Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-02-2012, 10:24 AM
 
1,370 posts, read 2,182,146 times
Reputation: 2696

Advertisements

Thanks all for your comments and advice. As I said in my OP, I cannot afford a Toyota, they are really expensive no matter how old they are, and in New Hampshire rust is a real issue, so I am trying to get as new a truck as I can. Frontiers are also expensive, so I am trying to get the most reliable truck out of the pool that is left.

Because of the rust problem, I have seriously considered buying the truck in California and having a friend/relative drive it out here, then paying for their airfare home. It might be worth the airfare and gas if I could get a vehicle with no rust. Rust simply was not an issue in SoCal. Unfortunately, I have run out of time for that as I have to get the vehicle soon.

While we're at it, if anybody knows and cares to answer, is it true that parking a vehicle on a dirt driveway versus a paved one increases the rate at which rust will occur? I have read varying opinions on this. I guess it makes sense that the moisture is held in the ground and migrates under the vehicle, but would it cause a vehicle to go from a little body rust to the entire undercarriage rusted out in two years?

Thanks again, and more opinions are welcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-02-2012, 10:35 AM
 
3,326 posts, read 8,860,933 times
Reputation: 2035
I don't think parking on dirt affects anything much. I grew up in an area down south that had dirt roads and driveways everywhere, and rust was virtually non-existent. It's mostly road salt that's used to melt snow that rusts vehicles out. Whatever you get, wash it obsessively in the winter if you don't want rust. They all rust eventually in the north.
If you want a cheap vehicle with no rust, I'd recommend a smaller-sized town down south. They'll probably be a good bit cheaper than in California. They're big on pickups, so you'll have plenty to choose from. Unless you're just really wanting a vacation to the west coast. Then it's a twofer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2012, 10:41 AM
 
Location: ๏̯͡๏﴿ Gwinnett-That's a Civil Matter-County
2,118 posts, read 6,375,927 times
Reputation: 3547
toyota
toyota
toyota.

That is all you need to know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2012, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Summerville, SC
3,382 posts, read 8,649,357 times
Reputation: 1457
Quote:
Originally Posted by cittic10 View Post
toyota
toyota
toyota.

That is all you need to know.
Guess you missed the part about frame rot, his current vehicle rotting out, and the fact its out of his Price range.

Beyond socal, there is also the south we don't have rust issues below where salt is used. I have a 27 year old Chevy only sign of rust is the battery tray because batteries are prone to corrosion.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 01:00 PM
 
Location: H-town, TX.
3,503 posts, read 7,498,923 times
Reputation: 2232
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
If you're looking for a 4 cylinder Ranger I would look pre 2000(?) when it still had the 2.5 L 4. The 2.3 seemed a bit weaker to me. I had two 2.5s and was extremely impressed with their longevity, durability, and fuel economy, even with a load.

I now have a 3.0 V6 Ranger. I love the truck, but I'd probably rather have the 4.0. I don't think there's much diffrence in fuel economy but it's a much stronger engine.

I'd second the S10 4.3 V6 recomendation. Great engine. However in a battle of 4 cylinders, Ranger wins everytime (so long as Toyota's not playing ;-))
I'd be surprised that a Duratec 2.3L Ranger (~140 horsepower and better MPGs than the slow four cylinders of old) couldn't be had, mainly since they were only in regular cabs when the engine was introduced in mid-2001 all the way until Ford remembered that fuel-efficient smaller trucks did sell at one time before loading them up with options and selling them at full-size prices...

Wouldn't go any other direction. No dizzy like the 4.3L, only four spark plugs on this four cylinder (not that I found my old eight-plug 2.3L hard to deal with), timing chain...seems like a snap to deal with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 08:49 PM
 
6,350 posts, read 11,589,402 times
Reputation: 6312
Quote:
The S10s with the 4.3 V6 are a very long life truck. They get fabulous fuel mileage too. One of my friends still has one and gets over 30 mpgs hiway.
Can you explain this? My mom's 2000 S-10 with the 4 cylinder engine only gets mid 20s. How can this be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Summerville, SC
3,382 posts, read 8,649,357 times
Reputation: 1457
Quote:
Originally Posted by creeksitter View Post
Can you explain this? My mom's 2000 S-10 with the 4 cylinder engine only gets mid 20s. How can this be?
I don't know if its the case with this particular engine. But sometimes 4 cylinder vehicles, are a little more underpowered and requires the vehicle to be "revved out" to travel in day to day traffic. While a v6 can keep low rpms and use less fuel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2012, 10:01 PM
 
22,661 posts, read 24,594,911 times
Reputation: 20339
Only new vehicle I ever bought....cheapo, bare-bones Ford Ranger. Just a great little truck for 8K, wish I still had it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 04:13 PM
 
1 posts, read 4,209 times
Reputation: 10
Default 1999 ford ranger

Have a Ranger and have had good luck with it thus far 1999 with 89,000 miles on it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
5,251 posts, read 14,246,115 times
Reputation: 8231
If a Tacoma is out, I would go with a Ranger
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top