Compact Trucks

[DGS49]

I'm thinking about getting a compact truck for the next phase of my life (pre-retirement), and my search so far has been all on paper and videos. My only significant truck experience was a 4-cylinder S-10 that I owned for a couple years. It was entirely adequate but broke my heart by rusting out from under me. My specifications now are: Minimum 6' bed, decent mileage, stick shift, and capable of towing a thousand pounds without much trouble (e.g., towing my Goldwing). I prefer an extended cab, because there are a lot of times when I'm carrying a passenger and some stuff that I don't want to put in the bed, AND because I occasionally nap in my car when traveling long distances and I want to be able to recline the seat. I don't think you can do that in a regular cab, but I've never actually tried it.

My budget is under $12k, and I would want something with less than 75k miles on it, but I could probably go for one with 100k miles if it looks very clean.

I want RWD, even though I live in an area where we get some snow, because 4WD is not necessary if you know how to drive, and it kills gas mileage.

SO...based on a "paper analysis" alone, I'm leaning toward...

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon, extended cab. It looks like the 5-cylinder with a stick was NEVER OFFERED in RWD and extended cab. Only 4WD Automatic. The few that show up on an AutoTrader search always seem to be typographical errors. They are Automatics. On paper, the 4-cylinder looks adequate for my needs. It is a very big 4, and has 190 or so HP, but I'm not sure. Stick shifts are around, but rare. (I'd be willing to travel to get what I want).

Toyota would be an obvious choice (provided the frame rust issue is taken care of for the truck in question), but I'm not keen on either the 2.7 or the V6's that are offered. The 2.7 seems to be something of a gas hog, especially when towing anything, and on paper it is underpowered. The V6 is probably powerful enough, but I think I would be looking at 18mpg at most on the highway. 16 for general use. Before I would get a Tacoma with the V6 I think I'd just bite the gas-hog bullet and buy a Tundra - which was available with a stick. Not a bad choice, actually.

Nissan Frontier - same thing. 4 is underpowered and the 6 is a gas hog. The advantage is, they seem to be a little cheaper than the Toyota's.

The Ford Ranger is available in huge numbers, so it is possible to find just about any combination of equipment. Their "Sport" model has some nice trim, and can be found equipped as I want it. Nice ones are very expensive, however. As with the others, the 4-cylinder seems to be underpowered, and the 4 liter is a nice engine, but is a gas hog. The 3-liter would seem to be a nice compromise but on paper it seems pretty lame. It has about 50hp less than the Colorado 2.9L four. Mileage is good though.

Are there any candidate trucks that I'm missing? Am I being too negative about the Tacoma's 2.7L four, or the 3 liter Ranger? Would a regular cab be OK (that greatly expands the number of candidate trucks that are available)?

 

[Ernie S.]

I get 20 MPG with my F-150 with the V-6. Could get 24 on a trip if I took the power chip out, but when I tow my trailer, it doubles my milage. I have the 8' bed and I can pile plywood and sheet rock flat and close the tailgate.

 

[Ringel05]

I had a Ford Ranger (extended cab), 4 banger, 2 wheel drive, 5 speed manual shift for years, did Civil War and WWII reenacting and hauled it full of equipment, etc all up and down the east coast not to mention I did construction for years and hauled tools and materials all over the DC Metro area. Fully loaded ya lose power on large hills but the gas mileage was still amazingly good, I could go from Northern Virginia to Lancaster PA and back on one tank of gas with the truck loaded down, 145 miles one way.
Granted after ten years of hard use I had to have the transmission rebuilt and a few other things done to it, after twelve years I sold it to the neighbor, the next day the timing belt went.......

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm thinking about getting a compact truck for the next phase of my life (pre-retirement), and my search so far has been all on paper and videos. My only significant truck experience was a 4-cylinder S-10 that I owned for a couple years. It was entirely adequate but broke my heart by rusting out from under me. My specifications now are: Minimum 6' bed, decent mileage, stick shift, and capable of towing a thousand pounds without much trouble (e.g., towing my Goldwing). I prefer an extended cab, because there are a lot of times when I'm carrying a passenger and some stuff that I don't want to put in the bed, AND because I occasionally nap in my car when traveling long distances and I want to be able to recline the seat. I don't think you can do that in a regular cab, but I've never actually tried it.

My budget is under $12k, and I would want something with less than 75k miles on it, but I could probably go for one with 100k miles if it looks very clean.

I want RWD, even though I live in an area where we get some snow, because 4WD is not necessary if you know how to drive, and it kills gas mileage.

SO...based on a "paper analysis" alone, I'm leaning toward...

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon, extended cab. It looks like the 5-cylinder with a stick was NEVER OFFERED in RWD and extended cab. Only 4WD Automatic. The few that show up on an AutoTrader search always seem to be typographical errors. They are Automatics. On paper, the 4-cylinder looks adequate for my needs. It is a very big 4, and has 190 or so HP, but I'm not sure. Stick shifts are around, but rare. (I'd be willing to travel to get what I want).

The extended cab Colorado was not offered with a manual shift.

Toyota would be an obvious choice (provided the frame rust issue is taken care of for the truck in question), but I'm not keen on either the 2.7 or the V6's that are offered. The 2.7 seems to be something of a gas hog, especially when towing anything, and on paper it is underpowered. The V6 is probably powerful enough, but I think I would be looking at 18mpg at most on the highway. 16 for general use. Before I would get a Tacoma with the V6 I think I'd just bite the gas-hog bullet and buy a Tundra - which was available with a stick. Not a bad choice, actually.

Most -speed 2WD Tacos are actually 's.

The Ford Ranger is available in huge numbers, so it is possible to find just about any combination of equipment. Their "Sport" model has some nice trim, and can be found equipped as I want it. Nice ones are very expensive, however. As with the others, the 4-cylinder seems to be underpowered, and the 4 liter is a nice engine, but is a gas hog. The 3-liter would seem to be a nice compromise but on paper it seems pretty lame. It has about 50hp less than the Colorado 2.9L four. Mileage is good though.

Are there any candidate trucks that I'm missing? Am I being too negative about the Tacoma's 2.7L four, or the 3 liter Ranger? Would a regular cab be OK (that greatly expands the number of candidate trucks that are available)?

The 4-banger Rangers have plenty of guts, especially the later (2001+, IIRC) Duratecs. Note that the (regular-cab) Ranger is the ONLY one you listed that has any chance of having a longbed. (Nissan and Toyota dropped them a while back; I do not know if they were available on the Colorado, but if so, I have never seen one.) The 3.0 is kind of lame...not much more power than the 2.5, but uses more gas. I'd rather have the 4-banger. My uncle's 99 (5-speed longbed) manages 25MPG in mixed driving and 28 highway...his has the old Lima engine, a Duratec will do a bit better.

Note that with a longbed Ranger, you can actually CARRY your Goldwing in the box.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm thinking about getting a compact truck for the next phase of my life (pre-retirement), and my search so far has been all on paper and videos. My only significant truck experience was a 4-cylinder S-10 that I owned for a couple years. It was entirely adequate but broke my heart by rusting out from under me. My specifications now are: Minimum 6' bed, decent mileage, stick shift, and capable of towing a thousand pounds without much trouble (e.g., towing my Goldwing). I prefer an extended cab, because there are a lot of times when I'm carrying a passenger and some stuff that I don't want to put in the bed, AND because I occasionally nap in my car when traveling long distances and I want to be able to recline the seat. I don't think you can do that in a regular cab, but I've never actually tried it.

My budget is under $12k, and I would want something with less than 75k miles on it, but I could probably go for one with 100k miles if it looks very clean.

I want RWD, even though I live in an area where we get some snow, because 4WD is not necessary if you know how to drive, and it kills gas mileage.

SO...based on a "paper analysis" alone, I'm leaning toward...

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon, extended cab. It looks like the 5-cylinder with a stick was NEVER OFFERED in RWD and extended cab. Only 4WD Automatic. The few that show up on an AutoTrader search always seem to be typographical errors. They are Automatics. On paper, the 4-cylinder looks adequate for my needs. It is a very big 4, and has 190 or so HP, but I'm not sure. Stick shifts are around, but rare. (I'd be willing to travel to get what I want).

The extended cab Colorado was not offered with a manual shift.

Toyota would be an obvious choice (provided the frame rust issue is taken care of for the truck in question), but I'm not keen on either the 2.7 or the V6's that are offered. The 2.7 seems to be something of a gas hog, especially when towing anything, and on paper it is underpowered. The V6 is probably powerful enough, but I think I would be looking at 18mpg at most on the highway. 16 for general use. Before I would get a Tacoma with the V6 I think I'd just bite the gas-hog bullet and buy a Tundra - which was available with a stick. Not a bad choice, actually.

Most -speed 2WD Tacos are actually 's.

The Ford Ranger is available in huge numbers, so it is possible to find just about any combination of equipment. Their "Sport" model has some nice trim, and can be found equipped as I want it. Nice ones are very expensive, however. As with the others, the 4-cylinder seems to be underpowered, and the 4 liter is a nice engine, but is a gas hog. The 3-liter would seem to be a nice compromise but on paper it seems pretty lame. It has about 50hp less than the Colorado 2.9L four. Mileage is good though.

Are there any candidate trucks that I'm missing? Am I being too negative about the Tacoma's 2.7L four, or the 3 liter Ranger? Would a regular cab be OK (that greatly expands the number of candidate trucks that are available)?

The 4-banger Rangers have plenty of guts, especially the later (2001+, IIRC) Duratecs. Note that the (regular-cab) Ranger is the ONLY one you listed that has any chance of having a longbed. (Nissan and Toyota dropped them a while back; I do not know if they were available on the Colorado, but if so, I have never seen one.) The 3.0 is kind of lame...not much more power than the 2.5, but uses more gas. I'd rather have the 4-banger. My uncle's 99 (5-speed longbed) manages 25MPG in mixed driving and 28 highway...his has the old Lima engine, a Duratec will do a bit better.

Note that with a longbed Ranger, you can actually CARRY your Goldwing in the box.

Maybe, maybe not. My RoadKing is 97" long overall and though it would fit, I couldn't put the tail gate up if I loaded the bike straight.
Front wheel in one corner and the rear slid to the other, and the gate just shuts. I could pick up the needed inch if I took out the bed liner.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I towed a a pop up camper that had two king size beds and a full shower with my 98 Tacoma. Of course it was supercharged and I used a sway away.
Pulling a Gold wing on a trailer would be cake. I've got an FJ now that I tow a 18.5 Keywest with and it's the same motor and transmission as a newer Tacoma.
For what you're wanting to tow most trucks will work,but I definitely would want a six cylinder at minimum.

 

[DGS49]

I guess it makes sense to drive a 4-cylinder Ranger and see how it feels.

I've been scouting the 'net for a couple days and have seen a couple of racks that can be inserted into a receiver to carry the front wheel of a motorcycle, with the back wheel rolling on the ground. The bike is then strapped on both sides for lateral stability. I haven't seen anything as big as a GW being pulled this way, and I've seen some comments that it might damage the MC's gearbox. In the bed would definitely be easier on the bike (I see no reason why the tailgate would have to be up. Who cares?

I believe the "supercab" Ranger's are listed as having a 73" bed, which I believe is sufficient.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Maybe, maybe not. My RoadKing is 97" long overall and though it would fit, I couldn't put the tail gate up if I loaded the bike straight.
Front wheel in one corner and the rear slid to the other, and the gate just shuts. I could pick up the needed inch if I took out the bed liner.

You'd probably need the tailgate down, but it should fit...that's how I carry my Burgman in my (shortbox) Dakota.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I guess it makes sense to drive a 4-cylinder Ranger and see how it feels.

I've been scouting the 'net for a couple days and have seen a couple of racks that can be inserted into a receiver to carry the front wheel of a motorcycle, with the back wheel rolling on the ground. The bike is then strapped on both sides for lateral stability. I haven't seen anything as big as a GW being pulled this way, and I've seen some comments that it might damage the MC's gearbox. In the bed would definitely be easier on the bike (I see no reason why the tailgate would have to be up. Who cares?

I believe the "supercab" Ranger's are listed as having a 73" bed, which I believe is sufficient.

Almost certainly not...that would put the rear wheel on the tailgate.

 

[DGS49]

My plan would be to make a T-shaped wooden rack in the bed for the bike, which would be as long as necessary to fully support both wheels. The back of it would be sitting on the tailgate, but the tailgate would be carrying almost no weight when the bike is secured. The front of the platform would include a wheel chock that would fully support the front wheel (I have one of these, that I had bolted to my garage floor). The base would be a 1-by, maybe 4" wide, and reinforced by a 2x4 on each side. The bike would be rolled up a ramp and onto this rack, then secured when the front wheel is fully held by the chock.

With a rack like this, a 6' bed would be more than adequate, with the tailgate down.

I located a 4-cyl-Stick Colorado close to me, but with a regular cab. I'll check it out this weekend. Since it's at a Chrysler dealer, I might even be able to trade my PTCruiser and not get raped on the trade.

 

[Ernie S.]

My plan would be to make a T-shaped wooden rack in the bed for the bike, which would be as long as necessary to fully support both wheels. The back of it would be sitting on the tailgate, but the tailgate would be carrying almost no weight when the bike is secured. The front of the platform would include a wheel chock that would fully support the front wheel (I have one of these, that I had bolted to my garage floor). The base would be a 1-by, maybe 4" wide, and reinforced by a 2x4 on each side. The bike would be rolled up a ramp and onto this rack, then secured when the front wheel is fully held by the chock.

With a rack like this, a 6' bed would be more than adequate, with the tailgate down.

I located a 4-cyl-Stick Colorado close to me, but with a regular cab. I'll check it out this weekend. Since it's at a Chrysler dealer, I might even be able to trade my PTCruiser and not get raped on the trade.

Remember that your chock will limit how far in you can roll the bike. I'm gonna guess that from the front fender to the rear axle, your bike is about 6 1/2 feet. The chock will put your rear axle right over the end of the tailgate. You'd be better off building a chock that mounts vertically to the front of the body pan. I see a couple 2x6's spaced a tire width apart.

Me? I'd be putting my bike on a trailer. Backing an 800 pound motorcycle down a ramp from the bed of a pickup is not something I want to be doing. My trailer bed sits 20" off the road and my 7 foot long ramp has a non skid surface 42" wide and I still clench my butt cheeks backing down.

 

[Jarlaxle]

My plan would be to make a T-shaped wooden rack in the bed for the bike, which would be as long as necessary to fully support both wheels. The back of it would be sitting on the tailgate, but the tailgate would be carrying almost no weight when the bike is secured. The front of the platform would include a wheel chock that would fully support the front wheel (I have one of these, that I had bolted to my garage floor). The base would be a 1-by, maybe 4" wide, and reinforced by a 2x4 on each side. The bike would be rolled up a ramp and onto this rack, then secured when the front wheel is fully held by the chock.

With a rack like this, a 6' bed would be more than adequate, with the tailgate down.

I located a 4-cyl-Stick Colorado close to me, but with a regular cab. I'll check it out this weekend. Since it's at a Chrysler dealer, I might even be able to trade my PTCruiser and not get raped on the trade.

A Wing is 104" long, carrying 800+lbs on a 67" wheelbase. If any weight was on it, the rear tire could crush that "rack". Also: even with the tailgate down, the bike could actually be LONGER than the available space! Suggestion: ride the Wing to go see the truck. Bring a tape measure, see if things will fit.

Also, very important: you need to look up the Colorado's specs and make sure it will handle the weight of the bike and two passengers. (It might not!) Realistically, you will need a true payload (GVWR minus curb weight with full fuel) of about 1200lbs...and to carry a Wing, you also need to be sure you are not overweight on the rear axle. Honestly...to safely and securely carry a Wing, you will need a longbed truck, be it compact (Ranger, S-10, older Dakota) or full-size.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Remember that your chock will limit how far in you can roll the bike. I'm gonna guess that from the front fender to the rear axle, your bike is about 6 1/2 feet. The chock will put your rear axle right over the end of the tailgate. You'd be better off building a chock that mounts vertically to the front of the body pan. I see a couple 2x6's spaced a tire width apart.

Me? I'd be putting my bike on a trailer. Backing an 800 pound motorcycle down a ramp from the bed of a pickup is not something I want to be doing. My trailer bed sits 20" off the road and my 7 foot long ramp has a non skid surface 42" wide and I still clench my butt cheeks backing down.

Serious question: why bother with a chock? I have carried several bikes in my Dakota & never did...roll it in, tie it down, use an extra strap to keep the steering from turning. I have a 2' piece of 4x4 to keep my Burg's fender off the front of the box, that's it.

 

[DGS49]

I used this chock (bought at Harbor Freight) in my garage for a couple years. I bolted it down to the garage floor and parked my cruiser in it (no center-stand on the bike). The way it held the bike was great. As mentioned above, it would obviously be possible to transport the bike without it, but with an 800 pound bike you can't be too careful.

I am assuming that when it comes time to off-load the bike, I will be able to find a loading dock or a retaining wall of some kind (that's what I have at home), so that the bike will be off-loaded to a place that is more or less level with the truckbed.

 

[DGS49]

Non-Existent S-10...

I have located an S-10 pickup that gives me a figurative erection. It's a 2003 regular cab, flareside, RWD, dark green matallic. It has "SS" badges on it (maybe bogus), and has the 4.3L V-6 with a five-speed manual trans. 64,000 miles.

I can find nothing at GM or anywhere else that acknowledges the existence of this model or drivetrain. All GM information says that the only transmission available in '03 with the V6 was the 4-speed automatic. No "SS" was offered in that year.

Sometimes dealers mis-label trucks in their ads, but this one is clearly a V6, and the pictures of the interior show a manual stick shift on the center hump. Actually, even if it turned out to be a 4, that would be acceptable. I just like the look of the truck, and the fact that it is from Texas, so rust will never be an issue (for the remaining useful life of the truck).

This is really a pipe dream. It is located near Dallas and would be a giant pain in the ass to actually buy and transport back home, but I would really like to own this truck.

For those who care enough, the car is on AutoTrader dot com, and the ID is: AT-1700A070. It's a little over-priced at $8,400 but if authentic and accurate, it is definitely one-of-a-kind. If I could get it for $7,500...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm thinking about getting a compact truck for the next phase of my life (pre-retirement), and my search so far has been all on paper and videos. My only significant truck experience was a 4-cylinder S-10 that I owned for a couple years. It was entirely adequate but broke my heart by rusting out from under me. My specifications now are: Minimum 6' bed, decent mileage, stick shift, and capable of towing a thousand pounds without much trouble (e.g., towing my Goldwing). I prefer an extended cab, because there are a lot of times when I'm carrying a passenger and some stuff that I don't want to put in the bed, AND because I occasionally nap in my car when traveling long distances and I want to be able to recline the seat. I don't think you can do that in a regular cab, but I've never actually tried it.

My budget is under $12k, and I would want something with less than 75k miles on it, but I could probably go for one with 100k miles if it looks very clean.

I want RWD, even though I live in an area where we get some snow, because 4WD is not necessary if you know how to drive, and it kills gas mileage.

SO...based on a "paper analysis" alone, I'm leaning toward...

Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon, extended cab. It looks like the 5-cylinder with a stick was NEVER OFFERED in RWD and extended cab. Only 4WD Automatic. The few that show up on an AutoTrader search always seem to be typographical errors. They are Automatics. On paper, the 4-cylinder looks adequate for my needs. It is a very big 4, and has 190 or so HP, but I'm not sure. Stick shifts are around, but rare. (I'd be willing to travel to get what I want).

Toyota would be an obvious choice (provided the frame rust issue is taken care of for the truck in question), but I'm not keen on either the 2.7 or the V6's that are offered. The 2.7 seems to be something of a gas hog, especially when towing anything, and on paper it is underpowered. The V6 is probably powerful enough, but I think I would be looking at 18mpg at most on the highway. 16 for general use. Before I would get a Tacoma with the V6 I think I'd just bite the gas-hog bullet and buy a Tundra - which was available with a stick. Not a bad choice, actually.

Nissan Frontier - same thing. 4 is underpowered and the 6 is a gas hog. The advantage is, they seem to be a little cheaper than the Toyota's.

The Ford Ranger is available in huge numbers, so it is possible to find just about any combination of equipment. Their "Sport" model has some nice trim, and can be found equipped as I want it. Nice ones are very expensive, however. As with the others, the 4-cylinder seems to be underpowered, and the 4 liter is a nice engine, but is a gas hog. The 3-liter would seem to be a nice compromise but on paper it seems pretty lame. It has about 50hp less than the Colorado 2.9L four. Mileage is good though.

Are there any candidate trucks that I'm missing? Am I being too negative about the Tacoma's 2.7L four, or the 3 liter Ranger? Would a regular cab be OK (that greatly expands the number of candidate trucks that are available)?

Do NOT buy a Chevy with the 5 cylinder. That motor is POS AND doesn't even get as good of gas mileage as the V6.

Also, get 4 wheel drive. The resale value is MUCH higher, and the fuel mileage difference is negligible

The Colorado is a good truck..

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Non-Existent S-10...

I have located an S-10 pickup that gives me a figurative erection. It's a 2003 regular cab, flareside, RWD, dark green matallic. It has "SS" badges on it (maybe bogus), and has the 4.3L V-6 with a five-speed manual trans. 64,000 miles.

I can find nothing at GM or anywhere else that acknowledges the existence of this model or drivetrain. All GM information says that the only transmission available in '03 with the V6 was the 4-speed automatic. No "SS" was offered in that year.

Sometimes dealers mis-label trucks in their ads, but this one is clearly a V6, and the pictures of the interior show a manual stick shift on the center hump. Actually, even if it turned out to be a 4, that would be acceptable. I just like the look of the truck, and the fact that it is from Texas, so rust will never be an issue (for the remaining useful life of the truck).

This is really a pipe dream. It is located near Dallas and would be a giant pain in the ass to actually buy and transport back home, but I would really like to own this truck.

For those who care enough, the car is on AutoTrader dot com, and the ID is: AT-1700A070. It's a little over-priced at $8,400 but if authentic and accurate, it is definitely one-of-a-kind. If I could get it for $7,500...

Sorry friend, that's not a real SS

The History of the SS - S-10 Forum

94-98 only and all SS's were V6 and autos

 

[Jarlaxle]

Someone either swapped the tailgate or added a badge. I'm not sure that one is even a ZQ8.

 

[DGS49]

Checking back. (I'm still fucking around trying to sell my PT Cruiser and buy a truck).

I took a nice 2003 S-10 Xtreme for a drive (V6, 5 speed), and was very disappointed. 180HP does not get the job done with any alacrity in a vehicle this heavy, and the body flex in the one I drove was unacceptable. Although it was cosmetically perfect.

To the person who bad-mouthed the GM I-5 above, I will be sure to mention the shortcomings of that engine to the people I find with 150 thousand and more trouble-free miles on the things. And there is no "V6" option. What the hell are you talking about? The I5 gets BETTER fuel economy than the Ford 4.0 (speaking of a POS), the Toyota 4.0 and the Nissan 4.0. I drove a Club-cab Canyon with the I-5 and it had plenty of power. In fact, the GM 4-cylinder is plenty powerful enough for anything but towing.

I have located a '05 Toyota Tacoma X-Runner outside Cleveland (V6-6spd), and will be checking it out this weekend. This particular truck has lived its entire life in the Rust Belt, and if I like it I will take it down to a nearby Toyota dealer to get the frame checked out.

The Tacoma currently holds more than 70% of the market share for "small" trucks, a class which includes the Nissan Frontier, Chevy Colorado (and its corporate cousins), Honda Ridgeline, and Explorer Sport-Trac (the Ford Ranger is out of production). People and dealers selling the Tacoma's are absolutely shameless with their asking prices, although I cannot say what they are actually getting. It is not unusual to see 2001-2004 series trucks that are priced in the high teens. According to Edmunds, NADA, and Kelly BB, the sellers are hallucinating, but it only takes one fool to make such a seller look like a genius.

Ridgelines are also an interesting case. They seem to last virtually forever, but a LOT of them turn over between 90 and 100 thousand miles, requiring an IMMEDIATE changing of the timing belt - an $800 proposition. Even Honda dealers become indignant when you suggest that this little detail ought to be taken care of before they put them on the lot asking top dollar (and advertising that they are up to date with their maintenance). Looking at a lot of these beasties I have not seen any that had even a hint of rust, regardless of age or mileage (they came out in late "05 as '06 models). Also the fabric interiors are incredibly durable.

The Colorado and Canyon look "skinny" to me and a little bit out of proportion, especially the RWD trucks. Same with the Nissan Frontier. The Tacoma is almost ten inches wider, and looks like a "real" truck. GM apparently took note of this when the re-designed the Colorado.

I have had four dubious calls on my PT Cruiser. Each one of them was a little bit hinky, and none turned into an actual human coming to look at it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Checking back. (I'm still fucking around trying to sell my PT Cruiser and buy a truck).

I took a nice 2003 S-10 Xtreme for a drive (V6, 5 speed), and was very disappointed. 180HP does not get the job done with any alacrity in a vehicle this heavy, and the body flex in the one I drove was unacceptable. Although it was cosmetically perfect.

To the person who bad-mouthed the GM I-5 above, I will be sure to mention the shortcomings of that engine to the people I find with 150 thousand and more trouble-free miles on the things. And there is no "V6" option. What the hell are you talking about? The I5 gets BETTER fuel economy than the Ford 4.0 (speaking of a POS), the Toyota 4.0 and the Nissan 4.0. I drove a Club-cab Canyon with the I-5 and it had plenty of power. In fact, the GM 4-cylinder is plenty powerful enough for anything but towing.

I have located a '05 Toyota Tacoma X-Runner outside Cleveland (V6-6spd), and will be checking it out this weekend. This particular truck has lived its entire life in the Rust Belt, and if I like it I will take it down to a nearby Toyota dealer to get the frame checked out.

The Tacoma currently holds more than 70% of the market share for "small" trucks, a class which includes the Nissan Frontier, Chevy Colorado (and its corporate cousins), Honda Ridgeline, and Explorer Sport-Trac (the Ford Ranger is out of production). People and dealers selling the Tacoma's are absolutely shameless with their asking prices, although I cannot say what they are actually getting. It is not unusual to see 2001-2004 series trucks that are priced in the high teens. According to Edmunds, NADA, and Kelly BB, the sellers are hallucinating, but it only takes one fool to make such a seller look like a genius.

Ridgelines are also an interesting case. They seem to last virtually forever, but a LOT of them turn over between 90 and 100 thousand miles, requiring an IMMEDIATE changing of the timing belt - an $800 proposition. Even Honda dealers become indignant when you suggest that this little detail ought to be taken care of before they put them on the lot asking top dollar (and advertising that they are up to date with their maintenance). Looking at a lot of these beasties I have not seen any that had even a hint of rust, regardless of age or mileage (they came out in late "05 as '06 models). Also the fabric interiors are incredibly durable.

The Colorado and Canyon look "skinny" to me and a little bit out of proportion, especially the RWD trucks. Same with the Nissan Frontier. The Tacoma is almost ten inches wider, and looks like a "real" truck. GM apparently took note of this when the re-designed the Colorado.

I have had four dubious calls on my PT Cruiser. Each one of them was a little bit hinky, and none turned into an actual human coming to look at it.

Of course there was no V6 option,that was my bad.