What Truck? - Budget Endurance Racing Edition

Been mulling ideas for running a pickup for affordable endurance racing. One of the interesting draws for me is that I think the cage could be fully contained within an extended cab. Meaning that not only could the fenders or bed be easily replaced after a 'racing incident', but the even the frame as well after something more severe, without having to deal with structural damage or caging another car. I also have a few performance ideas that lend themselves well to trucks that might offset the performance disadvantage of it being a truck.

That all being said, what truck would you build for low-buck endurance racing and why? The only real requirement is MY2006 or older, and let's stay away from expensive engine architecture swaps.

Some of my thoughts:

94-04 S-10 4.3L - Acceptable power (190), but perhaps not not the best engine for track life. Also older tech hit on fuel consumption per power. Heavier than Duratec Ranger. Decent manual availability, which is good because the 4L60e widely noted as not being good for endurance racing. Only option with good aftermarket on-road suspension parts availability, but also only later model option that still uses a steering box. Better aero than square nose, but not as good as newer platforms. The most available for the cheapest thanks to oldest, most years, and engine option popularity.

01-06 Ranger 2.3L - Great engine 'track worthy' engine, albeit less than ideal power (140) in stock form. Easy gains to be had and possible Duratec 2.5L 'easyish' upgrade. Lightest option. Decent manual availability, and I suspect the 5R auto might actually hold up ok. Better aero than the square nose, but not as good as newer platforms. Some available cheap, but too many seem to have bought the 3.0L 'upgrade'.

04-06 Colorado 3.5L - Decent power (240), with some known issues. More powerful and more reliable 'easy' 3.7L swap option. Surprisingly close to S10 weight. Manual availability low, making it hard to avoid 4L60e disappointment. Improved aero over older trucks. More expensive. Possible argument to be made for 2.9L, being cheaper with similar power to 4.3L S10.

05-06 Frontier 4.0L - Good power (260) from VQ engine architecture. Heaviest. Low manual availability, but possibly acceptable automatic. Improved aero over older trucks. More expensive.

05-06 Tacoma 4.0L - Decent power (245) from GR engine architecture. Seconde heaviest. Low manual availability, but possibly acceptable automatic. Improved aero over older trucks. Most expensive.

Ext cab white 3.0/auto rangers are everywhere because every coke bottler bought like 3k a year every year until they couldn't get them anymore in 11.

S10 was my first thought, having driven pimpm3's old one that was modded for track use. Cornering was very sports-car-like (better than some actual sport compacts) and the steering didn't feel bad either. I remember the loosey-goosey 2-piece 3-point seatbelts being its major weakness.

We ran two different S10s in Lemons over the years, both second generation V6 2WD manual transmissions.  One was a 94 with the TBI, one was an 03 with the MPFI (not the spider).  The difference was astounding.  Not only did we have significantly more power, with the 03, but the fuel economy improved from 9+GPH on track to about 6.5.  It is now through us and two more owners, all of us have kept pletny of oil in it, it has a big radiator and oil cooler, and we set the rev limiter at 5k, that motor has probably 10-15k race miles on it now over about 8 years of racing.  Keep the revs low on them and you'll be OK for the most part.  The transmission has been the biggest issue, the NV3500 is fine if you use gears 1-4, but if you use 5th on track you WILL ABSOLUTELY break the transmission.  Every time, seriously.  It handles waaaaay better than it should, everyone that drives it is impressed at how well it handles.  Parts are everywhere and cheap, you can get lots of brakes and tires under it.  Suspension design is so much better than any Ranger, as are the motors.  The imports are unlikely to be found in the right price range.  I would be tempted by a Colorado if doing this again.  

In reply to Ranger50 :

All the power of the 2.3L with all the fuel economy of the 4.0L.

Driven5 said:

In reply to Ranger50 :

All the power of the 2.3L with all the fuel economy of the 4.0L.

Wife had two rangers early in our relationship. First was a 3.0 auto, second was a 4.0 manual. That 3.0L was a turd.

Buddy had a 3.0 ranger in high school that he put a glass pack on. Worst sounding truck you'd ever berkeleying hear. And with the auto that seemed to spend 4 full minutes getting through each gear, it almost sounded like the droning pitch never really changed. Just one long "waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" until he was out of earshot.

S10's will have the easiest suspension to setup and obtain.  

I have done this thought exercise before...

Any older (light) pickup truck.  Narrow it to the frame rails.  Pick the truck with the biggest gas tank (if looking at champcar).

Gm 3800 (supercharged if ya want) in the bed with the stock fwd layout powering the rear wheels.  Literally unbolt the subframe and slap it in the back of the truck.

Shorten wheelbase and bed appropriately.  Chop the top.  Install lexan in front and rear windows.

Enough power to be competitive.  Enough fuel to eliminate fuel stops.

We chose 79 Toyota body draped over 83 Mercedes. I don't recommend that to most people.

I'd go for an S10 with the 4.3 and T5. Keep the revs down, lighten the rear spring packs and install C10 front balljoints.

S10 is a good choice, as the front suspension is the same as the G-body (78-87 Metric or intermediate chassis).  96-up 4.3 V6 is multiport (OBD2 emissions required it), makes good low to mid range power, better exhaust wakes them up too.  I am swapping my 99 S10 to V8, if you need a good 4.3L let me know.

The 1st gen Colorado only had manual trans with the 2.8/2.9L, the 3.5/3.7L 5 cyl was auto only. 4L60e is definitely a weak link unless you spend the $$$$ for the upgrades.

The dakota actually handles well when setup with a good drop. Not on the list but it'd be an interesting choice. 

Dodge rampage?

V8 Dakota? 

MightyMax/D50? 

84 c10 single cab shortbed weighs around 3500lbs. Remove the bed and that's probably 3100 lbs lol. 

I'd go 4.3 s10 

2.3 Duratec Rangers are really uncommon in extended cab configuration. Even rarer with a manual trans. I've been in the Ranger scene for a couple of decades now and can't recall ever seeing an extended cab, manual trans, Duratec truck. Not saying that it can't be done of course, but it's going to take some effort and money. (The Duratec shares bellhousing pattern with 2.0/2.3 Ecoboost, and you can get adapters to mate them to Tremecs).

For cheap track duty, I'd lean towards an S10. The aftermarket is much larger. There are a lot of circle track brake/suspension parts that can be made to work without much fuss. You can get aftermarket body panels easier than you can for Rangers too.

81cpcamaro said:

The 1st gen Colorado only had manual trans with the 2.8/2.9L, the 3.5/3.7L 5 cyl was auto only. 4L60e is definitely a weak link unless you spend the $$$$ for the upgrades.

Thanks for the heads up. Probably better to ZF 8HP swap than put good money after bad into a 4L60e.

Despite the size and weight, I'm a little surprised nobody has suggested 4.8/5.3 Silverado.

Driven5 said:

Despite the size and weight, I'm a little surprised nobody has suggested 4.8/5.3 Silverado.

Last time I looked v8 GMT800s were 500 points box stock in the Chumpcar classing. ie, practically any mod would put you in penalty-laps, right? Plus probably the lowest manual-trans take rate of anything mentioned in the thread so far. 

Still and all, yeah, probably loud, fast, and fun when done right ...

second gen S10 with a Solstice Ecotech drivetrain swap. That's an unhealthy idea I've had for way too long. Use the ZR2 8.5" rear, staggered wheel/tires like the ZR1 and boom. awesomeness .... at least in my mind

81cpcamaro said:

The 1st gen Colorado only had manual trans with the 2.8/2.9L, the 3.5/3.7L 5 cyl was auto only. 4L60e is definitely a weak link unless you spend the $$$$ for the upgrades.

You could get a 3.5 with the AR5 but they are hens' teeth rare. I don't believe you could get the 3.7 with the manual.

In reply to eedavis :

No points worries for non-Champcar.

Sonic said:

We ran two different S10s in Lemons over the years, both second generation V6 2WD manual transmissions.  ... we set the rev limiter at 5k, that motor has probably 10-15k race miles on it now over about 8 years of racing.  Keep the revs low on them and you'll be OK for the most part.  

Curious, why the 5K RPM limit? What is/are the weak point(s)?

bmw88rider said:

The dakota actually handles well when setup with a good drop. Not on the list but it'd be an interesting choice. 

This is the right answer, early dakotas abound for $500-$1000 also

and they can look like this one that John Welsh sent me

Facebook dodge Dakota built well