98 53k 4k ranger or 4.8k 99 118k tacoma

>>13932793

guys? :(

>>13932509

Obviously go with the ranger

>>13933461

why is the ranger and not the tacoma??

>>13932793
Either one and youll probably do ok. The tacomas a fucking rip off tho

>>13933943
54K miles that's low as fuck my 06 currently has 148000 it had 125000 when I bought it at 7gs

File: toybent_zps4e051b43.jpg (72KB, 500x666px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x666px

ranger, pic related

>>13933461
Less miles, less money, not TOO much difference in performance

>>13932793
Ranger.

My 2000 Ranger is going well with over 250k miles

>>13932793
>actually buying a ranger
They are turds. I've driven a ton of them.
Tacoma is way nicer and more reliable

>>13934290
Holy dicks, did rust eat away the frame or how does that happen?

>>13934290
Thats a Toyota

>>13934967
People over stressing the frame
/o/ will tell you its rust

>>13934935
>T. never driven a ranger

Go with the ranger OP.
I have one and its nice and gets the job done. Has over 214k miles with no major issues.
Only cost me 1300, though I talked the dude down from 2k.

>>13935008
>won't go into first gear
>clutch master is shit
>interior peels apart.
>auto trans blows up
>shit power
>shit load and towing
>shit 4x4
It's just shit

>>13935059
>No problems there
>Clutch is fine if you aren't terrible at manual
>Interior is fine in mine
>not buying the stick version
>expecting a small pickup to be a sports car
>buying a small pickup for towing shit
>offroading in a small pickup

Shit opinions mate.

Rangers make bitches drip themselves

>>13932793
4k is way too much for a 98 ranger regardless of miles. Try and get it for cheaper.