Comments: 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61-75, 76-90, 91-105, 106-120, 121
You might want to unbolt and remove the bed off your truck a combined GM/Toyota venture. If GM ever merges with Toyota it might present an interesting dilemna for you someday. Personally I like GMs new 100,000 mile warranty and the vehicles are less. At least I examine and consider all makes every year and not camp out on the same site in which I already possess the same vehicle. I may buy a Toyota again,2 years later perhaps a Nissan, GMs full size is nice, Dodge Ram just to have something new and different. The warranty is the biggest factor in my buying decision next to cost.
For the record, I haven't owned just Toyota's. First car was an '80 Buick Century, great car that really took a beating. Next was a '79 Malibu, which I just sadly let go last year. Had an '87 Ranger, which was the biggest piece of junk ever to roll off of an assembly line anywhere in the universe, should have bought a bicycle instead, would have gotten further. Also had a '95 Dakota which ran up to 115,000 miles until someone totalled it by broadsiding me. That was an awesome truck which I'm sure had at least another 100,000 left it in. The Dodge and the Buick were very good; I think I owned the last model year that Chevy made anything noteworthy, and the Ford was a typical Ford; miserable piece of crap.
The 3 best though were Toyota's. I had a '95 Toyota truck, last year before they became Tacoma's. These trucks (1989 to 1995), are to this day the best trucks ever produced. Can't hurt them with a stick of dynamite. I also had a '93 Toyota Tercel, which was one of, if not THE best car ever made; just as unstoppable as the trucks, got 36-40 miles per gallon, and I'll probably get roasted for this, but was more fun to drive than anything else I've owned. I actually sold this one for the Ranger, which I'm still kicking myself for. I traded in the best for the worst. And now I have the '98 Tacoma, which is as good as the other 2 Toyota's, which is to say that it is perfect; no trouble at all. This is why I am such an avid Toyota driver now, I've owned 3 and could not have been more impressed with any of them. Ran flawlessly, all got good gas mileage, never a squeak or rattle. And if the GM/Toyota nightmare merger ever happens, I will be driving Honda's.
This is a 2004 review... yours is a 1998. I buy every couple years so 2004-present is relevant. As far as Honda I feel they were great through 2000. A reviewer looking at a 2004 would not realistically benefit from someone owning a 98 model. Same with the Ford Ranger... if you had a bad experience with an 80's version what relevance is that with an 07. You need to be on the 1998 Toyota review. Someone could be misled and go out and find your comments missing the mark. I had a new 1977 Toyota Celica GT for example and a great car one of my best ever... however my 1980 was a total lemon. One year even can have a new set of concerns or have the earlier problems corrected.
I find the idea of a GM takeover of Toyota a great idea. Then Toyota (which has the worst customer service of any auto manufacturer that sells cars in the U.S.) would be forced to provide good dealer service and offer a warranty comparable to American cars (100,000 miles). One has only to look at the incredible increase in the quality of both Mazda and Jaguar to witness the benefits of mergers with American auto manufacturers. Before Ford took over Jaguar, it was a joke as one of the most unreliable cars on the planet. Since Ford has taken it over, Jaguar has now become a world-class luxury car with the solid build quality that should be expected of such a car. The lowly Mazda pickup, once a rough-riding go-kart with seats that felt like a wooden picnic table (much like the Tacoma), has been transformed into a smooth riding and solid truck worthy of the name "truck". If GM should ever take over Toyota (a wonderful thought indeed) I might at that point actually consider looking at a Tacoma or Tundra. As for Honda, I hate to be a party-pooper, but they don't make trucks. The ridiculous Ridgeline is not a truck. It is a Pilot SUV with the roof chopped off over the rear seats and a little tiny pickup bed stuck back there. Its high side panels and low ride height make it totally impractical as a truck. No real truck has FRONT WHEEL DRIVE. That is a ludicrous idea. Both VW and Dodge tried that idea in the past and it was a total flop.
I have never seen anyone bash GM or Ford so much. There is not one perfect car or truck I have ever owned many of which were imports and many domestic. However of those I still wish I had my 63 Split Vette, my 69SS Camaro, My 64 Impala SS convertible which are only crappy GM's in your opinion. I always had a pickup mostly GM, but I have had Rangers, one Toyota and even a VW pickup in my household at any given time. If you keep any of them long enough they need clutches, brakes, front end work etc the more miles you add and longer you keep them... all of them... including Toyota. As I get older I prefer to avoid mechanical headaches buy new, get a new vehicle warranty instead of freezing outside with my head under the hood in the winter or chasing down parts.
I must say, it took me 1/2 hr to read all the comments and had fun reading them. Some like fords, some like toyotas, it's like comparing blondes to brunets, they are all fun. I'll try to sum it up. Toyota makes great trucks for street / off road use, especially off road since they are lighter than others. And yes, they are made in America in freemont, ca. Now, as far as american ford or gm, you cannot beat power stroke diesel ford or duramex gm for hauling or towing, that's where toyota looses. That is why you see all the contractors using big fords and gm's. I heard lots of stories from owners of trucks and must say that toyta gets more praises than others. If you're in construction bussiness, buy heavy duty ford or gm, if not, I would prefer toyota. As far as where they are made so called american trucks, check under your hood and might be surprised, aside from some beeng built here, some are made in canada and mexico, I had an 1992 chevy which was built entirely in canada. BTW, I do own 2004 tacoma, v6, trd, sr5, 5 speed manual and love it. I get 18 miles on the hwy and 16 in city, that is not bad. It tows a boat with no problems. Despite what others said about quality of worksmanship, to me it is outstatding, exterior and interior, thay did pay attention to detail (exept location of the clock) everything fits perfectly. Some said that interior is made out of cheap plastic, I don't get it, what, ford or gm uses more expensive plastic? In conclusion, drive whatever you like, all trucks are exellent, maintain it right and you'll get lots of use out of all of them.
Did any of you see where Toyota is recalling 30,000 Scions due to an airbag problem? Boy, that is just what you want in your vehicle, a problem with the airbag.
Between the problem with the Highlander's sticking accelerator and the Scion's defective airbags, it sounds like Toyota is doing a great job at trying to help control the population explosion by eliminating many of it's customers!!
When we were looking at small trucks we looked at the Tacoma, but the salesman there had the same rude, arrogant manner as the salesman who has been posting comments on this site. It turned us off so much we decided that we'd buy something else. Rudeness and arrogance DON'T sell cars!!
Now that Toyotas are in the news almost weekly for some new (and MAJOR) safety recall, and the National Consumer's Union is rating Ford as more reliable than Toyota (at nearly HALF the cost) I guess rude Toyota salesmen won't have nearly as many customers to worry about offending with their arrogance.
I wanted to add a comment about some of the guys on here claiming they buy a vehicle every 100k or less. Your only reason is that you don't want to be driving a rusty, rattly old truck around?
First of all, who's to say that in 150,000, 200,000, or 300,000 miles, those cars will be rusty, faded, mechanically unsound, or rattly? That's 1970's logic. My 96 Tacoma has over 200k on it now and still looks and drives like new. So does my wife's 1990 Civic. So does my Brother's Avalon- all with more than 200k on the odometer.
Now let's do some basic economics... Let's say that you will automatically buy another car every 3 years, or about the time it takes to put 100k on the car. That's 20k every 3 years that you're spending just so that you can rid your fears of having a rusty, rattly old car. First of all, if your car is rusty, faded, and rattly at 100k, or even 200k, then you're abusing the car or giving it bad maintenance. Secondly, you're blowing 100k in 15 years for cars. Totally unnecessary. If I did that, I would be up to car No.4 now versus the one I've had for almost 12 years now.
You could have rebuilt and totally refurbished a car several times over on what you're spending on a shiny new American POS every 3 years. This stuff irratates me because this country is in serious debt and mainly because people are irrational with their money. It also means that if you subscribe to the " oh- it's old, so it must be worn out" camp, then you're acting like sheeple- just what all those companies WANT you to do. A car is just a machine. It doesn't care that it is 5 years old or 50 years old. If you take care of it, it will last for a very long time. It isn't just going to up and fall apart at some magical date or mileage milestone. Think. Thanks.
Or maybe people trade a car in every 3 to 4 years because the are sick of the same car/truck, have the means, and want something new? Not everyone who drives a new car is in debt to there eyeballs. You like to keep cars a long time, good for you.
<<You could have rebuilt and totally refurbished a car several times over on what you're spending on a shiny new American POS every 3 years. This stuff irratates me because this country is in serious debt and mainly because people are irrational with their money. It also means that if you subscribe to the " oh- it's old, so it must be worn out" camp, then you're acting like sheeple- just what all those companies WANT you to do. A car is just a machine. It doesn't care that it is 5 years old or 50 years old. If you take care of it, it will last for a very long time. It isn't just going to up and fall apart at some magical date or mileage milestone. Think. Thanks.>.
Your point may have been valid five or 10 years ago, but today cars are incredibly complex machines with endless computers and electronic stuff. And guess what? That stuff breaks down, and it IS expensive.
Anyone who keeps a modern car past its warranty is looking at big expenses one way or another.
Best thing to do is lease, and there is leasing for people who drive 35k a year.
I'm beginning to think that this is just 2 guys (A Ford & a Toyota owner) just arguing back and forth.
I have yet to convince my wife to drive a car 17 years old with 200,000 plus miles. I guess we could wear the same clothes, never take a vacation, never eat out etc. to economize as well. Not everyone wants to rely on old vehicles which are vital to make it to work eveyday. I would rather have my wife and young children commute in a newer vehicle without potentially leaving them stranded or worse. If you sell or trade a vehicle it is not throwing it away. You can keep a vehicle til it falls apart, but I find it depressing to remain driving a faded or rusted project vehicle.