Author Topic: Pros and Cons - Ranger or Toyota (Read 7076 times)

Evoac05 · « **on:** May 31, 2016, 11:38:20 AM »

I am looking to buy a cheap (sub $2,000) truck that I'll use for hunting, trips to the dump, and picking up lumber/material for projects around the house. In my price range it looks like I'll be getting something from the 80's to the early 90's. I am looking around and found a couple trucks and was hoping to get some input. I found a 93 Ranger manual transmission with a 4.0 v6 4x4 and an 89 Toyota pickup manual transmission with a 3.0 v6 4x4. Are there any red flags right off the bat on these vehicles/engines? I am looking for either a Toyota pickup or Ranger and could use some help from people who own, have owned, or who works on them on a regular basis (mechanic). Anything I need to be aware of? Which model years to stay away from? Which engines to stay away from? Auto or manual, is one better than the other? Any tips would be great. Thanks!

jackmaster · « **Reply #1 on:** May 31, 2016, 11:45:47 AM »

I am a Toyota guy and all I can say is toyotas almost seem indestructible , you can lose a couple cylinders and still keep going..

Woodchuck · « **Reply #2 on:** May 31, 2016, 11:48:37 AM »

I usually say Toyota every time but those 3.0's like to eat some head gaskets...

jdb · « **Reply #3 on:** May 31, 2016, 11:57:57 AM »

We've had 4 of the 3.0 toyotas and n I t lost a head gasket yet but it is an issue for sure. I've never seen a ranger that the mpg was very good.

Bean Counter · « **Reply #4 on:** May 31, 2016, 12:04:41 PM »

I currently have two Toyotas in my household, with a combined mileage of half million miles.

I used to own an old Celica when I was in high school. It may have had the same motor as one of those old pick up trucks. The 22R. The 22re is also in a lot of the pick ups, but I don't know how it's different from the 22r that I had. Mine did blow the head gasket around 200,000 miles. It was pretty easy to replace with my uncle's help.

Fl0und3rz · « **Reply #5 on:** May 31, 2016, 12:05:45 PM »

It was an issue on the Toyotas, but I had 170K on my 1990, with the head gasket replaced around 100K, before I sold it.

I never understood the 3.0 hate, personally. It never left me stranded. It skipped a timing belt notch and still ran. Ran like crap, but it got me home.

But Toyotas seem to go for a premium over Rangers, for sure.

buglebrush · « **Reply #6 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:08:51 PM »

Have owned both, and vastly prefer the toyota. However, used Toyota's hold their value like crazy so if you are going to stay at 2,000 you are probably going to have to go ranger. The old Nissan's are awesome too.

Jonathan_S · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:13:17 PM »

The Toyota is a Pro

Ranger is a Con

Timberstalker · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:25:03 PM »

Quote from: Jonathan_S on May 31, 2016, 01:13:17 PM

The Toyota is a Pro

Ranger is a Con

blackveltbowhunter · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:26:58 PM »

Milieage? If similar, im gonna go out on a limb and say the yota is a trouble motor. That said lotsa variables. The ranger is a good truck as well but no competition to the yota in longevity. IMO.

jackmaster · « **Reply #10 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:30:16 PM »

Also you can still get a crate motor for cheap for Yotas not sure about the Rangers !!

fish vacuum · « **Reply #11 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:32:11 PM »

I'm a Toyota guy but wouldn't buy one with a 3.0. On top of the head gasket issues, they don't produce much power for the amount of fuel they burn. And the 3.0 is a PITA to work on compared to the other Toyota engines.
In that price range I'd look for an 85 or later with the 4cyl as that's when they started with fuel injection. The 22r(re with fuel injection) didn't have a head gasket recall like the 3.0, but it can also have head gasket issued. But the 22r/e is much easier to repair.
If you can find one in your budget, the 2.7 is a great engine.
They came out in 95 or 96. Same power as the 3.0 with better mpg and fewer headaches.
An automatic transmission robs a lot of power from them all, so a manual tranny will give you the best bang for your buck.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Goldeneye · « **Reply #12 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:35:36 PM »

I know I am in the minority here. I have a Ranger. It has 180,000 miles on it and is still running strong. It has the 4.0 liter motor and a manual transmission. I had a Toyota before this truck. It was a good truck too. Just remember to change the oil on time and keep it in good running condition. Whatever you choose should be a good truck for you.

blackveltbowhunter · « **Reply #13 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:40:15 PM »

exactly. Thats a "not so desirable" yota and a good ranger. It sounds like either would serve you well, im a yota guy, but in this case it would boil down to mileage and individual history.

Bean Counter · « **Reply #14 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:40:22 PM »

My 22R was a 2.4L, so whatever this 3.0 is, we're obviously not talking about the same engine.

Fl0und3rz · « **Reply #15 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:42:13 PM »

I would give the 3.0 a look, in any event. You might pick up a better deal, just because there is so much negativity about them.

In manual trim, I got 15 mpg, uphill, downhill, highway, stop-no-go, loaded, unloaded, parked, etc. It just didn't seem to matter. It was pretty quiet idling around the mountain roads, too.

For a point of reference on reliability, I only had to have the timing belt replaced in the 10+ years that I owned it (did the water pump and thermostat while they were at it).

Other than that, it just got brakes, standard maintenance items like oil, air filter, plugs, wires, tires, grease, and blower motor resistor pack, carrier bearing, exhaust, torsion bar for incidental items. It was far and away the most economical vehicle I had ever owned, even with 15 mpg and the 3.slow.

Bean Counter · « **Reply #16 on:** May 31, 2016, 01:44:54 PM »

Now and then Consumer Reports does a used vehicle edition where they fill up several pages with a track record over the last 10-15 years. I think the Toyota 4Runners with a 4.0L also had problems.

fish vacuum · « **Reply #17 on:** May 31, 2016, 02:22:47 PM »

Toyota 4.0 is the most recent v6 that replaced the 3.4, which replaced the 3.0. Not gonna see a 4.0 in a Toyota for $2000.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Fl0und3rz · « **Reply #18 on:** May 31, 2016, 02:30:02 PM »

To be clear, that "89 Toyota pickup manual transmission with a 3.0 v6 4x4" has the 3.0 liter V6 (3VZE) that people say steer clear. I say give it a look. Prices may be depressed over a comparable 22RE 4 cylinder, because they get such a bad rap (partially justified). I'd buy another one, FWIW, after a good once over, of course.

Here is a good link for you on the 3VZE.

http://www.yotatech.com/f116/what-everyone-should-know-about-their-truck-3vze-187741/

Evoac05 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 31, 2016, 04:20:36 PM »

Thanks everyone for all the information. I am leaning more towards the Toyota, but wanted to hear what others said about the 3.0. I can find the 2.4 in my price range, but the truck isn't in the best shape(rust). I have found toyotas in my price range in good shape, but they are sporting a 3.0 unfortunately. With a Ranger, which engine is the better of the three and which one should I try to avoid (2.9 / 3.0 / 4.0)? Keep the info coming.

chester · « **Reply #20 on:** May 31, 2016, 05:08:19 PM »

Just avoid the ford all together and you'll be in good shape

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rainier10 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 31, 2016, 05:14:40 PM »

Ranger? I thought he was dead. Still too soon?

Carry on.

gasman · « **Reply #22 on:** May 31, 2016, 05:22:38 PM »

I vote Ranger

My son has a 97 that has 267k miles and I have an 89 that I use for a daily driver/ hunting rig. The OD reads 37k but I don't know of if it's turned once or twice in its life time

The 4.0L is a great motor in those things. Decent power and mileage, just wish mine had one

I got the 2.9L in mine.

fish vacuum · « **Reply #23 on:** May 31, 2016, 05:40:07 PM »

There's a bazillion Ford 4.0's on the road in rangers and explorers. Like everyone, I've known several people with them and don't recall hearing anything bad. The automatic trannies behind most of the 4.0's are probably more likely to fail than the motor.
I drove a ranger with a 3.0 once and it was way underpowered.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

BigGoonTuna · « **Reply #24 on:** June 07, 2016, 05:31:57 PM »

the ford 4.0 is a good engine, not the easiest to work on but i'd take one over a toyota 3.slow boat anchor any day.

the old toyotas are great trucks, but just gutless as hell. the tacomas are a big step up over the older trucks, stouter drivetrains and more comfortable. however good luck finding one in the $2000 range(hell, i just looked for old toyotas and there aren't many in that range, even old rust buckets).

Mudman · « **Reply #25 on:** June 07, 2016, 06:53:38 PM »

Manual trans first. 4 cylinder second. Either truck in this category. Next move to 4.0 ford. No 3.0 toys. Both are good trucks in the right configuration but yotas the best. Seen some 4 cyl manual trans rangers run and abused as hard or harder than toys. the 4.o ford is only v-6 I would look at but gas mpg isn't good.

Nmesub · « **Reply #26 on:** June 07, 2016, 06:59:21 PM »

Toyota all day. Own the 89 with 22re...indestructible. not going to win races but dont need to go fast on trails.

KFhunter · « **Reply #27 on:** June 07, 2016, 07:34:34 PM »

Quote from: buglebrush on May 31, 2016, 01:08:51 PM

Have owned both, and vastly prefer the toyota. However, used Toyota's hold their value like crazy so if you are going to stay at 2,000 you are probably going to have to go ranger. The old Nissan's are awesome too.

yup

$2000 will buy you more Ranger than Toyota

bentley30-06 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 07, 2016, 07:52:55 PM »

Toyota. My last yoga had 339xxx on it when I got rid of it

News:

Advertisement

Author Topic: Pros and Cons - Ranger or Toyota (Read 7076 times)

Advertisement

Quick Links

Recent Topics