2nd Jan 2007, 14:12
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.
2nd Jan 2007, 17:09
Where are all the Hyundai fleet cars or better yet a municipality that bought Yugos in the past?
3rd Jan 2007, 19:10
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!!
3rd Jan 2007, 19:20
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.
3rd Jan 2007, 21:39
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.
4th Jan 2007, 09:54
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.
4th Jan 2007, 13:30
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.
4th Jan 2007, 13:47
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.
4th Jan 2007, 16:26
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.
5th Jan 2007, 16:32
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.
6th Jan 2007, 22:17
I think it would be GREAT if municipalities were to start using the Toyota Camry as police cars. Then they'd have a lot easier time catching the crooks, who would take one look at the new police cars and fall on the ground laughing.
6th Jan 2007, 22:22
Comment 21:39 is a bit strange. What does parking in an office park parking lot have to do with reliability?? At my office park there are cars ranging from a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow to a classic '58 Cadillac El Dorado coupe. Does that mean they become unreliable when parked at an office park??
7th Jan 2007, 08:52
Company cars are usually found... at the company. The poster's point was the company cars are only reliable ones, whereas you head to any office park, industrial area, wherever there are company cars and you'll find lots of unreliable cars.
7th Jan 2007, 08:54
Well, at least they would be using AMERICAN cars instead of the imported Crown Vics and others.
7th Jan 2007, 11:43
Of course a company considers reliability when making purchases. To think otherwise is ridiculous, because companies are not in the habit of throwing away money. A vehicle is merely a piece of equipment, and when it comes time to replace equipment the engineers perform a cost benefit analysis that takes into account the purchase price, maintenance costs, and expected service life of various competing options. It's the same whether you're buying a bulldozer, dragline, or fleet of service trucks. Reliability is very important because equipment makes (or fails to make) money for the company, so the company needs something with high availability. That is, it stays on the job performing its task instead of sitting in the shop. Any mining engineers out there know exactly what I'm talking about. Buying cheap junk just because it has a low up-front cost only cuts your own throat.
7th Jan 2007, 12:44
Guess that explains why so many American companies fail - they buy totally unreliable company cars.
If I ran a company I would only buy reliable cars, but that simply is not the case with the majority of companies out there. Once again, one drive past an office park with company cars in the lot proves my point.
2nd Jan 2007, 11:30
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.