Small trucks with big cabs

Ecotec!!!

If Colorado/Canyon is your thing, be sure to also look for the Isuzu i-series twin as well to possible find a truck that is selling slow and everyone else is overlooking.

The S10 crew cabs were only sold here with 4wd, 4.3 and auto. If you were willing to do the work you could Lego yourself a smaller engine, 5-speed, and 2wd parts to bring the weight down and mpg up.

With the mpg the 3800 equipped couch cars get I'd love to mix some Camaro parts in and build a 3800 2wd 5-speed S10 just to see what it would do.

There's probably a JDM diesel engine that would drop in a Colorado too, but you would be out on a limb there too.

Volkswagen double cab truck?

Fits all of the requirements except the cost (Add another 0 to the end!)

Rob R.

I went through this exercise and ended up with a high-mileage Tacoma extra cab. It technically has five seatbelts, but three are in the front row and two in back. The front middle seat is like 8" wide, but there's a belt there.

I picked the Taco because it was the only 4cyl truck in my price range that could take two adults in the front and two car seats in the back.

Mine is the 2rz 2.4 motor with a 5-speed and 95% of my driving is in town. In the winters I averaged 25-26mpg and in the summers I am in the 28-30 range. I am not an extreme hypermiler, but I do put some effort into it.

It's good for what I do, but I would get a 1/2 ton if I needed to tow regularly or spent a lot of time at higher speeds.

When I was in South America there were a lot of the 4-door 2wd mini trucks and a lot of them were diesels. I don't think they'd pass U.S. safety though.

The S10 crew cabs were only sold here with 4wd, 4.3 and auto. If you were willing to do the work you could Lego yourself a smaller engine, 5-speed, and 2wd parts to bring the weight down and mpg up.

If anyone here thinks a 2.5 dakota is slow... Holy christ a 2.2L quad cab s10 would totally change your world view!

tuna55 wrote:

Zomby Woof wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Heck, my (tired example, I've used this on this board a thousand times) 84 carbed, non OD full size truck got nearly 20, how come a modern Colorado with a smaller engine, smaller aero profile, modern engine controls, etc, only get 20-22?

I can get almost 30 in mine.

seriously? stick or auto? Details, please.

Regular cab, 2.9 5spd.

I got 750 km on my last tank without even trying. They're no slouch, either. 185/195 hp/tq stock, and a few minor mods and you're over 200 hp. I'm on my second one. I had an 06 that I traded in on this one (couldn't resist the price) that had 250,000 and still on the original brakes. I replaced one wheel bearing on it since new.

Stay tuned for the build thread on my 2011

Because I was considering buying one, 7 or so years ago, I rented a Coloado 3.5 4x4 (99% sure, unless it was just really tall) and the handling-steering was unbelievably bad- herding cats doesn't even begin to describe it- mountain roads in rain were terrifying .... I went from an early 60's Volvo or early 70's, can't remember which, to this, and I was actually extremely close to tears by the time I arrived after 20+ hrs driving. Maybe with tires other than General fleet grade (Ameritrac?), and lowered, and my own alignment. But I'm not sure what was with the steering-that wasn't the only thing but why no feel and such looseness? Maybe too much antidive creating stiction? Half lane dives mid corner for no reason... And feel it drifting and correct, and nothing happens, it just drifts further, dial in more correction and eventually after you've crossed the line it drifts the other way, and good luck catching that drift. I'm talking steering drift, not actual loss of traction drift.

Most of the time when i hear stuff like this i think people are attributing major abnormal problems to be normal to specific designs. As a tech i've driven probably thousands of cars and i can tell you there is NO car that leaves the factory like this. If that truck came into my shop i would find something repairable that was wrong with it, the end.

I'd be happy to be on the buying end of someone who was selling something like this thinking it was normal and just a piece of crap.

Not that it's terribly relevant, but this is at least a good place to put this

2015 Colorado spy pics

Looks big.

I for one would not touch another Colorado unless they changed a few things. Get rid of inline 5, it's noisy and not very fuel efficient for the cylinder number. I'd rather have a 6 or 8. Lower seat position, I'm 6'2'', and when I look at the right side at a four way stop, I see the rear view mirror. Different front brake setup, I'm no master mechanic, but really, 6 hours to change front rotors... No wonder it costs big bucks for a shop to do the job. Now I love the size, shape, and I don't mind the ride. I have the z71 option and I know it's not a sports car. It was awesome in the big snow we had a couple years ago. Actually, after driving my wife's Pathfinder for the last while, I think I should have tried a Frontier.

Something to consider.

Daughter and I have a pair of em'; hers an '02 with the 4.7 V8, mine an '03 with 3.9 V6. Both 4X4 automatics. Over 400k miles between them with only routine maintenance and wear items. Neither engine or trans has ever been cracked open. The V8 is strong but the V6 is pretty gutless and has to be pedaled hard consequently fuel mileage is identical with low 20s on the highway and high teens around town. I know manual trans was offered but they've got to be fairly rare. Four real doors with lots of rear seat room.

Jeff

since you're going to put your kids in the back: iihs crash rating

Vigo wrote: Looks big.

Looks huge.

From what I have gathered the Dakota with the v8 and crew can is probably the best value in the segment. They are pretty reliable and can fit a4x8 with the tailgate down. Gas mileage and general dodge craziness are the only downfall. But you can get them cheap, like $4k or $5k for a nice one.

Ive driven a lot of 4.7 dakotas and they drive REALLY well. You WILL like the motor.

I would 100% skip on 4wd, harder to work on, worse mpg, more stuff to break.

I'm pretty sure there was an S10 pickup with four real doors, around 199-2000. I'm SURE they were made, at least for export (I rode in one in Brazil), and I think they sold them here for at least a year or two.

The S10 crew cabs were only sold here with 4wd, 4.3 and auto.

Been covered.. and i for one do NOT like 4.3L S10s in the first place. Zq8 ones drive well, but then again a 360 Dakota R/T drives well too and you cant get either one of those suspension packages on the 4drs unless you do it yourself.

SCARR wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

JohnInKansas wrote: Not sure what kind of fuel econ, but this was my first thought.

"modern safety".

THAT is why your old trucks got better fuel econ. safety is weight. modern is better for te environment.. which means worse fuel econ. if we dropped off the safety, and green-ness restrictions on cars, we could get cheap 9like sub 10k) cars that are hitting insane fuel econ numbers.

Weight and simple physics: horsepower is a function of fuel burned. Those old 80's trucks from Nissan and Toyota had very little max HP and in general cruising conditions even less, so they burned less fuel... they were also butt-slow. Unacceptably slow by today's standards.

But as far as currently available trucks, the Nissan Frontier is available with a 4-dr cab and a 6 spd manual. Base price: $22,030, 23 mpg hwy. A 4.0L V6 is the only available engine. Unfortunately, only available with the near useless short bed. The longer bed (still pretty damn short) forces the automatic and bumps up to over $24K.

tuna55 wrote:

foxtrapper wrote: Would the Subaru Baja would qualify?

Interesting. Fuel economy looks crappy and they also look expensive, but neat nonetheless.

There is a used one on the lot at the subi dealer down the raod. It is even that color.

My answer: a 4-door sedan with a V6 + a small utility trailer = same result, easier to find, better fuel mileage when you don't need to tow the trailer/haul gear.

I'd argue that modern and better for the environment means more mileage and more power. The weight of "cpnviences" and safety are the real killer. I mean really, noone now would accept a 2.4 liter engine that gets only 27 mpg and makes only 100 horse. The 4 banger in my rav4 does 30 mpg easy with 160+ hp. It's the weight that is a Killer anymore, not emissions. Especially in si engines.

I have to say small SUV/wagon and utility trailer if you can get away with it. I have my forester XT and just got a 5X8 trailer for it. Get's low to mid 20's if I'm not an idiot. Most will tow a half a ton or more.

I guess the question is how often do you really need the bed. If it's just occasionally and have a space to put a small trailer, That is so much better. My friend actually did that with his Miata for a long time.

Ian F wrote:

SCARR wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

JohnInKansas wrote: Not sure what kind of fuel econ, but this was my first thought.

"modern safety".

THAT is why your old trucks got better fuel econ. safety is weight. modern is better for te environment.. which means worse fuel econ. if we dropped off the safety, and green-ness restrictions on cars, we could get cheap 9like sub 10k) cars that are hitting insane fuel econ numbers.

Weight and simple physics: horsepower is a function of fuel burned. Those old 80's trucks from Nissan and Toyota had very little max HP and in general cruising conditions even less, so they burned less fuel... they were also butt-slow. Unacceptably slow by today's standards.

My Colorado makes double the horsepower that my 93 B2200 did, is substantially bigger, much more comfortable and safer to drive, and gets exactly the same fuel economy.

In reply to Zomby Woof:

Then something was wrong with your Mazda... Even my '86 Toyota 4x4 p/u could manage 30 mpg once in awhile... although it was typically in the mid 20's.