Comments: 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61
A good friend of mine told me about this site while I was visiting him and let me check it out for myself. I have to say I've never seen so much unfounded and unwarranted claims about any vehicle in my life. After reading these comments I wouldn't even look at a Tacoma. One comment after another offers facts, owner testimonies, and clear evidence to support the reliability and quality of the Ranger while all the Toyota owners do is rant and rave, make untrue statements, and insult everyone. If this is all Toyota owners can do, I'm convinced that my next truck will be a Ranger. The kind of attitude shown here by Toyota owners just alienates people.
TO December 15 15:37:
You just gave a prime example of what the previous poster was talking about! There is absolutely no proof for anything you just said, only a bunch of assumptions that have no backing! And why won't any of the Toyota worshippers answer the question of if the Ranger is so unreliable, why do all the company fleets use them?
I think it's becoming increasingly obvious to everyone on here that these people are acting as if the 'almighty' Toyota is the second coming and is better than everything else... just because. They have no proof of this, just blind support for non-US companies.
By the way, I know at least two people who have Rangers that are reliable, but personally in the small truck segment, I think I like the Chevy Colorado and GMC Caynon better, simply because they have more horsepower and a more advanced body style.
Fleet says are based on the deal the company can get, not reliablility.
My family owns 3 companies that use Rangers. They use them because they are the most reliable small truck made, as well as being affordable. Maintenance on the Rangers is much less than on a comparable Toyota product. If companies deliberately bought unreliable vehicles they would NOT save money, so low purchase price is not the deciding factor with most companies. The biggest factor is the fact (and is a fact, regardless of ad hype to the contrary) that the Ranger will easily go 300,000 trouble free miles with only routine maintenance. Ranger is, and has been for years, recognized by Consumer Reports as being as reliable as the Tacoma. No sensible company owner is going to pay 5 grand more for something that offers no advantage in return. Most criticism of Rangers come from Toyota owners who are trying (in vain) to justify getting taken for full list on a mediocre vehicle.
Sorry, but that is simply not true. I see a lot of companies and municipalities running cars that are notoriously unreliable, including early model Ford Focuses. These cars are bought on what's cheap and what deal on maintenance they can get. Has really nothing to do with reliability.
The ridiculous argument that Ford products are not reliable is a myth that is about as fact-based as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I own my own small company and needed a reliable and inexpensive service vehicle. After talking with several people who used Rangers, all of whom assured me that they were the most trouble free small truck made, I purchased a 1993 Ranger XLT with the 4-cylinder and 5-speed. Unlike the much more expensive Toyota and Nissan models, my Ranger came with a plush, carpeted interior (including upholstered door panels), Air, power steering and brakes, alloy wheels and a much smoother ride. I put the truck through some very rugged use until trading it in 2001. In 7 years the maintenance on the truck included oil changes, air filters, 1 set of tires and 1 battery. That's it...PERIOD. It never even required a brake job. How anyone could get a more reliable vehicle than that is beyond me. In addition, when I sold the truck the wholesaler who bought it gave me 38% of what I paid for it brand new. That is pretty good for a 7-year-old work truck. My current Ranger has yet to have a single problem of any kind either. Like comment 20:28 says, I think most people bashing the Ranger are simply upset that they were taken in by ad hype and paid too much for their trucks.
Where are all the Hyundai fleet cars or better yet a municipality that bought Yugos in the past?
Isn't it ironic that someone would poke fun at Hyundai? Just goes to show how illiterate many people are about cars. Hyundai not only has a higher satisfaction rating than Toyota, and a better warranty than Toyota, but also beat out the over rated Camry in a Comparison done by Car and Driver. In fact EVERYTHING beat out the Camry. It came in DEAD LAST!!
No company buys unreliable vehicles because they are cheaper. That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. I own a company and I use Rangers because they are the most reliable small truck made. Not only are they inexpensive to purchase, but maintenance is much less expensive too. If paying 5 grand less and driving a vehicle 200,000 miles with virtually zero repair cost is not good business I don't know what is. I've researched small trucks and every single reputable source rates the overall reliability of the Ranger as equal to or better than any other small truck made.
You can think it's stupid all you want, but the REALITY (you know, the REAL world) is that companies do NOT take into consideration reliability and only consider price.
I just need to drive around any office park around here to prove my point.
That's ridiculous. Of course a company buying fleet vehicles would consider reliability. Though they weigh it against the price tag of a vehicle, it is definitely a factor. Otherwise you'd see a lot more stripped-down Kia Rios comprising many car fleets. No, it is more of a case that they buy a vehicle that has a good balance of reliability, but won't kill them in maintenance costs during ownership. Getting nickled and dimed to death would instantly defeat the idea of buying cheaper to save money.
It's futile to argue with Toyota fanatics. They can't be persuaded by facts. It's sort of like a cult. They go around chanting "Toyota is better... Toyota is better" and never look at the real world or offer anything beyond their own views to back up anything. I live in the real world, I drive Rangers, and I save a TRUCKLOAD of money. I could really care less if someone wants to follow a Japanese car religion. I just laugh all the way to the bank.
Once again, one swing through any given office parking lot and you're going to find many many many company cars on Consumer Reports' "Used Cars to Avoid".
But whatever floats your boat.
<<It's futile to argue with Toyota fanatics. They can't be persuaded by facts. It's sort of like a cult. They go around chanting "Toyota is better... Toyota is better" and never look at the real world or offer anything beyond their own views to back up anything. I live in the real world, I drive Rangers, and I save a TRUCKLOAD of money. I could really care less if someone wants to follow a Japanese car religion. I just laugh all the way to the bank.>>
I see, and I'm SURE you objectively looked at the foreign competition as well as all the American stuff and you were in no way biased by the fact that the Ford is "an American" car.
My family has owned Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans. None of them were any more reliable than our Ford Rangers, and all of them were much more expensive to maintain. Granted, the Toyota was the best, but it was no more reliable than the Rangers, and service on it was far more expensive. Overall the Rangers have been the best, most reliable vehicles we have ever owned. None of them (we've had 4) has ever had one single repair. I honestly don't know how you can possibly argue that you can get more reliable than that.