You have saved this page | See all saved pages
Toyota Tacoma vs. Ford Ranger, Part XII - READ ONLY
1840 messages, Last post on Oct 02, 2002 at 4:10 PM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.- Your Host is kcram
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Javascript runtime error--TypeError: obj has no properties-- no stack trace file was written discussion.
What is this discussion about? Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger
#41 of 1840 heh by midnight_stang
Jan 14, 2002 (10:06 am)
"Look ma! I watch it on the boob tube, reckon it must be true!"It's funny how JD Powers used car vehicle choices, which looks at 1996 model vehicles, choose Tacoma AND Ranger as 2 of the 3 for compact Pickup. Also a 4Runner and an Explorer for SUV. Everyone (who doesn't own a Ford) thinks they are quality-less junk. But how come the Truck and SUV fleet is #1?
But just like some people's beloved off-road magazine reviews and editorials, it only becomes true gospel if you felt that way before being exposed to it. We are all awash with opinions, and they all must be valid and true, right? I mean Right!
Maybe it all depends on how you define quality. Like a 9 year old vehicle with over 135,000 miles, still getting sticker gas milage, with only a scant pittance of maintenance cost? I "got what I paid for" and more! I'm glad I bought a Ranger instead of a Taco. Have fun, and let us see how your truck holds up in the future...
#42 of 1840 Wow! by plutonious
Jan 14, 2002 (11:54 am)
Another anectodal tale of "I bought a Ranger, and it was great; therefore, any source saying otherwise is wrong!"Honestly, for every satisfied Ford customer like yourself, there seems to be a disgruntled one regretting his purchase due to quality issues. Recently, Ford has been recognized as Detroit's poorest quality/problem laiden manufacturer. I guess things like recalling 1.8 million Ford trucks and SUVs due to faulty lug nuts causing catastrophic wheel separation don't do much to bolster Ford's "Quality is job #1" slogan, now does it? Or how about the whole Explorer roll-over, Firestone tire fiasco?
You know, stang, it's all a big conspiracy against Ford - all these quality/satisfaction/resale value/4x4 reviews that consistently rank Toyota higher than Ford. How does one enlighten a conspiracy theorist like yourself with the truth? In your world, all the facts in Toyota's favor are just part of the conspiracy...
#43 of 1840 again..... by tbunder
Jan 14, 2002 (11:59 am)
ford trucks are #1 for 2001, and again we'll see who is #1 for 2002. anyone want to bet their tacoma that ford wont be #1 for '02? im taking names. maybe if i get enough of them, i can cash them in for a nickel a piece. hehe. joke guys. jk. :o)really guys, do you actually believe everything you see on tv? right now, ford is an easy target for the media. do you really rank their vehicles behind the other two american companies? that had to be the bonehead post of the week, and its only monday.
cnn says this.......so it must be true!!!wee hee
#44 of 1840 midnight_stang by allknowing
Jan 14, 2002 (12:06 pm)
Everyone that's not a Ford guy doesn't think that Fords are junk!! Ford has had some problems with certain models but the Ranger is not on that list and has a good reputation. Unfortunately for Ford, items like the tire situation went against them when it wasn't totally their fault. At least the company stood behind the product. I still personally prefer the Tacoma to the Ranger for my needs, however, the Ranger is certainly a good quality truck overall.#45 of 1840 One would say that is just as valid as... by midnight_stang
Jan 14, 2002 (12:48 pm)
"I bought a Tacoma, and it was great; therefore, any source saying otherwise is wrong!" You might as well insinuate the contrary, that all Rangers are crap. This is not so.Except, not only do I own one, driven one of a fleet of at least 15 Rangers at a previous occupation, and have known peers with early to late 90's Rangers, my base to judge such vehicles grows far beyond the scope of one vehicle.
I am simply laughing at others attempts to deny or misrepresent the quality and dependability of a Ranger.
I will concede that if you purchase a Tacoma, you are likely to have more trouble free miles with their long-lasting drive train.
I will also concede that I still believe a Ranger is a more cost effective purchase, given it's proven longevity, long list of standard options, and overall value (AKA bang for buck).
Heck, I'd probably buy a Tacoma if the seats were more comfortable, the cabin a bit larger, my head didn't barely touch the ceiling, or my legs feel so cramped against the no frills interior. I also want a V6 in a regular cab.
Call me Picky, or a conspiracy nut, which ever you prefer, but I prefer 40 extra bucks a month and a Ranger in my driveway. Sorry if that offends ya'll...
I guess the grass is always greener on your own side of the fence...
Allknowing--->I'm glad you think and said so! It goes without saying that it's easy to misunderstand each other based on ASCII text, but thank you for saying that.
And Dear Pluto--->It's 1.7 million recalled vehicles, of which not 100% were affected. Only 98 of these vehicles had any wheel separation accidents(0.0057%), of which who knows how many were attributed to the lug nuts. ZERO fatalities. It is still an error and should have been avoided, but not all were affected and Ford did the right thing by having it fixed at their expense.
Take 6 million Explorers, half with Firestones, half with Goodyear. (Figures are not approximations, they are extremely close estimates). 1183 Tire tread separations claims on Explorers with Firestones. 2 Tire tread separations claims on Explorers with Goodyears.
So it's all the Explorer's Fault, and thus Ford?
It is worthwhile to note Ford paid 3 BILLION DOLLARS to clean up the Firestone mess. Once again, Ford paid out big time for it's customers. The Firestone plant that was under investigation is no longer operating. Hmmm. Do the math.
#47 of 1840 For your enjoyment... by plutonious
Jan 14, 2002 (1:04 pm)
http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=37774
http:// www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/keepup/b04-383927.htm
Stang, in all honesty, you think Ford is great because they spent $3 billion cleaning up their Firestone tire fiasco? Did they really have a choice? Had they not fixed the problem, it would have been like committing business/sales suicide!
#48 of 1840 More proof re: Toyota quality..... by issisteelman
Jan 14, 2002 (1:19 pm)
Visit the following link to see that Toyota has MUCH better quality than Ford......
http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/keepup/b04-383927.htm
Once again, you cannot dispute hard facts! I'm glad I bought a Taco..........Steelman.
#49 of 1840 Good article! by plutonious
Jan 14, 2002 (1:31 pm)
I especially enjoyed this part, and I quote:"In J.D. Power's study of new vehicle initial quality, Toyota finished first once again among multi-brand automakers, followed by Honda and Nissan. GM came in a close fourth while Chrysler and Ford finished fifth and seventh, respectively."
You know, this is just adding fuel to stang's conspiracy theory...
Stang, just curious...how come Ford's awesome quality control didn't catch those Explorers' slashed tires immediately? Why did so many vehicles make it through the assembly line before - TA DAA!!! QUALITY CONTROL DISCOVERED THE SLASHED TIRES - that it cost $3 billion to fix the tires?
Does Ford even HAVE quality control?
#50 of 1840 3 billion is a low price to pay... by midnight_stang
Jan 14, 2002 (1:34 pm)
...to ensure your customers have safe tires on their SUV's.It was a bad situation, but the suppliers fault(Firestone). Would you think better of Ford, if Ford entered a legal blame game with Bridgstone/firestone to see who would pick up the tab, while the customers kept on driving?
Pluto--->Since you asked that exact same question before, I'll reply to that after I look up my old response in the previous forum(with the hyphen. ) That way I can just cut and paste it again, so you can bring it up again, in say, 2 or 3 months? Why don't you bring up the exploding Pinto's and the early mustangs that would spill fuel if rear ended, again? This is very repetitious, sort of like a broken record.
Steelman--->Yep, overall Toyota's definately do have less problems than Fords. However I do think the report is a bit broad, going off the makes alone . But I think we all know that the truck segment is a little closer than that report represents.
(Pluto Translation: Toyota Great, Ford not as great. Report very general. Ford truck better than Ford car. Toyota truck and Ford truck great competition. Many battle, Totanka!)
Advertisement
Most Popular in Forums
Search Forums
Enter Keyword(s):
Learn More, Do More
Edmunds Community
Advertisement