|
Unload My Head posted:Mid teens depending on the gearing and how you drive. The 4x4 adds a lot of weight, as does the back seats, tub, back glass, ect. and these things have all the aerodynamics of a cinder block. So should I assume that a 22RE pickup would do better on gas? I like the idea of a 4x4 but I definitely don't need back seats or anything beyond a simple truck cap or bed cover. The primary reason I'm considering the 4Runner is the badassness of a removable roof but I'd rather do better on gas considering I'm driving all over the place every day for work.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
I get mid to high 20's in my 2wd single-cab shortbed 5-speed truck depending on what I'm hauling and how hard I flog it. I have a cab-height fiberglass canopy on it which doesn't add much weight but is very nice for securing things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
^^^^ Yeah, that sounds more like what I was hoping for. I guess I just need to make up my mind about how much I'll use a 4x4 if I get one; I try to convince myself that I'll go out once or twice a month into the Mojave desert but the reality is I can barely find time for fun twice a year. I'd probably be starting light with of roading anyway, a 2wd is probably fine to start me off if I'm sticking to dirt roads and mostly level surfaces right? I think my interest in having off road capability might just be me getting distracted from my priority of finding an economic work truck. From what I've been reading on Toyota forums and 4x4 forums it seems like my best plan would be to buy a work truck for 3k and then buy another vehicle specifically for the off roading when the money and time is there. So for now I think I'll keep an eye out for a 22RE pickup and take it from there. Maybe I'll do a 4x4 if I find one that gets better than 20mpg but somehow I feel that is unlikely given my price range. CaptainFuzychin fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Sep 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
I have a huge pulsating boner for toyotas, so I'm loving the chat in this thread but you really should consider the ka24de Nissan pickup. It's a better engine than the 22re and as cool as 4runners are you don't want to have carpet in the bed of your work truck. Not to discourage you from getting into the 4x4 scene, but a little 2wd pickup is what you need and the d21 is the best one ever made.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with getting what you need. People got around with 2wd for ages... A locker and some skilled driving will shock you as to places where 2wd will go. The key for slick surfaces is momentum. Not spin the wheels as fast as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
TWSS posted:you really should consider the ka24de Nissan pickup. It's a better engine than the 22re Always happy to consider my options. How is the KA24DE better than a 22RE? BrokenKnucklez posted:The key for slick surfaces is momentum. Not spin the wheels as fast as possible. When I lived on the east coast, I spent a lot of time off roading in a mostly stock Volvo 740 sedan, so I'm actually fairly familiar with this concept haha.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
CaptainFuzychin posted:Always happy to consider my options. How is the KA24DE better than a 22RE? It was the engine in the very late 90's through late 2000's Nissan Frontiers. Comparing it to the old 22RE is silly because they are dual-cam, there is a decade of engineering advances between them, and a 2000s Frontier will cost you four times what an similarly equipped old early 90s Toyota will cost. A better comparison would be to Toyota's 2RZ-FE or 3RZ-FE that was put in the Tacomas and T100s. Between those two I personally would still take the Toyota over the Nissan, but that's just me. Alternately, the predecessor to that engine that Nissan used in their older 'Hardbody' trucks (the KA24E) was a fine motor. It had the same timing chain guide issues that the 22RE did, but is equally reliable and those trucks were made before Nissan's engineering went completely down the toilet, so if you can stand how horrifyingly ugly they are they are a fine truck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Alright, well I'm still leaning toward a 22RE pickup or 4Runner but it will be a bit before I can get the money together and I imagine I'll have time to test drive things between now and then. Based on my research it seems like the 22RE vehicles are pretty easy to repair/maintain at home, would you folks agree there?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
There is a reason why there was a war called the Toyota War. Those hilix (Toyota pickup in the states) are so drat stout. Meant to be fix with very little. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_war
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Not only easy to fix but cheap too. My only gripe is that you need to pull a crossmember to get the oilpan all the way out. And unless you are blazing new trails or taking the hardest path up a hill to show off a two-wheel drive car or truck can go way further than most people take them. Just don't be like me and forget to airdown your tires. I've had tons of fun with RWD Toyota Starlets and a Peugeot 504.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
4WD is for if you get really lovely winters with loads of snow, otherwise a 2WD will be more reliable, lighter, more efficient, lower to the ground for loading/unloading, and cheaper to buy. I've only ever had a 4WD where I live and that's all I'd ever have up here, but if I lived down south where winter means it rains a lot or you get occasional minor snowfall I'd go with a 2WD. As noted above a 2WD, especially with a locking diff, will get you way out in the bush to go hunting or camping or whatever as well as a 4WD unless you find yourself needing to go through deep water and mud and poo poo. poo poo, my grandfather used to go moose hunting with a VW Rabbit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:4WD is for if you get really lovely winters with loads of snow, otherwise a 2WD will be more reliable, lighter, more efficient, lower to the ground for loading/unloading, and cheaper to buy. Lots of folks around here do just fine with 2WD and we're in the snowbelt. Loading some weight in the bed, using good tires, and knowing when to use the throttle makes 2WD no problem unless it's really really bad out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
8ender posted:Lots of folks around here do just fine with 2WD and we're in the snowbelt. Loading some weight in the bed, using good tires, and knowing when to use the throttle makes 2WD no problem unless it's really really bad out. You can get by with a 2WD with good tires and weight as you said, but 4WD helps a lot if you have to drive in deep snow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:You can get by with a 2WD with good tires and weight as you said, but 4WD helps a lot if you have to drive in deep snow. True, but with good tires and enough weight in the back, unless you're at bumper-plowing depths, you'll make it okay. Might just need to back up and take a run at a few drifts :P My dad made it through 50+ years of farming in Manitoba (lots of snow) with a 2wd single-cab long box Chevy diesel (of various years, but that's always what he bought). Only got stuck to the point of needing help a handful of times, at most. Me at 16 with my license? Yeah, got stuck a lot. Learned how to drive though, and quit getting stuck so much after that first winter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Even a 2WD pickup is gonna have a lot more ground clearance over an average car; not nearly as much gain going from 2wd to 4wd trucks. Plus if RWD is good enough for trophy trucks, it's good enough for me. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Siochain posted:My dad made it through 50+ years of farming in Manitoba (lots of snow) with a 2wd single-cab long box Chevy diesel (of various years, but that's always what he bought). Only got stuck to the point of needing help a handful of times, at most. Me at 16 with my license? Yeah, got stuck a lot. Learned how to drive though, and quit getting stuck so much after that first winter. I actually grew up driving rear wheel Volvos in fairly heavy snow winters, so I've actually got pretty good snow driving skills. I might be a touch out of practice after living in Los Angeles for the last four years, but yeah now that I'm thinking about it I took that Volvo off road plenty enough in both dirt and snow and I only got stuck in it a few times, and that's with a sedan. I should be well covered with a 2wd truck for everything I'd be doing. If I want to start mud bogging and rock climbing I'll pick up a beater 4x4 some day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
After taking my car to a job site, I found out I suddenly have the need for a light-to-mid duty truck or SUV. After reading this thread I've pretty much decided on a Toyota Pickup or 4 Runner. I have previous experience with a Toyota 1mz-fe engine which sludged so there's a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. I'm favoring the 3rd gen 4 Runner currently, with the 4 cylinder engine. What I want to know is if there's anything special I should look out for on these engines (3rz-fe)? The ones in my budget range are coming up with like 160k miles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
GentlemanofLeisure posted:I'm favoring the 3rd gen 4 Runner currently, with the 4 cylinder engine. What I want to know is if there's anything special I should look out for on these engines (3rz-fe)? The ones in my budget range are coming up with like 160k miles. If I remember correctly those are the ones where the transmission fluid runs thru the radiator and tends to make a nice strawberry milkshake. Other than that I think they are pretty solid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Viper_3000 posted:If I remember correctly those are the ones where the transmission fluid runs thru the radiator and tends to make a nice strawberry milkshake. Other than that I think they are pretty solid. Pretty much every single automatic on the road is designed like that, and therefore susceptible to that type of failure. The larger question is who in their right mind would buy an automatic 4 cylinder vehicle? The RZ is a good motor. Probably Toyota's best. Listen for timing chain noise on cold start, and exhaust leaks. Other than that it's just basic stuff like regular oil changes and not having been overheated or beat on. Unload My Head fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Sep 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Unload My Head posted:Pretty much every single automatic on the road is designed like that, and therefore susceptible to that type of failure. Yeah but 3rd gen 4runners are especially susceptible to the strawberry milkshake. Before buying one, make sure the tranny isn't reading overfull on the dipstick, and check the coolant recovery bottle for pink frothy gunk. If both of those check ok along with all the other normal used car poo poo (tires, brakes, running conditions, glass, etc...) then either install a new radiator or dedicated tranny cooler ASAP to prevent your tranny from getting milkshake'd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
DrPain posted:Yeah but 3rd gen 4runners are especially susceptible to the strawberry milkshake. This is what I meant. Solid advice following as well. If you do some reading on various forums, I think there is a different model radiator that is a drop in replacement which gives you MUCH better odds on these trucks for not winding up with the milkshake. Again, been forever since my friends have owned one, so do your own research.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
If it has Toyota coolant in it, it will be red. Just make sure it is not milky. If you buy one, add an external trans oil cooler and bypass the rad one. Volvos are susceptible to a similar failure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice.Unload My Head posted:The larger question is who in their right mind would buy an automatic 4 cylinder vehicle? That seems to be what people were recommending earlier in the thread. That was for the previous gen 4 Runner though. If the V6 is the way to go, I'd rather have the option with more power obviously because no one likes to go slow! I'll check out the radiator and fluids on whatever I look at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
No I meant you should get the five-speed. Automatic transmissions are a poor match to smaller motors with narrow powerbands. I have never owned an automatic Toyota so this transmission cooler thing is news to me, but it's good to know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Can anyone chime in with some information about Dodge trucks? I live in New England and it seems like there are always Dakotas and Ram 1500s for sale for pretty manageable prices, and it makes me wonder about having a dodge beater for hunting/fishing/camping. 1500s seem to be everywhere too, so i would imagine there is pretty good stock at pick and pulls. anyone have any experience with these trucks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Well, you gotta ask yourself a question, Jeff. Do you love to spend your weekends replacing transmissions, or do you merely like to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
They're being sold cheap for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Mazda B-anything is a good choice, but I've got a personal soft spot for the Mazda B2200. Pros include being super awesome, super cheap, and decent mileage with the four-banger. Cons include no cupholders and the carb'd four-banger being completely entirely gutless. I've owned or handled like six of them and loved the poo poo out of every single one. Great little truck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
DrPain posted:They're being sold cheap for a reason. That's a real eye opener. I had never considered that there might be an underlying reason why there always seemed to be so many of them priced so cheaply. If only there was somewhere i could ask people who have more experience than me what that reason might be. Mr. Wiggles posted:Well, you gotta ask yourself a question, Jeff. Do you love to spend your weekends replacing transmissions, or do you merely like to? Love probably isn't the right word. Do the manuals have any better of a reputation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Jeff Gerber posted:Can anyone chime in with some information about Dodge trucks? I've got a 2004 dakota that I haven't had many problems with, but the most I haul with it is a single drywall sheet and sometimes a 2x6 board or something. Basically bulky things that wouldn't fit in a car and not actual heavy items.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Jeff Gerber posted:Can anyone chime in with some information about Dodge trucks? It's built by Chrysler. That's enough to keep me far far away. Seriously, if they are all being sold cheaply compared to Ford/Chevy/Toyotas then there is a big reason, and that reason is that until very recently Chrysler couldn't build anything that didn't fall apart in some horrible way after 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
N is for Nipples posted:Mazda B-anything is a good choice, but I've got a personal soft spot for the Mazda B2200. Pros include being super awesome, super cheap, and decent mileage with the four-banger. Cons include no cupholders and the carb'd four-banger being completely entirely gutless. 88 horsepower in a truck with a fully boxed frame is a bad idea. Their economy is much worse than an equivalent truck from any other manufacturer because of the added weight. My 2wd extended cab 2200 went across the scales at 3400# (and got like 20mpg). Jeff Gerber posted:Can anyone chime in with some information about Dodge trucks? In addition to the aforementioned transmission failures (both manual and auto have their own issues) those trucks had problems with ball joint failure, which, because of Dodge's design, could lead to loss of a front wheel at speed. There was a class action suit over it, but I don't remember the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Did it affect only the 1500's and not the 3500/2500 models? Or was it all the 94s-99's?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
I had a 1999 Ford Ranger XLT with the v6 upto 160k miles. Its gas mileage was just as bad as a fullsized v8 truck of the day, but it was a nice size for tight city parking but could still haul stuff when it got out into the country. However, the bane of my trucks existence was ball joints and tires, would go through them like crazy. After 160k I decided to get rid of it because it was needing both a engine and tranny rebuild, I've heard better things of the newer ford rangers but my experience with my 99 wasn't the best. Good luck on your search.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Yeah, Ford trucks in general seem to wear suspension parts out a bit faster, but Rangers/Ranger-chassis Explorers go through them like they're made of cheese. You can tell a Ranger from a mile away from the creaking as they steer/go over bumps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
But the Rangers went to double wishbone in the front from '98 on, it's still a problem on those? I've been considering a Ranger/Mazda B 4cyl, but not if I'm gonna constantly go through ball joints and tires, wtf.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
leica posted:I've been considering a Ranger/Mazda B 4cyl, but not if I'm gonna constantly go through ball joints and tires, wtf. Go back to 1988 and stay there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Yeah with the double wishbone they at least hold alignment better, but in my experience the ball joints themselves still wear out faster than you'd expect (mostly due to cheap rubber boots cracking early and non-greasable joints, aftermarket replacements with grease fitting probably last a good bit longer). Even as a non-"suspension-rated"  tech at my old job, I replaced quite a few control arm assemblies with rotten bushings and/or ball joints on Rangers/Explorers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Unload My Head posted:That's the ironic thing about it. GM had access to the engineering to make a good diesel, but they could never figure it out for their small engines. The 350 diesel was garbage, the 6.2L was garbage, and the 6.5 and 6.5T were barely passable. Then they just gave up and paid Isuzu to do it for them! Meanwhile their heavy engine division cranks out some of the longest-lasting stuff out there. Craziness. I'm getting 23.5 - 25 MPG highway with a 2008 6.4L Super Duty + long bed 4X4 Lariat. I did the DPM delete, catalyst delete and run programming for economy when empty or light loaded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
Fucknag posted:Yeah with the double wishbone they at least hold alignment better, but in my experience the ball joints themselves still wear out faster than you'd expect (mostly due to cheap rubber boots cracking early and non-greasable joints, aftermarket replacements with grease fitting probably last a good bit longer). How much of that was cheap lovely replacement ball joints though? I'd just go with MOOG or whatever the best quality replacement was and go from there......Besides, changing out ball joints on a Ranger can't be all that tough. If that's the only issue with Rangers I think I can live with that. I can get '98+ Rangers and B series base models for under 3k all day long with good miles, not gonna touch a decent Tacoma or frontier for that much. [edit] also forgot to mention whatever truck I end up with, I'm gonna rally cross the gently caress out of it so I expect to be breaking poo poo 
Applebees Appetizer fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:33
|
|