I'm coming up with Dodge Dakota. Is there anything else that is smaller but still can tow? Tundra size is about the biggest we'd go.
We'd want it to be able to tow around 3k, without trailer brakes, and be on the cheaper end of things--it needs to be reliable. Don't care about gas mileage or how nice it is overall.
Tacoma and Frontier would work, but you not going to find one for challenge price. Maybe a S10 with a V6.
How about a v6 Nissan hardbody?
Add trailer brakes and tow with a Saab, Volvo, or any other normal sized car that the manufacturer actually gave a rated capacity to? If not then I second the hardbody option, or maybe a similar vintage Toyota pickup, although the smaller you go the more the lack of brakes is going to hurt you.
trigun7469 wrote: Tacoma and Frontier would work, but you not going to find one for challenge price. Maybe a S10 with a V6.
Or a Ranger V6. Used one of those for years pulling around 3500lb.
My Highlander is rated for 3,500lbs
Just to verify, when you say pull 3500 lbs you are including the weight of the trailer right? not just the curb weight of your other challenge vehicle? Even a tow dolly weighs a few hundred lbs... A trailer than can hold a car is usually a 1500# to 3000# depending on how heavy a duty it is.
To those suggesting SUV's, sedans, etc... We want a truck. If we didn't want the bed, we'd be looking at a minivan.
Towing, we're looking at a boat that is about 3500 fully loaded including trailer.
V6 Tacoma would be at the top of my list. Then 4.0 Ranger Then V6 Frontier or V6 S-10/Sonoma (the 4.3 is a stout engine, I just hate those GM pickups and hate the way the 4.3 sounds).
Search the fringe for a bargain.
Search Isuzu for a rebadged S10 or older Pup.
Suzuki Equator for a rebadged Nissan.
Mitsubishi Raider for a rebadged Dakota.
alfadriver wrote:trigun7469 wrote: Tacoma and Frontier would work, but you not going to find one for challenge price. Maybe a S10 with a V6.Or a Ranger V6. Used one of those for years pulling around 3500lb.
If it helps, the Rangers we had were rated to pull 5500lb.
Not the narrowest, but almost any of the 80's or early 90's full size half tons will do what you are asking.
They are simple to maintain, reliable, and parts are readily available.
They are probably not much wider than the current Tacoma, and the width will make it easier to use the mirrors see around the boat.
I used to pull a 3000-3500lb boat behind an early 80's regular cab shortbed C-10 and you could feel the trailer pushing it, especially if slowing on a corner.
Based on my experience Towing that boat behind the '83 C10 and a 1990 GMC 2500, I wouldn't want to have to make a panic stop towing something that size with an S10 or Ranger.
In reply to mtn:
Someone, somewhere, will tell you the 4.7L in the Dakota is a POS. Ex-SWMBO & I had a 2000 we bought used from a rental fleet in late-00, that she ended up with after the divorce in '04, and her 2nd husband ended up with after their divorce a couple years ago, that is still going strong despite at least 12-years of not-gentle treatment, a couple accidents, etc.
Only one data-point, but I certainly wouldn't be scared of owning another one.
97-04 F150 single cab/shortbed 4.2/5spd. It's the same size as the Tundra you mentioned. Reliable and easy to work on. Decent mileage (and power, believe it or not). Same as a v6 Ranger...
I have owned two V6 Dakotas and really enjoyed them. Both held up well, had good capacity and could get around 20 highway mpg. I sold my last one, a 2001 with a 3.9 and 5 speed with nearly 200,000 miles to a guy who commuted 50 miles each way to work and continued to see it for a 3 years before I left Billings. I brought a couple cars home with it and it towed competently, certainly not like my Hemi Ram I own now but well enough to maintain speed on the hills in Montana. S10s can be decent small trucks too, although I have always had to work on them more to keep them going than my Dakotas, your results may vary.
A 4.3 GM truck will definitely require more work than a 3.9 Dakota. Me and my dad ran one from ~33k-250k and are now working a 5.9 Ram from ~113 to ~150k so far. Very minor work required for the amount of miles put on them. I have had to put the front freeze plugs in both of them even here in no-rust Texas, but it was fairly easy.
Ours was a 2nd gen 96 model, which i think is an utterly fantastic truck design. BUT, i found it to be fairly poor at towing due to lack of any brakes besides the two non-abs front wheels. It felt ok until you actually had to use them at which point you were just modulating lockup and realizing you weren't slowing down worth a E36 M3. Older Dakotas had a rear load-sensing proportioning valve that you could actually adjust (i had an 87 for a while) but i dont think any of the 3rd gens did, so unless they have much better brake balance I wouldn't seriously recommend them. I've towed some car or other at low speeds with an ~01 4cyl/5spd but never had cause to really feel out the brakes. At the same time we had that Dakota, i started towing my tow dolley exclusively with my 3000 lb Dodge Dynasty because it seriously had better brakes (and better stability) which probably had a lot to do with the upgrades i did to it. I only used the Dakota when i needed to tow an actual trailer with tongue weight.
Why no trailer brakes? If I was trying to tow just about anything with a "lighter" vehicle, I think I'd want trailer brakes for the added security. Especially on a lighter truck when if the bed is empty there's a better chance of the tail wagging the dog? 
Otherwise, any of the "mid-size" trucks will do and all have their fans and faults. Find the nicest one that fits within your budget.
Ian F wrote: Why no trailer brakes? If I was trying to tow just about anything with a "lighter" vehicle, I think I'd want trailer brakes for the added security. Especially on a lighter truck when if the bed is empty there's a better chance of the tail wagging the dog?
Because my FIL's boat doesn't have them and he's not spending money to put them in. Seeing as we trailer it for about 1 week a year, I'm not either.
Good to know that the Ranger had a 5k towing capacity with the 6. I didn't know that. Probably ruling out the S10's, but maybe the Colorado's are getting cheap enough.
FWIW, the "narrow" necessity is because I'm buying a house (knock on wood) that has a 2.5 car garage--25 feet wide. I figure that as long as my wife gets about 12 feet for her TSX, I can get a Miata and a truck in there in the remaining 13 feet--obviously only using one at a time--in the summer, the truck would be tucked away to the side; in the winter the Miata would be very well tucked away. I'll need to play with it some though--I plan on borrowing 2 cars to see if it is possible. Playing on excel, I keep coming up about 9 inches over. We'll see. Plan might be stupid.
I can measure for you tonight if you want, but I am fairly certain that my 72 GMC is narrower than the Dakota, and I'd rather a ratty classic than a Dakota. Get a chevy for the coil springs though instead of the GMC leaves.
I had an '00 Tundra w/ 4.7L v8 that would tow a car, tools and tires on an all steel trailer at 90mph. It was a great truck with a really sweet motor and it was much smaller than the current model. It was probably the size of the current Tacoma. Reliability was generally pretty good. I had some brake caliper replacement, a radiator, and some other small things in 120k. Parts are more expensive than a Chevy and it is a little harder to work on but not overly so. Now that I don't have a need for a big diesel I'm actually shopping for another one.
It only had two primary issues:
I only sold it because I got a bigger trailer and it couldn't handle it.
Huckleberry wrote: I had an '00 Tundra w/ 4.7L v8 that would tow a car, tools and tires on an all steel trailer at 90mph. It was a great truck with a really sweet motor and it was much smaller than the current model. It was probably the size of the current Tacoma. Reliability was generally pretty good. I had some brake caliper replacement, a radiator, and some other small things in 120k. Parts are more expensive than a Chevy and it is a little harder to work on but not overly so. Now that I don't have a need for a big diesel I'm actually shopping for another one. It only had two issues - - Fuel mileage was terrible at 16hwy/12cty/7tow but I drove it like a car and leadfooted a lot. - It rusted badly in the area supporting the rear axle/suspension so if you get one - get one with no rust and go under there with a can of POR15 to make sure it does not dissolve on you.
We had the 01 or 02. Loved the truck, just too pricey.
I just looked at 1995 ranger, b2300, tacoma, s10, and nissan.
All had towing of 3500 or more (ranger, s10, b2300 listed 6k!?!). Narrowest was the nissan at 65 inches and widest was the ranger/b2300 at almost 70 inches. s10 was the narrowest 6k rated pickup at about 67 inches.
I had a 1990 s10 2wd short bed reg cab with the 2.8 v6 and a 5spd. Was not fast but was reliable as a brick and was SMALL. got reasonable gas mileage too. finally had to get rid of it because it failed emissions because the rear brakes were not working at all and it couldn't slow the rollers to stay in within the speed testing bounds. haha.
Ok, I'm gonna be "That guy" for a minute...
I don't get the thinking behind not wanting to spend a couple hundred dollars to install brakes on a trailer to protect 10 or 15,000 dollars worth of boat, truck, and trailer, not to mention your own life and the life of your loved ones.
See ebonyandivory's recent thread to understand the impact capability of a 3500 lb battering ram with no brakes to restrain it.
Rant off.
SVreX wrote: Ok, I'm gonna be "That guy" for a minute... I don't get the thinking behind not wanting to spend a couple hundred dollars to install brakes on a trailer to protect 10 or 15,000 dollars worth of boat, truck, and trailer, not to mention your own life and the life of your loved ones. See ebonyandivory's recent thread to understand the impact capability of a 3500 lb battering ram with no brakes to restrain it. Rant off.
Ok, I'll look into trailer brakes too. But only because we have to go down one hill.
You'll need to log in to post.
