Last post on Oct 02, 2002 at 3:10 PM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Tacoma, Ford Ranger
Mar 05, 2002 (3:19 pm)
BAREBONES PRICES(IN DFW, TX):
Ford Ranger $12,940
Toyota Tacoma $12,435
Of course if you ever want any options, the Tacoma quickly rises in price. Might as well just open that checkbook up wide.
Oh yeah, for 2002, your clock now costs 82 bucks. Since you like percentages, why the 2.5% increase?
Just buy one from radio shack, $4.99. It even has a timer, but may not live up to Toyota Quality.
Compare FEB 2002 sales.
Ranger 2002 vs 2001
18,497 > 20,099 -8.0%
Tacoma 2002 vs 2001
11,079 > 12,039 -8.0% (mostly loss in 4x4 sales)
I thought Tacoma was know for it's high quality, and being the best 4x4?
Ranger might have to grow 50% to be were they were last year, (in reality it's only 13.5%), Tacoma will have to grow 50% in sales to equal the Ranger.
All this talk, and I thought no one cared about sales... If that was true, this would be a dead topic.
Mar 05, 2002 (3:36 pm)
nice, stang. good points.
#564 of 1840 stang, you said it yourself that one month is not really an indicator..
Mar 05, 2002 (3:58 pm)
so why are you quoting 1 month data? What happened in 2000 vs 2001?
As far as cheap: you are destroying whole tbunders arguement line from before about how overpriced Tacomas are.
Somehow I don't get a feeling that Toyota wants to beat Ranger in sales. They are taking it slow and easy, steadily up, and not having to fire 30,000 employees.
#565 of 1840 Make up your mind, Stang
Mar 05, 2002 (4:49 pm)
Are you guys gonna keep saying that the Ranger is so much cheaper or more expensive. How bout you pick one and stay with it. Can't be both buddy.
The only reason I even got into this sales argument is to show you how "dead" your side of the argument is. Im not the one quoting endless data. I simply gave an anwer for the reason why Rangers sells so many: more people wanna spend $13k on a truck than much more, and kick quality aside.
By the way, can you make up some numbers right quick on which manufacturer sells more trucks at that $12k price range. I wonder if my hunch is correct.
Mar 05, 2002 (5:16 pm)
I just saw some "bare bones" Rangers in the paper advertised for under $10,000. I haven't seen any Tacomas that cheap. I agree that the Ranger is a good truck but I think we can't deny that at least a portion of the Ranger sales are attributed to cheap prices like this.
#567 of 1840 stang....hang it up.
Mar 05, 2002 (9:42 pm)
it doesn't matter what you post, these guys just downplay everything. notice how they didn't comment on your little post where the tacoma 4x4's were down in sales.
and for whoever said that "if they wanted a nice truck, they'd buy a tacoma". what do you consider nice? a truck with less than 200 horsepower? a truck with a clock that costs over $80? what i call nice is maybe a 6 disc in-dash cd changer, 4-door cab, factory security system, step bars, blah blah blah. etc. if you want to compare niceties between tacoma and ranger, there is no comparison. everything on ranger is standard if you buy xlt. sr5 doesn't even include power windows. its all extra with toyota. here in iowa, they're advertising '02 ranger xlt 4.0 sc 4x4's for $17995. lets see, that's like $6000 or $7000 less than ANY trd tacoma.
id be willing to bet a lot that more 4x4 rangers are sold than 4x2's. i RARELY see anything other than a 4x4.
Mar 05, 2002 (11:09 pm)
You said it Tbunder !!! All of those Ranger owners that purchased their Ranger before 2001and have less than 200HP, i.e. cpousnr and approximately two thirds of the other Ranger owners that post here, don't have a NICE truck (at least by your definition in post #552). By the way, I think that includes stang too so you may want to apologize to him for your post.
Mar 05, 2002 (11:42 pm)
whats up bud. a little late to be up ain't it (for you)?
btw, no i do not consider a ranger older than '01 "buyable" for my tastes. but you also have to remember that the old 4.0 still had more torque than your 3.4 or whatever engine you have in your toy. the reason i say this is that i have been spoiled by the power of the SOHC 4.0. i had an explorer sport (1997) with this engine and my parents also have a '99 explorer sport with this engine. although the explorer powerplant feels a little more balsy than the ranger version (not by much), the power just can't be compared to anything in a small truck ive driven. my brother in law also had a '93 explorer sport (yep, at one point we had three sports in our family) with the old 4.0 in it, it just made noise and didn't go much of anywhere, but it did go 180K before he sold it. granted in '97, with the addition of the 5-spd. auto. tranny it made the old 4.0 pretty quick, but i would never buy any ford product with the old 4.0 in it. i just love the power of the SOHC. im not calling the older 4.0's junk, just not as powerful. and i doubt anyone who owns an old 4.0 would compare it to the new 4.0 for power. but remember, you still got more stuff standard on older rangers than you get with even new toyotas.
Mar 06, 2002 (7:11 am)
So what about Nissan then? How does that fit in your definition of a "nice" truck (considering you wanted to buy one, and was for a while trying to prove that it was also better than Taco).
As for downplaying: Heh, we are all masters of downplaying each others arguements. As for 4x4 sales decline? Hey, stang said himself that 1 month data didnt mean much, so why is he quoting it? Still, Tacoma had a sales growth in 2001, and thats important.
As for prices: 18K for a Ranger, and from what you said, sounds like 21K for Tacoma (I bought my TRD for 21K with everything I wanted (TRD, SR5, power. Don't believe me? Check the invoice price on 2002 4x4 V6 manual Taco with those packages).
With Ranger I'd have to start taking things OUT and selling them to get rid of all the junk I didnt want.
#571 of 1840 I'm the one who said
Mar 06, 2002 (10:39 am)
"If they wanted to buy a nice truck, they'd buy a Tacoma." By that I meant a truck that is built better, is more reliable, regardless of how many "niceties" come on it. With all honesty, I can think of about a dozen Ranger owners, who bought in the past couple of years, who said that they did recognize how much tighter and more well-made the Tacoma felt when they test drove it. They just didn't want to spend the extra money. So far that is, in fact, what I identify as you Ranger fans' best excuse: Is the extra quality worth the added expense? If it is, you spend the money on a truck that will last. If you just want to save a little money, sure, the Ranger is the truck for you. Just be sure that you'll have to live with lots of squeaks, recalls, and trips to the dealer. I don't. You know what? I'll concede this much: in alot of cases, the Ranger is the better "value." That DOES NOT make it the better truck.