Daily driver truck?

[bottlerocket]

Getting tired of 13mpg in my Jeep, but don't have the heart to sell it. I want to get a 4cyl daily driver pickup to let me make Lowes runs and drive around town to save on gas. Narrowed it down to either an early 90's Ranger/B2300 with the 2.3L, Nissan Pickup with the 2.4 or a Toyota pickup with a 2.4. All of em just the basics: manual everything, single cab, preferably long bed.

Ranger/Mazda seem to be the cheapest of the bunch but damn isn't the Lima 2.3 basically bulletproof as long as you change the timing belt? I have't had much experience with either the Nissan or the Yota. Input?

EDIT: Forgot to say, its gonna be cheap, like $2500 or less. Just a beater that I'll have here till I get PCS'd somewhere else.

[LANTIRN]

Hard to go wrong with those older toyotas and nissans; they seem to run forver. I think either one would be great for what you want it for.

[krazy kris]

My dad bought a 91 ranger off the showroom floor sold it 13 years later and still ran great with 275k miles. All he ever did to that thing was change the oil 5 times and a starter and changed the plugs major pain in the ass with 2 plugs on each cylinder.

[Buick355]

My dad bought a 91 ranger off the showroom floor sold it 13 years later and still ran great with 275k miles. All he ever did to that thing was change the oil 5 times and a starter and changed the plugs major pain in the ass with 2 plugs on each cylinder.

He only changed the oil 5 times over 275k miles?

[Blakeski]

He only changed the oil 5 times over 275k miles?

Maybe he meant 50, that would make more sense.

[JC316]

Im not a fan of the 2.3L ranger/mazda. I hate that little engine with a passion and the MPG's are less than stellar. I would aim for a 3.0L/4.0L V6 ranger/B3000. EPA ratings on the 2.3l are 19/24, the 3.0L is 17/23, and the 4.0L is 16/22.

The nissan and toyota are good little trucks, but they are higher than a cats back.

Personally, I would go with a mid 90's S10 2.2L 5 speed. I was getting 25mpg with my extended cab. No timing belt to worry about and 4 fucking spark plugs.

[idrivea4banger]

Nissan FTW, mines a 95 and still running strong. Basic maintenance and you're set to go. You can put them through hell and back, they're still dependable.

[grove rat]

yea those ranger/mazda with the 2.3 get okay mpg at best and that is with a 5spd, get an auto and you'll be getting 15-16. they are reliable and tough but not the mpg's you are wanting. however i have a b2200 that gets mid 20's without even trying. could be for sale too..

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=46372

[BradM]

Buy a motorcycle.

[YALE]

Don't overlook the 4.3v6 GM truck option. If you just need a run-about with a bed, that isn't a bad one to grab. The other thing is, if you're worried about your cost of operation on your jeep, and whatever you buy doesn't cost you less than you save, you're wasting your time.

[bottlerocket]

Im not a fan of the 2.3L ranger/mazda. I hate that little engine with a passion and the MPG's are less than stellar. I would aim for a 3.0L/4.0L V6 ranger/B3000. EPA ratings on the 2.3l are 19/24, the 3.0L is 17/23, and the 4.0L is 16/22.
Personally, I would go with a mid 90's S10 2.2L 5 speed. I was getting 25mpg with my extended cab. No timing belt to worry about and 4 fucking spark plugs.

EPA tests for back then show the Nissan and Toyota to be the same as the 2.3L Ford, so right in the mid-low 20's. How much better is the manual than the auto for the 3.0L? I had an auto 3.0L back home and that thing made abysmal MPG and for a V6 was anemic. Averaged roughly 17mpg and couldn't get out of it's own way. My old 4cyl S10 did better with power but ended up with a cracked head or block, not sure which since we just got rid of it.

Buy a motorcycle.

hard to haul sheet ply or sod/plants with a bike. Plus, already have one of those.

Don't overlook the 4.3v6 GM truck option. If you just need a run-about with a bed, that isn't a bad one to grab. The other thing is, if you're worried about your cost of operation on your jeep, and whatever you buy doesn't cost you less than you save, you're wasting your time.

I'll check those out. I just figured for around town the 4cyl would be the best bet and the cheapest initial investment. The last part of your statement is my primary concern which is why I was just looking for bare-bones simple. The biggest factors for the operation of the Wrangler are:

MPG (~14)
Tires ($1000 set of tires to go to/from work)
Top (I can take the top off and if it starts to rain suddently I won't be screwed)

[grove rat]

EPA tests for back then show the Nissan and Toyota to be the same as the 2.3L Ford, so right in the mid-low 20's.

2.3 with a 5spd reg cab short bed might get 20 mpg on the highway cruising at 60 mph. those EPA numbers are not real world(not even close), but dont listen to me what do i know

[Baron Von Crowder]

Ive had a few rangers, and I liked them.

My 91 reg/short with a 3.0 manual got about the same MPG as my 99 4cyl/manual got, but was pretty quick for what it was. I sold the 91 when the cam gear wore out, and I didnt feel like tearing that far into it. I kinda wish I had and kept it for longer. I never had an issue out of the 4banger 99, but just needed a bigger truck. Downside to the 4 is that you have no power, it was pretty much done at 75.

[bottlerocket]

2.3 with a 5spd reg cab short bed might get 20 mpg on the highway cruising at 60 mph. those EPA numbers are not real world(not even close), but dont listen to me what do i know

Well my point was if the Ford's ratings on the 2.3L were unrealistic, are the Toyota's and Nissan's the same way where they're rated in the low-mid 20's but really get high teens to low 20's?

[Baron Von Crowder]

Well my point was if the Ford's ratings on the 2.3L were unrealistic, are the Toyota's and Nissan's the same way where they're rated in the low-mid 20's but really get high teens to low 20's?

fueleconomy.gov