small pickups

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,340
Location
minneapolis mn
i am considering buying a chev S-10 pick up truck a 4 cyl, five speed or automatic, extended cab pick up for primarly city driving
its going to be loaded with tools and repair parts. now for larger loads and hauling big stuff i do have a larger work truck that i would use for that purpose. i am not stuck on gm's at all, and i will consider other brands. i am looking for suggestions and experiances others have had with small pickups.

thank you for your input!
Duane
 
Chevy S-10's are not a good bet, especially used. Do the research like I did and you will find they have a myriad of problems. The 4.3 is unimpressive in its fuel economy and dependability. I check out tons of pickups on dealer lots. The S-10 and the Blazer models based on the S-10 were really falling apart after 100K. Google S-10 reliablity and you'll find that many car site rate the S-10 and S-15 pickups as models to avoid. I am sure I will get flamed by a life long S-10 owner who has 500K on his, but for the most part, the trucks just don't last without a lot of nagging repairs.

I'd much rather have a Ford Ranger any day. The 3.0 and the 4.0 are pretty solid engines. Check out some of the items too look for though on the 3.0. My neighbor has an early 90's Ranger that is ugly as sin, but runs great with 285K on the clock.

Import pickups are hard to find in my neck of the woods, but I did finally find a Nissan hard body, which is what I was looking for in the first place. If you can find a mid to late 90's hard body in good shape, buy it. They are known to be pretty bulletproof pickups in either the 2.4 or the 3.0. When I was younger I had a 96 4x4 with the 2.4 4-cylinder and it was a great truck that I sold a 200k.

One of the best small trucks I ever had was an early 90's Mazda B2200. (not the Ranger clone one). That thing was bulletproof,and good on gas.

Around here, you can sometimes find Toyotas with the 22R engine, but they will often be quite rusty and have upwards of 250K on the clock. PM me if you need any advice.

The best thing to do is join forums like the Ranger Station, the Nissan forums, etc. and you will learn a lot of the trouble spots on every truck you are looking at.
 
have to say that I have a 98 S10 with the 4.3, and with the ZR2 kit, I still get 21 MPG highway, which was the old EPA number.

Ive had zero problems, the paint still looks new despite living outside all its life, and it drives and runs great.

Really can't complain. The garbage trucks you see on the lots are a function of the owner, not the truck.

JMH
 
i tend to agree with you Saturn fan as to the nissan's and the toyota's and to be honest if i had to go with a v-6 i think i would just go with a full sized pick up at that point, i tend to talk to folks at the gas stations, my current work truck gets filled up twice a week at over $4.00 a gal. its awful and yet for a heavy duty truck to get 11.5 to 11.8 mpg is awesome.

i am going to use this truck in my business so it has to be ok looking, and since i am going to use it for city driving, i live right in minneapolis, mn, i dont need high horse power or speed, learned to live with out both of those driving my isuzu npr (smiles)

of course what i want, or think i need, could be way different once put to use.

i just live about 90 miles west of you Saturn fan, and i dont see many nissons or toyotas

i used to have a ford aerostar cargo van that worked pretty good for me a number of years ago, sold it to a alarm company and they drove it till it had 255,000 on it.

but it never ever got over 20 mpg granted it was a v-6

and oh was i hard on it, thought i read in the owners manual that it could tow 6500 pounds so i rented a u haul trailer filled it to the brim with stuff for a job we had going three hundred miles away, well lets say it got me there but i did reread the manual!
 
thank you for the link simple gifts! it was a great read and i think i will take more time and look at the ford/mazda pick ups
 
I have owned two Rangers and I really can't say anything bad about them.

If you want a really durable, cheap to own, basic work truck, I would look at any 2.3L I4, 2.5L I4, or 3.0L V6 Ranger with the M5OD manual. You can't really top any of those engines or that transmission for reliability. The OHV 4.0L is pretty reliable too, though newer SOHC 4.0Ls have been known for timing chain noise and in a few cases overheating. 4.0Ls are also gas hogs.

As for transmissions, the M5OD manual is the best. Ford began using it in 1987, but there were other manuals in the lineup until 1991 or 1992. Any 1993 or newer truck with a manual will definitely have the M5OD. There are two small issues with the M5OD. The slave cylinder is located inside of the housing, so the whole transmission has to be dropped to replace it. Also, there are three rubber plugs on the shift rail that leak. Replacing them is easy and can be done without unbolting or moving anything. Aside from that, they are really good transmissions.

With automatics, 1995-current trucks are the best. The A4LD auto used before then was not very tough, but the 4R and 5R transmissions that replaced it are pretty good. The whole lineup got 5-speed autos in 2001, though 4.0L trucks had used a five speed auto since 1997. With regular maintenance, these are good transmissions. The one in my Explorer had 158,000 original miles on it when I got rid of it. It had never been rebuilt and it still shifted great. The truck did some towing too. The Explorer used the same 4R55E as 1995-1996 4.0L Rangers. All of the Ranger automatics are varients of each other, BTW. They started out as the C3 auto in 1974.

1983-1997 trucks use a Twin I Beam or Twin Traction Beam (4WD) front suspension. These suspensions are very strong, but they can be a challenge to align properly. They need to go to a good alignment shop if you want it done right. 1998-current trucks use a SLA fully independent front suspension. So far it has proven to be pretty durable, but if you want a REALLY strong front, go with the Twin I Beam.

There are no year models of Ranger to avoid. They have always been pretty tough. In your situation, I'd look for a 1995-current Ranger. They are more comfortable than the older models and come with more standard features. ABS has been used on Rangers since 1986, but on many trucks it is just for the rear brakes. 4 wheel ABS was available for a while, but it was not standard until 2001 or so. A driver's air bag was standard in 1995, but the passenger side air bag was an option until 1997. All 1997 and newer Rangers have dual air bags. 1998 and newer ones are pretty safe and consistently get four and five star crash test ratings.

My current Ranger has not done much work, but my 2001 Ranger did. It was a very basic 2.5L XL model. The only options were A/C and the heavy payload package. I had it loaded down with close to 1500 lbs. of QuikCrete once and it did just fine. It was my first truck too, so I gave it no mercy. Nothing ever went wrong with it. I had it until 93,000 miles and only the tailgate handle broke ($5 repair). My friend who works at a dealer looked the truck up on Ford's warranty database and the truck had never once had warranty work done. I got it just 12,000 miles after the warranty was up, so that probably means that the truck went 6 years and 93,000 miles with no repairs except a $5 tailgate handle. I sold that truck because of how bare bones it was. It was an awesome truck, but kind of "commercial grade" for a daily driver. My current Ranger has been great as well, but I don't beat the snot out of it like I did the old one.

PS - check out my post in the link a few posts back. I know I left some things out. I have been around these trucks a while, lol.
 
Last edited:
Problem with Ford rangers is the ac compressors,
It would not deter me from buying one.

I like Tacoma's but $$ and hard to find at a decent price used.
 
i am lucky that i can fix air conditioning problems myself, other than i would rather not spend the money if i dont have to.

what do you guys think of the dodge dakotas?
 
Dakotas have a size advantage on their competition, but you have to shop carefully. Earlier ones were known for having weak rear axles, and I am not sure when/if that changed. The 3.9L V6 is a durable engine, derived from the 5.2 V8. I don't know anything about the 2.5L I4. You definitely want to get the manual if you get a Dakota. 1990s Dodge autos are not known for reliability. Newer ones may be improved, but I don't know.
 
Quote:

i think i will take more time and look at the ford/mazda pick ups


I have a 2006 B2300; 30mpg with the 5-sp man.
 
Last edited:
Look at Rangers - I had a 1995 4.0L V6 five speed that did 120k trouble free miles, only developing weird electrical gremlins late in life. (Like I had to have the brights on to wash the windshield, radio wouldn't turn off, key beeper would beep with no key in the ignition, etc...) Only got rid of it as we needed a new family vehicle that could carry four adults, our 2.5 year old, all his baby paraphernalia, and tow both our utility trailers, one which is a double-axle 7,000 pound more/less job when loaded with my little Yanmar tractor. Got a smoking deal on a Tundra that is a very nice truck for our needs or I'd either still be driving it or another Ford product. It never left me stranded.

If you get the 5-speed, make sure it's not been used for towing. The tow rating on the 5-speed (unless it's been upgraded past '00 or so) is only around 1000/1200 pounds. It's really a car tranny, not a light truck tranny. Most people don't think that a V-6 Ranger would be that tow-rating limited, hook up far more trailer, and grenade the transmission. My father-in-law did exactly this with his 1993 3.0L V-6 Ranger. Even rebuilt, that tranny was *never* the same. Now, it did take him hauling a 3800 pound van from Alabama to Arizona and halfway back to let go in Central Texas, but still. That said, his 3.0L V-6 had like 250,000 miles on it and was still strong when it came out for a 302 V-8 swap. (Now that was a mean little truck!)

The 4.0L, even with the 5-speed is a gas-hog. I got 21 MPG on a good week. I get darn near 20 MPG out of my 5.7L Tundra CrewMax.

We've got a cheesy little low-bidder rubber floor mat no radio S-10 at work. It's the biggest piece of junk I've ever driven. (Okay, my '82 Pontiac J2000 station wagon was worse!) It's junk. We hate it with a passion and look forward to the day that it goes to wherever fleet vehicles go to die. The gas mileage is horrible on it too - maybe 22 MPG and it's got all of maybe 20 horsepower. The auto tranny in it is a brain dead nightmare that I shift manually to not get massive road rage in it.

My boss did have a 4.3L S-10 that was rather nice and trouble-free, except for three or four heater cores or evaporator cores.
 
I had two dakotas and they were great trucks.

The cheezy ones do have the 7.5" (?) rear axle. Okay behind the gutless 2.5 but whiney behind the 3.9 on my examples.

Oddly the magnum 3.9s from 92-93 had the most power due to bigger exhaust manifolds. One can do an oil change in half the time b/c each valve cover on the V6 has an oil fill hole! This is great for letting one's oil bottles drip dry over many minutes.

The pre-96 2.5 is the mopar one with a timing belt and a tendency to blow head gaskets. The post 96 is the AMC one that's 2/3 of a decent inline 6.

I like the way my dakota stood up to road salt. Granted it was a 2wd so it probably stayed parked, as a 2nd vehicle, during winter storms before I bought it.

I liked the height on my 2wd dakota: High enough but not menacingly high. One can still use the bed, lift stuff over the sides into it etc. Keeping a carlike height is a trait I look for.
 
I like the Dakotas, but if you are going with the 3.9, you might as well go with the 318 as the fuel economy of the 3.9 is bad. 14/18 for example for a 99' Dakota 5-speed 3.9L That being said, those old Dakotas can go a heck of a long time if maintained.
 
Great post 01rangerxl. This is a most detail and well written assessment of the Rangers.
thumbsup2.gif
 
Last edited:
Duane,

A quick search on Craig's list in Minneapolis turned up 34 Tacomas of all variations and price points. I had a 2000 Tacoma 4x4 with the 2.7 (handed down to me, Dad bought it new) and it was a great truck. Sold it in 2007 for 50% of its purchase price in 00' which was 23,000. The truck was sold outright to a dealer near my house and it didn't last 2 days on the lot.
 
A Ranger with the current 2.3L Mazda engine and 5-speed, 2wd is like a Civic or Corolla. Very dependable. Longbed is almost like a full size for capacity.

Easy to work on. Haul a lot. Great MPG.

I am planning on getting one, when I give my 95 2.3L (Ford engine) longbed to my parents when it hits 200k in two years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top