I need a new (used) truck

[_RaT_]

You know after all these years, I still do not know where to post something like this. My Ford 92 F250 7.3 IDI diesel is really getting to be a sorry mess. I do not need a truck this large and quite frankly, a Toyota Tacoma size truck would be OK. My main concern is fuel economy. I want to get a used truck, full size or Tacoma size, that is not so important. Any advice on a truck, your experience on fuel economy versus what you thought you would get? I really do not care so much about brands but I think I want to get back into a 1/2 ton type instead of my 3/4 ton beast.

Used list includes but not limited to;

Toyota Tundra
Toyota Tacoma (overpriced it would seem)
Chevy 1500
Ford 150
Dodge 1500 ( I have to be honest, Dodge is on the bottom of my list, maybe I'm wrong.)
Nissan Frontier

I suspect I will need to look at early 2000 models because of price.

Thanks, RaT....

 

[Chuck52]

Do any of the smaller 1/2 tons really get much better mileage than a full size with a six, or even an 8? I had to replace my old 1991 F150, which had the straight 6, last year. I drive an Impala as the main car, and that gets over 30mpg on the highway, so the difference between high teens and low twenties in estimated mileage just didn't seem worth the trade off in bed size, so I got another F150 with the long bed and a v6. I don't use the truck much, but I do haul full loads of compost and mulch and such, and the extra volume is good. Now, if I could get a smaller truck that got 30mpg, I'd go for it. Maybe a Mahindra!

Chuck

 

[Flatheadyoungin]

i had a 95 chevy extended cab 4x4 with the 4.3 v6 and got 21mpg regularly on a very curvy and hilly road.....no starting and stopping, though......i'd say on the highway with the trans not switching a lot i probably could have pulled off 23mpg....

i wish i had kept that truck, now.....i could really use it

 

[Thomas]

Went from Colorado Z71 auto 5 cly. 4X4 x-cab to Sivlerado 1/2 ton auto small 8 cly. 4X4..almost 5mpg better..back to floating boat feeling.

 

[bdeboer]

I went from a '95 Dodge Dakota 4x4 Ex. Cab 3.9 V6 to a '99 GMC 4x4 XCab Z71 5.3 V8 3.73 rear end in 1999. The Dakota was getting 12 mpg driving to work on rural back roads and around 20 freeway. The GMC was 16/18 same driving. The V6 in the Dakota was some what under powered.

Currently have a 2005 Chevy 1500 Regular Cab Long Bed 4x4 5.3/3.42 gears and it gets 16/19 used as a work truck. We also have a 2008 2500 crew cab diesel used for trips and heavy towing it gets 15-20 depending on the driving style.

Wife has a 2004 Tacoma CrewCab 4x4 mileage is somewhat better. She likes it, I find it to be uncomfortable at 6' 200 pounds. I probably haven't ridden in it 2000 miles in 6 years. It is also small for us with 3 kids, youngest was born after the purchase. The positive side is that it is much more reliable than the 2002 S10 crew cab it replaced. The S10 ate a fuel pump, U-Joints, door hinge bushings, front axle encoder, and traded in with phantom check engine light between 36K and 50K. Actual last straw for her was when the heated seat quit working. I did find the ride/seats in the S10 to be more comfortable. We have not towed with either the Tacoma or the S10.

Recently the 1995-2004 Tacomas in the rust belt have been recalled for frame rust. Toyota bought the early ones back, and some of the later ones are getting frame replacements. The one we have passed. You may want to run a carfax or autocheck to see where the truck came from.

All three of the full size GM's were purchased new and have been in my opinion reliable. The '99 had some wind noise warranty stuff, and a window regulator under warranty. I replaced U-Joints, brakes, and the 4x4 switch in dash ($60) out of warranty. This was in 5 1/2 years around 95K+ miles. The '05 has 60K and has had the intermittant steering shaft and a solenoid on the fuel tank replaced in 5 years. The '08 has just over 30K and has been in twice for minor recalls.

 

[forgeblast]

Mahindra Clean Diesel Pickup Trucks and SUVs

It would sure be nice if these came anytime soon. diesel truck around 23k, and 40mpg.

 

[tallyho8]

Since your main concern is fuel economy, I will give you the highway mpg of the last trucks that I had.

1995 F250 7.3 diesel 24 mpg
2001 F150 6 cyl 16 mpg
1988 Ranger 4wd 6 cyl. 15 mpg
1990 F150 V8 15 mpg
1982 Bronco 15 mpg

All trucks were bought new and mpg tested over 50,000 miles.
Smaller is not always better mileage.

 

[bdeboer]

I did have a 1991 Ranger RCSB 4x2 2.3L 5 speed as a work commuter. It would get low 20's in the winter and 25+ in the summer. I purchased used in 1999 to keep miles off from my GMC with 58K. Sold it to in-laws for a beginning driver in 2004 I think with 120K it had been sitting for about a year. A deer finally did it in last year. I think during that time it went through a starter, clutch, brake lines, and fuel pressure regulator.

 

[_RaT_]

Since your main concern is fuel economy, I will give you the highway mpg of the last trucks that I had.

1995 F250 7.3 diesel 24 mpg
2001 F150 6 cyl 16 mpg
1988 Ranger 4wd 6 cyl. 15 mpg
1990 F150 V8 15 mpg
1982 Bronco 15 mpg

All trucks were bought new and mpg tested over 50,000 miles.
Smaller is not always better mileage.

Good mileage on the diesel, I could never get that.

 

[Patriotic Stabilist]

I have to ask Tom about mileage, we have 2 trucks. I'm thinking around 18 to 20 on mine, but will varify that with him.

I have a 2006 Lincoln Mark and I love that truck. Husband says it will tow a heavier load then his F150. Both of ours have towing packages and are V8's so he says they are geared lower. Mine has 40k miles on it with no issues. Well the drivers seat edge where the trim is is wearing but about it. I think you might be able to get a good deal on one of these, believe this is the last year they are making them, but they are beauties.

His is a 2001 F150 with 115k on it. We don't have any problems with it either. Both were purchased new by me, in the past we have always bought used except 1977 I bought a new car. But when I got ready to buy a truck here in Texas all I could find was very high mileage for very high dollars so bought new. He had company trucks for about 15 years before that and his company always bought Fords. They sure were treated rough and most ran over 150k miles I remember he brought a loaner home one time that was well over 250k and still going good. Fords are one of the top producers of trucks. But we like Chevies too, he has had a couple of really good Silverados.

It's so hot down here I used to get the radiator flushed every year or two on the F150 or Tom does it. Need to on my Lincoln. Also he is **** about changing oil at 3000 to 3500 miles and yes we use Mobil 1. He says that is cheap maintenance. We also get the transmission fluid and filter changed at 30k miles.

I bought a 1991 motorhome with 107k miles on it. He has been all over it changing fluids, spark plugs, starter, and batteries. It's a Ford E350 460 V8 and that old thing gets 8.4 mpg! Take your checkbook with it for fuel! Getting ready to head out soon.

This picture was taken in January and it still looks as good. But so does his. But mine never sets outside and that makes a big difference.

 

[Patriotic Stabilist]

Whoops posted twice.

 

[Patriotic Stabilist]

Hubby said 18mpg on his and only 16 to 17mpg on my 2006, but he said that is because of the towing packages on them.

 

[_RaT_]

No, that Lincoln PU will never do. I need one that I can scratch up or at least not worry about scratching up.

I know that Toyota makes a Tacoma for the rest of the world (so if your not in the U.S. and know about it, it would be interesting to know) a 4 cylinder diesel that gets upwards of 30 mpg. If this is true then smaller can get you better sometimes, as long as its diesel.

 

[Pilot]

'91 Ranger, 3.0 V6, stick shift, 2 WD. 18 mpg. A real wimp, that V6 just doesn't have any power unless you get up to about 4000 rpm. I had a Volvo that had a 2.1 L engine, weighed about the same, was faster, took hills better and got about 23 mpg--and was 13 year older technology.

'97 Ranger, 4.0 V6, auto, 4WD 17 mpg, lots of repairs even though well maintained and driven gently and 4wd only used for snow a couple times a year--trans, heads, front end and more, totaling about $5K. Had about 120K when I sold it. Swore off Fords once again.

The advantage with Rangers is that they are cheap. But as you can see, I paid more in the long run, both in money and satisfaction.

2005 Tacoma, 4.0 V6, auto, 4wd, 18 mpg. Weighs more then the '97 Ranger but it's faster, has a bigger bed, pulls a heavier trailer and gets a little better mileage. It's more civilized, but it's newer. Only 48K on it now, but checked the oil yesterday, 5,000 miles since changed and still at full mark. It's also got the best safety ratings. I really like this truck and would recommend it to anyone.

 

[GT2]

I have a 06 Nissan CC 4x4 Titan. Love it.
Mileage so-so, 11 to 13 in town and 16 to 20 on highway.
I've been told by others that the smaller Frontier doesn't get any better mileage.
If you want serious good mileage, I think small diesel is the only way you will get it.

 

[_RaT_]

I have a 06 Nissan CC 4x4 Titan. Love it.
Mileage so-so, 11 to 13 in town and 16 to 20 on highway.
I've been told by others that the smaller Frontier doesn't get any better mileage.
If you want serious good mileage, I think small diesel is the only way you will get it.

Where do you get these small diesels (in a truck)?

 

[_RaT_]

'91 Ranger, 3.0 V6, stick shift, 2 WD. 18 mpg. A real wimp, that V6 just doesn't have any power unless you get up to about 4000 rpm. I had a Volvo that had a 2.1 L engine, weighed about the same, was faster, took hills better and got about 23 mpg--and was 13 year older technology.

'97 Ranger, 4.0 V6, auto, 4WD 17 mpg, lots of repairs even though well maintained and driven gently and 4wd only used for snow a couple times a year--trans, heads, front end and more, totaling about $5K. Had about 120K when I sold it. Swore off Fords once again.

The advantage with Rangers is that they are cheap. But as you can see, I paid more in the long run, both in money and satisfaction.

2005 Tacoma, 4.0 V6, auto, 4wd, 18 mpg. Weighs more then the '97 Ranger but it's faster, has a bigger bed, pulls a heavier trailer and gets a little better mileage. It's more civilized, but it's newer. Only 48K on it now, but checked the oil yesterday, 5,000 miles since changed and still at full mark. It's also got the best safety ratings. I really like this truck and would recommend it to anyone.

I have a 93 (old style IDI non turbo 4X4 extended cab later 93 get a turbo). There is no other vehicle on the planet that has a larger turning radius. That thing that drives the space shuttle to the launch pad out turns this truck. When I am backing up a trailer folks will say turn the wheel all the way to the right or the left not knowing its all the way already.

I would love some maneuverability in a truck and perhaps why I was thinking of a small vehicle like a Tacoma size. I just find used Tacomas incredibly expensive.

 

[Dmace]

My 98 Dakota 4x4 V6 3.9l club cab got around 18mpg highway and 16mpg city but I averaged 17-18mpg on a regular basis. I could also throw a sled in the back and hook the trailer to the rear with 2 sleds in it and haul all of us and gear 3 hours north and still get 12mpg. I sold it with almost 200k on it and it's still on the road. Plus it's a mid-sized truck so you are not so cramped like those Rangers and Tacoma's. It also has a bench seat in the rear and not those stupid jump seats.

 

[westcliffe01]

I have a dodge ram 1500 3.7 v6 short bed 2wd. Not a truck you want to tow a heavy load up the side of a mountain with. The truck can barely move itself up the interstate at 70mph in 6th gear (stick shift).

But... I average 18mpg on my daily commute and 14-16mpg towing a 22ft 5000lb HiLow camping trailer (top of trailer level with truck cab when in the lowered position). In addition to that, I paid $9000 for the truck with only 2 years on it (new in 2005, I bought in in 2007).

If you actually drive any distance in it with a load, it would be worth while changing the final drive to 4.88 and adding in an Auburn LSD at the same time. The rear axle ratio change from 3.55 to 4.88 basically moves all the gears 1 down, thus 6th gear actually becomes a practical gear that you can hold while driving into the wind. First and reverse become low enough to actually make a start from a light on a slope.

I don't much care for the external styling, but the interior is quite nice except for the fact that a child seat doesn't work in the center between the seats and the cup holders don't work with the stick... I do think that the quality of the sheet metal and rust protection on Dodge and Ford Pickups I have seen is well below average for the automotive industry. My 2005 truck has rust in the tailgate and starting at the bottom of the doors.

This weekend I bought a 93 Toyota Pickup and the only rust on it is where the paint was scraped off. The bed is galvanized/plated under the paint. The tailgate is rotted out of course. It cost $1400 had 130k miles and is slated by the EPA to get 28mpg, which I believe can easily be surpassed.

 

[_RaT_]

"it would be worth while changing the final drive to 4.88 and adding in an Auburn LSD at the same time"

You mean Lysergic acid diethylamide is legal?

I have no clue what an Auburn LSD is.