|
Ramsus posted:20k miles on an 86 with a speedometer that only goes to 99k then rolls over. Sure... Yeah, in case my sarcasm didn't translate over the internet, I'll clarify that I was mostly joking. I do sorta like the idea of a diesel though due to their reputation for better mpg and slightly cheaper fuel. Unload My Head posted:Some quick thoughts on small trucks: Hey thanks, this is basically why I started the thread: to get general advise and info about the various possible options I have for small/midsize pickup trucks. And that last bit about the 4x4 bed is very relevant: I've been thinking a lot about how it'd be nice to have something with a decent amount of ground clearance but I hadn't thought about the havoc it'll wreak on my back and shoulders to have to lift my tool bags in and out of a tall truck bed daily.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
A bulkhead is a normal option in vans over here, it fixes both the issues you mention. You could always build one in from ply or sheet steel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Counterpoint: 4.0 Ranger may be uneconomical but it's a great engine otherwise. The 22re is a slow weak pig when doing anything other than hauling one mountain bike or a load of groceries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Unload My Head posted:Is it possible not to kill one should be the question. The 60 Series would like a word with you 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Tommychu posted:The 60 Series would like a word with you That's the ironic thing about it. GM had access to the engineering to make a good diesel, but they could never figure it out for their small engines. The 350 diesel was garbage, the 6.2L was garbage, and the 6.5 and 6.5T were barely passable. Then they just gave up and paid Isuzu to do it for them! Meanwhile their heavy engine division cranks out some of the longest-lasting stuff out there. Craziness. Spiffness posted:Counterpoint: 4.0 Ranger may be uneconomical but it's a great engine otherwise. I cannot disagree with you. A friend of mine has a 4.0 Ranger and I think it probably makes more power than my 5.0L F-150 did, but his best tank ever was 17mpg. The R-series motors alternate between being impressive and disappointing for me. I have seen them be gutless turds getting 18mpg, and I have seen them be peppy and getting close to 30mpg. The 2/3RZ is a much better motor, no doubt, but (at least around here) you can pick up a 2wd 22RE pickup for $1500 and it will be a solid and reliable choice. Re: diesel trucks: Make sure diesel is actually cheaper where you live. Where I'm at it's the same price as premium. Diesel trucks get about the same or a bit worse economy as a gasser when empty. Where they really shine is economy under load. There was less than 1mpg difference driving my old 6.9L Ford empty vs. with a 3-ton trailer behind it. If I had had the same truck with a big-block I would have seen a 50% drop in mileage. Every maintenance item on a diesel is more expensive. Your $35 gasser oil change? It's $90 now. Air filters are more, fuel filters are more and need to be changed more often, all the surrounding parts are heavy-duty so brakes/suspension/axle.ect. work is all more. A diesel will absolutely save you money if you tow on a consistent basis, but for a kick-around work that is often empty you will do better in the long run with a gasser.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
CaptainFuzychin posted:Done. Thread is over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
CaptainFuzychin posted:So I was briefly considering a diesel, so I looked around on ebay. Search is over: It's not a Detroit, that truck would have the 6.2 motor from a hmmwv. Slow and gutless but reliable. I believe 20k, actually. If it came out of DRMO then those trucks get no miles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
oh hey, I wish I'd seen this thread a week ago! I recently bought a cheap, used truck. I posted about it in another thread but it seems pretty relevant here.   It's a 2000 Mazda B2500 (aka Ford Ranger) with the 2.5L engine, same as the 2.3L (and most of the same parts) but bored a little larger. 5 speed manual, regular cab. It's a stripper model, so no A/C, no cruise control, no power windows or locks. It has a decent-enough aftermarket CD player. There is some rust, but not a lot. Timing belt is decent, fresh oil, fresh-ish battery. Clutch feels great and the engine runs great. 138k miles on it. I paid eight hundred dollars. EIGHT. HUNDRED. DOLLARS. This is in northern Indiana. I've had it a couple weeks now, and just yesterday hauled home a giant octagonal picnic table on the back. Still drives great with no warning lights. 
CornHolio fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Sep 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
^^^ All factors aside, can't beat that price. Let us know how you like it after a couple months, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about it after you've gotten used to it. Unload My Head posted:A diesel will absolutely save you money if you tow on a consistent basis, but for a kick-around work that is often empty you will do better in the long run with a gasser. This point interests me: I doubt I'll ever tow many trailers, but I will be carrying at least 150 - 200lbs of tools daily. Would that make a difference in the diesel vs gas question? For the moment I'm thinking a Toyota is my first choice for the time being. I'm still finding myself drawn to Nissan Frontiers for some reason, and I've always found myself interested in Rangers, so I guess those are my back up options at the moment. Forgive the newb question: what's the difference between a 22R and a 22RE motor? Just different versions? Are they substantially different?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
CaptainFuzychin posted:This point interests me: I doubt I'll ever tow many trailers, but I will be carrying at least 150 - 200lbs of tools daily. Would that make a difference in the diesel vs gas question? No, we're talking about tons here, not a few hundred pounds. Funny thing to note is that on occasion I have seen mileage increases from towing with a diesel. I think it comes from the turbo spooling under load and causing the engine to run more efficiently. CaptainFuzychin posted:22R and a 22RE motor? Just different versions? Are they substantially different? Yes, the E is EFI. Personally I would pass on a 20R or 22R unless you get a screaming deal. They are carbureted and driveability suffers vs. the EFI motors. I have daily-driven carbed cars for years and EFI is nice on cold mornings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:It's not a Detroit, that truck would have the 6.2 motor from a hmmwv. That *is* a Detroit. And yeah, the Aisin they used on the 22R is actually a pretty drat good carb (and it rebuilds in a couple of hours), and the RE used a flapper VAF which some (granted not me) would say are total poo poo, but bad EFI is better than a good carb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Tommychu posted:That *is* a Detroit. I believe you will find that it is a four stroke diesel, as opposed to a two stroke with an integral supercharger, as is the colloquial understanding of a Detroit. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:I believe you will find that it is a four stroke diesel, as opposed to a two stroke with an integral supercharger, as is the colloquial understanding of a Detroit. Not since the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:Not since the 80s. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Spiffness posted:Counterpoint: 4.0 Ranger may be uneconomical but it's a great engine otherwise. Weren't the 4.0L Rangers rather infamous for getting better MPG than the ones with the 3.0 Vulcan engines because you didn't have to nail the gas pedal to the floor to get it to move?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
The 3.0L Vulcan sucks back gas like no engine i've ever seen. Post tune up our 2004 Taurus does a spectacular 20mpg highway. Its a 3300 pound car. The Vulcan is a spectacular failure in just about every way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
CaptainFuzychin posted:
The newer Nissan Frontiers all have problems, from what I've been able to read. Cooling, transmission, etc. If you want a reliable small Nissan pickup, you need a Hardbody (referred to as just the "Pickup"). I owned one of those for a long time, but sitting outdoors through several Wisconsin winters was not kind to it and it eventually developed so many problems from the aforementioned sitting that I had to let it go (I was driving semi over the road at the time and wasn't home enough to drive it much). They're tough little bastards otherwise. Mileage was high teens to low 20's, depending on how you drive it, though mine was the 4x4 model, which I understand gets somewhat worse mileage than the 2WD. I had the 2.4L SOHC I4 engine, you can also find them with a 3.0L V6 which I understand gets about the same mileage and pulls a little harder on the highway. Mine was a '97, which is the last year they made the Hardbody (they switched to the newer Frontier styling in '98, '98 is also when they switched the I4 option to the DOHC motor, the same motor that was used in the mid-to-late '90s 240SX). The only major problem the Hardbody has that I know of is that there's a design flaw with the placement of the check/fill plug for the manual transmission. It's just a bit too low and if you don't overfill the trans through the shifter hole, you can starve the front countershaft bearing for oil to the point where it seizes up and snaps the countershaft. The fix is simple, just remove the shifter and add a little more oil, but I wish I had known about it before it happened to me. Not all years have this problem, and as I understand it, it's only on the 4-banger tranny (the V6 trans is different), so a little homework goes a long way. Aside from that, they're great little trucks. Mine had a factory hard bedliner in it, so I never worried about tossing tools or rocks or whatever into the bed. I never went hardcore offroading with it, but I used the 4WD on muddy dirt roads and in the snow and I never got stuck. I hauled my motorcycle in the bed a number of times and it did just fine, so ~200lbs of tools would be easy-peasy. Just thought I'd share my experience with one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:I believe you will find that it is a four stroke diesel, as opposed to a two stroke with an integral supercharger, as is the colloquial understanding of a Detroit. Yet it was made by Detroit Diesel, as were a rather large number of four stroke engines. At least 4 of those that I'm aware of were produced alongside the 2-strokes (which by the way have a blower that is not a supercharger as it is used for the purpose of scavenging and not to establish a charge pressure significantly greater than atmospheric pressure). Turbo Fondant fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Sep 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
8ender posted:The 3.0L Vulcan sucks back gas like no engine i've ever seen. Post tune up our 2004 Taurus does a spectacular 20mpg highway. Its a 3300 pound car. The Vulcan is a spectacular failure in just about every way. Yeah, there are two 6 cylinder options with the early-'00s Rangers. The 4.0 is good. The 3.0 is garbage. I bought one to flip while I was in between cars earlier this year with the 3.0 and I saw nothing from it that any other manufacturer's 4 cylinder wouldn't provide with regards to power... and it's mileage was that of a 6 cylinder. No up sides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 15:36
|
|
EVERYWHERE 
|
Has anybody attempted to modify the 3.0 into some power? The engine was garbage but it was reliable as gently caress. If I recall the compression ratio was low enough that it wouldn't be a stretch to bore out some stuff to get to 8-9:1 compression ratio, ideal for turbo/supercharging. I'm sure you'd have to rework the pushrod system but there has to be somebody dumb enough out there to pour money into it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Has anybody attempted to modify the 3.0 into some power? Not when a 302 can be had for pennies and bolts in with barely any effort. And I'd bet the 302 would still get better mileage than the 3.0
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
8ender posted:The 3.0L Vulcan sucks back gas like no engine i've ever seen. Post tune up our 2004 Taurus does a spectacular 20mpg highway. Its a 3300 pound car. The Vulcan is a spectacular failure in just about every way. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:Not when a 302 can be had for pennies and bolts in with barely any effort. Even with the FWD applications? I'd be impressed if you could fit it in there. Not saying it's practical (I'd be suprised if somebody got 200hp out if it and got it running reliably) or even necessary (almost certain every vehicle that had that engine had a better option that's easily sourced) but as a proof of concept it would be interesting to see how much could be gained from that pile of poo poo. Also having owned an old Taurus with the 3.0 I can tell you that the source of the mileage problem is the fact that you absolutely had to go full throttle 90% of the time unless you wanted other drivers to think you were a 90 year old woman, if you were cruising on the highway the fuel economy was halfway decent. The motor was absolutely gutless and I would just be scream at it as it crawled its way up to speed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
There are absolutely some 3.0 turbo builds out there. For the money it's a poor choice, but there are worse motors out there. A 302 will not get better fuel economy than anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
The 302 gets loads better fuel economy than the 300, unless you're actually using the truck for work. I'd rather have the 200 inline six than a 3.0, and it was the original turd. At least it had character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Unload My Head posted:
Both of the F150s I've owned, and the farm trucks, got better mileage than the few 3.0 Rangers I've been around. Those things are piles of poo poo, and that motor is worse than an Iron Duke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
wallaka posted:The 302 gets loads better fuel economy than the 300 I have owned two 1995 F150's, both with 4x4 and the 5-speed. One had a 302 and the other had a 300. Similar miles and options on both (they were even the same color). They got virtually the same mileage on the freeway (14-ish) but the 300 did better around town (12mpg) versus the 302 (about 9mpg). I completely agree with you that the 3.0L is an inefficient pile, but it won't waste more fuel than a 302.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
I've had a 2000 Nissan Frontier for 10 years. It's the ridiculous "Desert Runner" model (4x4 lifted suspension, but 2wd). It's been a totally reliable truck for me over the 140,000 miles I've put on it. It has the 3.3 V6 and a 5 speed. I'm still on the original clutch. The fuel mileage isn't great, but I attribute that to the light bars and poo poo all over it. I had a thread, but it fell to archives. Look for Nissan Frontier Graffiti Project if you're interested. Haha, found a pic: 
Asshole Bicycle fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Sep 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
^^^ That's pretty awesome. I've been driving a car with a garbage paint job for years, and often thought of finding some graffiti artist to do something similar on it. I saw one of these driving around with the top off the other day, and really liked it. Any thoughts on 2-door 4runners? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Toyota-4Run...=US_Cars_Trucks
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
They're cool as loving tits. Rear springs are a common failure, and they tend to rust like the Titanic around here. You can choose SFA or IFS by year. Basically a Hilux but awesomer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
I wouldn't want to work out of one, but for a camping/wheeling rig they are fantastic. Like TC said they are basically a pickup with more metal, so the same drivetrain and running gear makes parts cheap and easy to find. Unless you are a hardcore wheeler I personally would take a later one with the nicer interior and EFI motor over an older one with the solid front axle. There was one year with the good motor and the solid axle, but those get snapped up quick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Is this one as cool as the guy makes it sound? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Toyota-4Run...=US_Cars_Trucks I can't afford it now, but I'm just asking for research's sake. EDIT: Unload My Head posted:Unless you are a hardcore wheeler I personally would take a later one with the nicer interior and EFI motor over an older one with the solid front axle. There was one year with the good motor and the solid axle, but those get snapped up quick. The thing is that I'd -like- to be a hardcore wheeler eventually: I've always wanted to take up dirt track racing and off roading, but never had the car for it. And I don't care much about the interior (really aught to post pictures of my current car so you can see how many fucks I give about luxury). What's an EFI motor though? CaptainFuzychin fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
EFI = electronic fuel injection. The Benz oil burner is a sweet swap, but six grand for a rusted out 4runner is some crack smoking nonsense. That shell is scrap metal headed for China.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Unload My Head posted:EFI = electronic fuel injection. I love the contrast here, because to an Albertan that thing is worth at least $3k before the swap because the quarter panels are present and still meaningfully attached to the truck (that said, an OM617 and all that other work does NOT make up the other $3k). Only rust-free example I've seen was asking $12k.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Very true! In the rust belt that thing is would have some value. In the PNW you could get the value of the running gear and drivetrain and that's about it. Between our natural love of Toyotas our need for 4wd vehicles and (until recently) our lack of salt you can have your pick of nice, rust-free 4Runners for 3-4K.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
CaptainFuzychin posted:^^^ Trip report after about one month of ownership. I like this truck too much. It's just such an honest truck (and I've never owned a truck, so it's still kind of a novelty to me) that it's difficult to hate, even despite everything wrong with it (and there is a fair bit). I've put probably about 150 miles on the truck, all of it hauling various large items that I couldn't before. A 14' ladder, the octogon picnic table, a poo poo tone of concrete that I took to the recycler's:  The truck has gladly accepted all challenges I've thrown at it thus far, and remained comfortable and fairly fuel efficient in the process (half tank of gas so far, roughly). The tires suck, and one of the wheels makes a bit of noise on the road, which could be a bearing but I think it's more than likely that it's the tire, since it's the only offroad tire on the truck. It also seems to have a slow leak. I've found that the fuse for one of the 12V outlets is blown, and they're the stupid small Ford type so I don't have a replacement handy. There isn't a spare tire. I don't know if the spare tire holder could even hold a spare, since there's a fair amount of rust down there. I still need a rear bumper so I can legally drive at night (the current one has giant rust holes where the license plate lights go). Still, for $800 the rust isn't terrible and there isn't anything seriously wrong with the truck, and it's performing its duties as a truck pretty well. I'll report back after another month or two. I'm not planning on driving it at all this winter, due to the single bald tire and the lack of ABS or traction control.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:
This pretty much sums it up, yeah. Have you calculated your mpg? I'm pretty excited about the prospect of a first gen 4runner, I'm not afraid of an older car and that removable roof/open air cab is so cool. Still unclear about what gas mileage to expect from one though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
CaptainFuzychin posted:Still unclear about what gas mileage to expect from one though. Mid teens depending on the gearing and how you drive. The 4x4 adds a lot of weight, as does the back seats, tub, back glass, ect. and these things have all the aerodynamics of a cinder block.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Unload My Head posted:Mid teens depending on the gearing and how you drive. The 4x4 adds a lot of weight, as does the back seats, tub, back glass, ect. and these things have all the aerodynamics of a cinder block. I am getting 14-20 imperial mpg in mine. I think my 22re is a bit tired and I have an auto. If you are getting one make sure the back glass works. The switch can be a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
CaptainFuzychin posted:This pretty much sums it up, yeah. Have you calculated your mpg? Not yet. I don't drive it often so I haven't gone through a full tank yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 13:35
|
|