Talk me out of getting a Ranger!

Ok so Toyota engineers just took a shot in the dark on one of their best selling/most reputable vehicles? Did they not extensively test it upon release? When is the magical time that all of these engine may see actual reliability problems. I understand the concept of heat cycles and time and their affect on engines. The heat cycles the FKS version is facing is hardly any different than any other 2GR engine out there. I understand being skeptical, but not being oblivious to the data already out there. Will you even keep your Tacoma that long to see if that’s the case, or will it be too much of a time bomb? There’s nothing that shows the Tacoma is unreliable at this point. Logic can go both ways.

In terms of your ongoing disk brake frustration. I knew plenty well what I was getting, and I guarantee my Tacomas have worked harder than the vast majority on the roads and in forum. Maybe I’m an outlier, but your statement is a bit loaded. I “settled” for the drums because they work and work well. I haven’t had to touch the drums on my last 2 Tacomas, of which I’ve put on over half a million miles. I also towed and hauled a good chunk of those miles and never had any issues with my braking. That’s not to say that I’m against disk brakes. I’m simply saying they aren’t a deal breaker or deal maker for me, and that they do perfectly fine. I don’t feel like I settled whatsoever, and most owners would likely say the same. My testimony of performance is enough for me to “settle”. I’m curious to see how many disk equipped ranger owners haul and tow on a consistent basis anyways. Hell I towed more cumulative weight over time in my old Subaru station wagon than many do in their 3/4 ton trucks. Toyota and ford know that most midsized owners won’t do much with their trucks anyways, but for those Tacoma owners who have, few have had issues or regret the drums. Toyota cheaped our on brakes. So be it. Doesn’t affect me or what I need my truck for.

I have no doubts about the crown Vic. It’s a great vehicle. But it also doesn’t go places I often need to go. So it’s really apples to oranges in that argument. Nor would a full size rig. I volunteer with local SAR and my truck has already been responsible for saving a woman’s life, by getting into areas a helo and ambulance could not, so that aid and transport could be provided. I also escort backpackers, hunters, and outdoorsmen into the backcountry when needed. I can’t do any of those things safely or reliably in a patrol car.

 

I've done the same. It depends on the options because it's almost impossible to option them out exactly the same. A Ranger optioned out to be as close to my Taco as possible is less than mine.

I agree. That and the undamped tailgate are big drawbacks for me.

You're right. I had to go the the Ford site to check. Apparently there just aren't any dealers that order the Raptor without the $10k 802A equipment package. Weird.

 

Every manufacturer does extensive testing on their trucks, but time only moves at one speed. I'm not saying, and I made this very clear, that the Tacoma is unreliable. All I said is that nobody knows because it hasn't endured the test of time.

You did settle, though. Drums are inferior. There is no argument. They may do what you ask of them. They may not have caused you any problems. They may work, but they don't work well. The fronts work well so you don't notice the rears not working well. I haven't towed anything significant with my taco yet, but when I moved from Cali to Nebraska, I'm glad my Exploder had disk brakes because I don't know that my Taco brakes would have enjoyed all the mountains with a 7000lb trailer. You know those runaway truck ramps? Those exist because drum brakes fail when they get hot. If over the road trucks didn't have engine braking, drums would not work on them, and they are trending toward disks due to the shortcomings of drums. The drums aren't a huge deal since the Tacoma is a light duty truck, but there is no excuse for it having drums. It's ridiculous.

I wasn't comparing the crown vic to the Taco. I was just using that as an example of a reliable Ford. I did take one Vic through a flood, though. That is until it got a big gulp of water and bent two rods. Oops. Like you, I was prompted to buy a truck for SAR after the flooding we had in Nebraska. I was too late to use it this time around, but the floods are the reason I'm not going to be without a truck ever again. It was killing me being unable to help the flood victims. Speaking of floods. Do you know what water does to drum brakes? Lol

 

I'm glad that this thread is still around, I hope to see it grow to page 500...

 

I'm 56 pages late to the party, but the gist I'm getting is we are all antagonizing the OP, yeah?

Don't be silly, get a Prius with a tow hitch and then post on here asking how to get more hp out of your vehicle. Then I'll be happy to help.

 

The OP started at least four threads on why he should be convinced to buy others trucks over the Taco...some after "declaring" the Tacoma the "winner."

 

I have been seeing a lot of Rangers lately. They look very ugly.

 

Uhg, lame. OP should have read the dozen or so threads on "why did you buy your truck?" already on this forum. Might have found what he was looking for. Sounds like we have another person who is incapable of thinking critically about their needs and lacks the ability to evaluate a vehicle's potential to satisfy them.

 

Many of those miles were towing through mountains. They still served me just fine. I know they’re inferior but the point is that they do the job I ask of them, over plenty of miles, with zero issues. Is it unacceptable to some? Yes. Me? Not so much.

I’m not doubting fords reliability on any front, especially with the crown Vic. To assume that I think all ford suck is a bit silly. I give credit where it’s due, and the crown Vic deserves lots of praise.

As for water and drum brakes, mine have seen enough over the years. Though I don’t go out of my way looking for water to go through. Ive still had no issues. For flooding in disaster response, I’d never risk using my personal vehicle, however mass flooding isn’t something I deal with in my region, and isn’t in realm of SAR that I deal with. Most of what I deal with involves on-call initial response, initial patient care, and comm establishment in the Arizona backcountry.

 

I assumed you were referring to the Ranger with this statement.

-------

Towing what and for how far? If you never plan to tow anything that will tax your brakes then that's fine, but even Toyota says that the drums are inadequate for towing. They give the excuse that it's ok because Tacoma owners don't tow very often, yet they put disks on everything else that is even less likely to ever tow anything at all. I just fail to see the logic in it. I don't plan on hauling 7000lbs half way across the country through the mountains again any time soon, but I'd like to know I could if I wanted to. I trust my Tacoma to do anything I currently ask of it, but I wouldn't attempt that. Not with drums. I'd be lucky to have any front brakes left after that trip if I had done it with rear drums.

I'm not planning to take my truck deep-water fording, but a lot of the roads got washed out so trucks and/or air boats were the only way to get supplies to a lot of stranded people. Maybe SAR wasn't the right term for my intended purpose. More like disaster relief. Even the air boats were unable to rescue some of the people so they ended up calling in some Blackhawks that happened to be in the area, so I doubt my Tacoma or a Ranger would've done the job. My Fusion was utterly useless in the relief efforts during and after the floods, which is what prompted my impulse buy on the Tacoma. Had I thought it through a bit more thoroughly I probably would have waited for better sales incentives on the Ranger. The higher payload and better power delivery would have been much more favorable in delivering supplies to towns that were cut off.

 

Mostly campers, pop ups, small contractor trailers, small cars on tow dollies, enclosed 6x 12 trailer. Depending on the situation, sometimes thousands of miles at a time, my longest tow trip being almost 3k miles with a little under 4K lbs. I’d never strive for much more weight than that especially through the mountains, but the Tacoma has served well for the range of weight i tow. Any more and more often, and I’d spring for a bigger truck.

In the case of the severe flooding there, I’d personally steer clear of trying to help, only because I’m not educated on the matter enough, and that it’s a good way to ruin a personal vehicle. I’d rather not hinder local relief efforts or the NG by potentially becoming a victim myself. Not to mention that it’s a quick and easy way to ruining vehicles, voiding warranties when issues arise from water damage, and insurance issues. Props to you though for lending a hand when needed.

 

People tend to be taken care of it they ruin their trucks while saving lives, and I'm not going to do anything that is likely to ruin my rig unless it's a matter of live or death. The aid I was hoping to offer would've been in coordination with the local relief efforts. I'm a police officer and a member of a veteran organization that was working with the Red Cross and NG to render aid. We had a handful personal trucks out hauling supplies where the 18 wheelers couldn't go due to the washed out roads. I was just disappointed with how limited my usefulness was due to my severe lack of off-road hauling capability. Like you said, I'd never recommend Joe Schmo go in and get themselves washed away just for the sake of playing in the water, but most of the relief personnel were local volunteers with little to no previous experience.

 

Maybe out of good spirit, causes, or donation, but there are very few cases where insurance actually will. That is why we have supplementary insurance as a volunteer SAR agency that covers our vehicles and selves if they have to be used. Something that would be good to look into if using your personal vehicle for organized relief/rescue efforts through local agencies or volunteer units. Most of the time, the localities or state will swallow the majority of the policy costs, knowing the funding is going to good cause. In our case, almost 70%, with the rest being covered through fundraising and donations.

 

That's what I was referring to. When disaster strikes, human nature prevails. Insurance can suck a fatty.

 

The 3.5l had seen extensive use in other Toyota/Lexus vehicles before it was incorporated into the Tacoma design. It might not be the best in terms of low-end torque, but it is very much a vetted and proven design at this point.

The other components on the Tacoma have seen changes, in some cases major changes. But the underlying design approach of the Tacoma (IFS, solid rear axle, body-on-frame) hasn't changed a whole lot. Generally speaking, Toyota only incorporates newer/improved design features into their 4x4's once they have been vetted and tested. Those aspects of the Tacoma that have seen major changes (high-strength steel frame, larger ring gear and beefier rear axle) are improvements over the previous gen's components....so I'm just not sure why you're doubtful about the 3rd gen's reliability. There has been very little change to the Tacoma's fundamental design, but those areas that have changed are for the better.

Bulletproof is a subjective term...of course I think all of Toyota's current 4x4 offerings are bulletproof, but you may not agree. I base that on long term reliability surveys from numerous sources and magazines...car compliants simply compiles complaints and NHTSA info...these are not per capita or percentage-based statistics. With that said, if you actually look through the NHTSA data for the Tacoma, you'll see that it has less recalls and TSB's than most of the other midsized trucks, again generally speaking.

Actually I disagree. Being adequate, but reliable, is exactly how Toyota has made a name for itself and stolen so much business from the domestic companies (especially in the crossover and sedan market segments). Think of the Prius or Camry or Rav4...are any of those vehicles the best in any particular category? No. But they perform their intended functions well enough and they are reliable...that's why people buy them. Similar argument for the Tacoma and Tundra. Neither truck is the "best-in-class" at any particular category. But they each provide adequate performance/capability and are extremely durable and reliable over the long term...that's why Toyota is still producing the Tundra at nearly max plant capacity even though the design is 10 years old at this point. A lot of people simply want vehicles that are good enough and last a long time...Toyota is happy to cater to that demand rather than engage in the d#$k-measuring contest with other OEM's over horsepower, towing bragging rights and ultra-luxury, tech-rich interiors.

When you get a chance, you need to actually look underneath a Tacoma and a Ranger or Colorado. My point is that even the base (non-offroad) Tacoma has more inherent offroad capability engineered into its design as compared to other midsized trucks: better approach/departure angles; better ground clearance; better shock placement; 2 piece drive shaft.

The underlying Tacoma design is geared towards offroading more so than the underlying Ranger or Colorado design. Even the Fx4 Ranger has quite limited articulation compared to the Tacoma:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9n31MZoqQw&t=760s

 

I already covered this in other posts. The 3.5 in the Tacoma, while being a member of a family of proven engines, is not the same. It has one major change that hasn't been time tested. I also made it very very clear that I DON'T doubt it's reliability. I merely stated that it hasen't proven itself over time. Read the rest of my posts after the ones you quoted for more details regarding that.

My Tacoma is every bit as "tech rich" as even the top end Ranger, minus power seats and remote start, plus power rear window. The reputation they have that Toyota thrives on is several decades old. I was true once upon a time, but car companies are so competitive now that anything other than the cheapest of the cheap throwaway cars is going to be pretty reliable. It's true that Toyota's reputation has somehow survived, despite plenty of lemons, but the other manufacturers have put a LOT of effort into changing the misconceived mindset that US car makers are sub-par in terms of reliability, and it shows. The Fusion and Focus are just as reliable as the Camry and Corolla. They both have a few bad years with numerous problems sprinkled in, but they are both very dependable. Toyota's reputation for reliability is well deserved, but is greatly exaggerated compared to other modern cars. Also, comparing Tundra sales to the big 3 is laughable. Most people buy the Tundra because it looks badass and has a big gnarly sounding V8. People buy a Prius because they're ecosnobs, and the Prius has it's own reputation that is completely separate from Toyota. Pruis drivers dont give a shit that it's a Toyota. They only care that it says "Prius." People buy the Rav4 because it looks more aggressive than most other crossovers.
Granted, I'm sure there are quite a few people that buy into the JD Power ratings... Lol Then again, those are the people that are probably gonna get a Ridgeline.

You're seriously grasping at straws. I already covered most of that in detail. The ground clearance and angles are negligible, and not all in favor of the Taco. Shock placement is moot unless you're getting into way way more extreme rock crawling than you should be in a factory truck, and it is again not that different between the two. The articulation is a result of a flexible frame vs a rigid frame, and again, is a non-factor for these trucks due to both having standard brake-lock diffs and optional e-lockers. The two piece driveshaft is not a trait of an off-roader. Personally, I'd much rather have a one piece.

IF, and that's a big if, the base 4x4 Tacoma is in fact geared more toward off roading than the base 4x4 Ranger, it is only by a marginal amount. That marginal amount can then be offset by adding the FX4 package which adds a full array of off road goodness. Then when you add a leveling kit (which every Ranger owner admittedly needs to do) you now have equal or greater ground clearance/angles. I can't comment on the 'Rado, but it the ZR2 is kinda pretty.

 

Again, not knocking the Taco. I just think it's funny that Taco sympathizers (read: fanboys) will nitpick little details that are marginally better, but will dismiss things that it lacks as "unnecessary." The Ranger has better gearing for off-road, Better visibility for off-road, and a significantly better power band for off-road, but because the Taco "will get the job done" that doesn't matter. The Tacoma has it shocks mounted slightly higher and more outward with a bendy frame, so it's practically a dedicated rock buggy. I mean, c'mon guys. Straw-man much?

Also not saying the Ranger is better off-road. Merely saying that they are both plenty capable, and I wouldn't hesitate to take either of them off road. I'd probably take the Taco in the rocks (especially the OR since I think the MTS is better for rocks) while I'd take the Ranger in the mud or trails since I wouldn't need to be in 4low to get the any of the electronic wizards to work.

 

I laughed out loud when you mentioned the fusion and focus being as reliable as the Camry and Corolla. The focus’ were plagued with transmission problems. There’s still an active lawsuit.
As for your Prius rant, I own one. I could give 2 shits about the planet. I do however enjoy the fact that I pay $40 in gas a month, that it’s an extremely reliable vehicle, and that I can do all of the maintenance by myself. More money for vacations, home repairs, booze, gun stuff, retirement, etc. The drivetrain is bulletproof and it’s become easily one of the most reliable and economical vehicles available in the past 2 decades. The car has saved me thousands of dollars over the years and gotten me around safely just fine for the past 80k miles. Majority of people I know who drive them do so for the economical reasons. Nor have I known any tundra owner buy one because of the size of engine. But nice assumptions buddy.

 

How much time did you spend in the Ranger? I had mine for a full weekend before opting to go with the Tacoma. I think one can say that the Ranger has objectively perkier acceleration (at the cost of engine noise), but fit and finish not close. Tacoma felt nice and tight while the Ranger rattled and bounced on the crap WI roads I tested her on. Ranger has some really odd things going on in the rear compartment as well.