Compact Trucks

[saveliberty]

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..

Colorados came in 4 or 5 cylinder only. With five it got better mpg and horsepower than the Ranger or Dakota. Is there a reason you want a stick? In some cases I have seen worse mpg with sticks, so don't assume there is an advantage.

 

[DGS49]

In my learned opinion, a stick shift, properly driven, will always get better mileage than an automatic. How could it be otherwise? Regardless of how sophisticated an automatic is, you are losing some percentage of your power to a torque converter.

Auto manufacturers have learned that you can "game" the EPA mileage circuits (which are done on a dynamometer and not on the road) by upshifting earlier than any human would want to. Many now offer an "eco" button that forces the same thing, to a ridiculous extent. But with a stick shift YOU control what gear you are in and how fast you are going, and if you want to drive for maximum economy you can do that...or not. On every car I've ever owned (since EPA mileage numbers were first posted) I have been able to get better mileage than EPA, driving a stick.

More importantly, I enjoy the involvement with driving the car. Some automatics are great but not for me.

Parenthetically, I think the EPA should publish steady-state fuel economy ratings that chart the mileage a car will obtain going at fixed speeds on level terrain in high gear. If people saw this information they would realize how much money they are wasting by going 70mph, when 65 would be good enough.

 

[NLT]

toyota tacoma

 

[saveliberty]

DGS49,

The 2009 EPA gas mileage guide shows identical MPGs for both 2wd and 4wd with automatic or manual transmissions.

2wd 2.9l 18 city/24 highway
4wd 2.9l 17 city/23 highway

Comupters are better than people on shift points.

 

[saveliberty]

toyota tacoma

Slightly better mpgs with a 2wd, but its a 2.7l.

Worse mpgs with 4wd, much worse with an automatic.

Probably giving up torque and towing ability as well.

 

[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..

Colorados came in 4 or 5 cylinder only. With five it got better mpg and horsepower than the Ranger or Dakota. Is there a reason you want a stick? In some cases I have seen worse mpg with sticks, so don't assume there is an advantage.

Don't look at me , personally my truck is a 2015 F250 Super Duty crew cab 4x4 with the big V8 and an automatic.

 

[saveliberty]

1992 GMC Yukon 2dr 4x4 5.7l V8. Still helping me pull a dump trailer when needed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

In my learned opinion, a stick shift, properly driven, will always get better mileage than an automatic. How could it be otherwise? Regardless of how sophisticated an automatic is, you are losing some percentage of your power to a torque converter.

For a few years, 2.5 Rangers got better highway MPG with an automatic...they had the same (4.11) axle ratio, but the automatic had a taller overdrive. The 5-speed gave up ~2MPG highway. (Later Rangers got 4.10's with the automatic and 3.73's with the 5-speed.)

Note that the current Focus, most VW models, and I think the Civic HF get better mileage with the automatic than the manual!

Auto manufacturers have learned that you can "game" the EPA mileage circuits (which are done on a dynamometer and not on the road) by upshifting earlier than any human would want to. Many now offer an "eco" button that forces the same thing, to a ridiculous extent. But with a stick shift YOU control what gear you are in and how fast you are going, and if you want to drive for maximum economy you can do that...or not. On every car I've ever owned (since EPA mileage numbers were first posted) I have been able to get better mileage than EPA, driving a stick.

Many vehicles-including S-10's-have an "upshift" light. In the ones I have driven, pay attention to it, because it DOES work.

More importantly, I enjoy the involvement with driving the car. Some automatics are great but not for me.

Parenthetically, I think the EPA should publish steady-state fuel economy ratings that chart the mileage a car will obtain going at fixed speeds on level terrain in high gear. If people saw this information they would realize how much money they are wasting by going 70mph, when 65 would be good enough.

Maybe...maybe not. Offhand, my stepfather's car uses more gas at 55 than at 65. It has a TRIPLE-overdrive transmission, and isn't in high gear until about 62MPH!

 

[Jarlaxle]

toyota tacoma

Slightly better mpgs with a 2wd, but its a 2.7l.

Worse mpgs with 4wd, much worse with an automatic.

Probably giving up torque and towing ability as well.

Nothing wrong with the 2.7 Toyota--damn good motor. My wife considered one...she put almost 70 miles on the vehicle (a 4-Runner) before we realized it wasn't a V6! Honestly, I would prefer the 2.7 to the 3.0 or 3.4 Toyota V6.

 

[Roadrunner]

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)?

Best truck I ever sold was Toyota T-100 4 cylinder.

It looks small now, but was their big truck at the time.

It would hold 1,600 lbs of corn in the bed.

That 4cyl never lacked for power.

It now has over 200,000, and the old guy I sold it to has it looking like new.

A Tacoma would be my choice if I downsized, but, I am 6'4", and have driven a full sized truck all my life.

I like the looks of some Jeep SUV's, but, never knew a Jeep that did not have some major problem in the first year, one they never could quite get fixed at the dealership.

I have had two brand new Toyota trucks, and never even had to return to the dealer one time.

For anything.

Change the oil, and they are indestructible.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Not around here...by 150,000 miles, they are usually about to rot in half!

Not to mention, of course, the well-known V6 head problems.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you're buying used, go with Toyota – where in the context of used vehicles all other criteria are irrelevant.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Congratulations. That is the STUPIDEST THING EVER POSTED ON THE INTERNET! Good job!

(Note: most Tacomas fail his most basic test in that he cannot carry his Goldwing in the bed!)

 

[saveliberty]

All used vehicles are unique to miles, equipment, pricing and condition. Don't kid yourself, the Tacoma with a 4 cyl has 159 horsepower and 180ft/lbs torque and a Colorado with a 4 cyl has 185 horsepower and 1990ft/lbs of torque. If an under powered truck meets your needs, buy it.

 

[Roadrunner]

All used vehicles are unique to miles, equipment, pricing and condition. Don't kid yourself, the Tacoma with a 4 cyl has 159 horsepower and 180ft/lbs torque and a Colorado with a 4 cyl has 185 horsepower and 1990ft/lbs of torque. If an under powered truck meets your needs, buy it.

I never buy used.

Why?

I don't know jack-shit about maintenance and can afford not to.

I buy the most basic truck I can find, but, it is getting very hard to find old fashioned roll down windows.

I hate the way pickup trucks and Suburbans have become luxury vehicles.

I long for the day of the all vinyl Suburban, where you could load a deer into it, hose it out at the car wash, and be like new.

I wore out two of those, just base, one ac no frills Suburbans built for hauling work crews(and dirty kids).

 

[saveliberty]

Do you like being under warranty and trade when it runs out? For those folks who don't drive over 20,000 miles a year, I usually suggest leasing.

 

[saveliberty]

I have two $50,000 plus pick ups out for the year so far. It is a strange world.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do you like being under warranty and trade when it runs out? For those folks who don't drive over 20,000 miles a year, I usually suggest leasing.

You might be better off putting your money in a pile and burning it.

 

[saveliberty]

Do you like being under warranty and trade when it runs out? For those folks who don't drive over 20,000 miles a year, I usually suggest leasing.

You might be better off putting your money in a pile and burning it.

No the point is only buy the part of the vehicle you are going to use. Many states only charge use tax on the part of the vehicle you buy. Often that is 50% or less, so you save quite a bit in tax. Then you don't have to worry about inequity either. You are also under warranty for the three years too, so few or no repair costs. Again, this is for people who trade every three years and get a new vehicle. Certainly not a strategy everyone uses.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone who uses that "strategy" might as well put the cash in a pile and burn it.