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
If you run KBB on my 92 V6 Camry with 180K miles retail is $7500, and that's about as as crazy as someone paying MSRP for a Ranger, I'm just KIDDING! You have to look at NADA or black book numbers to get a real idea of a vehicles value. Usually, on a normal mileage vehicle KBB trade-in is too low and their retail is too high. On my avg mileage Tacoma, they list trade-in around $9,000 and retail around $14,000. They are nuts. When I was looking at new double-cabs back in December, the deal was $500 over invoice on the new Tacoma, and $10,600 for my truck. You think a dealer is just going to graciously give me $1600 more than trade-in value and then sell me the new car that close to invoice? Not in this lifetime. KBB are loony-tunes, I don't know any dealer that uses KBB for anything (beyond corruption, see below), but some banks do, which means nothing when you are buying unless you can't get financing or something.
I've heard several stories how people go to a dealerhip with a trade-in printout from KBB and maybe even a retail printout on the car they are buying. That's the deal they demand and for-sure the dealer will give it to them. They think they got a good deal based on information provided by what some think is a "reliable" source. The dealers just love those type of deals. I think KBB is in bed with the dealers with their pricing.
Here's an actual comparison from the NADA guides (the same one every car salesman has in his pocket):
1998 models, ext. cab V6, automatic, PW,PL,CC,Tt,alloys, 50,000 miles.
Toyota Tacoma: Avg. Trade $15,850 Avg Retail $18,400. $700 extra for the TRD package, had to throw that in for vince, cause it's actually listed in the book.
Ford Ranger: Avg. Trade $13,825 Avg. Retail $16,075. The Ltd slip is not addtional, LOL!
So they differ around $2,000-$2300 and they have similar MSRP/Invoices when new. So based on MSRP (which is how it's actually done for statistical purposes), the Tacoma has much better resale (nearly 10%). However, the ranger normally has $1,000 rebate, and right now it's around $2500 with dealer cash and everything. So as long as you are buying with a rebate and bargaining down close to invoice on both you'll come out about the same down the road if you drive 12K per year.
Where it gets interesting is in mileage. The Tacoma actually is rated in a different class of vehicles for mileage reduction for NADA pricing. The same vehicles above with 100K miles; the Tacoma loses $1400 in value where the Ranger loses over $1825. Keep chucking on the miles, and the plot thickens. Take it to 200K miles and the Tacoma is worth $3800 more than the ranger. Those are facts that can be found in NADA guide books, which are based on actual sales and trades in the prior month on a regional basis. KBB says they get their numbers from the same place, but like I said, I think it's a conspiracy..C-O-N-SPIRACY.
Defect Investigations 1989-2000
Ford Ranger - 20
Dodge Dakota- 14
Chevy S10 - 51
Toyota Tacoma - 2
Safety Recalls 1989-2000
Ford Ranger- 32
Dodge Dakota - 28
Chevyy S10 - 47
Toyota Tacoma - 6
Technical Service Bulletins 1989-2000
Ford Ranger -2,279(yes, 2,279)
Dodge Dakota- 940
Chevy S10 -448
Toyota Tacoma - 150
-------
So there you have it. All data is factual, and very telling. This is NOT "subjective".
A trucks reliability and build quality is NOT "subjective".
Not all trucks are built the same, as you can plainly see.
Here is the hard link:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Following in the footsteps of its close relative, the '98 Ranger adopted many of the mechanical modifications incorporated into the Explorer two years earlier. Among the biggest changes include an entirely new double A-arm front suspension with light-duty torsion bars. The new IFS, combined with an all-new rack-and-pinion steering setup (which offers its own steering fluid cooler), won high praises from our testers over our 800-mile test. Specifically, the Ranger scor ed well in Highway Performance categories that centered around maneuverability and long-distance cruising. Testers noted the new steering proved especially quick to react in tight-chicane situations. No doubt about it: This new Ranger out-handles, out-ste ers and out-corners any Ranger before. By a mile.
We would characterize the drivetrain, specifically the transmission, as biased for highway performance as well. All 4.0-liter Rangers (and Mazdas, for that matter) ordered without the manual tranny get the first five-speed automatic transmission offer ed for any pickup. Our testers split over the need and/or usefulness of a mileage-biased transmission geared for empty-load flatland running. Those in favor noted the nearly seamless transitions from one gear to the next, and how the transmission itself c ould, if the vehicle was driven right--no jackrabbit leadfoot starts--tack on another 50,000 miles of life to the engine.
On the trail, we found the automatic transmission to be a double-edged sword. The smoothness of the First-to-Second shift, combined with the inherent low-end grunt of the engine, was almost enough to overcome the taller gearing. And in the end, voting followed individual preferences for manuals versus automatics. Two testers noted both the manual transmissions (Mazda and Toyota) felt more "in control" on the twisty low-range trails of Truckhaven, where face-down compression braking was very helpful o n steep-trail crawling. In low-range, our automatic Ranger offered a rather delicate 22.8:1 crawl ratio (First x axle gear x low-range); the Mazda and Toyota offered 34.4:1 and 40.4:1 gearing, respectively.
Likewise, where the stiffened front suspension cleanly handled all paved-road obstacles thrown in its path, the Ford IFS had trouble keeping up with the broken terrain of dry washes, hill climbs, and washboards. Admittedly, it is a rare vehicle that c an manage all the extremes with equal aplomb, but several testers commented that the Ford liked to spring a little bit quicker (and hop higher) off the rolling whoop-de-doos. For the most part, we found the sacrificed off-highway capability to be greater than the gained on-highway performance, and for that reason it didn't score well in the parts of our test that are most heavily-weighted; however, that isn't to say testers weren't squabbling among themselves to get into the Ranger for the highway drives up the mountain.
Finally, testers showed their traditional colors by not favoring the dash-mounted rotary dial ("looks a lot like an A/C control--and no Neutral") of the Borg-Warner 44-05 electronic transfer case. The 44-05 never gave us a lick of trouble--we submerge d the gearboxes under freezing water, as well as subjecting them to high-heat, dust-blasted wash runs--and by going to a dial, floor space opens up, but our scorers' preference is for a lever-actuated system, or anything with a Neutral position, regardles s of the floor space it takes up.
Like any good four wheeler, we found the Ford Ranger could do several things quite well, scoring highly in On-Road Ride and Handling and Interior Comfort. To us, the new Ranger is a nice-looking, comfortable truck that is easy to drive and easy to own . And it's made in plants with a reputation for quality. But the Pickup Truck of the Year has to do it all pretty damn well, and it has to be great off-highway. And so we introduce our 1998 winner.
WINNER: TOYOTA TACOMA TRD
Although the compact Tacoma XtraCab itself is not completely new, the Toyota Racing Development (TRD) suspension and locking rear differential package is. The TRD Off-Road Package offers oversized fender flares, alloy wheels, 31-inch tires, Bilstein shocks, slightly softer spring rates, and an electromechanical, button-actuated rear locking differential, all for $1,690.
Our Surfside Green test unit came with the 3.4-liter, dual-overhead cam, 24-valve engine and five-speed manual transmission. The Tacoma came factory-equipped with the lowest axle gears of the test: 4.10:1. It was this combination of excellent gearing (First gear for the factory five-speed is 3.83:1) that made testers comment about how readily the Tacoma jumped off the line. In fact, during track testing, the Tacoma was substantially faster than the others, both loaded and unloaded (see page 30). Tract ion came courtesy of a more aggressive tread in the 31x10.50 Goodyear Wrangler three-stage GSA. We found it supplied surprisingly good cornering power on pavement, with plenty of potential for aired-down trail running.
As well as the Tacoma performed on the track, it was on the trail where the premium import seemed most comfortable. Best-in-class ground clearance, the most aggressive tread of the bunch, and a crawl ratio of better than 40:1 made the Tacoma everyone' s choice for hill climbs and steep backside descents. Even our resident auto-tranny diehards had to admit that the lively throttle response, sure-grip clutch, and built-to-work gearing meshed together as well as any championship-caliber team. In each perf ormance-related category of our test, the Toyota won.
It's not often that our collection of testers agree on anything (in fact, never), but this year's Pickup Truck of the Year was a unanimous decision. Praises relating to the TRD suspension mentioned its ability to control rutted, seriously choppy terra in better than any other vehicle we'd driven. One tester went so far as to note that during a few moments of an effortless dry-wash run, it seemed the spirit of Ivan Stewart had taken over his body. This is a truck that can go slow or go fast, on pavement or off.
Ultimately, in addition to a strong engine, good tires, and supremely tuned suspension, the clutch defeat switch (the only one in a truck sold in the US.), lever-operated transfer case, and pushbutton locking rear differential were the icing on a toug h-truck cake. Although you have to pay a premium for a premium package, the TRD Tacoma, dollar for dollar, is the best on- and off-highway compact package (maybe of any truck) we've seen. This truck has features the others just don't offer, and they all w ork. And that's why it's our 1998 Pickup Truck of the Year.
Tacoma, in documented TSB's, has a
HIGHER, lets repeat for clarity, HIGHER
instance of injury then Ranger which has a larger number of TSB's.
Another area the vehicles are unequal is in the star rating given by the same site you just cite, NHTSA.
The chance of
SERIOUS
injury in a side impact crash is far greater in the. . .
TACOMA.
Remember, one star vs 5 stars?
And lets not get in the argument of a 2wd vs 4wd being better able to take a crash. Equal vehicles were tested and compared, and the Tacoma failed as compared to the Ranger. The data spoog has repeated, again, supports that fact by the higher injury rate.
Ranger is better in hp, torque, price and has differences in the weeds in terms of clearance and crawl ratio in 4X4 low. In any other gear than 1st, Ranger beats Tacoma in crawl ratio.
I thought I stated that the Tacoma does have a bit more articulation than the Ranger, but not a whole lot more. And it's approach departure angles are better.
2000 TSB's and recalls
Tacoma 10
Ranger 16
S-10 37
2000 TSB's and recalls
Tundra 27
F150 17
Chevy 46
Do you even bother to read what the TSB's are? Most are mechanics and owners inputs on repair items.
First, many are for nits etc in both cases.
However, there is an entry on them if an injury results.
There was a higher number, at the time, of reported "injury" TB's for Tacoma even though there was a higher number of TB's for Ranger.
I suspect it may be because the crash test data is correct. There is a 45% greater chance of injury in a Tacoma as a Ranger in an accident.
Suspension, yes the Tacoma has a very nice suspension. It is an area that Ford could improve. A much better class of shock would be a start but that can be done as after market. Also I have been told that Billistines are not the shock for a small I/I, that Heckelthorn or Rancho AS 5000's are much better for smaller pickups.
I ALSO have heard that the Billistines installed on Tacoma are not the normal ones you get from a shop. I understand they are smaller and made for the Tacoma. Ever price replacements at Toyota? Just curious. Would suspect they are above the 39 bucks you would pay for an RS5000 to install on a Ranger.
Do not get me wrong all knowing, I think Toyota did a fine job on setting the Tacoma up for off road. Just do not be so quick to discount the abilities of my Ranger. If I ever finish up the last 4 pics in the camera, and my last outing pics are good, you should be seeing my Ranger front end maybe 6 or so inches off the ground coming up a short hill.
If you will recall, my decision was based on value for the buck. My 99 Ranger at just a bit over $17.3K beat the Tacoma hands down at that time as I had no desire for an optioned up much more expensive vehicle when I could get the performance I needed out of the Ranger.
Edmunds took the stat away but at one point they listed the skidpad rating better on the Ranger than the Tacoma. Meaning the Ranger will hold the road better than the Tacoma.
In 1998 I paid 19.6K for a loaded Ranger XLT SC 4.0 5spd stepside with tow pkg, offroad pkg. This truck has every option a Ranger can have. A like Toyota, (NON-TRD) was quoted from 3 different Toyota dealers from 21K-22.5K. Price is a factor. The fact is the Ranger is the BEST value for your dollar for the everyday truck user.
- Edmunds.com
" Before you consider buying a used Ranger, take it for a very,very long test drive"
-Edmunds.com
Edmunds.com's most wanted pickup for 2001:
Ford Ranger: For those who need a small, reliable hauler that embraces the demands of urban living (while making itself at home in the wild), the Ranger offers a satisfying package.
Edmunds.com's most wanted pickup for 2000:
Ford Ranger: Ford's best-selling Ranger is the truck we'd buy if we needed a small, reliable hauler. Regardless of what Ranger you choose, you'll be getting one rewarding pickup.
I personally would never consider getting shocks at the dealership.
Oh, I forgot, Toyotas never break. DOH!
Bottom - line: The Toyota cost more, but to me, you get more.
Cheers,
Steve
You know how to do it...
Ah huh..."
Oh sorry your comment got me going. . .blinded by the flashing ball...
You know, I may be an old fart but I can say I never owned a leasure suit. . . and only one white leather belt. . .
Oh BTW, counted the TSB's for the 2001's, Tacoma 10, Ranger 16
Using spoogs bogus numbers:
Technical Service Bulletins 1989-2000
Ford Ranger -2,279(yes, 2,279)
Dodge Dakota- 940
Chevy S10 -448
Toyota Tacoma - 150
.70206%
of the TSB's spoog says are against the Ranger are for the 2001 year.
10.6%
of the TSB's spoog says are against the Tacoma are for the 2001 year.
Toyota getting worse as far as TSB's?
Putting it simply, for your benefit, 10% for Tacoma vs .7% of the total TSB's would indicate that Ranger has improved greatly in that area while Tacoma has slid in a negative direction.
Comments or the usual silence?
Steve
I'm tired of justifying my position to Ranger advocates because to me it's an exercise in futility. Let me just say this: people are different. Some people are convinced that the Tacoma is a better truck while others are convinced the Ranger is. You can debate the pros and cons of each all day long but you'll never convince the other side that you're right; they have to see it for themselves (think: perception here guys).
I bought a Tacoma. My decision resided in the fact that I could get a stronger engine with a manual tranny in the Tacoma. The Ranger is a good truck, in my opinion the Tacoma is better. I may be wrong for hundreds of reasons. Others may argue I'm right. Either way, I don't care. My Tacoma has never failed me over 56K miles and rides every bit as good as the day I bought it. I'm sure somewhere out there, there are Ranger owners who feel the same way about their truck the way I feel about my Tacoma. That's where I'll leave it.
So keep those arguments coming, I love reading them. I'll throw my two cents around and possibly even play 'devil's advocate' at times. I'll even post any problems I have with my truck on here and let the Ranger advocates enjoy a feeding frenzy. But I am through with trying to justify my decision.
I would too. You would probably be able to buy a full set of Ranchos or a pair of real Bilsteins for what Toyota would charge you for one shock.
Don't forget, since the Toyota Bilstein is "custom", it may have significantly different valving and/or a different ride than a "real" Bilstein.
"Most people will agree that Japanese vehicles are better built then American."
-Yes, I would agree that Japanese vehicles are better built than American vehicles for the most part. (I think the gap is narrowing however)
Oops-
Here's the 5 year LONG TERM reliability test. YES these vehicles were driven for 5 years to determine their reliability.
Ooops, Ford finishes below the industry average, and the Ranger is nowhere in sight-
http://www.jdpa.com/studies/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=292&CatID=1
This is an excellent observation. Every car mag notes the "usual excellent Toyota fit and finish".
When you drive a Toyota truck, you are driving a vehicle honed for years of use in rugged backcountry, safari's, or serious abuse. It is built for taking a heck of alot of abuse over long periods of time. The truck is engineered and designed to be driving with 200,000 miles.
The Toyota pickups are finely honed and tuned performance machines. Everything from the clutch start clancel, highest standard ground clearance, standar skid plates/gas tank plates, the way everything is tucked away underneath, the departure angles, and the overal fit and finish make it a truck to last a lifetime. Everything in the truck is designed and thoroughly tested. Engines just arent "chucked" into the taco. Every part is tested to work expertly with every other part. As 4wheeler said, it is the best package of any truck.
You will see how this all comes together when you drive a Toytoa pickup with 100,000 miles and are blown away at how the vehicle is held together and how it drives as if new.
\\ I just demand quality, and to me the Toyota has the best overall quality.\\
Yes they do. Toyota, Honda, and Lexus make the tightest vehicles in the world.
Do you mean the 5.9% special Toyota financing?
That's all that was available in my area. I don't consider that a "deal", although I took advantage of it. Anybody with decent credit can obtain a new vehicle loan for about 7% from their own bank. In my area Nissans, Dodges, Chevys, and Fords all have low financing, cash-back, or 2% over invoice deals. Yes, you can buy a similar Ford for less than a Toyota. If Ford is your pick, you are in luck. If money is the only reason you are buying a Ford, perhaps you should save a little more and buy a Toyota.
Spoog:
Thanks for the support!
Steve
A finely honed performance machine? LOL!
We have had our new Expedition for two months and have yet to have any problems whatsoever. Not even a rattle. Plus, we saved $9000 over a comparably equipped Sequoia. I'm more convinced than ever that we made the BEST choice.
Don't forget all the "teething" problems I had with my 1995 Tacoma (US made). So many that the dealer voluntarily took it back and gave me a T100 (made in Japan) instead. I hope six years would be enough time for Toyota to get its act together and fix all the problems the early Tacomas had.
Did you know that Edmunds.com voted the Expedition- "most likely to break"?
Heres the test verse the Landcruiser and the Expedition- NOT EVEN CLOSE-
Sound familiar anyone?
"The Expedition has lots of creaks and groans during the off-road portion of our test, and was difficult to handle on paved roads. "
Edmunds.com
"After a few minutes behind the wheel of the Toyota Land Cruiser, each of our editors agreed that it offered the best on-road performance of any truck in this segment. The Cruiser's long wheelbase contributes to a supple ride that is well damped at all four corners, and its steering is nicely balanced and weighted for such a heavy vehicle. During our nightly discussions, we often referred to the Land Cruiser as a car, distinctly separating it from the very truck-like competitors in our test. "
"A 5200-pound vehicle should feel more solid than did our Expedition. "
-Edmunds.com
"The fact that our Land Cruiser proved to be the best off-road vehicle came as no surprise to our guide from Arizona Adventures, Drew Tedeschi. Tedeschi has guided off-roaders for nearly two decades, and has tackled some of the toughest terrain in North and South America, Europe, Africa and Asia. He thinks that nothing compares to Land Cruisers when the road ends. "
Edmunds.com
Anyone see a pattern here?
"Helping us navigate Class I and II trails was probably no big deal for Tedeschi, but it proved to be more than enough for us to gauge the off-road abilities of our assembled troop of vehicles. When the dust settled, it was clear that there was one vehicle in the group, and only one, that was purpose built for serious off-roading: the Toyota Land Cruiser. "
Edmunds.com
Anyone notice a the pattern here? Edmunds.com and 4wheeler backing up everything I say about Toyota 4x4's.
"The Land Cruiser was able to tackle the hardest terrain of the day without breaking a sweat. The Cruiser's suspension smoothed out bumps and its precise steering made it easy to pick a line and stick to it. Heck, it even offered a remote radio antenna controller that allowed our drivers to adjust the height of the antenna from inside the vehicle; perfect for making sure that the thing wouldn't get snapped off by an errant branch.
Brauer commented that the Land Cruiser was the only sport-ute in our test that could be driven over the more difficult sections of our route one-handed. Palmer agreed, stating that the Land Cruiser was so good that it was almost boring on the relatively easy trails we traversed. I found the Land Cruiser to be the most forgiving of our novice four-wheeler mistakes. The Land Cruiser refused to punish us for stupid approaches and departures, literally gliding across boulder-strewn terrain. Anderson made the point that despite its high price tag, he was least afraid of damaging the Land Cruiser. He found that it lived up to its name by turning the nastiest terrain into a veritable pleasure cruise. "
-Edmunds.com
Anyone else remebmer 4wheelers comments on the tacoma?
" The tacoma TRD handled the rough stuff better than any vehilce we have ever driven"
Notice the trend yet?
"Unfortunately, the Expedition exhibited a great many creaks and groans when traveling over the rougher portions of the trail, prompting Wardlaw to wonder whether or not it would be able to stand up to the routine abuse of off-roading for any extended period of time. This, beyond anything else, kept us from naming the Expedition the third-place winner. "
-Edmunds.com
Unfortunately, the Expedition was perceived to be the vehicle most likely to break during the off-road section of our test, and proved too difficult to drive confidently during the on-road section of our test. It was also the most difficult vehicle to load with our luggage, because there is little room behind the optional third-row seat. The third-row seat can be folded, which is what we did in our test, or it can be removed entirely. However, folding or stowing the seat knocks the Expedition down to five-passenger capacity.
The Expedition is a sales-leader in this growing market, and will remain so as long as people keep buying big sport-utes. Like many of Ford's products, the Expedition takes aim at a large group of people instead of a narrow, targeted market. The result is that the Expedition can win the sales crown without being the best in any single category. The idea is: appeal to a broad group, sell to a broad group. From a business standpoint, it's hard to argue with that type of idea. However, since we're journalists, not businesspeople, we'd like to see Ford concentrate more on a few specific areas, like on-road handling and off-road ruggedness. "
-Edmunds.com
You are probably wondering if we are off our rockers, since Edmund's typically prizes value over pure performance, and there is a $6,000 price penalty for those who choose the Land Cruiser over the Denali. Is the Toyota really worth that much of an increase? You bet it is.
Although none of the trucks in this test was a slouch, none came close to matching the Land Cruiser's interior luxury, highway performance, off-road prowess, and all-around livability. Not the biggest, but by no means small, the Land Cruiser can haul seven people with its optional flip-down rear seats, or can move a considerable amount of gear. Beyond that, the Land Cruiser possesses an unimpregnable build quality that no amount of off-roading can tear apart.
In the final analysis, it looks like Edmund's editors made the right choice on that fateful night last fall. Our choice then for best full-size sport-utility vehicle was the Toyota Land Cruiser, and, after a multi-day flog through all types of conditions, it remains so. Nice job Toyota. Now, if only we can agree on where to hold our next editorial meeting. "
-Edmunds.com
http://www.edmunds.com/roadtests/comparisontests
You see, the trends match up. Toyota makes one heck of a 4x4, plain and simple. Wether it be the landcruiser, 4runner, or Tacoma, they all lead in that category. They are finely honed and tuned performance machines designed for year upon years of abuse.
" The ranger rattled like a rattlesanke offroad"
Edmunds.com
" The expedition was voted most likely to break, squeaks and groans"
Edmunds.com
" the tacoma handled the rough stuff, appearing as if to glide"
4 wheeler.com
" The landcruiser is impeccably built for years of offroad use, toyota fit and finish is exceptional" - edmunds.com
-Edmunds.com
Well gang, Toyota builds one HECK of a 4x4. This philosophy is inherent in every 4x4 vehicle they build, from the land Cruiser on down the line.
This philosophy is not present in how Ford builds their trucks.
It feels great to drive such a fine machine.
Now I can say I saved $20,000+ over the cost of a stripo Land Cruiser, or $30,000+ over the cost of a Lexus 470. In fact, I could almost say I could buy TWO Expeditions for the cost of the Lexus. Gee, I think maybe that's what I'll do.
Edmunds did a GREAT job of comparing apples and oranges.
I totally cannot comprehend why you place so much emphasis on off-roading.
1) In your own words, you have done very little.
2) If you ask MOST owners of 4x4s, they will tell you they don't go off-road at all.
3) Most buyers of 4x4s rate off-roading capabilities way down on their lists, after things like room, comfort, features, towing capability, highway ride, power for climbing mountains (like those of us here in Colorado), hauling capability, etc., etc.
4) Even those that actually 4-wheel only go occasionally. Maybe 3-5 times a year.
So what's up with that???
BTW- check out the Jan 2001 issue of Motor Trend, where they compare the Sequoia, Tahoe and Expedition. The Sequoia didn't do well in the off-road portions of their tests due to too many computer controlled functions that interfered with the drivers ability to direct/drive the vehicle where he/she wanted. No thanks! I would rather do the driving myself.
In addition, I greatly improved the on-road handling of our Expedition by having the dealer install Michelin tires rather than the Firestones that came on it. Steering and ride both improved markedly. You could probably do the same on a Toyota. You won't know if you don't try.
Hey Spoog: SO basically the best arguement against the Expedition is that they "think" it might break?? There's a water-tight arguement....
The word is out, thanks to the internet.. That Toyota's have problems, they are not all bullet proof.. Look around the net or just right here at Edmunds.. Plenty of Toyota problems..
Allknowing.. I did one heck of a number on you didn't I? Never have I said the Tacoma wasn't able to go offroad, Never did I say the TAcoma was not a reliable truck. The whole point I am trying to get across is the Tacoma IS NOT as superior as you and others may wish to think. In reliability/quality or performance.. I have showed you this and it makes you nervous about the extra 2-3K you spent. The Ranger continues to be the NUMBER 1 compact seller and the trend doesn't seem to be changing.... The Tacoma has been here for almost 5 years now? Sales do matter, the consumer is king...
Nope not talking about the 5.9... I am talking about the 3.9... Toyota offers incentives just like Ford/Nissan or whomever.. Even Honda is offering incentives...
their sentiments.
Most people do not buy SUV's or P/U's to go offroading, I'd wager dollars to donuts on that. Most buy them because they like to "ride high" when driving.
The Sequoia may have some glitches but it is the first model year and I can't think of a single model; either foreign or domestic, that didn't have a few problems upon first release.
All cars/trucks/SUV's have problems. There is no one model of any vehicle where 100% of that model produced ran error free. Be real. I know several people who have had problems with Tacomas, Rangers, S10's and Dakotas. Most of these people I know who have had problems are notorious for driving like idiots and not servicing their vehicles because they're too cheap, too lazy or try to do it themselves and screw it up. Cars are made by people and people make mistakes.
My Tacoma was sold with Firestones (in 1998) and I just got rid of them (56K miles). I put BFG's and noticed a tremendous difference with the ride and handling. I got the tires one day, and then had to drive in 8" of snow the next and it was a beautiful thing.
I have no issues about spending the extra money on my Tacoma, it's still holding its value. I just checked the classifieds today and 97 Tacomas go for $13,900 w/4 cyl and 78K miles to $18,000 for xtra Cab V6 like mine. The 97 Rangers were going for $9800 V6 Super CabV6 w/59K to $13,500 Super Cab 4.0 V6 w/38K miles. My price $24,000 minus $18,000 in 5 years = $6000 loss. 97 Ranger with a new price of $18-20,000 minus $13,500 in 5 years = $4500-6500 loss. This is a totally random tally of vehicles for sale on a Thursday in Denver but if I checked next week or next month it would be the same.
My point is that, although I paid more initially I really haven’t lost anything to the Ranger over the past 4.5 years. At least in Denver these trucks hold their value extremely well. If Price were the only consideration, than yes the Ranger would beat the Tacoma every time but then again so would a Hyundai Excel to a Volkswagon GTI. However, I looked at many more things that were just as important to me. I am someone who does enjoy off-roading and this truck excels at this. It makes no excuses for what it is - A Truck. For me, I made the right decision 4 1/2 years ago and now. I am still extremely happy with the truck.
I won’t repost old truck reviews because they are not relevant to today’s models. I don’t hate the Ranger. I think Ford has come a long way in the last 4-5 years while the Tacoma is still essentially the same. But so has the price. The state of the art Ranger with the new V6 seems to be listing for 25-26K. I think this last redesign is the closest the two have ever been. So I won’t recommend or disregard the new Ranger without really seeing more reviews and checking underneath it. If anything, this will stimulate Toyota to update more than just cosmetics thus improving both brands. If anything, this kind of competition benefits the buyers of both models in the end anyway. Finally maybe the Tacoma has a worthy opponent in the compact Truck class. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. By the way, I just bought 32 11.5 BFG TA-KO’s to replace the aging Goodyear RTS (58,000 miles) I highly recommend this tire. Road noise is not bad at all. Can’t wait to head to Utah in April.
jholc, if your up to some good close areas near Denver, I can make a suggestion or two.
Maybe you and I and rickc5 can get together and put a Ranger, Tacoma and Explorer to the test. You can attest to spoog that I really do own a Ranger. We are all local.
rickc5, email me again with your number, lost the last email when I moved the puter. We can attempt to hook up together again. . .
The Firestones on our new Expedition felt REALLY mushy, and so did the steering. I was really surprised at the difference the Michelins made. Almost a different vehicle.
The reason I dumped the Firestones was because folks on the Expedition topic reported ply separation on Expeditions (not tread, but internal to the tire) which can be just as deadly as separating treads. We can only hope this latest Explorer fiasco causes Firestone to finally close its doors. It won't be too soon.
I totally agree that ALL vehicles have problems. My '95 Tacoma had MAJOR problems and my '99 Tacoma had a bad power steering leak. Sure, I expect a couple of problems with our new Expedition. I'd be a fool to expect a problem-free vehicle. OTOH, since the Expedition has been around for five years, I expect that lots of the early, chronic problems have been dealt with. We'll see.
I also agree that most buyers love the visibility of riding "up there". Women especially. One purchase factor I forgot to mention in my previous post is SAFETY! There's a valid perception that the bigger the vehicle you drive, the better chance you have of not being injured in a collision. However, they usually ignore the increased possibility of rollovers (I'm a safe driver!).
Look around as you drive. Here in Denver, the majority of huge SUVs and lots of big pickups are driven by women. The bigger, the better. Tacomas and Rangers are usually driven by men.