Ranger or Tacoma

[Jason]

WHY THE F__K DO THESE ALWAY TURN INTO F__KIN" TOYOTA VS RANGER????

I vote we just have a perminate sticky for the toyota vs Ranger argument... which won't do any good anyway because I think we have gone through just about every point there is in the argument... I think the answer you are looking for is actually a question that you have to answerr for yourself... What do YOU want? They both have ups and down and if both maintained properly will last just as long if not longer then a helluva lot of other vehicles.

It happens because some members always start bashing Toyota using misinformation or straight up lack of real knowledge about the vehicles. Someone asked a serious question and obviously may not be as well informed on the differences and in order to have his question answered accurately the uninformed bashing needs to be addressed.

 

[TheBeast]

Well the kicker I think is, we haven't ever seen a ranger with a frame in two pieces. Taco's have a reputation for it. Thats not misinformation.

 

[Jason]

The misinformation is the why, and how common. There are a relatively small number of these trucks that were actually affected out of the ones sold. It has nothing to do with design. It was due to treating the steel that was done half-assed by an outside company. Plus no one wants to address that even on the rare chance you DID get a Tacoma with a frame problem, Toyota is taking care of those trucks in a very fair fashion.
Plus the comment on the seats? This dude obviously hasn't been in anything even close to a late model truck.

 

[daniel3507]

Plus the comment on the seats? This dude obviously hasn't been in anything even close to a late model truck.

Now there is some misinformation. How do you know that he hasn't? You can't tell me you know that for a fact.

 

[Jason]

Also. A 5 minute google adventure and here is a bunch of non-toyotas from the years that many of those Tacoma's were from.

http://forums.caranddriver.com/showthread.php?t=1624051
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Ford/Ranger/2000/body_paint/frame_rotting_and_cracking.shtml
http://boston.craigslist.org/sob/ctd/1589612470.html
http://www.fordforums.com/f279/ford-ranger-frame-changes-161216/

Anyone care to address why Ford hasn't said anything about this problem with late 90's Rangers?

 

[Jason]

Now there is some misinformation. How do you know that he hasn't? You can't tell me you know that for a fact.

His comment proves it to anyone that has.

 

[Jason]

I think the problem here is that I own BOTH and am actually impartial. I don't have a genetic predisposition to any carmaker. When I say anything that isn't bashing Toyota the panties get bunched around here.

 

[Jason]

I wanted a tacoma when i first started looking for a truck. The best i could find was a '94 with over 120,000 miles for $4000. You can find a similar ranger for half that. Sure I bought the cheapest one i could find and it died on me, but clearly maintenence was neglected on it. Im pretty sure it still had the original fuel filter and i know it had the original plugs and wires at 128,000 miles. And even though I have a dead cylinder it still starts and runs, heck id even say it starts better than my sisters neon in the cold. The damn thing refuses to completely die. i know my next truck is going to be a ranger

Since every hates me anyhow. Here is WHY the Tacoma's cost more. Which is why they are actually cheaper to own if you sell them or trade them in.

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/115535/article.html

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/116143/article.html

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Since every hates me anyhow. Here is WHY the Tacoma's cost more. Which is why they are actually cheaper to own if you sell them or trade them in.

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/115535/article.html

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/116143/article.html

Looks to me that combined with a lower price when new, and greater depreciation that the '06 Ranger is much cheaper as a used truck than a Taco. Personally I don't buy new and keep my vehicles close to forever, so resale doesn't really interest me a whole lot. For the people that buy new and trade off at a couple years old... then yeah it would save money, but for those of us that buy at a couple years old and sell at 15-20 years old... then there is not much of an advantage.

Also from replies in your links:

A search shows that Maine and several New England states are using magnesium chloride . Wikipedia has a note:
The use of this compound seems to show an improvement in driving conditions during and after freezing precipitation yet it seems to be negatively affecting electric utilities. Two main issues have been raised regarding the anti-icer magnesium chloride as it relates to electric utilities: contamination of insulators causing tracking and arcing across them, and corrosion of steel and aluminum poles and pole hardware.
If this chemical is causing problems with steel poles and such, I imagine this could cause vehicle problems also.

Purchased this vehicle from a private seller. Noticed rust on the frame but that is very common in the Northeast. Shocks needed replacing so the vehicle was put on a lift. It was then that a crack in the frame just in front of the driver side rear tire was discovered. Upon further checking a smaller crack was discovered on the passenger side same area. The frame is so rusted that a person can pull on it and actually move it. While tapping the frame with a hammer it went through in a couple of places. According to my mechanic there is no fix for this without replacing the whole frame and the vehicle is unsafe to drive.

1999 Ford Ranger 109Kmiles. Runs very good . Has frame rust. - $850 (Hyannis)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2010-02-07, 8:56AM EST
Reply to: see below

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This vehicle has a strong engine and transmission. However, it has rust on the frame in the back underneath the bed.

Please call 508-775-8307 10AM -6pm except sundays for more information or to see the vehicle. It is located in Hyannis, MA

I have never been around magnesium chloride but calcium cloride is very nasty stuff. It has been historically used as weight in tractor tires and has eaten one of the rims on my tractor almost in half due to a small leak, and it is happily eating away at the replacement rim for the moment (until I get rid of it once and for all when the weather clears) I have heard of it used as deicing too, which gives me the willies.

As for the cracks... who knows. If it was badly rusted it was compromised anyway. Then there was a late 90's 3.0 Ranger that came into the local dealership with a complaint of a lack of power. The tech walks out and tells them to lose the big Bobcat skidloader on the flatbed trailer (that was hooked up to the truck) and your problems will go with it. There are stupid people out there, and the one you posted with a cracked frame had just bought it... so who knows what it has been thru.

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

The thing that edmunds and all those other car review websites don't do when they're making their so-called "cost of ownership" comparisons is base them on a service life that matches what I expect from a truck. The longest one I've seen them do is 100,000 miles. That doesn't do me any good because I run my vehicles closer to 500,000 miles than 100,000 miles. When I'm done with a car, it gets crushed, not sold or traded.

I'd be willing to bet cash money that the cost of ownership for beating the piss out of a compact pickup for 300,000 miles / 25 years is going to far in favor of the Ranger over the Tacoma. It has to do with things like being able to go to the junkyard and find 10-20 perfect running Ranger engines for 100 bucks each. Same with the rest of the drive train. That's just something that Tacomas don't have going for them.

Also, I've yet to see a Tacoma take a pounding like I've seen Ranger's take. Stuff like pulling 5th wheel campers, pulling stuck 3/4 tons out of a mud hole, putting 4000 lbs in the bed, plowing snow for winters on end, etc... These are all things I've personally seen Rangers do without any ill effects. For a compact truck, they're rediculously strong and the competition, S10s, tacoma's, colorado's, etc, just don't have going for them. And YES, I've owned some of the competition.

 

[Mr99Ranger]

I realize that this guy wanted an honest, unbiased opinion. But if you're gonna ask about a toyota vs. a Ranger, why the hell would you do it on THE RANGER STATION to get an unbiased opinion. I mean c'mon, this is a forum for RBV owners and enthusiasts and it will always provide a somewhat biased opinion toward the ranger side. If I were him, I'd buy a ranger, but the truck he gets is his choice. If he wants to buy a toy truck for the price of a full size (toy=pun....haha!) and have the fact he didnt buy a ranger eat at him forever, then it's all good.

 

[akalogan]

You are all a bunch of wing nuts.

 

[totustuus]

Taco or Ranger

Yeah I get the point of this hardly being an unbiased place to ask about a Tacoma versus Ranger opinion. Never-the-less, you guys own Rangers so I figured that there would be at least some consensus on what years, engines etc are better.
In looking at some local craigs list ranger's, I'm finding very similar pricing over a wide variety of years...which is strange. Example-
1-99 Ranger, 3 liter, 5 speed, 4WD, 114k miles, body clean $2999

2-95 Ranger, 2.3 liter, 5 speed, 4WD, miles not specified, $2000

3-94 Ranger XLT, 4 liter, 5 speed, 4WD, miles 113k, $3900


So we've got a 5 year spread and the newest is not the most expensive. Confusing at best. So how does one sort this out and figure the best buy?

 

[Ozwynn]

I am not going to say Rangers suck (quit the opposite) but I have never had a catastrophic engine failure in a Toyota.... but I do know they happen.

if you are looking for a decent used truck then I would buy a Ranger from reputable Dealership that has roots in the community (this applies to any used car really) because you can get a newer ranger at 1/2 the cost......

If you are buying a new truck you plan on keeping for 10 - 15 years (as if anything manufactured now is going to last that long) then buy the Toyota and maintain it. I had a 2000 Tacoma and it had the worst seat i have ever sat in (excluding military vehicle), but I also got 24 mpg (I lived in AZ when I had it) and I had 60,000 miles on it in about 18 months and not 1 trip to the dealer except for my $10 oil changes and free detailing.

Again I am not bagging on the Ranger, it is a damn good little work horse and is only second to the Toyota.... a very close second.

BTW..... I hate the new Tacoma and the new Tundra ....... They are way too big and they are fugly.

 

[Mr99Ranger]

Yeah I get the point of this hardly being an unbiased place to ask about a Tacoma versus Ranger opinion. Never-the-less, you guys own Rangers so I figured that there would be at least some consensus on what years, engines etc are better.
In looking at some local craigs list ranger's, I'm finding very similar pricing over a wide variety of years...which is strange. Example-
1-99 Ranger, 3 liter, 5 speed, 4WD, 114k miles, body clean $2999

2-95 Ranger, 2.3 liter, 5 speed, 4WD, miles not specified, $2000

3-94 Ranger XLT, 4 liter, 5 speed, 4WD, miles 113k, $3900


So we've got a 5 year spread and the newest is not the most expensive. Confusing at best. So how does one sort this out and figure the best buy?

The 4 liter truck is most expensive because it is much more desirable than a 3 liter truck. If you bought a 3 liter, you might as well have bought a 4 cyl. In my opinion, the 4.0 liter is more than reliable enough, and is by far the best engine choice. Also the 94 has a ttb front end, which I vastly prefer to an ifs setup, even though I own one. So to answer your question, the 94 with the 4.0 is the best truck.