Ranger barely has more ground clearance than a Rav4.
As far as interior dimensions go, Ranger has more legroom.
Concerning towing:
MAX towing is 5000 vs 5,600 (Ranger wins)
STANDARD towing is 5000 vs 3,600.
Maximum towing is NOT the indicator of a good truck. You tow 5,600 pounds with your Ranger, it'll be dead in a year. The standard indicator is what is important, thats how much weight the truck was DESIGNED to pull.
Same goes for payload: Taco beats Ranger by 300 lbs.
Taco has 3 feet smaller turning radius.
Taco has 60/60000 warranty on drivetrain. Ranger has 36/36000 (rust and basic are the same).
Taco is 4wheeler contest winner.
You decide.
First off, I must apologize that I am not a Ranger or Tacoma owner. I will also plead *guilty* of being a Toyota truck owner ('01 Sequoia), so you all can take my post with a grain of salt
One of the more noticeable thing out here in So Cal, where I live, is that there are much more Taco's than there are Rangers. In fact, by my unscientific count, there are about 20:1 ratio of Taco's to Rangers, in my primitive survey in San Diego county (ca. 2 million inhabitants, not counting illegals)... Why so ? Maybe Californians with such large diverse cultures and populations are reflected in their choice of vehicles, unlike middle America which is less diverse. Just a conjecture on my part.
One of the most pointed out argument here is that the Ranger outsells the Taco by a wide margin. Conversely, the Ranger has many more defective recalls than the Taco, that are undoubtedly in much higher ratio than the margin on sales. Hmmmm ? Can outselling by 4:1, translate to out-recalling by 35:1 ? (Ranger TSBs = 69, Tacoma TSB's = 2)
To me, a lowly and uninformed consumer, I'd rather buy a higher quality vehicle, than one that is the highest seller. That is just me, tho'
There has also been much request for data that backs the claims of Taco owners that the latter is overall, a better vehicle than the Ranger. While these claims are more often than not conjectures and/or personal preferences/opinions, there are clear and unbiased data out there that shows that overall *most* Toyota vehicles have a higher quality than *most* Ford vehicles.
Ford claims that "Quality is Job number 1", but this is not backed up by real life realities. Toyota, OTOH, has a reputation for high quality vehicles, without making it a by-line slogan... Here one company says they are for quality, while the other is noted for its quality. But then, which of these two truly should win the quality award.
Here is a link on one of the rarest of surveys on worldwide quality of vehicles. Read for yourself and make your own judgement on claiming quality, versus known for quality...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2001-10-17-gm-quality.htm
And the winner is ....???
Ultimately, IMO, both these vehicles are quite capable in what they are designed for, and these arguments are more of *bragging rights* of their owners than the lack thereof of these vehicles.
I must duck out and go back to lurking...
As for the Ford 4.0, I'll agree that it has excellent output but let's be honest and acknowledge that it has a horrendous quality record on the Explorer. Ford appears to be standing behind the failures and has issued an extended warranty on the engine but time will tell if the bugs have really been worked out. If they have, and the engine proves itself over the next few years, then I will agree and support your praise. At this point, however, it seems foolish to recommend an engine that has exhibited this level of early failures.
Summary:
Recalls: Ranger = 19(!) Tacoma = 2
TSBs: Ranger = 69(!!) Tacoma = 2
Warranty: Ranger = 3/36K Tacoma = 5/60K
Quality rating: Ford bottom of list; Toyota #1 twice
Kinda blows your quality and reliability theory out of the water, huh?
Fourwheeling summary:
Tacoma undisputed best 4x4 truck since 1998 in EVERY comparison review ever done. Tblunder unable to find link and disprove...simply claims any source favoring Tacoma is biased...
Tblunder, better be careful what you wish for because, as this proves, you just may get it!
Ball's in your court...
Well Ford has been cited more than once regarding J D Powers Initial Quality award, it is an award that changes with the wind.
sc0rpi0:
"Ranger sales are so high because of the reliability and great price, why aren't we seeing the same happening with Mazda B-series pickups? You are not going to deny that they are Rangers with a Mazda logo on it, are you? The name brand is what is selling Rangers."
Well if you would look, the Mazda is quite a bit different in that it does not offer the configurations that are offered in the Ranger. There just are not as many sold. Not that it is a bad vehicle.
You the one that said that a Taco has 3 inches higher ground clearance? Care to pull next to my Ranger and lets measure for pink slips? A Taco has at best 1 inch higher clearance against a Ranger equipped with the same tires. I measured a 99 Taco vs 99 Ranger, lowest point is the differential. Ranger was 9.25 inches, Tacoma shade under 10 inches, but that was due mainly to the fact a Taco has an 8 inch differential, a Ranger has an 8.8 inch differential which, by the way is about 35% stronger than the Taco's. Also, Ranger uses Dana or Thorson differentials, world renowned for quality and strength. Toyota uses, well, some subcontractor, but not Dana or Thorson.
Want to bet me pink slips on the measurments, then I will show you the pictures I took. . .
BTW, just about to turn 50K on the Ranger, only issues were the wiper switch and a door interlock switch.
The quality numbers that is posted there by JD powers was the initial quality which is counting only problems in the first 90 days of ownership.. As a Ford fan I am dissapointed in their rating..
In my view this is an indication of the assembly procedures need to be improved more.
I'll admit that 2 out of the last 3 Ford vehicles had to be brought back to the dealership within the first 90 days. The problems were very minor, but problems none the less..
99' Windstar: fuel gauge was broke. reason: broken sensor wire.
01' Escape: Left front speaker didn't work. reason: damage to high/mid range crossover board during assembly. (I saw where it was cracked).
I guess if I would have bought a Toyota I would not have had those problems.. So why didn't I?
a. Toyota didn't offer the features and functions that I wanted in a vehicle.. Count interior space, power, capacities as well as accessories (like 4 doors etc).
b. Is it worth paying thousands more for the Toyota when the only problems I've ever encountered are so minor? They were also fixed under warranty at no cost and my dealership provided me transportation while they were in the shop for less than a day.
If I were to have major problems that would make the vehicle inoperabable or not safe to drive, or constantly in the shop for minor problems, then yes, in the future I would look towards other vehicles.
I wouldn't look towards Toyota however as in my local area several of my friends who had minor problems with their Toyota's had horrible service experiences with the dealerships.
So yes, one reason Ford sells alot of vehicles is because of the price point.
The above does not really give any indication of the 'long term' reliablity of the vehicles.
I've not heard Ford use the slogan 'quality is job 1' for about 5 years now, draw your own conclusion of why this would be..
The number that I do dispute is the TSB number.. It is very obvious that Ford uses the TSB process as an effective means to keep all of its dealerships informed of the latest processes, procedures, and yes some common problems. Toyota chooses to not do this, but instead leave their dealership in the dark..
Look at the Ford TSB's that are being referenced. you'll see:
a. That the database double counted many of the tsbs.
b. many of the TSB's are just informational, like 'use 5w-30 engine oil and not 10w-30'..
The TSB numbers are in no way an indication of vehicle quality or reliability.
You attributed it to multi-cutural tendencies of the California population in general..
You might be right. But not because ya'll demand higher quality, but because ya'll demand better gas mileage..
So maybe Tacoma's sell better because they get slightly better mpg's.
Here in the southeast, the margin of Rangers to Tacoma's is closer to 10:1.
I got my ground clearance data from the carpoint, the site that tbunder cites all the time. If you look under the specifications of the Ranger, all of the 4x4 trims stand with 7.4" of clearance, and 4x2 have 6.9".
About Mazda. Yes, they offer less variations, but in fact still more than Toyota.
bess: I'm sorry, but it sounds ridiculous. So all the people in CA buy Taco because they cost 3K more, but get 1mpg more? I've done comparisons on different trucks when I was looking for mine, and 1mpg, assuming driving 15K miles a year, comes to a difference of $75 at $1.20 per gallon per year.
It'd take 50 years to make up for the price difference at that rate.
More plausable explanation, however, is the reluctancy to change. When I was going to school in Missouri (some 1 year ago), we still had rednecks beating up foreigners from time to time.
It's rather difficult to change minds of people who've been all their life thinking that everybody else is a damn commie [non-permissible content removed] (sarcasm here, but nevertheless I think the point has gotten across). They believe in America, and they want to drive an American vehicle. Which is what Ford sells them.
I have noticed a common trend here with the Ranger folks. They devote all their energy into spec debates. Reality: some of the Ranger's specs will be better, some of the Tacoma's specs will be better. This is a never-ending and circular argument.
While these spec wars have been fun and informative, they take a back-seat to the real issues, and that's performance and reliability. Tacoma is the undisputed four-wheeling contest winner going on 4 years straight, and strong evidence indicates it's a much more reliable truck.
Personally, I want the truck with the best performance and reliability, not the one with the .4" bigger diff.
If you want to see low clearance, look at a bacic Tacoma, it is about 6 inches.8^).
I assure you, my front clearance is just about 10 inches, the rear clearance about 9.25.
The Tacoma claimed 12 inches clearance at one point, well I would say maybe somewhere on the vehicle it is 12 inches, but under the differential it is aprox 9.75.
Clearance is only a limitation of the driver. I have found very little difficulty going up class 6 4X4 trails, which are fairly difficult trails. Just take time, pick a line engage the 4low and go. Most of the trails I go on usually exceed 12,000 ft in elevation.
Being a former San Diego county resident, spent 2 years there that seemed like a decade in Rancho Penisquitos to be exact, off Paseo Montrel, would think that the reason is more status than anything. Very status conscience place SD is. It sure is not the need for a great 4X4, found very few challenging places, as compared to Colorado, that were reasonably close to SD. Been to the Cleveland NF? The roads are blacktopped there, real disappointment. Plus got a permit for wood there once, what a joke...there is no dead wood!
Look, the Tacoma is a great vehicle, just not the only one out there. Each has advantages and limitations. I mearly did not like the tactic of Toyota of setting a low base price, but the vehicle had no options, not much too it, no tach, no FM radio, no ABS, no security system, all standard on the Ranger. I DO NOT like the tactic of Ford on the FX4 where it is a basically loaded vehicle. But it seems like a very nice 4X4.
cpousnr: rancho penasquitos eh ? I guess you probably would not recognize the place if you were to come back today. Developments of new homes and industries are everywhere. Roads are jammed everyday. I-15 has become a parking lot, so to speak... Just too many people wanting to live in what arguably is the best city in America, great weather and great lifestyle (beaches, golf, the works...) I love it down here, and won't give it up for anything
But i digress, this forum is about Tacos and Rangers afterall....so i must bow out...
Have a wonderful weekend everyone
mesa blvd.....the Baccanall (spl)
my favorite hangouts..............Geo
I would agree, seems to be a number of more Toyota vehicles out there. But the NF's out there cannot compare to here...could not wait to get back. But it is a nice place to visit...El Indio tamale's, Casa de Bindini in Old Town, dinner at the Marine in LaJolla and a quick run to the border for some booze.
Back to Tacoma's nice trucks, unless you go down to Baja, not much place to run a rig like that down in SD at least as I recall.
Recalls, however, are a different story. -and 19 for the ranger vs. 2 for the tacoma is a pretty massive difference.
No one here denied or really disputed Four Wheeler magazines opinion.. That article was basically looking at which vehicle was best at one very specialized form of 4x4ing. The fact is of all of the major publications, Four Wheeler was the only to rate the Tacoma as first..
But, this topic is not titled: Which factory equiped vehicle is the best rock crawler.
For many folks, the Ranger is a much better choice of truck for daily driving, comfort and light towing.
- More availabe power
- Higher towing capacity
- available 4 doors
- Larger interior
To quote from another site:
The Ford Ranger is the most highly rated compact truck. Reviewers say it rides well and is solidly built; they also like that it can be configured in a wider variety of ways than most compacts.
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/automotive/pickup_trucks/
Basically the site above attempts to summarize the opinions of many of the popular print publications that rated mini pickups..
Guess I have to take a look.
Pluto--->When was the last time Toyota made cars with exploding gas tanks in rear-end collisions (remember the 'stang?)?
WTF? You're bringing up late 60's Mustangs? I drive a 1967 mustang on the weekend, but have no problem there. It's called a fuel cell. Problem was that the fuel tank was integrated in the unibody, right between to the two rear framerails. If someone rear ended you violently enough, the fuel tank could tear open and spill into the cabin. Then any spark could ignite the gasoline. So it doesn't just 'explode', and after a wreck powerful enough to cause it you are already in trouble, fire or not. Besides with any Fuel Cell you just don't have to worry, or you can just weld in a fire wall behind the rear passenger seat. Of course if you hit me in the rear I would be doing something wrong with my four hundred and sixty cubic inches under the hood.
"When was the last time Toyotas had more recalls than Fords?" When was the last time Toyota's made more than Ford?
"When was the last time thousands of Toyotas left the factory with something as obvious as slashed tires?" Again and again with this, the 'slashed tires' were barely nicked. And with the who Firestone fiasco, Ford took no chances. You wouldn't have heard a thing, unless Ford wanted you to.
scorp--->Re post #2565. "Tacoma has a 3.4L engine that pulls 190hp using 17/20mpg
Ranger has a 4.0L engine pulling 207hp using 16/19mpg: 1mpg loss, .6L extra for measly 17 horses."
Let's make a slightly more informed analysis:
Ford 4.0L: Horsepower: 207 hp @ 5250 rpm
Torque: 238 ft-lbs. @ 3000 rpm
Yota 3.4l: Horsepower: 190 hp @ 4800 rpm
Torque: 220 ft-lbs. @ 3600 rpm
See the higher peak torque 600 RPM lower? The 3.4l is a good engine, but all 4 valvers need to spin to higher RPM's to feel the power. More cubic inches give the Ranger lower torque and a broader torque band.
I lost a transmission on my Ranger at like 115k miles. Do you think any warranty would have helped at that point? This is how I see no benefit to the "Toyota Peace of Mind".
Allknowing--->Well there is nothing painful about oil filter location on Rangers. And if you don't use a jack or lift, you will see I am right. Maybe you can't do two complete oil changes per one on a toyota, but that point backs up the idea that Rangers are just easier to maintain. Plus you run a risk doing your own oil changes with toyota's.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html
About the 4.0l, there were some issues on the Explorer, of which I haven't seen nor heard of on the Ranger. You are comparing late 90's Explorers 4.0l with 2001+ Rangers. "If they have, and the engine proves itself over the next few years, then I will agree and support your praise" Then bring it up in 2 years.
Pluto--->You don't understand what a TSB is or what it can be used for. You also don't realize that most people don't buy a compact truck for it's off-road capabilities. Sure it's a nice extra, but the majority don't need it, and the majority won't use it even if they get it. No disrespect to those who do...
scorp--->in post #2574, it looks like you're trying to typicalize a bit too much. About Mazda vs Ford vs Toyota sales, there are essentially "billions and billions" (carl sagan) of possibilites as to why each sales volume are different. Ford outsells Toyota. Ford also outsells it's twin Mazda. That still means Ford & Mazda Outsell Toyota, who cares the number of dealerships, the mcDonalds burger comparisons, or dumb redneck analogies that may come up. It's all about truck offerings. Consumer demand and vote with their pocketbooks..
Pluto--->I have noticed a common trend here with most toyota folks. They devote all their energy into Quality debates. They ignore the quality vs quantity or even the value given by their truck purchase. This is a never-ending and circular argument.
While these quality wars have been fun and informative, they take a back-seat to the real issues, and that's performance and options, or bang for the buck. Tacoma is the undisputed four-wheeling contest winner going on 4 years straight, and only 1 out of 100 care. Ranger was rated better than the Honda Accord in reliability a few years back.
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/mostwanted/2002/47600/article.html
If they were just "nicks," would Ford really have spend the millions to fix the problem?
Who noticed the tires were slashed? The dealerships? Since when are dealerships part of the quality control process that SHOULD take place at the factory?
If errors this obvious skate right on through at the factory, doesn't that kind of make you wonder what else wasn't done right? It should.
I noticed you did not comment on the wheels of Expeditions falling off. I'm a reasonable guy, and I could understand Ford having a few minor problems to iron out in a new engine. But to making vehicles in today's day and age with wheels that fall off...well, that's just a bunch of crap and there's no excuse for it.
To add insult to injury, Ford is getting their butts sued off for roll-over/tire problems in their Explorer. And like I (and others stated), all SUVs are prone to rollovers and blowouts, but ONLY Ford is getting sued.
TSBs and recalls? Not all are minor (like wheels that fall off!) and the figures are so lopsided when comparing Ford and Toyota it's ridiculous. My only recall: Toyota sent me an updated owner's manual! You are seriously down-playing the severity of some of these TSBs and recalls.
So only 1 out of 100 people care about the four-wheeling ability of their truck, huh? Obviously, the people buying Ford's 4x4 offroading package and Tacoma's TRD package care. Glad to see a Ranger fan finally admit (although grudgingly in a round-about sort of way) the Tacoma is better for fourwheeling.
You know that saying, FORD = F----r Only Rolls Downhill? That gives Ford more credit than it deserves because it assumes the wheels didn't fall off, LOL!
Look, I don't think the Ranger is a bad truck (it's definitely one of Ford's better vehicles) but still, Ford's pathetic track-record makes me not want to bother with them. Afterall, I can just as easily buy a Toyota, right?
-Max torque of the Ranger is 238 at 3000 rpms, and the Tacoma max torque is 220 at 3600 rpms.. By your own rules, the Tacoma has its torque at the higher RPM's where it is less useful.. see spec's here at edmunds.com. Note that the Ranger 3.0L v6 peak torque is also higher at a lower RPM that the Tacoma 2.7L.
- I don't know of which off-road magazines rated the Ranger higher, but according to the site I posted before, 3 magazines did rate the Ranger as number one.. The point I was making is that extreme off-road ability is not important to most folks.. Sure, its nice to be able to do some moderate fire-roads, fishing trails etc, but not the hard-core stuff that the off-road mag's thrive on.
I used to own an 89' Ranger SC 4x2 2.9L 5sp. It currently has 225k miles and technically it's not mine now as I gave it to my dad. He still drives it every day..
Mods: a rubber bed mat..
The only problems that require service were rear u-joints(around 100k), water pump (at 120k), and a fuel pressure regulator (at 180k). The interior still has no squeaks, rattles or broken accessories, and it drives as nice as any Tacoma I've test driven or ridden in. As my family grew, I needed a truck that could more easily haul/tow more (inside space and out), otherwise I would have bought another Ranger.. The Tacoma 4x2 is a joke of a truck unless you consider one of the Pre-Runner versions.. (Which didn't exist when I was looking for mini-trucks).
The truck I currently own is an 00 F250 SuperDuty 4x2 SC 5.4L 5sp 4.10LS
mods: rubber mat for the bed.. oh, and Ford lighted logos..
As you can see, I'm big into mods.. hehe..
but i just wanted to make clear the facts regarding the earlier posts on the reliability issue with the new '01 ranger 4.0. it is a different variation and is lot stronger running and quieter (speaking from ownership experience). the older version is no longer available, as the new 4.0 is also the one standard in explorer for '02.
pluto- one statement: shut up or put up. my challenge in a one on one off-road test between us and our trucks- still waiting for a response.
I like Ford and I'll agree that they're standing behind the product. It should be noted though that it took several years of excessive complaints as well as many attempts by Ford to find a solution before they decided to cover the problem and extend the warranty.
Anyway, the original literature from Ford stated that the Ranger would be getting the Explorer's 4.0L. It may be a bit different in some areas but it's more than likely the same basic engine. If that's the case, the problem could possibly still exist. We'll see as this years 4.0 Rangers reach 50k +.
imo, there isn't another V6 on the market, that can compete with this engine (the SOHC 4.0)in a compact truck or suv. possibly nissans pathfinder 3.5, but it can't match the rangers low end torque and it can't be had in any frontier sadly. toyota's 3.4 needs revved too much, and is down significantly on horsepower and torque. gm's 4.3 is strong, but very inefficient and ancient in design. my 4.0 has seen 22 mpg once, and when punched, feels like nitrous is hooked up. i love it. wait for the info. and ill provide it.
I don't know of any pick-up that feels like there is nitro hooked up and I am even blown.
Hey tbunder have your read the new motortrend issue on Nissan S/C vs Toyota S/C? A TRD non S/C Tacoma was as fast as a S/C Nissan. The Nissan S/C took 10.3 secs to hit 60mph. The S/C Toyota took 8sec and that's a double cab. My ext cab will hit low 7's easy. Read the article and enjoy. Don't get me wrong, loved Nissans, just couldn't get one as cheap as the Toy. I drive now.
As far as Toy's engine: If it aint broke, don't fix it (something that Ford needs to learn, but hey, they will when they make something that doesnt destroy an engine or makes the wheels fall off:). 190hp is and has been a good amount of horses for any sort of applications for a compact truck. It only seems small these days because of all the sucker-mom SUVs that have 200hp engine which nobody needs in the suburbs or the city anyway.
All this reading on Ford's engine problems makes me think you were unknowingly part of Ford's testing division. How does it feel? This is yet another example among many why I wouldn't buy a Ford.
BTW, the other day I was at a Ford dealership and I got talking to the folks there. I asked them if I could buy a Ranger with a rear locker, as I knew a certain guy from Iowa who said he did. They chuckled and mentioned their friends in Iowa managed pulling off the sales stunt of a lifetime to you. They said anybody dumb enough to not know the difference between a locker and a LSD deserves to get taken advantage of.
How does it feel being tricked and ripped off by those smooth salesmen? Just curious, how much extra did your rear locker cost, LMAOROTF!!!
Like I said, Tblunder is the stuff of folklore and legend among Ford dealerships.
pickup and suv...the antilock brakes DO NOT
work when in 4 wd only 2 wd. Check the
owners manual . Its in there. In 95 gm
went from a delco system to a bosch system
in MOST trucks and suvs. So 95 and up DO
work in 4 wd.........geo
as far as ranger not being as good off-road and stang's comments- i cant speak for his truck. i have a brand new '01 with a specific off-road pkg. which he does not have i dont believe. my truck is shod with 265/70/16 BFG all-terrain KO tires and is ready to tackle any trail with higher ground clearance with these tires than your tacoma and the most powerful V6 in any compact truck- along with 4.10 gearing and the lowest crawl too.
the biggest downfall of rangers have been their stock tires. if the mags tested all their trucks with the same tires (like the bike mags do in hardcore sportbike tests) you may see them say that something other than the tacoma is the winner. we'll never see this as it would be too expensive.
i just looked at an FX4 ranger in person today. this truck is very cool. but it has basically the same setup as whats on my truck. only diff is shocks and rear lsd.
watch for it in magazine tests. im sure it will give your precious tacoma a run for its money, since it has some decent tires.
as far as you visiting a ford dealer, i do not believe you. i think you have split personalities since you sometimes address issues, and other times, since you have nothing to respond with, you silently ignore them. if you would "never buy a ford", why would you go to a dealership? just to talk to salesmen? are you that big of a loser? do you have a fetish with talking to ford salesguys? well, im not really surprised if you did.
dont you just love toyota's new ad campaign- playing an american classic rock song to advertise japanese vehicles. oh yeah, they're MADE in usa now huh? yeah right.
anxiously awaiting your chicken little tacoma here in central iowa. see ya olive
Funny how you bragged nonstop about your rear locker when you thought you had one, and now that you know you don't, you think having one is worthless...and you say I have split personalities?
Gee, you really have this selective amnesia thing bad...
Again, how does it feel buying a truck that you thought had a locker, full-time 4wd and bigger tires than the Tacoma? Man oh man, I wish I could have been at the Ford dealership that day and witnessed the snowball job those salesmen pulled on you!
And that leads to why I went to the local Ford dealership: I wanted to know if they heard about your hilarious fiasco with your dealership in Iowa. They had, and so has everybody else! I know they were talking about YOU because they said they have never encountered anybody as dumb as you before and all the salesmen have a new record (ripping off dumb customer) to beat. I shook their hands and congratulated them on a job well done! I also went to check out the FX4, but they didn't have any...
While I'm sure making a trip to Iowa so that I could meet "the first person in automotive history with a locker and full-time 4WD equipped Ranger" would be an *enlightening* experience, I think I will pass (although meeting a "celebrity" as well known as you - at least among Ford's sales staff nationwide - does have a morbid appeal to it...). However, if you give me the name and number of the salesman who sold you your Ranger, I would like to talk to him and take notes. That's quite a feat for him to have ripped you off that severely.
Come on down to Tlaxcala, Tblunder. I hope you don't get lost though, afterall, you don't read "mexican" and the road signs might be a problem for you... Being that the Tacoma is the undisputed fourwheeling champion, that makes YOU the challenger; therefore, it's up to you to get down HERE! Don't you have any sense of etiquette?
I detect a lot of anger in your posts these days. Don't be angry with us Toyota guys. Hey, it's not our fault you were sold a truck that didn't have the equipment you thought it had - we merely informed you of the truth, that's all. Kind of like "killing the messenger."
Go run along now and play with your pigs!
"Who noticed the tires were slashed? The dealerships? Since when are dealerships part of the quality control process that SHOULD take place at the factory?"
Ford did, they facilitated the whole thing. Quit making false conjectures.
"I noticed you did not comment on the wheels of Expeditions falling off. I'm a reasonable guy, and I could understand Ford having a few minor problems to iron out in a new engine. But to making vehicles in today's day and age with wheels that fall off...well, that's just a bunch of crap and there's no excuse for it."
I find a lot of what you say rediculous, and if you want to start counting points I made where you didn't comment on, well, the time and effort wouldn't be worth it. Besides if you're trying to convince others, you have better luck convincing a brick wall to turn invisible. I'm not gonna try and explain why your work vehicle is screwed up. I can't convice you that it's not ford's fault.
I also don't know when you arrived on the scene, but I've said many times before it appears that the facts show that the Tacoma has better potential for off-roading in stock trim, vs. Ranger. But for the Record... I don't give a rat's [non-permissible content removed]. It's not like Rangers can't hold their own, and even outperform by using the cash difference (in sticker price and financed amounts) to improve a Ranger. Heck you could buy a locker, a new set of shocks, and maybe even a lift kit for the price difference.
"I detect a lot of anger in your posts these days"
followed by "Go run along now and play with your pigs!"
Hypocritical are we?
"Hey, it's not our fault you were sold a truck that didn't have the equipment you thought it had - we merely informed you of the truth, that's all. Kind of like "killing the messenger."
Messengers with such haughty tongues....
Remember "You gotta give respect to earn it?"
AllKnowing--->I'll defend my opinion because I'm right. You think your right to, so Nyah.