Buying a $1000 beater pickup for economy
 

I need to buy a pickup for a 2nd vehicle that will get used almost exclusively during the winter when I keep my Geo Metro in the garage out of the salt.

It might be not so much what is the Best one to look for, but rather, which one(s) to avoid.

I've sort of been gravitating to an old Ranger 4-cyl/5-spd anything. Or an S10...

Have also been tempted by the F150 Ford w/300 6-cyl which is a real horse of an engine. (Usually Ford 302 is better than 351 and Chevy 350 is better than 305.)

I recently found a clean $900 Dakota with a 6-cyl/auto that owner says gets 12 mpg around town. That is not cool even though the condition is good.

(I already have a 2000 Windstar 3.8 cargo that gets better mileage than that - its just that a Metro 5-door and a mini van overlap too much. In fact, I think I've needed the van over the Metro maybe once in the past year. Of course I drive the van 100% in the winter salt months.)

For economy, maybe I should be looking at Nissan/Mazda pickups?

Would also be open to cheap mods that would pay for themselves.

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance,
Tom

Sure, these are good ones.

Toyota, anywhere from the mid-80s (when they switched to fuel injection) to mid-90s. (Earlier is ok if you are willing to face the chance of needing carb/emissions work to pass smog.) My '88 4WD gets 26-27 mpg, driving mostly rough mountain dirt and/or hauling loads.

Caveats are that you may not find a good one sub-$1000, and in the northeast, possible rust (not something we really have hereabouts).

Some guys on here are reporting really good numbers for their four-banger Rangers. I can keep my 80s Toyota PU in the 30s with not too much work, so that's a good choice too (current numbers notwithstanding - driven by a 19-year-old college student right now). For serious longevity the F150 with the old 300 straight six is a great choice, but you won't be thrilled when it comes time to fill up. I understand they're pretty thirsty.

With the Toyotas, I'm assuming NOT the V6 and NOT the automatic?

In fact, never either in any other make too.

In your price range, I think an S10 or a Ranger is going to be the most likely to find. If you want a 4x4, in my experience the S10s tend to have fewer problems and you don't have to manually lock the hubs. They did make 4 cylinder Dakotas, but they are fairly rare, around here anyway. Avoid the V6 Dakotas for the obvious mileage issue. A Toyota or Nissan would be a better choice, but I think price range and rust issues will make it pretty hard to find one that will work for you. Good luck.

I used to own a 1997 2WD 4 cyl 5 speed standard cab Dakota. I averaged 25 MPG in summer driving "normal". Sold it in 2006 when I needed to carry 4 people.

After a year owning my 97 Ranger, I must say I am impressed with that truck. It had been a work truck and it was filthy and had a lot of dings all aorund the bed and a couple of larger dents. At 130k miles (bought with 124) it uses no oil in 5 k miles. I changed the plugs, trans fluid and diff fluid. It's a stick 4 cylinder with the 3.45 rear end. Manual steering but it has AC which works fine. Only issue for me is the blower motor resistor. I have replaced it twice in a year and the fan only works on high speed again. Not sure if it's the cheap arse Chinese parts or maybe the motor is just on it's las leg, but it was pretty clean when I replaced the first resistor and it blows great on high speed.
I had a 92 F150 with the 300 and 5 speed and this truck gets twice the mileage of the F150.

regards
Mech

I would *NOT* get a Chrysler product with an automatic transmission of that era ... That's just asking to drop $2000 on a rebuild.

I was taking the "not automatic" as a given. But I know nothing about them, or about V6 Toyotas, so can't speak from experience.