Ask the Car People.SM


Best Compact PU - Toyota, Nissan, Chevy, Ford? - READ ONLY

49 messages,  Last post on May 17, 1998 at 8:43 PM

You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Javascript runtime error--TypeError: obj has no properties-- no stack trace file was written discussion.

Messages Page 6 of 6

#44 of 49 lwf by lwf

May 12, 1998 (12:03 am)

I appreciate squonk's remark about wanting good fuel economy, but I assumed most people who buy a pickup want to haul or tow something with it. If all one is going to do is "haul air in the bed or their truck", why buy a truck? Why not something like a Civic which will get even better economy?


As for DOHC engines getting atrocious fuel mileage, I don't think that has been proven. I believe that the opposite is the case and that the 4-cylinder Toyota and Nissan will do better than the lower-powered 4-cylinder Ford and Chevy. One thing we'll have to admit about the Japanese pickups, they are not ashamed of their fuel consumption figures and publish them in their catalogs. I wish the American companies would do the same.




#45 of 49 putty by putty

May 12, 1998 (1:18 am)

I own an '82 Toyota longbed that I bought dirt cheap. It has been extremely reliable, but I'm thinking about getting a newer truck. 92-93 Toyotas are too expensive. My question is, will I be satisfied with the reliability of a Ranger or Nissan? I'd really like to know if there's something as good--or almost as good--as a Toyota for less money.

#46 of 49 Brutus by Brutus

May 12, 1998 (2:34 am)

The new Ranger is considered a really good truck, with one exception. And it's a big exception for alot of truck owners. It's considered underpowered compared to some of the other trucks it competes with. The critics say the problem could be resolved if they offered the same engines for the Ranger as they do for the Explorers. I think I heard that the Ford V-6 is different in the two vehicles. Anyone know why they would use an inferior V-6 when they already have a replacement.

#47 of 49 Brutus by Brutus

May 13, 1998 (3:25 am)

I was watching the news tonight and the insurance industry just issued crash ratings for the top five compact trucks. None of them received a "good" rating. That seems to take away some of the incentive of owning a truck.

#48 of 49 enyaw24 by enyaw24

May 14, 1998 (4:22 pm)

I used to have a '93 Nissan 4x4 with the 2.4 L 4-cylinder. It was so underpowered it took 2 days to get up to 60mph. Then, after owning it for 3 years, I've had to replace the front wheel bearings twice. I heard some pretty scary noises coming from the transfer case (at least that's where I'm guessing it was coming from) which sounded like metal rubbing against metal every revolution, whenever it was in 4WD or even if it was still in 2WD with the hubs locked. Other than that I loved it. It was an eyecatcher too with the factory polished steel wheels. It just looked better than it performed. In fact, the only vehicle I could ever beat to 60 mph was a geo metro, and it was a close one, too. (not that I drag raced the thing, I was just trying to keep up with everybody else.) However, I am convinced that the engine itself would have lasted forever. It ran like a top, just didn't move like one. I've since traded it in for a '98 Malibu with a V-6. I now feel like I can keep up with everybody, but it's not as eyecatching as my lil pickup ever was, and I bought it based on looks, not for hauling. I think if I would have started out with a Toyota 4x4, I'd probably still own it to this day, based on a lot of the postings I see.

#49 of 49 timz by timz

May 17, 1998 (8:43 pm)

Last year I bought a new Chevy S-10 LS 3 door ext cab. At the time, I also needed a vehicle that I could tow behind my RV and wanted a manual transmission to simplify that process. My only real complaint with this vehicle is a lack of power, but that is my fault. I opted for the 4 cyl motor with the 5 speed transmission. The ext cab is fairly heavy and the little four provides only marginal acceleration. The real selling point was the third door. Most of my hauling is of the few 2 X 4's or two sheets of plywood variety so I didn't need a lot of load capacity. The s-10 rides fairly well, is relatively quiet and with the LS trim and air conditioning is comfortable enough. The truck has a 4:10 rear end making for a lot of rpm at highway speeds but still averages 24-25 mpg making it economical to operate. Had the third door been an option on either the Ranger or Mazda, they would have been my choice with the 3.0 engine and an automatic transmission. Chevy would be well advised to offer either the 3.1 V-6 or the 3.4 in their little trucks. The jump to the 4.3 kills any hope of fuel economy.

Messages Page 6 of 6

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement