Pages: 1

I need a new truck.....

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: rodslinger

So the time has come to replace the Dakota. She has served me well for over 230,000 miles on the original engine, trans and most everything else. But age, my lead foot and the recently expired evaporator core has prompted me to seek a replacement.

I'm looking for something more economical but still need a truck that can work when I need it to. So I am leaning toward another Dakota but regular cab this time. Other options are a Chevy Colorado, Ford Ranger, Nissan Frontier and Toyota Tacoma.

I'm ruling out full size trucks as I just don't care for their size. I also don't need that much truck. I don't tow the trailer as much anymore. Maybe two or three days a month and total weight usually isn't more than 4,000lbs. when I do. The trailer has brakes on it also.

The Dakota's I'm considering are 03 or 04 models as they have four wheel disc brakes and have the five speed auto already enabled. 02 and older models have the crappier brakes and don't have the double overdrive. The 05+ models got fat and nearly as big as a Ram. I'm getting 17mpg combined in my club cab now. I actually see about 22 highway on regular trips to north Georgia. I figure the lower mass of a regular cab can only improve on that.

I'm considering the other makes on the basis of improved fuel economy over the Dakota. But they just won't put the torque smile on my face as I pinstripe the road in front of my house. I'm also not that confident that any other the other small/midsize trucks will get much if any better economy that the V8 Dakota. (with the exception of 4cyl, reg cab models)

Anyone used a Ranger, Tacoma, Colorado or Frontier for a daily driver/work truck? What kind of mileage did you get? Was it reliable? How did it handle loads?


Posted by: Grape Ape

I really liked the Ranger when Ford used the 2.9L engine, but the 4.0 is good too. It surely doesn't get great economy. The EploDer Sport Trac is available with the V8 making around 300hp. It's rated about 20mpg hwy in 2wd form. Not much bed space, but the Ranger doesn't offer much either. Infact, unless you get the 7' bed with Ranger, none of the small pickups come close to Dakota.

The Tacoma seems nice, but is overpriced. The Frontier, now that it isn't so tiny, isn't terrible but still has silly issues, like plastic tailgate locks. Well, they may have fixed that one.

I drove a Colorado a few times, but it just seemed all wrong. NOT because it's a GM, but it felt tinny, like the S10 or worse. It rattled all the way to whatever speed I went to, and never did that quickly. And it felt quite small inside, even more than the Ranger of old.

You may want to consider a full size. They cost about the same as a Dakota, but haul more if needed. They get near the same mileage too. And they're worth more at trade in time.

At least you have options today. Look around everywhere. Dealers ARE dealing on trucks right now. I saw a pretty nice F-150 last week. It was a 4X4 XLT 5.4L something or other... Sticker was over 34K and mark down was almost 24 even. And Ford is pushing to be the #1 selling vehicle for like the 33rd straight yr, so they're doing something! If not for economy, I'd really look into the Titan too.


Posted by: KingofSlackers

Depends on what kind of truck you want. Ford is offering A plan pricing to the public on F series trucks, plus incentives... depending on the rebates in your area (they are pulled by your home zip code no matter where you buy it) that's between 8 to 10+ grand off on most trucks. You can get an F-150 with similar MPG as a Ranger with the 4.0.

If you find a Ford you like let me know where it is at, etc., and I will pull the invoice, incentives, etc. for you. If you likes Rangers though get one now because their days are numbered... it will soon be replaced by the F-100 which will just be a smaller version of the 150.


Posted by: 3SuperSports

I've read that the Colorado is a P.O.S.

The one you didn't mention (and I'll take a beating for mentioning) is the Honda Ridgeline. I bought on in July of 2005 and it's great. My daily drive is mostly highway, but some of it's bumper to bumber traffic and I'm averaging 21mpg. It started out getting around 19mpg, but got better with the increased mileage. The horsepower is around 250, I don't remember what the tow capacity is though. It's worth looking into.


Posted by: Grape Ape

Not to knock the Ridgeline because it's not bad for what it is. The thing is, no frame. For me that means, not a truck. But the weight savings is helpful for economy, and tow capacity to some extent. But without a frame, I'm sure that capacity suffers, though it can probably handle 4,000. If it's rated for more, I wouldn't trust that too far. But I'm convinced they are pretty quiet and not bad on economy(vs power) and no doubt, resale is decent or better.

The 3.5L engine does make decent power, but it makes more hp than torque. The price concerns me, starting near 30 grand. And the bed is some kinda short, but that neat "lock box" under the main bed looks like it can hold some things you won't have to put in the cab for secure storage.


Posted by: rodslinger

I thought about the Ridgeline but I guess I need to give more details.

I'm not buying new. I prefer to buy at least a two or three year old vehicle and let some other sucker absorb the depreciation. I also don't need the cab space so I'm partial to regular cab trucks. The Ridgeline gives me a lot of what I don't need. I have a car for family and daily driver duties. The truck needs to haul me, my tool bag, random materials and occasionally a trailer. Keeping a short bed and regular cab keeps mass to a minimum and mileage to a maximum.

I'm also not looking to spend more than 8 or 9k. I'm really starting to think a regular cab, 4cyl Ranger is going to be the most economical. I may just keep the Dakota for the few days I need to pull a load. But realistically the insurance on two vehicles isn't going to offset fuel savings on a 4cyl Ranger.

I found a 03 Dakota with regular cab, 2wd, 4.7 V8, 3.92 gear with limited slip, no power options except AC for about 5.5k and ony 54k miles. Might go check it out. I bet if hauls ass.

I'd also like to find a regular cab Ranger with the 4.0 and give it a drive. Seems most of them are the 3.sl0w.


Posted by: Grape Ape

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingofSlackers
If you likes Rangers though get one now because their days are numbered... it will soon be replaced by the F-100 which will just be a smaller version of the 150.

I've been hearing about the departure of Ranger for 3yrs already. I wish they'd Get-R-Dun! It's supposed to switch to the ExploDer chassis, which isn't bad. We'll have to see about tow capacity, but it could make for a decent pickup. Unless they use a 4' box, which would suck.

I also heard they'll finally make a V8 available, which would surely be the 4.6L 3V powerplant backed by a 5spd auto or manual. I hope they make a 5.4L version available, if not just toss that modular in favor of an updated version capable of more easily making N/A power and while keeping torque numbers fair or better. And they should call it the F-100 Ranger like they did 35yrs ago.

Of course, they'll prolly bump the price to about 20K to start, which is just wrong when compared to the F-150. And then there's the whole, "gadgets cost too much" problem. That's something I'm still unhappy with and probably always will be. I like all the "extras" on my ExploDer, but man... They're adding fewer for more money and have been since the early 90's. Want a Lariat? Okay... Add 15K to the price over base and you've got it!! And of course, you can't just order what you want anymore. Want rubber matting for the floor... No problem. Want that in an upgraded model... Sorry, that will be "color keyed carpet" these days. Want driving lights... Sure thing, just order an XLT. Oh, and that comes with a CHROME bumper package, and power steering, locks, cruise, etc... And the price goes up accordingly... 6K over base. Maybe the STX takes care of some of those problems, but then you suffer on bed length.

I digress... That's for new anyway. I just wish I could order a truck I want for a price that's fair. With any truck these days, no matter who builds it, you just can't get it. But to me, Ford is the worst offender.


Posted by: KingofSlackers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
I've been hearing about the departure of Ranger for 3yrs already. I wish they'd Get-R-Dun! It's supposed to switch to the ExploDer chassis, which isn't bad. We'll have to see about tow capacity, but it could make for a decent pickup. Unless they use a 4' box, which would suck.

I also heard they'll finally make a V8 available, which would surely be the 4.6L 3V powerplant backed by a 5spd auto or manual. I hope they make a 5.4L version available, if not just toss that modular in favor of an updated version capable of more easily making N/A power and while keeping torque numbers fair or better. And they should call it the F-100 Ranger like they did 35yrs ago.

Of course, they'll prolly bump the price to about 20K to start, which is just wrong when compared to the F-150. And then there's the whole, "gadgets cost too much" problem. That's something I'm still unhappy with and probably always will be. I like all the "extras" on my ExploDer, but man... They're adding fewer for more money and have been since the early 90's. Want a Lariat? Okay... Add 15K to the price over base and you've got it!! And of course, you can't just order what you want anymore. Want rubber matting for the floor... No problem. Want that in an upgraded model... Sorry, that will be "color keyed carpet" these days. Want driving lights... Sure thing, just order an XLT. Oh, and that comes with a CHROME bumper package, and power steering, locks, cruise, etc... And the price goes up accordingly... 6K over base. Maybe the STX takes care of some of those problems, but then you suffer on bed length.

I digress... That's for new anyway. I just wish I could order a truck I want for a price that's fair. With any truck these days, no matter who builds it, you just can't get it. But to me, Ford is the worst offender.




I agree. We had been told that 08 was the last year for the Ranger... but with gas prices, etc. the way they are the Ranger has apparently been given a second wind (4th or 5th but who is counting?)... they say it doesn't sell well enough, but hell what do you expect when you have been basically building the same truck for what 20 years? Hell, the last major change to it was in 93!!!

I'm sure the F-100 will probably get a small V8 option, which would be smart. I just wish they would speed up the diesel option for the 150.


Posted by: Grape Ape

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingofSlackers
Hell, the last major change to it was in 93!!!

Yup. Since then, it's saved Ford millions, but sales will drop as people get "tired" of the same ol thing. And it is probably the smallest of pickups currently sold in America.

Quote:
I'm sure the F-100 will probably get a small V8 option, which would be smart.

Yeah, the 4.2 or whatever... Even the 4.6L 3V could be decent, particularly if the truck isn't so heavy. My ExploDer tips the scales at 4800 and that's just not right!

Quote:
I just wish they would speed up the diesel option for the 150.

AND every other Ford on the market!!! Diesel is so much more efficient than gasoline, they should've made changes 20 or more yrs ago to push the product. Cleaner diesel... BIO-diesel! Simple as that. FRENCH FRY OIL!!! It is so much cleaner, todays overpriced 6.4L garb wouldn't really be needed at all to make it clean. Of course, I don't believe in any of that crap anyway.

Bring back the TEMPO!!! 47mpg in 1985! Show me a regular gas burner even CLOSE and I'll show you a tiny car with more than 25 YEARS of "advancements" added in... Gimme a break people. DIESEL POWER is the way to save crude in vehicles TODAY.

And I've read that Ford has a SIXTY(60) MPG F-150! Get on it already!!


Posted by: KingofSlackers

Well, we do have the Fiesta coming back soon. Word is that they have it fast tracked to get here by next year as a '10 model....




Ford really needs to get those new direct injection turbo engines on the market quickly to have a chance at survival


Posted by: Grape Ape

I think Ford will survive regardless, but they and other American brands have gone out of their way to NOT bring us efficiency everyone has known about for 100yrs. Let's face it, diesel costs less to produce and is more efficient and we've known this to be the case almost the whole time since... The diesel!

Bring it, sell it... We'll buy it. Had we shifted as Europe did, our actual fuel consumption today would be phenominally lower.

Higher prices don't fix the problem... COMMON SENSE might though!


Posted by: Grape Ape

Btw, that car almost looks cool. A better color might just do it!


Posted by: KingofSlackers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
Btw, that car almost looks cool. A better color might just do it!

















Different Colors... Top two are actually the Verve concept that became the Fiesta...


Posted by: Grape Ape

I like the last color best, but the driving lights from the 2 above it. Those wheels in the 1st and last pics are the best of the 4. But what does it cost? Comparing it to the Focus, the "upper end" versions should be in the 15K range. If they offer it w/ a 40+mpg(should be 60) turbo diesel for under 18K, I'm on it. I'd prolly trade my Explorer straight up! Well, okay, plus 2K... The ExploDer is still worth over 16K(retail), but has dropped about 1g in the past month.


Posted by: No Rice Allowed

How about the RS Version?





Posted by: KingofSlackers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
I like the last color best, but the driving lights from the 2 above it. Those wheels in the 1st and last pics are the best of the 4. But what does it cost? Comparing it to the Focus, the "upper end" versions should be in the 15K range. If they offer it w/ a 40+mpg(should be 60) turbo diesel for under 18K, I'm on it. I'd prolly trade my Explorer straight up! Well, okay, plus 2K... The ExploDer is still worth over 16K(retail), but has dropped about 1g in the past month.




The car is supposed to come in under the Focus in size and price, to compete with the Honda Fit and the Nissan Versa, etc. So far no real word on powertrain options for the US... as far as we know... but here is what is being said:

Quote:
Powertrains should come from the Mazda 2, which in various markets offers twincam four-cylinder engines of 1.3 and 1.5 liters. We’d guess the U.S. 2010 Ford Fiesta will get the 1.5 at least, or perhaps a 1.8-liter enlargement providing the extra low-end torque that’s always so helpful for U.S. driving conditions. Transmissions should comprise a five-speed manual and an optional five-speed automatic, also per the 2. Standard equipment should include antilock brakes, front torso side airbags, and curtain side airbags. Traction control will certainly be available, maybe even standard. Stability control is a likely option, as it is on the Mazda.

2010 Ford Fiesta Prices: They’re obviously a long way from being decided, but the 2010 Ford Fiesta could well displace the bottom-end versions of the compact Focus. We’d look prices to start at around $12,000 and range up to $16,000 loaded. Currency exchange rates between now and intro time will loom large for Ford in determining the final numbers.

The Basics


Vehicle Type: subcompact car

Drivetrain


Drive wheels: front


Engine: 1.5-liter or 1.8-liter four-cylinder (CG estimate)


Horsepower: 105 or 115 (CG estimate)


Torque: 120 or 130 pound-feet (CG estimate)


Transmission: five-speed manual, five-speed automatic

Dimensions (CG estimate)


Wheelbase: 98.0 inches


Length: 154.0 inches


Width: 66.7 inches


Height: 58.1 inches


Base curb weight: 2115 pounds





Interior Pic



Posted by: KingofSlackers

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Rice Allowed
How about the RS Version?







Posted by: Grape Ape

If they don't use AT LEAST a 1.8L for that car, I won't even look at it. And 1.8 doesn't impress me unless they have the good sense to add a turbocharger. Sheesh... Always making mistakes that cost sales looking to save another nickel. Hell, they should offer the Focus in Turbo form(like MAZDA's version) as well. If they did, I'd already own one. 2.0L turbo would do very well for that little car. A 1.8L T may even be usable, but none and an engine smaller than that used on many motorcycles? NUTS!


Posted by: No Rice Allowed



See if it works now?


Posted by: 3SuperSports

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
Not to knock the Ridgeline because it's not bad for what it is. The thing is, no frame. For me that means, not a truck. But the weight savings is helpful for economy, and tow capacity to some extent. But without a frame, I'm sure that capacity suffers, though it can probably handle 4,000. If it's rated for more, I wouldn't trust that too far. But I'm convinced they are pretty quiet and not bad on economy(vs power) and no doubt, resale is decent or better.

The 3.5L engine does make decent power, but it makes more hp than torque. The price concerns me, starting near 30 grand. And the bed is some kinda short, but that neat "lock box" under the main bed looks like it can hold some things you won't have to put in the cab for secure storage.



That's a complete misconception. The Ridgeline has a fully boxed ladder frame that is integrated WITH unit-body construction. This is actually stiffer than most truck chasis. It doesn't flex or creek at all. Also 255hp, 252 lb ft of torque. 5,000 lb towing (not a car hauler, but that's not what I do anyway). Just FYI.


Posted by: Grape Ape

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3SuperSports
That's a complete misconception. The Ridgeline has a fully boxed ladder frame that is integrated WITH unit-body construction. This is actually stiffer than most truck chasis. It doesn't flex or creek at all. Also 255hp, 252 lb ft of torque. 5,000 lb towing (not a car hauler, but that's not what I do anyway). Just FYI.

Well I won't say Honda doesn't use something resembling a frame, but they don't call it a frame on their website. That's what I read some time back and I just double-checked. Now I find in a lower paragraph, they do call it a frame. But it's tiny. Other trucks have much more frame. For me though, IRS doesn't denote a truck chassis.

They also say it's 247hp 245torque and that the 5,000 tow capacity requires a special package. Donno what they rate it at w/o the tow package.

For his use, this may be a great pick. Just ain't my thing.


Posted by: DeckSetter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
Bring back the TEMPO!!! 47mpg in 1985! Show me a regular gas burner even CLOSE and I'll show you a tiny car with more than 25 YEARS of "advancements" added in... Gimme a break people. DIESEL POWER is the way to save crude in vehicles TODAY.

And I've read that Ford has a SIXTY(60) MPG F-150! Get on it already!!




Honda did it with the CRX HF in the mid 80s, I knew a guy that had one and pulled his boat with it.

Also, someone got 100mpg out of a jet engine / electric hybrid Hummer H2.


I agree that biodiesel is the way to go though. It is the easiest solution.


Posted by: DeckSetter

ok, back to the original question..........

I'd get a 4 banger Ranger for fuel economy and keep the Dakota. You'll miss the Dakota if you trade it off, I know I miss mine (I just don't miss the 14mpg the full time 4x4 with 3.55 gears gave me).

I did a lot of small truck research before I ended up getting a car instead. The Ranger will get the best mpg and the 2.3 DOHC is a pretty hot little engine compared to the old 2.3 and 2.5. A lot of people talk about averaging 28mpg with it with a 5spd.

People with Colorados / Canyons seem to get similar mileage with the 2.8 I4 or the 3.5 I5. People with the I5 usually claim 23-25mpg highway in a 2wd automatic (with 220hp).

For some reason foreign trucks don't seem to be as good on gas as American, so that ruled those out for me.

I ended up deciding I could live with a car 99% of the time, so I got a new Cobalt and I've averaged about 33mpg my first 2000 miles. It has tons of trunk space, I can fit half a dozen or more 5 gallon buckets in there standing up. Right now I've got a softball bag (6 34" bats, a dozen balls, 2 gloves, and it's sitting lengthwise in there), a craftsman tool bag, drywall bucket full of tools, 5 gallon paint bucket with my cleats in it, craftsman 19.2v drill/flashlight/charger kit, and some other stuff I can't remember. I've still got more room in there.

For the few times I need a truck, I'll buy an old truck to use as a truck.




If you were looking to buy new though, I'd recommend waiting for the 2009 Colorado, you can get it with a 5.3 V8 now........


Posted by: Grape Ape

Colorado now comes with a 2.9 I4 or 3.7 I5.

The 3.7 makes supposedly 242 hp and tq, but fuel economy is rated at like 14/18 for the 2wd. If that's even close, I'd much rather a 5.3L because, while I don't really believe them, people are claiming their full size trucks are averaging WELL over 20mpg on the hwy. I've seen some who claim 28, but that's just hogwash.

The 2.9L is only rated at 18/24 and that's probably accurate. You can also get that to power a 4X4, and not lose much in mileage. Can't get the Ford with a 2.3L and 4X4, but the mileage is much better.

The 2.9L is almost impressive though, rated to make 185hp and 190 torque. That's rare for a 4 popper, and so is that rather large size.

If only I could get past the ugly look, I'd consider a Colorado for a small truck. Cool name, decent engine, okay size... Just way too ugly unless it's a 4X4.


Posted by: rodslinger

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
Colorado now comes with a 2.9 I4 or 3.7 I5.

The 3.7 makes supposedly 242 hp and tq, but fuel economy is rated at like 14/18 for the 2wd. If that's even close, I'd much rather a 5.3L because, while I don't really believe them, people are claiming their full size trucks are averaging WELL over 20mpg on the hwy.



I definately get better mileage than that now with my Dakota. I'm getting about 16.5 mixed driving. I average about 21mpg on highway trips. I saw about 23.5 once on a tirp to Miami. I was riding drafts while keeping the speed about 65 all the way down. I would have expected the Colordo to best that a bit.

My father-in-law has a regular cab ranger, 2wd, auto and the 3.0. He says he is getting about 24mpg with it in mixed use. I could live with that.


Posted by: KingofSlackers

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodslinger
I definately get better mileage than that now with my Dakota. I'm getting about 16.5 mixed driving. I average about 21mpg on highway trips. I saw about 23.5 once on a tirp to Miami. I was riding drafts while keeping the speed about 65 all the way down. I would have expected the Colordo to best that a bit.

My father-in-law has a regular cab ranger, 2wd, auto and the 3.0. He says he is getting about 24mpg with it in mixed use. I could live with that.




My daily driver up until I got a Demo at work was my 1994 Ranger XLT that I have had since I was 16 (almost 28 now). It's an extended cab, 2WD, 2.3L with a man. transmission and 183k miles on it. When I was younger I drove it like it was a hot rod... (other words... drove it WAY TOO HARD) and I have never had an issue out of it. Regular stuff is all that has had to be done. (Oil Changes, Tires, etc.) The lower ball joints are worn and we replaced those recently... that's about it. It still averages about 22-23 MPG driving all around, and I have a HEAVY foot normally doing at least 5 to 8 miles per hour over the posted limit on most roads and the so called "jack-rabbit" start and stops. I have no doubt that it would get a lot better than that if I tried too.

I couldn't be happier with my Ranger so my vote we go that route.


Posted by: 65fairlane

My dad has a 98 or 99 ranger. Its a 4 banger 2Wd with a 5 speed. He really likes it for bringing home materials and tools for the light house remodeling he and mom are doing in pieces. He says the gas mileage is pretty good. The biggest thing he plans to haul is his boat for reservoir fishing. It is a pretty comfortable vehicle to drive, sits off the ground at a nice height handles pretty good for what it is.


Posted by: Slow Nova

I have an '06 Frontier.
It's got the 4.0L 265HP, nearly 300ft/lb. It hauls our 22' boat nicely.
It certainly doesn't have any plastic tailgate latch.
The crew cab makes for a pretty comfortable ride for 4. 5 is doable, if you have 3 smaller people in the back.
I'm 6'2", 280lb - I can't complain about legroom or headroom.
Some of the plastic interior stuff isn't all that great. The fold-down cupholders in the back didn't last more than a year...but the truck's got 8 cupholders, so I don't care.
Gas Mileage isn't that great. Mixed driving gets me on average 18-19mpg with a light foot, 15.5-16.5 with a heavy foot. Freeway only, cruise set at 65 will get you 26-27. Towing the boat, I get about 10.5.
The bed's a bit on the small side, but I don't haul a lot of large items.
The only regret I have is not getting the 4x4.


Posted by: Grape Ape

Seeing the mileage of some of these 4 and 6cyl, lighter pickups kinda makes me glad I have my V8, 4800 lb AWD ExploDer! I average about 18 combined and don't baby it much at all. I see 20mpg on the highway with no trouble, running 70mph. I don't do much speeding in 65 or higher zones, but probably do speed in the slower zones because I just don't notice till I'm there. So I use the cruise regualrly so as not to get pulled over. And I never waste time getting to speed. But I don't think I beat on it much, aside from passing traffic on 2 lane roads.


Back to the Forums



vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser