1st Dec 2006, 20:58

Well, here we go again. A Ford owner stating facts based on experience, a comment based on experience and factual data, and yet another mindless rant of "IT'S BETTER BECAUSE I SAY SO" from a Toyota owner. Nothing like objective data, huh?

2nd Dec 2006, 10:42

Sorry, but when a poster uses "Jesus Christ" as a discussion point the entire post is suspect.

2nd Dec 2006, 12:01

Rangers FLIMSY?? Oh, PLEASE!! If you have no valid facts to base a dislike of a vehicle on, please be courteous enough to not comment at all. 2 years ago I came upon a very serious accident involving a Ranger and a Toyota Camry. The driver of the Camry (who had veered into the path of the Ranger) was being airlifted by helicopter due to the severity of her injuries. Her car was hardly recognizable as a car. The Ranger had one broken headlight, a broken grill, and a slightly buckled hood. It could easily have been driven home (and most likely was). The driver was completely unhurt and was standing by the scene as the med crew moved the severely injured Toyota driver. Flimsy?? Obviously the commenter needs to do a bit of research. All Ford trucks, large and small, are much more ruggedly built to withstand crashes than any Import trucks on the market.

2nd Dec 2006, 17:23

Here's some objective data. In a study by CNN and Edmunds, the '06 Tacoma was just named "Best pickup truck"; it is also their top pick for "Best used truck to buy", every year from '99 to present. It is also in the top 10 trucks and SUV's to hold their residual value. The Ford Ranger was named #8 in a list of the 10 WORST. By the way, the Ranger does not appear anywhere on any of the "10 Best" lists in any category that I read. But, I suppose, in typical Ford-owner fashion, you will still claim that Rangers are the best truck just because YOU like them the best.

3rd Dec 2006, 13:45

If Toyotas are so safe, I wonder why studies show you are TWICE as likely to be killed in a crash in a Camry than in a comparable domestic car.

4th Dec 2006, 13:48

Camry's are great cars: this review is about Rangers. Rangers are not great trucks. Maybe some are, I don't know, but the few I've had contact with, as well as the one that I owned for a while were very problematic vehicles. I gave Ford a fair shake, and I kept mine until my patience and my wallet could take no more strain.

4th Dec 2006, 19:28

Is the Toyota poster reappearing again? I want to read about Rangers... My company has utilized them for years as delivery vehicles and for salesmen calling on job sites with great results.

4th Dec 2006, 21:48

To the commentor on 2nd Dec 2006, 17:23:

The primary reason that people are so seemingly hung up on resale value these days is because they are flipping vehicles at record pace. They buy something that they think is great and then get bored in a year or two, so having a good residual resale/trade in value is important. Fine. But it's a terrible habit to get into and this, does not, I repeat, does not, mean a car is worth less (not worthless).

A vehicle's value doesn't come from how much higher the bottom line is when you trade it in for your next one year-short-attention love affair. A vehicle's value comes from reliability and its ability to do the job and do it well. If this reviewer feels that his Ranger has done what it is supposed to do, and continues to, then it is no worse than a Tacoma that does the same thing and retains more of its value in the end.

Vehicles are for driving, not trading in. Kudos to this guy for keeping his attention span focused and keeping his vehicle too. There's nothing wrong with loyalty to a vehicle. After all, Toyota fanboys are pretty loyal about "their brand" and it'd be awfully hypocritical to give someone grief over something you do everytime someone talks about automotive ingenuity.

5th Dec 2006, 05:18

I flip properties and need to use trucks. Fix them up and sell. The money I make from this enables me to not lose on trade ins.

13th Dec 2006, 15:37

The Tacoma is a better truck than a Ranger in every way. It is illogical to buy a Ford Ranger when you could buy a Tacoma used, and it will still outlast and outperform the new Ranger.

Why? Because there is no comparison between a Toyota engine and a Ford engine. The Toyota engines are better every time, as is the rest of the truck.

I would gladly pay for a Tacoma with 70,000 miles on it rather than buy a new Ranger, because the Tacoma will still be running when the Ford goes to the junkyard.

And for every person here that writes in about the 300,000 miles their Ranger got, there are 30 Toyota truck owners that have gotten that much or more.

24th Dec 2006, 21:27

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.

24th Dec 2006, 22:06

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.

25th Dec 2006, 09:36

Fleet says are based on the deal the company can get, not reliablility.

1st Jan 2007, 20:28

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.