New posts

Small trucks

Feb. 26, 2013, 8:59 a.m.
Posts: 7657
Joined: Feb. 15, 2005

Funny thing…I was in the library the other day, and flipped through Lemonaide.

Seems that Taco's aren't recommended. In fact, they were listed as average and below average LOL

In fact - the only light truck that guy likes is the Nissan! My personal beef with Nissan's is the massive centre console. I had a 91 Pathfinder, and never like my legs being pinned together. I checked out a newer Frontier and same thing - massive centre console - no ball space.

My truck - the newest Canyon / Colorado (think updated S-10) wasn't even in his book!!!

Didn't see what he said about the Ranger / Mazda but anecdotally everyone I know who has one still does and they seem to go and go and go…

I have 21,474,850 rep points...

My blog - read it!

Feb. 26, 2013, 9:55 a.m.
Posts: 2516
Joined: July 29, 2003

My 98 Ranger XLT 4.0L was an absolute tank on gas, so for little trucks I'd say stay the hell away from a 4.0L aka the b4000.

yeah bro!!

Feb. 26, 2013, 10:27 a.m.
Posts: 3864
Joined: Sept. 12, 2003

I have had two rangers. The first was a 3.0 l manual, 4x4.. The clutch went at 330k.The transfer case went at about 225, but i was lack on the maintenance. Motor was still good at that point. I kicked the livin piss out of that truck. Shuttling, off road, working in the bush, fishing/hunting. It spent a large portion of its life in an Alberta winter too, which is unforgiving at times.
I now have a newer 4.0L , 4x4. They are both underwhelming in mileage and cargo hauling. Two dirt bikes is enough to flatten the leaf springs right out.
I had a zr2 GMC sonoma for quite a while too. The drive train and off road prowess were good on it. It had what i called weak rubber though. It seemed to eat seals of any kind. It sprung leaks on every system at one point. Not to the point of breaking down, but puddles and bills $$$ to get rid of them. Minor but in comparison the Rangers have been more reliable. The sonoma was a bit bigger, faster, more power, cargo, payload. The vortec was a very strong v6. The stock suspension was decent too.

WTF, Over?

Feb. 26, 2013, 11:05 a.m.
Posts: 2
Joined: Feb. 2, 2004

I'll second the Ranger. I have a 99 4x4 REGULAR cab. 3.0L v6. Awesome, except one thing. 1998,99 and 2000 had pulse vaccuum locking hubs which you should stay away from. I've replaced mine with manual hubs, but it was a bit of a pain. Tough truck. I have aired it, rolled it and smoked it into the ditch a few times and it's tough. Yeah, that's right, I've straight up launched that truck a couple of times and it just bounces. Regular cab is a bit of an inconvenience, space wise, but that's what rubbermaid bins are for. Also manual 5sp and limited slip. Keeping it forever.

Feb. 26, 2013, 4:42 p.m.
Posts: 341
Joined: Jan. 24, 2008

in '01 the Ranger got the upgraded SOHC 4.0L and the new 2.3L 4 cylinder. Both had more horses and slightly better gas vs the older engines. If you want tough and cheap it's hard to beat a Ranger. I did not have luck with my Sonoma. Really, really poor build quality.

I actually found my 02 4.0L Ranger had more power and better mileage than my 04 Tacoma. YMMV

Feb. 26, 2013, 5:04 p.m.
Posts: 844
Joined: April 19, 2003

I have had plenty of small trucks and I have to say I liked my 90 Ranger xcab 4x4 with the 2.9l v6 the best, it didn't have the most power but it did the trick with decent gas mileage. After that one all my little trucks had bigger motors so the power was increased but so did the fuel consumption and my Zr2 Sonoma was worse than my friends same era F150 and Chev 1500. Basically the little truck in your price range will have the same power and fuel consumption as a small v8 full sized but without all that annoying room. I think it might be easier to find a better shape full sized for the money as people out there believe little trucks are good on gas so they tend to stay away from the bigger trucks.

My two cents.

If you are still thinking of a little truck I would steer you towards the ranger and away from the Chev or Dodge.

I'm the best at being modest !

Feb. 26, 2013, 6:15 p.m.
Posts: 10010
Joined: March 11, 2003

The new Ranger. Contrary to xxxer's constant blabbering, it's coming..

Is there a Vancouver in Taiwan?! I had no idea!!

Nothing sums up my life's achievements like my stuffed corpse, suplexing a cougar.

Feb. 26, 2013, 6:38 p.m.
Posts: 3864
Joined: Sept. 12, 2003

Kokanee ranger? i think it is already in Europe. Or a version of it.

WTF, Over?

Feb. 26, 2013, 8:11 p.m.
Posts: 15837
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

Used 6' canopies are pretty easy to find for the ranger probably not so easy for the Canyon, no TB to change, no hubs to service, boring as hell to drive and cheap cheap cheap

I get around 25-27 mpg highway

The new Ranger. Contrary to xxxer's constant blabbering, it's coming..

so is santa

Feb. 26, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Posts: 14115
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

The new Ranger. Contrary to xxxer's constant blabbering, it's coming..

i fully suspect it will happy aswell.

Ford simply wont walk away from the potential sales, when i realizes not everyone wants a fullsize truck.

Feb. 26, 2013, 9:48 p.m.
Posts: 481
Joined: May 8, 2010

when ford decides to release a 4 cylinder extended cab small truck with decent power in north america it will take over….

Feb. 26, 2013, 10:48 p.m.
Posts: 1123
Joined: March 10, 2005

So it looks like there's a lot of love for Rangers here. That's what I was leaning towards anyways, looks like there are some great deals on 01-05 Rangers and it won't be too hard to find one with lowish km's. Does anyone have any idea at approximately how many km's you usually have to start dumping money into them?

I get out camping off the beaten track a bit but in reality I could get everywhere I'd need to go with 2wd. One of the reasons I want a truck is because I want to get a sled next winter… I know it's doable but would I be suffering much towing one with a 2wd, mainly on the Sea-to-Sky?

Feb. 27, 2013, 5:43 a.m.
Posts: 4084
Joined: Jan. 4, 2007

I had a 91 Ranger with 468xxx km on it and it never let me down. It had the 3.0L engine and it was great on gas. I bought a brand new Ranger in 09 and was sad to see they no longer offered the 3.0L. The 4.0L is not great on gas but it has tons of power.

is going big on a bike the only way to get you stoked on the sport? what happened to riding with your bros, travelling, and riding unique places, to get people stoked on riding?

fines are useless. there needs to be more punches to the throat.

Feb. 27, 2013, 5:51 a.m.
Posts: 614
Joined: Oct. 23, 2003

when did they stop making that TTB front end?

Ha Ha! Made you look.

Feb. 27, 2013, 7:11 a.m.
Posts: 15837
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

I had a 91 Ranger with 468xxx km on it and it never let me down. It had the 3.0L engine and it was great on gas. I bought a brand new Ranger in 09 and was sad to see they no longer offered the 3.0L. The 4.0L is not great on gas but it has tons of power.

200hp from a 4.0L is not tons cuz its old tech, the 3.7 in the F-150 makes [HTML_REMOVED]300hp from 3.7L, but its more than the 3.0, and that truck is gona last forever, I noticed the service interval is longer

I got the 2010 it was pretty stripped down but Ford was knocking 6600$ off the price … 19045$ for a 5 spd/ 4x4 with air/mags/hitch reciever I wish it had cruise but I don't cruise much anyway

google around "ford ranger" the peak in sales was 10-15yrs ago, production dropped year after year to where the sales figures were 1/4 of the peak, now if you were the CEO at Ford would you invest almost a billion getting a new small truck to the N.A. market when they aren't selling, or would ford not just try to flog f-150's … which is what they did?

Forum jump: