Buying a $1000 beater pickup for economy

[YukonCornelius]

A s10 with a 2.2/5 speed would be very economical, no timing belt to worry about either.

[Cardinal Grammeter]

Just looked at a $1000 "1999" Nissan Pickup (turned out to be previous body style so is a 97 at the latest). This is what I found (it was advertised as high mileage, [haha]):

THE GOOD:

• Frame was in perfect condition
• Rockers in perfect condition
• Body mounts in perfect condition
• Engine/trans/clutch/brakes were very good to excellent - drove it around, lots of power and pretty much flawless. trans synchros felt A1.
• Has AC
• Good back bumper

THE BAD:

• Said it was a 99, newest it could have been was 97
• 300k (!)
• Bent bumper
• Dents
• Bed had some rust around wheel wells and in deck corners.
• Cracked rear taillight lens
• Exhaust looked pretty rusty
• (2) codes: IAT and I found a broken lead, and Crank Sensor which was probably due to a dead battery which is common. Engine would not run with a bad one.
• Tires were 3 to 4/32nds
• AC did not blow cold.

I'm guessing these little trucks are collectible and to find one with zero frame and cab rust adds a premium.


Guy is asking $1k and he is an inspection station, so I know the deal could include full inspection.


Of course, any car/truck with fresh inspection is worth what? $1000 minimum???


I'm also impressed in the condition of this truck w/300k on it. I'm not going to pile the miles on it - it will be a 2nd car in a one driver home - so the 300k may not really be an issue.


I need to know more about the engine: is it an interference design? timing belt or chain? and service interval.

[damarble]

High miles have never scared me off an otherwise nice and well cared for vehicle. You can get some great value that way. My daily driver has over 300k and I have faith in it to take it across country if I had to.

[Cardinal Grammeter]

Originally Posted by Lbar

A s10 with a 2.2/5 speed would be very economical, no timing belt to worry about either.

Oh, I missed this one. NO timing belt?

What do they do, use a chain like the BMW 2002 engines? or gear drive?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

An old Nissan is not bad at all, and eventually can be a '99, since the old D21 Hardbody was still made in Mexico until 2005.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by Lbar

A s10 with a 2.2/5 speed would be very economical, no timing belt to worry about either.

+1

I had a '98 2wd 4cyl/5spd S10. 262000 miles when I sold it and it ran like a top with no oil leaks. 33mpg highway with no special driving techniques.

If it were an extended cab, I might still have it. Regular cab is a little cramped for me.

[Cardinal Grammeter]

I've been looking at Ranger pickups and get the feeling that they are not the most economical 4 cyl out there - like the S10 and imports are better.

Also, even though a 4 cyl, the engine is really crowded and difficult to work on (I had a Tbird Turbo Coupe and it was insane how hard that 4 was to work on!)

Plus the post that a 98 S10 gets 33 highway is definitely worth considering.

What is funny is that I've looked at a Ranger and have seen many various on Craigslist and that 300k 97 Nissan still is the one I "wouldn't mind having." Of course what I would pay for it is another matter. Still, I've always been "attracted" to high mileage vehicles that seem to be in good condition.

As far as the Ranger goes, I wonder if there were different 4-cyl engine types - and if any were more desirable for mileage?

Thanks
Tom

Oh, there was a 1976 Datsun Pickup (!) in Warren OH which is couple hours away with 76k on it an the guy wants $1200 for it. If it was near me, I'd probably buy it even if it needed work. Now that pickup is a megamileage combo! Oh... to find a 67(!)

[Flakbadger]

It's been my experience---with several friends mind you---that S-10's are not worth their weight in dog poop. CONSTANT mechanical headaches, and/or electrical demons. I used to drive a Ranger and they certainly have their share of headaches---but the 2.3 (I think it's 2.3) liter 4 cylinder is pretty economical as far as pickups go. That being said, I don't know that I'd ever buy another Ranger either.

Personally I'd say look for an older Toyota or Nissan. My uncle's Toyota pickup has 248k on the clock, and besides for an upper engine rebuild, one clutch and a couple leaky vacuum hoses, it's still running great. Beyond that, an F-150 is not going to be THAT horrible on gas, and they're fun to drive.

[Cardinal Grammeter]

If it is an F150, I guess the 302? But what kind of transmissions are available? (obviously the 3-spd automatic)

Then there is the 300 Big Six. I know there are lot of people that love those sixes. In fact, I had a 1970 Chevy C10 with the 292 (3 on the tree) and I loved it. I flat towed a BMW 2002 from Cleveland to east of Pittsburgh and I swear I couldn't even tell it was back there. Torque out the wazoo!

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Cardinal Grammeter

As far as the Ranger goes, I wonder if there were different 4-cyl engine types - and if any were more desirable for mileage?

There were at least 4 engines for the 4-pot Ranger, the first one was the Georgia OHC (2.3L), a later twin-spark version of it, then a 2.5L one, and the last was the Duratec. I'd rather get one with the Duratec, since it seems to have more potential for ecomodding.