Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





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

24567

Comments

  • ryanbabryanbab Posts: 7,240
    2x2 truck

    hmmm interesting
  • bamatundrabamatundra Posts: 1,583
    "So where else can you find a "no hauling truck"?

    Well - since your Lemonado has spent more than four months on the rack, I would have to say it more than qualifies. In fact - I would say that it is not suited for light duty since a truck has to be out of the shop to be worked. Maybe you could start charging the shop for storage?
  • I can tell you the gas millage for the 2002 Nissan Frontier and 2001 Toyota Tacoma in the 4 banger.

    Nissan Manual 22 city 25 highway
    Nissan Auto 20 city 23 highway

    Toyota manual 22 city 25 highway
    Toyota auto 21 city 23 highway

    Don't know what the Ranger/B2400 gets, but it is probably pretty close.

    As for the Isuzu, you probably would not want a first year model. Go over to the Rodeo posts and read about all the problems the Rodeo had when it was redesigned in 98 or 99.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Ugh......go and testdrive one instead. I almost bought a Rodeo Sport (aka Amigo). The Rodeo family has probably the softest shocks I've ever felt.....suv sways back and forth, up and down on the freeway. Simply horrible. Not the best vehicle for towing anything....if Silverado folks bash on Tundra for "having soft rear leafs", I'd like to see what they would say about Rodeo.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    Whats Mazda's warranty on B-series? And why isnt Ford doing it since B-trucks are Rangers with duct tape over the blue oval? Afraid that at their sales volume the warranty is really going to hurt the profit margins? Heh.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    mazda warrants their offering with a 3year/50,000 mile bumper to bumper plan. why don't you ask ford why they don't? this is a mazda truck, ford just builds it. but they aren't totally identical. if mazda's were actually obtainable, i may consider buying one if they come out with a crew cab for '03. that warranty rocks. no one else comes close to that, bumper to bumper anyway.

    ranger 2.3 for '02 gets 24/28 mpg.
    135 horsies and 150 lb/ft of torque i believe.

    2x2 truck- you all knew what i meant. 2x2, 4x2, it all means the same imo- 2-wheel drive. or, iow, absolutely useless where i'm from. :o)
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    bicycles anyway....hahaha!!! Guess that's why you bought a Tundra eh fella......

    natureboy

    Please disagree. I'm trying to follow you but of course your post doesn't say much.
  • what i did was get on kelly or edmunds and build the various trucks, (taco, s10, ranger, dakota)all automatic, 4x2 with the standard engine. Yes if you have anything like a serious gravel driveway or worse, 4x2 isn't a good choice. (maybe not base engine either!)
    After you build 'em on paper, decide whether you can get the options you want at your price. Alot of the time I couldn't. Then test drive.
    I decided on the basic toyota taco extra cab. Yes I know it won't get out of it's own way, but mileage is a factor. 80% of the time it will be empty, and 99% of the time on paved roads. but that 20% will need to carry up to half a ton of "stuff"; tired of dragging the seats out of the van, worried about scraping up the interio and vacuuming the carpet!!.
  • jim4444jim4444 Posts: 124
    Then you can see how they drive, what they look like, whats available on em etc.

    Everyone says stay away from the S10 and the aincient chassis from 1994.

    Stay away from the compact truck with the biggest V6 available. Can you say Torque?

    4 wheel ABS and dual airbags are standard and so is power steering. Posi is a great option!

    I use my truck much like you would use yours...back and forth to work and fill up the bed on weekends. I get over 20 mpg with @ 42,000 miles on my truck that I bought new.

    Forget light duty, the S10 can haul/tow the most as far as compact trucks go, as long as you get the V6.
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Posts: 172
    but s-10 has the WORST build quality of them all, and Chevy knows it- thats the main reason they're bringing out the nwe model in 2003 or so. besides that, its common knowledge that the 2.2 is a junky motor, and he didnt ask about the V-6s, so thats why i mentioned that. it is a strong v6 but do you really want to be in the dealer service place every weekend for everything else going wrong? i dont. besides that the mileage sucks.
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Posts: 172
    i have nothing against s-10s. i had one. i loved mine, but it was a v6 and a 1993, before they ruined them.
    all those features they list HAVE to be on there, because if not, no one would ever buy one. compared to dakota, ranger, frontier, tacoma, and mazda, they suck.
    they sell poorly and look awful unless you get the top of the line 4x4.
    i admit though, that i havent driven one much. most of my info is from people who own them. they sure look cheap inside and i dont think i could stomach paying MORE than a ranger for something LESS than a ranger.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    I used to own, prior to my Tacoma, a 1993 Chevy Blazer S10, 4x4 with auto and 4.3L V6. Biggest piece of junk. Every trip to a mechanic was $500 at least, and those trips were very frequent, probably 2-3 times in 6 month. By the time I sold it there was piston knocking from the engine, gas stink from the exaust, and (unverified) fuel injector leak, just to name the few problems. Sure, it had 190K highway miles on it, but it was biggest money drain in 14 months I've had it.
    As for 4.3L......yeah, it has 30 lbs more torque than my Taco. It's also a great gas hog.
  • ryanbabryanbab Posts: 7,240
    recent chevys

    87 blazer 2wd 2.7 V-6 130K no problems sold may of 2000 still on the road

    92 S-10 2wd over 105K. 4.3 V-6 great truck
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Posts: 172
    i think from our posts at Older S-10's, you know i am not anti-chevy. i am referring to the newer ones which are pieces of junk. the older ones like you're talking about are great. mine went 112k with no problems i know of.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    the "new", or '94 to current crop of S10's ARE your old S10s. the S10 riedes on the same ancient chassis that dates back to '82 i believe. they just added new sheet-metal in '94 with a new interior. and if anything, they made the 4.3 thousands of times better than any pre '94 offering. more power and more torque. ive had two ZR2 trucks, and they were both great. the '95 didn't like cold weather, but the '97 was as smooth as silk. the S10 is nice, but in terms of technology compared with a new ranger or tacoma, there is NO comparison at all. 4x4 or 2x4. and they are way too expensive.
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Posts: 172
    i know they are the same chassis but the interior has given way to cheap plastics, the 2.8 and 2.5 engines are gone, the sheetmetal of the years 91-93 was rust free, and it is gone as well. the affordable s-10's of those years have been replaced by the too-expensive-for-what-you-get versions of today. THAT is what i was referring to. the build quality has gone to hell as well, even by edmunds' admission.
  • mjbwrtrmjbwrtr Posts: 172
    i saw a mitsubishi mighty max the other day. anybody have experiences with them? i have heard they are reliable but they aroused my curiosity.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    to say the older versions of the s10 are better than the current is absurd. those were the biggest pieces around. boxy, under-powered, usual '80's styling up to '94. and you liked the old interior compared to today's? have you been in a new ZR2? they're darn nice my friend. by no means, cheap at all. and in case you haven't noticed, the days of anything affordable are gone. everything is high now and that's just the way it is.
  • ryanbabryanbab Posts: 7,240
    underpowered?

    My dads 92 4.3 seems to have more power than my moms 00 4.3 (blazer). I drive these once in awhile and i can tell a difference. The older one is better
  • usaf52usaf52 Posts: 70
    I don't think that the Max is made anymore. Believe the last year was about 1995
  • sonjaabsonjaab Posts: 1,057
    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 !
  • 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?
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    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.
  • sc0rpi0sc0rpi0 Posts: 897
    There were 2 breeds of 4.3L:
    160hp one and 190hp one, designated as 4.3L and 4.3L HO (high output).
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    there was also the 4.3L SC that came with the Syclone and Typhoon. Underpowered they were not.......
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    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.

  • rmyers76rmyers76 Posts: 34
    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.
  • tbundertbunder Posts: 580
    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.
  • jim4444jim4444 Posts: 124
    Were the same except for the annual changes.
  • jim4444jim4444 Posts: 124
    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.
This discussion has been closed.