27th Sep 2006, 14:42

Exactly right. You can buy 1 or 2 Toyota's versus 3 Rangers. Enough said.

27th Sep 2006, 16:40

Why don't people just look at the available data?? Consumer reports shows the EXACT SAME reliability rating for both the Tacoma AND the RANGER!! Nuf said!! If you want to pay 7 grand for a name, have at it!!

28th Sep 2006, 10:06

I've never heard of anyone ever having to replace either an engine or a transmission in a Ranger. They just don't have problems. All we've ever had to do was brake jobs at 100,000 miles and timing belts (on the 2.3 liter engines) at 100,000 miles. Other than that, and oil changes, they'll easily go 300,000 miles + without any problems. If there is nothing to substantiate a claim it should not be posted.

28th Sep 2006, 15:23

You cannot beat a GM Silverado with a 100,000 mile mechanical warranty.

28th Sep 2006, 22:43

I paid 7 grand more because I have owned Rangers and I have owned Toyota trucks, I see how each performs and how each holds up under abuse. Toyota wins hands down.

29th Sep 2006, 17:28

I see my parking lot full with building contractors every day in all new domestic full size Ford, GM, Dodges. They are also towing large trailers, concrete mixers, air compressors etc. and are also loaded with crush, stone dust, sand etc.daily. Many of them are also very plush not beaters. Where are all the Toyotas, Nissans, Honda Ridgelines? I do not see the point of having a new truck if you cannot use it without fear of transporting heavy loads with heavy duty suspensions (frames) towing capabilities, power or even getting it dirty. I would drive a new luxury sedan with a trunk and not have a new truck.

30th Sep 2006, 22:36

Yes, the full size fords and dodges will haul more than a ridgeline or a tundra. Why stop there? Buy yourself a dumptruck, or better yet, an 18 wheeler, then you can haul anything. But for the average person, the Toyota or Honda is the much better choice, because they are much more reliable vehicles and will last much longer than the Ford, Chevy, or Dodge.

1st Oct 2006, 21:04

Honda doesn't even make trucks. The Ridgeline is basically the unreliable Pilot SUV with the roof chopped off and a truck bed put there. It couldn't haul anything more substantial than a set of golf clubs.

As for Toyota, even the highly biased car magazines rate them far below Ford, Dodge, or GM trucks for real-world use. Not even the Tundra (an F-150 wannabe) could hold up under the abuse most companies put their trucks through.

My dad retired from a company that used Ford, Chevy and Dodge trucks. If someone had suggested that they use a Toyota or Nissan, they would have fallen on the floor laughing.

2nd Oct 2006, 16:38

To 21:04; that's what I just said! If you are going to haul a bunch of heavy stuff, fine, buy a Ford. But you must be joking to say that a Chevy or Ford is as reliable as a Toyota; not even in the same ballpark. Also, I grew up in Pennsylvania winters, and nobody makes 4 wheel drive cars with low range, so I bought a Tacoma. I don't need a big, stupid looking Silverado with bad gas mileage, but I wanted a truck. And I DO haul with it, and it tows just fine. And I will still have it when the Chevy's and Ford's sitting new on the sales lots are being traded in because they keep breaking down and rattle, squeak, burn oil, and so forth.

3rd Oct 2006, 14:43

How something can be "more reliable" than vehicles that don't have any problems in 300,000 miles is beyond me.

3rd Oct 2006, 17:00

There is more room and comfort with the Nissan Frontier especially on a long trip. I do not like the Toyotas interior styling,room and ride.

3rd Oct 2006, 20:38

If Toyota comes out with a hot sports truck like Dodge, Ford or GM I will be first in line. There must be a big market 500 hp Dodge,345 HP Ford and GM both. I would like to see a Tacoma/Tundra with some engineering under the hood. Toyota came out with a twin turbo Supra what goes with the trucks? Driving is supposed to be fun not so spartan. I had a VW bug years ago it was always reliable and probably still runs, but I guess I expect a little bit more.

4th Oct 2006, 15:45

Really? I'm looking at Consumer Reports -- the Tacoma has two black dots (bad) while the Ranger gets 17! This is the same?

5th Oct 2006, 10:00

Toyota mechanical warranty = 60,000 miles

GM mechanical warranty = 100,000 miles

A lot more fun to drive, and if you have an issue, drive a loaner... GM sells many more per year.

5th Oct 2006, 22:28

Look at consumer reports again. Under "projected reliability" for the Tacoma the rating clearly states "average". Under "projected reliability" for Ranger the rating clearly states "average".

6th Oct 2006, 19:19

I think its selective reading ........ in the end no matter what truck I have ever bought never remains stock from the factory for long anyway... so how do you classify mine? Its not in a consumer magazine and its no longer applicable. You have to get in a vehicle and drive and like it. Then you may change to bigger wheels, tires, suspension, sound system, seats, boost hp etc til you make it your own. I have removed many brand new components then sold on line and used some of the money to upgrade. In a sense the reliability may lessen or increase, but in the end its what you like and continue to make it your own.

6th Oct 2006, 20:33

I think it's a problem with reading. The guy said he was looking at the "little black dots". I doubt he actually read it. I wouldn't pay any attention to Consumer Reports anyway, as they are HIGHLY BIASED against anything made by Americans. I can't believe they only gave the Tacoma an "average" rating, as they usually just give all Japanese cars "excellent" across the board without ever actually testing them. Of course the Ranger's should have been an "excellent", but they aren't about to give ANY product made in America a realistic rating.

7th Oct 2006, 19:47

Some years back my silly sister-in-law decided she just HAD to have a new Ford. We all told her how unreliable they were, but would she listen? NO. It was a FORD and that was that. Well, she found out just how right we were. At only 214,000 miles, a radiator hose burst. Then, at barely 260,000 miles the darned thing needed a muffler! Finally, at only 324,000 miles the unreliable piece of garbage needed its THIRD set of brake linings and the driver's seat was showing a worn spot!! That was the last straw. It was obviously nickle and diming her to death, so, after only 17 years she decided it had to go. I guess the silly woman will never learn. She went and bought ANOTHER FORD!!

8th Oct 2006, 06:36

Sounds like she had a great one and I do not blame her for wanting another Ford. Why would someone allow their wife to drive a vehicle 150,200 up to 300,000 miles? I would want her in something new and safe. I have had great luck by not going beyond 100,000 miles ever. I have had 2 Rangers that didn't fail were used mainly for fixing up the house. Crown Vics, Marquis a Lincoln my older son has had 3 Mustangs each time only to have something different not that they failed. My favorite he had was a 1995 GT Convertible with Cobra wheels, but he rarely keeps a vehicle 50,000 miles like myself. I would much rather have a loaded Ranger every 3 years than a basic Toyota for the same money. If I were a young kid maybe I wouldn't miss driving a well equipped vehicle but its nice to have a lot of nice options.