Small trucks: Which one is the best for light duty?

sonjaab

4 cyl, auto, a/c 29k miles. Never seen
shop except for oil changes !
Slow, but hauls the bass boat, watercraft,
many trips to Kingston Ont. home depot
to haul lumber, sheetrock, etc!
Can't beat that exchange rate and those
hard workin' long lastin' CHEVY TRUCKS !
good luck on this one now !.....geo

BTW: Rube where are ya !

twowheeler

I've got a '97 Nissan and it's been a trouble free truck. Sadly, its up for sale cuz I just bought a Tundra (I kringe at the thought of 48 months worth of truck payments I'll have to make). I'm the original owner of the Nissan and it's only got about 43,000 miles on it, in excel condition, with 10 months/17,000 miles left on the factory powertrain warranty. I'm in the Southern Cal. area. Anyone interested?

tbunder

1992 4.3 S10 pickup horsepower was 160
200 4.3 blazer/s10 horsepower was 190

1992 4.3 s10 pickup torque was 235
2000 4.3 blazer/s10 torque was 250

as i said, the older 4.3's were underpowered compared to the newer ('95 to current) vortecs. remember, that a new blazer is a lot heavier than an older '92 pickup and blazer. they were made a lot cheaper back then.

sc0rpi0

There were 2 breeds of 4.3L:
160hp one and 190hp one, designated as 4.3L and 4.3L HO (high output).

obyone

there was also the 4.3L SC that came with the Syclone and Typhoon. Underpowered they were not.......

tbunder

please get your info correct. yes, there were two breeds, but not available on s10. only in '97 were the two engines available in s10 and blazer. the 200 horse and 190 horse and 160 horse engines in '92 were only available in big trucks and astro vans and big vans. no engine option on s10.

it wasn't until '97 that the 190 horse 4.3 was available in s10 pickup.

http://carpoint.msn.com/Vip/Engines/Chevrolet/S10%20Blazer/1992.asp

obyone- hehe, yep the typhoon/whatever (yawn) were fast, but they weren't super-charged like you think, they had turbos bud. and yes, any turbo's engine will be faster than naturally aspirated. you just learning this? maybe gm knew their 4.3 was under-powered so they figured they'd offer something faster to those who knew this. and in '95, the standard and only engine in s10 pickup went to 155 horses. at least in '97 they got their crap straight.

rmyers76

160HP/235 torque is just fine for me in my 91 S10. With standard cab and 2wd, it pulls just about anything I need it to. The older S10s are good lil' trucks. I average 22mpg in summer with auto tranny and using reformulated gas.

I wouldn't touch one of the newer S10s (1994+)with all the problems I read and hear about from friends, mainly suspension, AC problems and general build quality. Hopefully GM steps up the quality with the Colorado or else I will be in a Tacoma or Ranger next.

tbunder

they're all the same. just different body. same chassis. and i can't imagine the old ones being better. they are so old. the '93 still looked like the first '82.

jim4444

Were the same except for the annual changes.

jim4444

He never said anything about no V6. The S10 sells so poorly its number 2 behind the Ranger, thats not a bad place to be but of course chevy would like to be #1.

And it was a major redesign including frame/chassis whatever you want to call it in 1994.

My S10 has never been in the shop so I dont know where you get this idea that they are in the shop every weekend........Oh wait mine must have been hand built by GM, thats it.

And for less than $16,000 loaded (1999 S10 2wd) I'd say its a very good truck.

eric2001

Why did JD Power give the award for highest initial quality in a small truck to the Sonoma? They are basically the same vehicle. What am I missing?

erkkila

What you're missing is the fact that the JD Power stats are completely meaningless. How is it possible that the sonoma rates so well when the s-10 doesn't, even though they come off the same production line?

sc0rpi0

I'm not sure, but didn't Sonoma get redesigned just recently? If so, automotive industry will try to promote new models by using the "It's the best thing since sliced bread" tactics. Trailblazer is on the best truck list (one of them), and we all heard about the problems it had. So for the most part, the fact that new models win awards means nothing. 99% of the time it's a marketing scam. When old models win some sort of an award, there's at least some meaning in that, because they have established a market.

eric2001

Not disagreeing about JD Powers.

As for the Sonoma VS. the S-10, that was my question!

tbunder

you should know the sonoma and s10 are identical. and that they are still the same since '94. a re-designed interior and front-end treatment in '98, but nothing much different since but new mirrors and skidplates. it was just their turn for the award.

sc0rpi0

Either way, those awards don't mean much.

tbunder

but they do when the tacoma wins them?

sc0rpi0

You yourself tried to pull the same "Ranger won JD Powers award more than Tacoma" few times in the past.
So don't try to discredit it: that door swings both ways. Bottom line is that "New truck of the year" award given out is worthless. JD Powers statistical data may have some real life to it, when older models are evaluated, more than a year old. I'd put the most faith into head-to-head tests like 4wheeler does. However, since ads in the magazine provide a reason for loser party to discredit the results, and without ads there'd be no such tests done, losers don't acknowledge the test data, and whole discussion becomes a moot point.
So, tbunder, do you have a better criteria for long-term evaluation of vehicles? Without the "Well, Ranger sold more units last year" nonsense, please.

kbtoys

I don't know that much about the typhoon but if it did have a turbo that was a smart move in making a fast street machine. Turbo vs Supercharger turbo's will when hands down on horsepower alone. I myself would rather have a supercharger in a truck but if I wanted a mean street machine you can't beat a turbo

tbunder

you're the one who was dis-crediting it by saying that only "all new" vehicles win it. i think you may be a little upset that tacoma didn't win this year, eh? beaten by an eight year old design. after all, some toyota owners are saying that since '95 the quality of their vehicles has gone down hill. maybe this is proven this year with toyota not winning any type of automotive awards, and the domestics dominating every coveted auto award. toyota couldn't even beat nissan for north american car of the year, and with THE CAMRY!

oh, my dad has an '88 ranger 4x4 2.3 liter with like 205K on it. all original. that's longevity. oh, minimal rust. same year toyota would be down to the frame in back.

oh, and ive never said that the ranger EVER won jd powers' awards. i said the nissan had, but not the ranger. stop making up stuff.

hillhound

Completely off subject but nonetheless quite interesting....here's your 2x2 motorcycle:

http://www.rokon.com/products/index.htm

For a measly $4 or $5 large, you can own an actual 2x2!! Plus, if you dismount, some of them float due to the large tires! These things can even be equipped with a PTO, brush mower and a plethora of light agri tools.

sc0rpi0

What I meant to say, and I think I did, was that when an award is given to a brand new vehicle, it's generally worthless. As an example: Trailblazer got the "best something of the year" award, and was stalling 6 month down the road. Awards like JD Powers usually make sense when at least 1-2 year old designs are compared.
When I was in San Antonio 3 weeks ago, one of the trucks in our party was ...88 or 83 Toy pickup truck, with its original engine. It had body damage from an accident, but it was a beater truck. So whats your point about your daddys old Ranger? We can keep on quoting "Oh, I know this friend of a friend of my sisters' boyfriend". Yeah, they can both last.
As for JD Powers and Ranger: Maybe it was NIssan. Sorry if Ranger never won one. You've been jumping from truck to truck arguying why each one is better than Tacoma so much now, it's hard to remember all the things you've said.

modvptnl

Didn't know they still made 'em!!! You didn't answer the ONE important question: Is the bed welded to the fender??? LOL!!!

hillhound

Bed welded to fender? Heck I'm still trying to figure out if it's pistons are forged or cast!! LOL! I think I'll send off for one just so I can tear it down and see!! Maybe when I'm done I'll give it to my pal 'Bama so he can test it's braking performance!!

modvptnl

Was looking through some ooooold magazines and found an ad for the Lexus LS400 (June '89 MOTOR TREND!!) It stated the LS 400 uses forged pistons. I know this means nothing 13 years later, but it could be filed in the useless trivia category.

Pretty sure whatever brakes the Rokon uses, they're not as good as toy brakes!!!

modvptnl

test where they compared a '98 toy prerunner, S10, Ranger and Dakota.

What was interesting was the order of finish was Dodge, Ranger, toy then S10.

The old Ranger push rod 4.0 was fastest empty by .2 seconds and second to the toy with 800 pounds by .2 seconds(so much for the torque theory) and the Ranger stopped the best. Guess them toy brakes are WEAK!!! LOL!!!

Funny how this test gets lost by the toy fanatics.

tbunder

where have i seen that post before?

sc0rpi0

Yeah, it is funny, because Prerunners don't even come with manual tranny. So 0-60 doesnt make sense, manual transmission will always beat auto in the same vehicle. As for braking distance....this isnt a Silverado vs. Tundra forum. Not as if everybody is claiming that Tacoma brakes are the best. Carpoint data shows that Ranger outstops Tacoma by 5 feet or so on average in V6 category.

modvptnl

No argument here on auto vs.stick........But they were all autos. I can't find gear ratio in the statistics (it may be in the text). The toy had much larger tires.

What I did find interesting is that the toy was only 40 pounds lighter than the Ranger and the Ranger was only $250 cheaper than the toy. The toy also had the highest payload. Sort of disputes a lot of the rantings that go on here. Of course Ford always has a rebate or financing or some other incentive.

The braking comment was based on OLD comments made by some toy fanatics(not scorpio) about how the toy is sooo much beefier and uses such better brakes than anyone etc.......

The only argument left is the never ending quality debate which will NEVER be settled. The trucks are and have been darn close through the years.

sc0rpi0

Hmm.....someone said Tacoma had beefier brakes? Interesting...maybe, maybe not. They work for me.

modvptnl

but there was a goofball called spoog who constantly made comments like the Ranger's brakes were off an Escort, the toy has gold plated electrical connections and aircraft hose lines etc....made blama look like a choir boy.

Quick observation/comment, if your brakes work for you, why can't the chevy people say the same???

bamatundra

Is not a "small truck", It is small in capabilities, reliability and quality. It does make a reasonably good minivan though. I just pity the people who bought it thinking that they would get a truck.

It is definitely good for either "no duty" or "light duty". The heaviest duty it can do is to be driven (or towed) to the repair shop.

I am glad that the unfortunate Chev owners finally realize this. Maybe the healing can now begin.

We can all get along. Chev owners Sing along: "Shake, Shake, Shake,.......Shake, Shake, Shake,.......Shakeraaaaaaadohhhhh!, Shakeeaaaadohhhhhhhh!"

This is sung along to the tune of "Shake your booty!"

sc0rpi0

I remember spoog.
I think with Silverado there's a whole new can of worms. And there's also a fine line between "it works for me" and "it's not gonna work for the car you drive over". Tacoma brakes don't suck, just compared to Ranger they are just a tad worse. They still saved me from bashing some guys rear bumper in last weekend (not to mention messing up my own front bumper). If brakes on Silverado are worst in its class, that pretty much puts Silv. into the longest stopping vehicle manufactured today, due to the size and weight.

eagle63

yeah it was spoog who talked endlessly about the tacoma's brakes. something about a 6-piston caliper...? I don't know. thankfully he's not here anymore. after test driving a couple of tacomas, though, I will vouch for the brakes. very responsive.

mrb11

Consumer reports (the most accurate reliability info.) just published their reliability ratings for all vehicles for model years 1994-2001. Most reliable small truck...Toyota Tacoma. Most reliable full size truck...Toyota Tundra (Tundra being full sized is debatable) Anyway, the point is all the reliability information published my Consumer Reports comes from just that....the consumer.
Matter of fact, the Japanese vehicles had the best reliability history for all classes of vehicles. I'm not pushing Japanese trucks. I own a full size H.D 3/4 ton Chevy. The Japanese trucks still don't have enough grunt under the hood.

quadrunner500

I disagree about Consumer Reports. Why would their dubious reliability information which comes from consumers loyal to the magazine, be more believable than information consumers provide to a branch of the federal government that maintains a defect/safety data base, or empowers safety recalls? The fact is, the NHTSA is receiving complaints about 2000-2002 Tundra from consumers at a rate per 1000 vehicles double G.M. or Ford. Each complaint must be accompanied by a VIN number. Can the same be said about Consumer Reports?

The fact is, the editors of Consumer Reports have a magazine to sell, even if they don't accept advertising. A consumer buys the magazine, buys the truck, and tells the magazine he likes what he buys. Upset that sequence buying outside the recommended list, risk not being a "smart shopper." It's a catch 22.

It's not that I accuse them of being dishonest. Consumer Reports is a victim of their own system. Consider, the umpteen-thousands of complaints about warping brake rotors, steering vibrations from warped rotors, and ask why there's not even an asterisk next to Tundra concerning these design flaws from Consumer Reports? The NHTSA data base is full of brake complaints. In fact, brakes are probably the number #1 complaint.

tbunder

agreed. i just looked at it today. they mention "ranger 4x4" only, they dont go into detail whether or not it's a 4.0 or 3.0, auto or manual, gear ratios, etc....all of those things matter. it's just a gross mis-statement about nothing. it means nothing. why would the sport-trac 2x2 be so troublesome? i mean, its an explorer with a bed and driveshaft. and they rank the 4x4 explorer very highly. its the same godaanmn vehicle. whatever......

modvptnl

I think In&Out burger has a 2X2.

mrb11

quadrunner500: Why would a subscriber to Consumers Report be embarassed to report an unreliable component on the annual input survey? I would think the consumer would be motivated to do so because Consumers recommended the vehicle. Besides, Consumers recommendation of a vehicle is heavily based on the vehicles reliability and that input comes from the Consumer. Consumers Report has been around for many, many years and they're not based in Japan. If they did not publish accurate information they would not have such a loyal subscriber base. Have you ever subscribed? If not you ought to try it. It could probably even make you too a better consumer.

mrb11

quadrunner500: I forgot to ask.......Isn't the NHTSA one of those all so honest American bureaucracies???

obyone

If they did not publish accurate information they would not have such a loyal subscriber base?

Does the Enquirer have a loyal subscriber base? How many years have they been around?

Isn't the NHTSA one of those all so honest American bureaucracies???

NHTSA reports on what is sent to them. They do not evaluate or substantiate the reports. If there are enough complaints on a particular item, they will investigate. I would take the info provided by the NHTSA over CR any day. If you asked me about the honesty of the FBI, CIA, DEA, IRS and other three letter abbreviated agencies, I would agree with you.

mrb11

So you think CR takes reliability data from its subscribers and does not report it accurately. What would the motive be? They not only report on vehicles but all kinds of products, durable goods and services. Are you saying that too is bogus info.?? I can't believe you don't want to take the word of your fellow consumer. Did CR say something negative about your truck that you don't agree with? Are you upset that CR recommends most Japanese vehicles??

plutonious

quadrunner500's words"

"The fact is, the NHTSA is receiving complaints about 2000-2002 Tundra from consumers at a rate per 1000 vehicles double G.M. or Ford."

Really? Care to speculate on how many GMC owners are pursuing buybacks, extended warranties and lemon-law rights in comparison to Toyota owners?

I'd like to see a link regarding these complaints and the NHTSA. Obviously, such complaints must be pretty miniscule when compared to Chevy's knocking engines, faulty ABS brakes, bad transmissins and self-destructing interiors - otherwise, there would be thousands and thousands of Tundra owners pursuing buybacks, extended warranties and lemon-law rights - like the Chevy boys.

obyone

This is the CR that recommended the Packard Bell computer. Was that recommended by mr. consumer? I may take their advice on a $15 electric can opener, but for $30k, no thanks.

I could really careless what make foreign or domestic that they recommend as it doesn't impact my decision to buy what I need versus what they recommend. We are in a global economy. As such what is a Japanese vehicle thats assembled by Americans?

sc0rpi0

Point of assembly does not have as much impact on the product as design does.
Japanese are known for designing quality products.

bamatundra

Consumer Reports panned your trucks. You bought them anyway. Oby's has been in the shop four months. Quad's truck was such a lemon that he unloaded it. Coincidence? Don't you guys learn from your mistakes? Don't you think that Consumer Reports knew something that you didn't?

Not like a rock, like a box of rocks!

quadrunner500

Car and Driver panned your truck too, but except for you, I can't see why anyone would care.

plutonious

Funny how the most vocal "characters" in the Toyota threads are 2 bonafide lemon GMC owners.

A better home for these two would be GMC lemon threads like http://agmlemon.freeservers.com

Be sure to check out the owner stories. They're a hoot!

mrb11

If CR recommended the Packard Bell computer, it came via the consumer.
Read these two words slowly...Consumer reports.
One more time...Consumer reports
So where do YOU get your reliability data prior to a vehicle purchase?
Or are the words "Ford tough" and "Like a Rock" enough for you??

obyone

There are many sources available on the net to get actual owner experiences with their vehicles. Edmunds, Tundrasolutions, Pacific Audio, pickuptrucks.com, and the list continues. In fact, these two posts from Toyota owners right here on Edmunds might be of interest to you:

#4416 of 4422 True, Toyota Dealers Are Near the Bottom... by jeffmust2 Mar 14, 2002 (06:40 pm)
in CU's new ratings, along with VW, Mazda, Nissan, and Mitsubishi - which appears to be in a (low) class all its own.

Even Hyundai (choke, choke) rates higher than Toyota and VW -- now that's gotta hurt!

Interesting that some of the highest-rated, reliable vehicle makers have dealer networks that are infamous, overall, for less-than-satisfactory treatment of their customers.

And, even worse, it's year-after-year so obviously they can get away with it and still make sufficient profits to survive. Perhaps the fact that the vehicles in question tend to sell themselves is the rationale for poor customer relations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4417 of 4422 JD Powers ratings, by john339 Mar 14, 2002 (07:31 pm)
I can see why Hyundai rated better than Toyota given the superior manner in which Hyundai treated Santa Fe owners when those vehicles had an engine problem.

The latest JD Power Customer Service Satisfaction Study, 2000, which evaluates customer's encounters with the "dealership’s service department and their warranty experience as well as their repair problems" ranks Toyota below average. Daewoo on the other hand rated significantly higher.

The 2001 JD Power Sales Satisfaction survey also rates Toyota below average.

And of course the BBB gave Toyota an "unsatisfactory business performance"

From the BBB: "Based on our standards, we rate this company as having an unsatisfactory business performance record. Complaints contain a pattern of allegations concerning warranty and repair issues...." LATimes 3/13/02

It sort of funny that both JD Power and the BBB focus on Toyota's performance regarding warranty and repair issues

BTW, you DO KNOW THAT not all data is retrieved from owner responses. That CR actually does its own testing. Course their methodology may not be the most scientific leaving one to wonder what exactly is their recommendation worth.

If I remember correctly, their recommendation of the Packard Bell had nothing to do with a poll. This was one of the few times that they did the actual testing to come to a determination of which computer was to be "recommended".