Need Colorado Expert for picky rural relocation advice (camping, places to live)

[jazzlover]

Dakotas are junk. Period. Lousy fuel economy, lousy payload capacity, lousy ground clearance, and lousy reliability. The worst of a small pickup and the worst of a full-size pickup all together in a package.

[Colorado^]

I know this was covered early on but just to give you some hard numbers.

There are 640 acres in a single square mile. So assuming that you and your neighbors have square blocks and build in the middle of their property's, you still need 160 acres to a be a mile apart.

160 acres with a mountain views and a waterfall, even in the middle of no where is going to cost millions and millions and the cost to run power and/or build a road to the center to access a building site would not be cheap. Just think how much it would cost to maintain a road like that in winter.

On the up side, IMHO I you can be a lot closer to your neighbors when you live on the side of a steep mountain. 1 or 2 acres gets you a fair amount of privacy.

As for RV's - keep in mind that you'll be using it in the Rockies at high altitude. Your truck will be down on power 30-40% on the passes unless you tow with a turbo. Turbo diesels are the right tool for the job, but repairs can get super expensive if you get unlucky. IIRC you're looking at 3-4K for new injectors.

An older v8 tundra or f150 and smaller popup trailer would be the way to go. I wouldn't want to go over 60% of the recommended tow ratings - the mountains are brutal towing conditions.

[gemcraver]

thanks again guys...

as I've mentioned I don't know much about vehicles. But after looking up your suggestions I found out about two other trucks that seem untouchable as far as mpg are concerned: the Nissan Frontier and the Ford Ranger. Not sure about the towing capacity have to figure that all out. But anyhow, ty again.

[80skeys]

Originally Posted by gemcraver

thanks again guys...

as I've mentioned I don't know much about vehicles. But after looking up your suggestions I found out about two other trucks that seem untouchable as far as mpg are concerned: the Nissan Frontier and the Ford Ranger. Not sure about the towing capacity have to figure that all out. But anyhow, ty again.

you can't just look at mpg when you're looking at trucks. You gotta consider their towing power and usability as a truck. the reason to get a truck is so that you can go places cars can't (need high clearance) and you can haul stuff or at least carry around furniture when you need to. yeah the ranger has good gas mileage but it's not a good tower (at least the 4 cylinder version) and my overall impression of the ranger is that it's not a sturdy truck.

i think you can do better in a light truck.
don't forget the 4 wheel drive, either. well worth the extra $$

[jazzlover]

Colorado is one of those places where a 2WD truck is of pretty limited utility. Of course, with 4WD, the owner pays a premium in acquisition cost, poorer fuel economy, and increased mechanical complexity. In most areas of the country, those disadvantages of 4WD ownership outweigh the advantages, but, in Colorado, a 4WD makes better overall sense for most people needing a truck.

If one's plan is to live in rural Colorado, I would stick with a GM, Ford, Toyota, or Nissan truck. Those are the most common dealers in the rural part of the state and typically also have the best parts availability in the local auto parts store. Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep closed so many dealerships in rural Colorado in the last few years that they are harder to find and Chrysler's poor parts stocking policy means that a vehicle can be laid up for days or weeks waiting for parts. That is why I won't buy another Chrysler/Jeep product--and I used to be a Jeep devotee.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by 80skeys

you can't just look at mpg when you're looking at trucks. You gotta consider their towing power and usability as a truck. ...

Yes, consider your current and future truck needs (utility). AND do take heed with the comments about reduced power of Naturally Aspirated engines (non-turbo or supercharged - Gas or Diesel) at increased elevation.

Also consider your driving habits / places you frequent. I would only get a mini-truck if I never hauled significant cargo, and towed very light (<1,000#) and needed SMALL / parking / nimble. If you need a fullsized truck, the maintainence premium goes up (more expensive tires / brakes).

As previously mentioned I run 1st gen Dodge Diesels ('89-93 ~ $2000 - $5000).

for 20 mpg and tough truck, they are adequate. My diesel service costs are minimal to non-existant. This is a very Generic Engine so lots of access to affordable parts. OEM injectors will be ~$80 x 6 at the MAX, (I can get rebuilt much cheaper). BUT.... I have never needed any, as I only have a few hundred thousand miles on these. Engines are good for well over a million miles. Injectors usually last 300k minimum (using Clean DRY fuel).

As with everything, there are quirks. I have a few friends with Datsun (Nissan) trucks. They tow small alum fishing boats (<1000#) and do fine. I haul my Bulldozer, Backhoe, and other HEAVY stuff (~30,000#), so I am happy w. the 20 mpg cummins. (only 12 mpg when hauling heavy in mtns.)

On a light duty truck you want to be SURE to have brakes for towed vehicle. Pickups are terrible for towing, as your towed unit can seriously STEER the light weight rear of your truck. (PUSHING you off the road or into oncoming traffic.)

[gemcraver]

ahhhhhh guys I'm freaking out a bit from nerves and excitement because summer is SO close and I'm finally going to get to visit/potentially relocate to Colorado...any last second recommendations of places to visit that I can add to my list? (please remember, and I can't stress this enough because the matter how many times I write this somehow it gets misconstrued...my MAIN criteria is the view of the rockies, everything else is a perk compared to that.) I found this: http://www.theoutdoorbuffet.com/uplo..._directory.pdf but I'm not even sure how to sift through it effectively...anyhow I can't thank you guys enough for your help...wish me luck, Colorado here I come!!!!

[gemcraver]

...figured perhaps a visual example would help show the views I'm looking for in this potential place I'd love to visit/live in as soon as possible. The first image below is what I'm NOT looking for...I don't want mountains that are evenish heights between peaks with the rock looking so rounded. The image below that is what I AM looking for, jagged peaks at a good range of height levels. Thanks everyone again, I'd just rather hear suggestions of places from those of you who have seen the Rockies with your own eyes instead of me having to use google images to determine where to find the types of views I desire so desperately....

1) Image 1 (what I DON'T want) :

2) Image 2 (what I DO want) :

[jazzlover]

Well, considering the second photo of what you "desire" was likely taken in Norway or New Zealand, and the first photo WAS likely taken in Colorado, I'd say your barking up the wrong tree here. Not that Colorado does not have more mountains of varying heights that you can imagine, but you seem to be suffering from some illusions of what Colorado really is. First of all, most all of the state below about 7,500 feet is arid or semi-arid. Its wettest mountain areas don't get as much annual precipitation as an average place in the Midwest. Droughts are very common and we're having a dandy this year. Oh, by the way, few Coloradans actually live IN the mountains. The large majority of Colorado's population lives on the Plains adjacent to the mountains because that is where the jobs are. Many of the rest are scattered in communities in the western and interior valleys (all of which are arid) of Colorado with a few more living out on Colorado's Eastern Plains, the latter, by the way, making up almost a third of Colorado's land area--again, not in the mountains, per se. On a given day in summer or winter, there are probably more tourists in the Colorado mountains than there are people who actually reside there. Narrow that down further to people who actually live in the mountains year-round, and the number gets even smaller. Narrow it down to people who live in the mountains who can actually make a living in the local economy, and the number gets REALLY small. In other words, very few "dreamers" who pine away to live in the Colorado mountains actually make it--and many who do only manage it for awhile, until reality--and lack of a sustainable living--force them to move on. It has been that way since Colorado's earliest days an it's likely going to stay that way.

Go ahead and come out. See Colorado in one of the worst droughts since the 1930's. Try to find a job that will pay a living wage. Stay through winter and see most of the landscape below 7,000 feet snowless and brown for most of the winter (which is the way it is most winters). If you can do that and still like it here, maybe you've got a chance.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by gemcraver

2) Image 2 (what I DO want) :

Well you are looking at the wrong state then. That looks like Milford Sound to me in New Zealand. Milford Sound gets about 250 inches of rain a year minimum. I know it well. I have been there several times. You will not find that in Colorado. The west coast of south island New Zealand gets tons of rain and is lush, totally unlike anything in Colorado.

However there are parts of the South Island of New Zealand that DO look like Colorado and they are on the eastern side of the mountains that get much less rainfall. Mt. Cook and the Lake Tekapo region spring to mind.

I guess I need to get a flickr account for my pics, but I jipped this one from someone else of Lake Tekapo:



Here is another one of the Mackenzie Region in New Zealand where Lake Tekapo is:


That is more like Colorado.

If you want more lush, jagged peaks I would recommend the Cascades in Washington.