Trucks

bgdriveway

bgdriveway

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
143
Location
KY
Display Name
Display name:
bgdriveway
Not trying to start another high wing vs low wing discussion, but I am looking for another pickup soonish and am looking for some info.

Things I want/think I need are:
-Extended cab/4 door with real seats in the back.
-I think I want at least a 6ft bed.
-Needs to have some giddy up, but also decent-ish gas milage. I drive a lot.
-Probably less than $10K.

I currently have a 2000 Ford ranger with extended cab, but not real seats in the back. If it had real seats I prob would keep it longer. I have all sorts of my tools back there. (Semi-roaming heli mechanic.) I live in the city, so I don't need the F250 4X4 with 7.3 diesel that could be an option if I wanted. That's way too much for what I need and would have a hard time getting it in and out of my driveway every day. I could possibly do something like an Avalanche if I could pull the top and fill it up with stuff. I do use a truck occasionally for real work, not just hauling boxes. Otherwise I'd consider an SUV.

What are the trucks to stay away from? Such as when I bought the Ranger, I realized that it was a much better truck overall than the Chevy S10's. I drove a friends Nissan and wasn't impressed. Are any of the 10 year old ish trucks much better than the others? Can you point me in a direction that I can validate the statement so this doesn't turn into a high wing/low wing?
 
I love my Escalade EXT (Cadillac Avalanche). It has several advantages over an Avalanche and on the used market doesn't cost that much more. You get a 6.0 v8 instead of a 5.3. You get the auto ride load leveling suspension. You loose actual 4wd and get AWD instead but that should be good enough for anything you would do in these trucks.

With that said there are down sides to the EXT. Replacing those shocks is very expensive. The compressor is cheap and easy to replace and most new ones have a life time warranty.

I paid 10k for mine that is an 02 model with 121,000 miles.
 
I'm not a big Dodge fan, last was an 80's model. At least you are below the road salt, should help going used. The only real backseats are in a full sized crew-cab.
 
Decent-ish gas mileage and a capable truck are incongruous. sounds like what you need are the 7.3 f 250 4x4 plus a smallish daily driver.
 
I think your request has some items that don't go well together. The closest that I would suggest would be an earlier F-150 EcoBoost with an extended cab or quad cab and a 6.5 ft bed. That's still going to be a pretty long truck, a lot bigger than your Ranger and you'll end up paying more than $10k for one unless it has a ton of miles on it. It'll also be under 10 years old, so there's value to that as well. 4x2s are significantly cheaper than 4x4s, so if you don't care about 4x4 then that'll help you. On the other hand, then it's a 4x2 truck with the disadvantages that go with that.

If you're saying than an F-250 diesel you'd have a hard time getting in and out of your driveway, a 1/2-ton truck with a 6+ ft bed won't be any easier. Length is length there.

The V8 gassers won't get good mileage. My wife's Avalanche was 17 highway, and 12-13 for most of our in town driving. The diesels will but have their maintenance issues. I think an F-150 Ecoboost is probably the closest to what you want but will break your budget.

I'll make you a really good deal on my F-350 diesel, but that whole engine thing... ;)
 
Maybe I do need to get a suv of some type and see what it would cost to keep the ranger.

In my mind, decent ish gas mileage was 18 to 20 mpg. That's what I had been getting on the ranger until recently, (chasing a power issue, fuel injector, filter etc.) Still need more seat space.

I've basically been driving trucks, ambulances, fire trucks, straight fuel trucks etc. since I was 18, so it's not I couldn't put it where I need it. It's just what makes sense. Most of what I need to haul fits in the ranger easily. Some I have to get creative. Right now, the only real use for 4x4 would be occasionally in snow, and it's not that big a deal here in Louisville after Chicago, Michigan, and Alaska.

The f250 mentioned was my uncle's who just died. He was running a few cows and such. That truck doesn't turn well. (It's also a pretty thirsty one.)I think it's just the 4x4. I had a e350 chassis ambulance that did about the same. It was actually the one I started driving ambulances in.

80% of the time a suv would be fine. Maybe I just need to get a trailer. But sometimes a truck is just convenient.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
 
I am all about Chevy for full size now and have had S-10, GMC S-15, sister had a Ranger...knowing what I know now for a $10K ish compact truck I would be in something like a Toyota Tacoma based on everyone I know that has them and they keep on tickin.

After that I was a life long Dodge Ram fan owing a 98, 05 and 07. There was a sweet spot from 96 till about 2003 where they were solid...either side of that they are complete garbage IMO. Earlier models have major mechanical problems and later models have major cosmetic problems.

That "life long" fandom quickly faded with their quality and made the shift to Chevy and freaking love it.
 
Shawn said:
After that I was a life long Dodge Ram fan owing a 98, 05 and 07. There was a sweet spot from 96 till about 2003 where they were solid...either side of that they are complete garbage IMO. Earlier models have major mechanical problems and later models have major cosmetic problems.
Click to expand...
I know someone who had a brand new 2000 Ram 1500, tranny lasted less then 10,000 miles if I remember correctly. However, my Diesel 99 2500 is doing just fine at 246,000 miles. The main thing I'd complain about is the plastic they used, the front dash in mine is cracked like crazy, I need to go ahead and replace it. I don't think I'd ever get a gas ram made before 2010ish. Diesel on the other hand I'd probably get any year from them.
 
You’re not getting any full size supercab or crew can truck that’s going to get an honest 20mpg with a V8 gas engine, the EB V6 F-150 is about as good as it gets, but you’re not getting one for $10K. The GM 5.3L, Ford 4.6, 5.0, or 5.4L, and the Dodge 5.7L are all going to get 15-16mpg city, 18 max highway. There’s always a story of getting 20mpg with X brand, but it’s mostly folklore, unless they were in flat country driving under 60mph.

The Toyota Tacoma/Ranger/Colorado will be your best bet for mileage, but personally I’d live with worse gas mileage for the utility of a full size truck. The 97-03 F-150s are decent options in that price range. My father picked up an ‘01 SuperCab Lariat 5.4L with 80K on the clock for under $8K. I’d personally avoid the GMs from 99 until after 2012, which likely puts them out of your price range, just due to problematic electronics in all GM vehicles in that period.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Butch Trucks... A deceased drummer or the vehicle of choice for power lesbians?
 
The comments of avoid "these years" are helpful.

What about the Dakotas? Are they junk?

I grew up driving a 78/79? silverado, so I'm partial to Chevy's, but I also know some years have more problems than others. I do recognize that F150 is no slouch either. I had thought about some of the F150's or the Tundras.

I've put about 60k miles on my ranger in the last 2.5 years. But I do get reimbursed for some of my driving. There's no guarantee gas will stay low. Who knows what political games will be played or what else will happen. I just don't want to feed a diesel that gets 12 mpg.
 
bgdriveway said:
I just don't want to feed a diesel that gets 12 mpg.
Click to expand...
What diesel gets 12mpg? My 99' 2500 gets 17.5 easy with no tune. Now if you go for a gas heavy duty truck, then yea you'll get 12mpg, but that's a gasser.
 
I'm pretty sure that's what my uncle said his truck got. My aunt has offered it to me, not for free, but would still be a deal, but there's still ongoing costs.
 
I like pre-99 GM trucks, I’ve just had my fill of GM shortcomings over 3 GM trucks and 2 GM cars in that 99-07 year range.

There are diesels that can get 18-20mpg on the highway unloaded, so I wouldn’t worry about that. However diesel is more expensive than gasoline, so it’s probably a wash financially. A nice 1995 7.3L diesel F-250 would be in your price range and will get decent mpg, but it’s not what I’d want to drive 30K year. Same goes for any pre-97 HD truck, they just rode, well, like HD trucks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matthew K said:
I know someone who had a brand new 2000 Ram 1500, tranny lasted less then 10,000 miles if I remember correctly. However, my Diesel 99 2500 is doing just fine at 246,000 miles. The main thing I'd complain about is the plastic they used, the front dash in mine is cracked like crazy, I need to go ahead and replace it. I don't think I'd ever get a gas ram made before 2010ish. Diesel on the other hand I'd probably get any year from them.
Click to expand...

My experience was that I got 215,000 miles outta my 98 Dodge Ram 1500 V6 with literally only one minor mechanical problem that was a $200 fix other then normal wear and tear stuff. That truck was solid. In 95 and 96 they had a lot of drive train issues. Had three friends that had issues. By time I got to my 2007 and then looked at the 2010's they were rattly plastic POS builds which is why I shifted to Chevy Silverado.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I like pre-99 GM trucks, I’ve just had my fill of GM shortcomings over 3 GM trucks and 2 GM cars in that 99-07 year range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's the feeling I was getting about Chevys.
 
bgdriveway said:
I'm pretty sure that's what my uncle said his truck got. My aunt has offered it to me, not for free, but would still be a deal, but there's still ongoing costs.
Click to expand...
I can't speak on that truck specifically, but the only time I've ever gotten 12mpg is when I was towing a 7000 pound camper. But yea with a diesel if something goes wrong, your most likely in for a big bill. I'd make sure that if you buy it, you buy it at a price where your still okay if right after you have to replace the injectors. Unlikely, but with the age, its something I'd be prepared for.
Shawn said:
My experience was that I got 215,000 miles outta my 98 Dodge Ram 1500 V6 with literally only one minor mechanical problem that was a $200 fix other then normal wear and tear stuff. That truck was solid. In 95 and 96 they had a lot of drive train issues. Had three friends that had issues. By time I got to my 2007 and then looked at the 2010's they were rattly plastic POS builds which is why I shifted to Chevy Silverado.
Click to expand...
I'd say you were lucky to get 215k outta that truck with nothing major. Personally, I'd go ford anytime dealing with a gas truck, haven't had much experience with Chevy's. Of course I am here with a RAM :confused:.
 
I could very well be misremembering, its been awhile, and my uncle also hauled a lot of stuff too, so that may affect what he told me.
 
My diesel gets 25-30mpg depending on how much of a lead foot I have.... but, well, it's not quite full size, it's a Colorado.
 
If you do the math you will see that the difference between 17 and 20 mpg over the course of a year is pretty insignificant. The 1-2 mpg you get in a diesel versus a gas truck will be neutralized by the cost of oil changes and fuel filters. In some parts of the country diesel fuel is higher than gas. Let's not even get into repair cost.

Sounds like an Avalanche is exactly what you need. from my experience there is nothing more reliable about the pre 99 trucks. Post 99 got a much better interior, the engine lacks a little to compared to the 5.7 but is much easier to work on.
 
I'd agree that the fuel costs are pretty insignificant and it's not worth getting worked up over a few MPG. You have to drive a whole lot (and especially be towing a whole lot) before that comes into play.

Personally, I didn't like driving the Avalanche at all. Too soft of a suspension. So test drive one first.
 
Grum.Man said:
If you do the math you will see that the difference between 17 and 20 mpg over the course of a year is pretty insignificant. The 1-2 mpg you get in a diesel versus a gas truck will be neutralized by the cost of oil changes and fuel filters. In some parts of the country diesel fuel is higher than gas. Let's not even get into repair cost.

Sounds like an Avalanche is exactly what you need. from my experience there is nothing more reliable about the pre 99 trucks. Post 99 got a much better interior, the engine lacks a little to compared to the 5.7 but is much easier to work on.
Click to expand...

It wasn't necessarily about "reliability" in my experience on the GM's. Just fewer things to go wrong, electronically. Go out and look at GMC/Chevy trucks and SUVs from 99-03 or so, and I bet 1 in 10 has at least one gauge in the dash not functioning (usually speedo/tach or fuel gauge). Also sketchy window motors and HVAC controls, and 4x4 switches if equipped. Delphi electronics was just turning out junk product during that time period. The engines (4.3L v6/5.3L v8) were just fine, and the transmissions weren't particularly great but lasted just fine. Also, tailgate handles/bezels will be missing on a ton of the trucks as well, because of a poor design on the plastic clips that attach the handle to the actuator rods. The DoD engines (Displacement on Demand) which was featured in many 05+ GM 5.3L V8's generally eats oil at over 1qt per 4K miles and is a known problem on them. I have a truck with the LS3, and a car with an LS4, and they both have to have a quart of oil added between 5K oil changes, and even then it's almost a quart low when I do the oil change. The DoD is even de-activated on the LS4, but it makes little difference in oil consumption. The newest generation (Gen V I think) are fine, but they didn't come out until around 2013.

The pre-98 trucks were just dead-simple 350 v8's with basic electronics. Not much plastic other than interior panels, and the 305/350/454 V8 engines were well sorted out by that point.
 
Last edited:
SoonerAviator said:
It wasn't necessarily about "reliability" in my experience on the GM's. Just fewer things to go wrong, electronically. Go out and look at GMC/Chevy trucks and SUVs from 99-03 or so, and I bet 1 in 10 has at least one gauge in the dash not functioning (usually speedo/tach or fuel gauge). Also sketchy window motors and HVAC controls, and 4x4 switches if equipped. Delphi electronics was just turning out junk product during that time period. The engines (4.3L v6/5.3L v8) were just fine, and the transmissions weren't particularly great but lasted just fine. Also, tailgate handles/bezels will be missing on a ton of the trucks as well, because of a poor design on the plastic clips that attach the handle to the actuator rods. The DoD engines (Displacement on Demand) which was featured in many 05+ GM 5.3L V8's generally eats oil at over 1qt per 4K miles and is a known problem on them. I have a truck with the LS3, and a car with an LS4, and they both have to have a quart of oil added between 5K oil changes, and even then it's almost a quart low when I do the oil change. The DoD is even de-activated on the LS4, but it makes little difference in oil consumption. The newest generation (Gen V I think) are fine, but they didn't come out until around 2013.

The pre-98 trucks were just dead-simple 350 v8's with basic electronics. Not much plastic other than interior panels, and the 305/350/454 V8 engines were well sorted out by that point.
Click to expand...

You are correct on the gauge issue but it's very cheap and easy to fix. With that said most pre 98 trucks fuel gauge craps out too. Never had nor heard of issues with the window motors, hvac, and 4x4 switches. The DoD engines definitely have an oil consumption problem which is why I avoided those when I bought my truck. I do not agree on the dead simple comment on the pre 98 trucks as I find it much more difficult to work on than my 02.

The intake gasket is a known failure point on the Vortec and LS engines. The vortec one takes about 8 hours to change, I can change and LS one in under 2. The fuel injection system in the Vortec was way more complex and finicky than the LS system. An ejector goes bad in a Vortec and you are looking at 8 hours to repair. One goes bad on an LS, 30 minute job. The A/C system in the pre 98 trucks sucked royal big ones compared to the 99 and up. Pre 98 trucks had crack prone dash boards that the 99 and up doesn't. The only real down side of the 99 versus the 98 in my opinion is the gauge issue, and the fact that the engine didn't have nearly the bottom end tq of the 350. Other than that they are better trucks in every way.
 
Grum.Man said:
You are correct on the gauge issue but it's very cheap and easy to fix. With that said most pre 98 trucks fuel gauge craps out too. Never had nor heard of issues with the window motors, hvac, and 4x4 switches. The DoD engines definitely have an oil consumption problem which is why I avoided those when I bought my truck. I do not agree on the dead simple comment on the pre 98 trucks as I find it much more difficult to work on than my 02.

The intake gasket is a known failure point on the Vortec and LS engines. The vortec one takes about 8 hours to change, I can change and LS one in under 2. The fuel injection system in the Vortec was way more complex and finicky than the LS system. An ejector goes bad in a Vortec and you are looking at 8 hours to repair. One goes bad on an LS, 30 minute job. The A/C system in the pre 98 trucks sucked royal big ones compared to the 99 and up. Pre 98 trucks had crack prone dash boards that the 99 and up doesn't. The only real down side of the 99 versus the 98 in my opinion is the gauge issue, and the fact that the engine didn't have nearly the bottom end tq of the 350. Other than that they are better trucks in every way.
Click to expand...

We had 3 of 4 window motors fail on a '99 Grand Prix, one on a '99 GMC 1500, and one on an '07 GMC 1500. It's not about whether the items are an easy fix, it's that they have a slew of problems (like the gauge failures) that affect almost every model they made. It wasn't as much a GM problem as a Delphi problem, but it's pretty hard to separate the two. The earlier LS motors had some head gasket failures, too, common in the truck/tahoe/suburban models if I recall. I just preferred the simplicity of the good 'ol GM 350 in an all-but-bulletproof Z71. Interior design and ride quality was obviously much better in the 99+ models, but that goes for just about every brand. The '97 F-150 was the first model to really bring a lot of that car-like handling/ride to the truck market. GM followed in their '99 redesign, and Dodge worked it into their 2001+ models.
 
I agree with you on the 350 if you are talking 95 and older. The 96-98 Vortec engines were not simple at all and in most ways more complicated than the 4.8 5.3 and 6.0 that followed in the early 2000's.
 
Have you looked at a Ford Transit or similar small service truck. I had a 4-door Frontier and almost never used the back seats. It was too long for the garage and generally got in the way in the driveway. I sold it after I restored a 1962 Willys pickup and bought a Ford Escort (probably should have got a Subaru). I use the truck for truck things and the Escort for carrying my golf clubs and going to the airport. Were I working a trade where I needed to carry tools, I would have a Transit. I think you can get them with removable seats.
 
Maybe I should own something like a Transit with my tools, but no, this is a personal vehicle not a work truck. Yet I do a lot of work with it. Both personal and for my employer. I could probably get a SUV to do most of what I want and need, I just like trucks though. I need more seats though.

I'll keep mulling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top