Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Ranger vs Toyota Tacoma - READ ONLY

401 messages,  Last post on Jan 07, 2003 at 6:34 AM

You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.

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? Ford Ranger, Toyota Tacoma, Jeep Liberty, Truck

Messages Page 2 of 41

#3 of 401 Well, very soon by midnight_stang

Oct 02, 2002 (4:56 pm)

I will be performing my own experiment. I will be purchasing a new vehicle in the early part of 2003. I own a 1993 Ranger with 141,000 miles on it, and it has been very reliable and trustworthy. I will be looking at various makes and models, but mostly compact trucks. I will be purchasing a truck that fits my needs, budget, and demands, and I am not limiting myself to Ford dealerships.
 
So we shall see what turns up as the best deal. The most truck for the least amount of money. I want a nice looking truck, with a good amount of features, plenty of power, a comfortable ride, and also somewhat economical in gas mileage and upkeep. Oh yeah, I don't give one hoot on off roading ability. Only time will tell what truck is the best for me...
 
Lariat, it mostly boiled down to an argument that was quite misunderstood and misrepresented. But I do believe the answer lies in the proof, of which proof was never provided, only insinuated by those who always seem to be the last one to post before one of these forums gets locked. They know who they are... I'm sorry they didn't get the chance to dig themselves deeper.

#4 of 401 by lariat1

Oct 02, 2002 (5:04 pm)

Up here in Alaska one of the best deals is the Mazda b4000 it is just like the ranger but can generally be had for 1k-2k less than a comparable ranger. The Tacomas are nice but we are trapped up here and the dealer has that "if you dont want to pay the sticker price then the next person will" attitude. The bad thing is that up here it is true. You can buy a Tundra SR5 for $2000 more than a Tacoma. I paid $500 less for my 01 ram quad slt 4x4 with the 5.9 than the Toyota dealer was willing sell me a Tacoma ex cab with the TuRD package.

#5 of 401 I hear ya by midnight_stang

Oct 02, 2002 (5:08 pm)

I live north of Dallas, Texas, and there are at least 10 Ford dealerships and 5 Toyota dealerships within an hour of travel. So there is quite alot of competition to help lower prices. I will be paying careful attention to sticker and invoice prices. I might even go full size if I can get a decent deal. About the only thing I really desire is a manual transmission, at least a v6, room for a motorcycle in the bed, and a truck payment under (or around) 350 bucks.

#6 of 401 by lariat1

Oct 02, 2002 (5:09 pm)

I was having fun for the first time in 3 years of reading edmunds in that forum. I understand what Pluto was saying but he only read what he wanted to and refused to believe that a V-6 can be balanced or that a V-6 is suitable in many applications that used to require V-8's years ago. Also it is hard to believe that he could not understand that being an owner of a V-6 himself.

#7 of 401 lariat1 by plutonious

Oct 02, 2002 (6:44 pm)

"a V-6 is suitable in many applications that used to require V-8's years ago."
 
>>I'm sorry, but that contradicts everything the Ranger crowd has been saying all along. Time and again, we've been told that the key to the Ranger's superiority is its displacement advantage over the Tacoma. Because, after all, "there's no replacement for displacement" and big cubes make big torque.
 
If that's the case, how can a small V6, no matter what its performance specs, replace a larger V8?
 
That's hard to believe being that you own a truck with a large V8 yourself.

#8 of 401 You take it out of context by midnight_stang

Oct 02, 2002 (9:04 pm)

V6's make the power a V8 once made, "years ago". What used to require a V8 can now be done with a modern V6.
 
There is no substitute for cubic inches, if what you want is Torque. Currently the leader in that category is the Dakota, or keeping within the scope of this forum, the Ranger has the most torque and the most horsepower. It appears in 2004 the Tacoma will be able to offer a new engine that will earn this accolade.
 
But if all you want is a little more zoom to your daily commute, then a V6 is perfectly fine, and much more economical than a V8.

#9 of 401 by 73cjdude

Oct 02, 2002 (9:15 pm)

Midnight_stang Perhaps rule #4 should be rule #1 ?
 
Lariat My brother has a 2001 B4000. He paid about $2000 less than I paid for my 2000 TuRD ! Thats in the Montery Bay area in Cali. The Mazda is a really nice truck.We go fishing/camping in the Sierra alot. The B4000 has gone everywhere we've ever asked it.

#10 of 401 wow..... by tbunder1

Oct 02, 2002 (10:29 pm)

alot happened tonight while i was out.
 
looks like pluto got another one locked up. sure would be nice if he would take his crap to another forum and spread it around.
 
anyways, im offering him a challenge that i know will go unheeded just like every other challenge ive offered him.
 
pluto- SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT MY V6 IS BETTER BALANCED THAN ANY V8. I WANT POST #'S AND QUOTES.
 
if you can do that, people will start respecting you around here. but until then, i hate to say it, but most everyone will consider you a liar and a fake, just as scorpio even did in the last forum. that was funny. even he saw through you bud.
 
another thing- either way, balanced or unbalanced, my little 3.7 still makes more power and torque than your puny 3.4. cubic inches don't matter if the engine is good enough to produce horsepower and torque numbers higher than even the larger engines it's up against. take the SOHC 4.0- it is an awesome engine. it makes a lot more torque than your little 3.4 as it should. but the 3.7 isn't that much larger than your 3.4, and it makes A LOT more power and torque than your 3.4 and more power and nearly as much torque as the SOHC 4.0. so this cubic inch thing you bring up is just another subject you clearly don't understand.
 
either way, im sure you'll take my words out of context and use them to your advantage. but if you do, make sure you give me credit mr. plagiarizer

#11 of 401 i dont recall..... by tbunder1

Oct 02, 2002 (11:47 pm)

my ranger's fender flares ever falling off.
or my power steering pump ever failing. or mailing other ranger owner's foam to put in their dashes because they rattle so bad that only home improvement warehouses are the solution. and how about this post from a tacoma owner, PLUTO- you may enjoy this one in particular.
 
569 of 577 Unbalanced 3.4 & "Clunk" by koko164 Sep 26, 2002 (07:29 pm)
Anyone else notice their 3.4 gets kinda rough
and loud around 2,800 to 3,200 rpm? Mine does
and I'll say I'm a little surprized by this
because my 3.0 in my Sienna is silky smooth from
idle to 5,000 rpm.
 
And on the axle wrap or whatever.. I notice that
if I throw my automatic into neutral just before
I come to a complete stop the "clunk" is completely
gone! Wouldn't the springs still wrap under braking
or is the tension relieved from being in neutral?
 
maybe those sludgy 3.0 engines are better than that "rough and clunky" 3.4.
my 3.7 is butter smooth- not to mention it has 210 horsies and 235 lb/ft of torque.
 
after perusing the tacoma problems board, these are the issues. oh, let's not forget those wonderful tokico shocks on the DC. brilliant toyota.
 
seems like the tacoma has some major problems. seat belts that aren't even tight after latched. leaky interiors, bad drivetrain characteristics, and now, obviously needed is a better balanced V6- eh plutonium? lmao
 
what happened to that toyota quality?

#12 of 401 tbunder by sc0rpi0

Oct 03, 2002 (7:11 am)

I don't recall my Tacoma fender flares ever falling off (20K miles now), nor my power steering pump ever failing, nor being mailed foam to put in the dash (which means I have no rattle).
My 3.4L does get louder around 4K rpms, but I'm fine with that, I'm not driving around in a van, it's a truck, for Christs' sake.
Maybe those sludged 3.0L aren't better.
Tohico shocks: well, lets see. You got extra 500 lbs of DoubleCab, putting stiffer shocks sounds like a sensible solution without having to revamp the suspension.
Again, your conclusion is wrong: Tacoma does not have some major problems. For every problem you post on the board, there's 10 trucks without that problem. Leaky interiors? Says who? When it rains in TX, it pours, and I am still to notice any water in my cab. Nra, OTOH, was not so lucky with (according to you) his suppositively leak-proof Ranger.
Problems happen. Why do you beat on the old issue of fender flares? It was fixed in 2002, 2002s don't have that problem anymore. Does that mean we can go back to teasing Ford for exploding rear diffs, repeated (I think this is 3rd year in a row) recalls for heater core failures, rattling timing chains, squeaking tailgates, leaking axle vents, etc? What happened to Ford quality? Since there are guys here who swear by their Rangers with 70K miles.....there's no way this all could be happening, is there? Not according to Billy Ford!
Btw: what seat belt issue?

Messages Page 2 of 41

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement