2004 Toyota Tacoma SR5 V6 XTR Cab from North America - Comments

Its really funny.

My dad owned a 1989 ford ranger with a 2.9 leader engine auto transe. got the tranny replaced--but that was about it, and the ford logo is off the back--but, he sold it, and the guy who bought it stil drives it. I just talked to him, and bought the ranger.

The funny thing it, the ranger stil has 300000 + miles on it. Now my Dad or, grandpa, owned a 1984 nissan desil pickup. It was small--five geer manual with a 2.2n (?) engine in it. It has well over 500000 *yes you heard that right--500000) km on it. So, what's the comparison here?

Btw, you don't see these Nissan deesil pickups around much.

I'm now driving the Nissan, the ford is for winter use only since the Nissan doesn't have 4wd. (the ford has electronic four wheel drive and it stil works!).

Talk about maintaining the vehicle, eh? How much maintinance did the ranger need? none. And the as for the nissan, I just replaced front shocks, breaks, and power steering and break fluid.

Please...

Every company has there lemmons, although american cars most likely have more (just look at the american made car reviews on here, in general). But look at this comparison, stop picking on the toyota tacoma (500 HP, unless you own a gass station, who wants a truck like that?)

I'm a kid in high school. Why do I need a huge v8 engine in my truck? I don't. Exactly. Compact trucks are nice, and if you're a guy like me who just wants a half decent vehicle, this is the one for you. And my Dad owns a 2000 Tacoma and it gets around 24 MPG on highway, with a 6 cyl engine.

I love my Nissan and Ford to death, and if one dies I'd probably look at another one if I could find it.

Everyones driving habits and needs differ and to base what you really need or expect from how many dots are in a consumer magazine and then say you have the solution for everyone is expecting a bit much. Personally I keep a car/truck until the warranty is up and buy another. And you can overmaintain any vehicle and still wind up dropping money getting them fixed which has happened to me on pretty nice imports. Even if I have to spend a little extra and get the truck with the best comfort, shoulder room, features I really need, but would not appeal to you perhaps it's a better solution for each individual. I would rather pay an extra thousand for example in repairs to have something less bland and that I can't wait to drive. I have nothing against Toyota, but I look at everything and have gone with many different brands. Being biased to one model limits whats out there. Your vehicle may fail tommorow which happens and you may see where I am coming from. The magazine in your lap helps, but don't live by it.

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".

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.

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.

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!!

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.

I won't let my wife drive anything with lots of miles either because I don't want her having problems. Once her GMC hits 200,000 miles it gets sold or traded. Up til then it's just getting broken in good.

In respect to the Ranger Versus Tacoma argument, I have the real life ability to say that at least in terms of longevity, both are pretty similiar. My brother has a 95' 4 cylinder Ranger with around 180k. So far, it has only had minor problems mainly with brakes that constantly wear out. He mistreats the truck, never changes the oil or much of anything else and somehow it still runs.

I have a 96' Tacoma with almost 200k on it. Just like the Ranger, I've hardlt had any problems with it except for a bad fan clutch and normal maintenence stuff like belts, wires, brakes, etc. I drive it hard too, but take better care of it than my brother does his Ranger. I'd say it is good for another 100k because the truck still looks and drives like new in and out.

The diffrence in the two is the mechanical layout. I work on both of these vehicles and to say the least- the Ranger is a royal pain to work on. Just changing spark plugs takes a good day because for some reason, his 4 banger engine has 8 plugs- all located in difficult to reach areas whereas mine are simply all on top all in a row. The belts are a nightmare, and the brakes still use 1950's brakes that use pins. The wiring is a rat's nest, and parts are surprisingly expensive for a domestic truck, but perhaps not when you take into account the fact that the engine is actually made in Germany. To me it seems that Ford skimps a lot on the small details. Things that seem small, bbut add up. A lot of the hardware under the hood is painted versus anondized. Thus after 12 years, most of the bolts are rusted badly making it difficult to take apart. I've had to use gallons of WD-40 on his truck just to get it apart. Even the interior is cheap. We installed a stereo in it last summer and the door panels were held on with a couple if plastic brackets that snapped when it was pulled off, so I had to reattach the bottom with screws. That said, the body is heavier built than mine. The exterior paint has really held up well despite being black and very seldomly cleaned either. His truck is embaressingly slow though. I think it has 98 HP? So it just barely gets going on the freeway.

Mine on the other hand is lighter, has 127HP and really scoots. The engine is very easy to work on, has less messy wiring, and has almost everything situated in places that are easy to get at. Its like the engineers planned ahead so that mechanics would have an easier time. The machining quality of the parts in general is by far better than the ones that come off of the Ranger. There is a lot of attention to details. If you were to open the hoods of both our trucks and look at the engine, his looks like what you'd expect to see on a 12 year oldd truck- filthy, corroded, covered in oily grease and dirt, etc. Mine on the other hand looks like it did when it was new. No corrosion or grease because nothing leaks even with 200k on the engine. The hardware is all heavily anondized so things come apart easily even if they've never been touched. I can fix anything on my truck in about half of the time because for one thing, the engine is engineered with fewer parts and fewer bolts. The beauty of most toyota engines is the fact that they are so simple. I find this ironic because this mindset of engineering was exactly what Ford did with the model T; produce quality by continously simplifying the product. It seems that many domestic vehicles I see these days are overengineered, which means more potential for problems.

In the end, both of our vehicles have had long reliable lives. The difference is in the aging and and long term quality.

So Consumer Reports just makes stuff up and they are biased? Fine. Whatever you Ford fans want to believe.

Here are the facts: Ford Rangers have never been even close to Toyota trucks in reliability and build quality. Fine, they all get 300,000 miles. I can make up numbers also. I don't have to because I drive a Toyota.

I spent my late teens and twenties mostly camping and off-roading when I wasn't working. I have seen probably every make of truck there is off road at one time or another. NONE OF THEM held up half as well as the Toyotas. Ford, Dodge, Chevy, Nissan, whatever. NOBODY has ever made a truck that withstands abuse like a Toyota.

And when we were done off road, we hosed the mud off and went on long trips to see concerts, year after year. None of the Rangers were there, they were in the garage for suspension breakage, wheel bearing replacements, radiators gone bad, head gaskets, overheating; the list goes on.

The Toyotas, ALL of them, just kept going. We used to literally jump the damn things and they rarely broke. These are stock trucks I'm talking about. So, all of you Ranger owners, don't think that your truck can stand in the shadow of a Toyota truck, because it never could.

Great I ride mine to school and work commuting on the highways not in the creeks. I would rather have a nicer brand new street truck that rides better and has more in it. So I like Rangers and there are customers that you will never change their opinion/face up. In 300,000 miles you may or may not still be driving yours I will always have a nice new Ford again. I will never want a truck for that long maybe I would be bored as well. Quit picking on the domestics... they sell more every year anyway. At least I consider everything including Toyota and not be so biased.

I'm not biased, and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. If you want to drive a Ranger, or whatever, I don't care. I'm just stating the fact that Toyota makes the better truck. Ford has sold more trucks probably than Toyota. So what? More people drive Cavaliers than drive Ferrari's, so what is your point? You can keep buying new Ford's if you like and losing on the trade-in, always having a vehicle payment, but I would rather own a Tacoma, pay it off, and know that it will continue to ride well, run well, and be reliable long after I have paid it off, unlike any Ford.

I never drive any of my trucks over 100,000 miles, and considering that Ford's warranty is 100,000 miles and the Ranger doesn't even need a scheduled tune-up until 100,000 miles there is NOTHING to worry about. I've taken both my Ranger and GMC off roading a number of times in some very rugged country, and I have never had any suspension problems or any problems of any kind for that matter. Where people come up with these crazy ideas about American vehicles being unreliable is beyond me. I've never had any problems with any Ford, GM or Chrysler trucks in 100,000 miles, so why on Earth would I pay twice as much just for a name?

I'm seeing ads for the Tacoma AND the Tundra for less than a Ranger or F-150, so I guess maybe the business of Toyota "not having to discount" is just as much BS as the idea that they are "better quality". If they're so "superior", how come Ford's warranty is 100,000 miles and Toyota's is a mere 36,000?? Apparently Toyota doesn't have as much confidence in their vehicles as the folks who buy them.

I've never understood why folks like to brag about paying MORE for something. Smart people get the better value and don't worry about silly arguments over brand names.