Older 4x4 AND crew cab small/mid size trucks: Colorado/Canyon, Frontier, etc? realistic mpg's/options..

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by new_bug

2004-~2007 Chevy Colorado/(GMC Canyon), crew, 4cyl, Manual 17/22 **but I find very very few crew w/ 4cyl, and even fewer with manual trans
04-~07 Colorado 4cyl auto crew 16/21 **still rare to find 4cyl 4x4 crew auto
04-~07ish Colorado manual 5cyl 16/21
2015 Chevy Colorado 4cyl auto or manual 19/24

For me it's quite surprising the 4-cyl actually got 4WD availability.

2001-2004 s10 crew cabs are all 6cyl so didn't seem like they would be worth looking into either.

As a V6 might not be so overloaded compared to a 4-cyl in highway, mileage may be close enough to often favor the larger engine depending on where you'll be driving it more often.

Rangers I haven't really checked out much, as, again I want crew cab not extended cab, and you have to go pretty far back to find the 4cyl 4x4

I guess getting the cab of a '98-'11 Argentinian crew-cab Ranger and slap it into the frame of a salvaged US-spec Ranger is out of question.

My dream is the Nissan pre 1997 double cab import (from asia, sd25, td27/etc) but that's not what this thread is about.

Wasn't the Nissan D21 available there too? I know, no Diesel option there...

I do love odballs and would, for fun... look at worldwide import options in Europe, Asia, S. America, etc.. ("utes" are awesome)- anything pre 1998 could perhaps be do-able per the usa 25 year import rules.

Unless you could pick either some overseas Mazda B-2200 or B-2500, or a Mitsubishi L-200 or the Nissan D21, most likely you'd be unable to find a 4WD crew-cab. Yet the last crew-cab B-2200 and D21 that I saw on the wild were 2WD. Finding any Isuzu or the ones rebadged as Chevrolet LUV might also be quite a PITA nowadays, even though IIRC until '96 the LUV could be find with a carburettor-fed 2.6L gasser in the 4WD version in some Andean countries such as Argentina.

[Piotrsko]

Cool thing about old rangers was that the frame accomodated any option available. Want 4wd, just get the brackets and front axle. Different trans? Move the support. Afaik Cant put a crew cab on because there's not enough frame left for even a short bed. I suppose you could splice on extension frame rails, but that's beyond my pay grade. Stretch cab versions got a short bed, long bed only fits standard cabs. Next gen rangers are different but beyond what I know. Newest generation looks to be the F150 universal frame

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Cool thing about old rangers was that the frame accomodated any option available. Want 4wd, just get the brackets and front axle. Different trans? Move the support. Afaik Cant put a crew cab on because there's not enough frame left for even a short bed. I suppose you could splice on extension frame rails, but that's beyond my pay grade.

The Argentinian crew-cab model, which had also been available in Mexico, has a shorter (5-ft AFAIK) bed specifically designed for it, yet I remember seeing the standard 6-ft bed and even a 7-ft bed listed among the factory options for the crew-cab Ranger back in the day even though I have never seen a crew-cab Ranger with those longer beds. But anyway, with a good old C-Channel frame it's easier to do some mods such as stretching, compared to the fully-boxed frame of the current generation. IIRC from '98 until 2011 only the front section of the Ranger frame around the engine bay was boxed.

Stretch cab versions got a short bed, long bed only fits standard cabs.

I remember seeing both the regular cab and extended cab versions fitted with both the standard 6-ft bed and the available 7-ft bed.

Next gen rangers are different but beyond what I know. Newest generation looks to be the F150 universal frame

AFAIK it's not the same frame of the F-150. Otherwise it would've been much easier to offer RHD versions of the F-150 for some international markets instead of even bothering to make a dedicated Ranger Raptor for instance...

[Hersbird]

Diesel's added MPG doesn't offset the higher cost per gallon anymore. Around here it's a 50% higher price at the pump to get best case a 40% improvement in MPG. Probably more like 30% tops.

If it were me, no question I would be looking for a 1999 to 2006 Silverado or Sierra 1500 extended cab with the 4.6 or 5.3 V8. They will get just as good real world mpg as a Colorado and are 10 times more reliable. The extended cab on those trucks is as roomy as a 4 door smaller truck, and even as roomy as the 4 door Dodge "quad cab". We could pretty easily get over 20 mpg with even a 5.3 4x4 Suburban those years and we have a 2005 4.6 4x4 Tahoe at work with 300,000 miles on it on all it's original drivetrain. It gets over 20 MPG too.

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Diesel's added MPG doesn't offset the higher cost per gallon anymore. Around here it's a 50% higher price at the pump to get best case a 40% improvement in MPG. Probably more like 30% tops.

Back when I got my F250 fuel was $0.50 @ gallon, but that wasn't the reason I bought it. It's huge, fits a twin bed flat in the rear seat area, tows 10,000# like it's nothing and was reported to go 500,00 miles on typical maintenance and had 6-700 mile range between fill-ups. Excepting that now it typically costs $175 a refill here in Reno those data points are still valid when I periodically use them, like planning to relocate grandma in a couple of weeks. @ 19-20 ish mpg isn't stellar but it's potloads better than mpg the ditto gasser gets heavy hauling.

How often do I heavy haul? More often than I refill the tank.

[Hersbird]

We rented a f450 uhaul box van with the v10 and loaded it very heavy. 22' full of lots of books, appliances, particle board furniture, etc. That and towed uhauls largest trailer also similarly filled. We didn't get a weight, but I'm sure it was heavy, and those are not great aerodynamically. Anyway we got 12 mpg and I drove 70-75mph because we're were losing daylight. It was passing semis on the passes and able to break the speedlimit uphill, so power was fine. I just doubt the diesel version would have gotten 18 mpg to better the price per mile using less expensive gas. At that time diesel was even more at $5.50 vs $3.30 so 60% more. It would have had to be getting 20 with the diesel but those diesel prices have gotten better. Still they are never going to be just even or $.30 more per gallon like they were 10 years ago.

[Piotrsko]

Missed my point. A lot. Rented the same size gasser box, had to refuel twice Grants pass to Reno, only once in my F250 dragging u bauls biggest trailer. Napkin calcs say pretty much the same fuel costs for both overall at the time. didn't slow to 30 full throttle climbing any 6% grade either

[Hersbird]

What point did I miss? Power? The loaded gas box truck hauling the loaded trailer did 3 Montana passes including Homestake on the divide and didn't slow under 60 mph. Probably would have held more if I hadn't slowed for all the 45 mph corners.

Economy? If it was even cost per miles years ago, it's not even today as diesel has increased faster than unleaded.

To add to my points, the OP was also talking short 2-3 mile trips which is death on a diesel. Especially a modern one with emissions. And the emissions are tough to get rid of without consequences today vs 10 years ago. It's just a poor choice for what they need.

[Piotrsko]

Point you missed was that fuel price economy isn't the only reason to still own/buy a diesel. But youre so obviously right, I must be wrong along with other buyers.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Not to mention some newer gassers have been quite a PITA when it comes to emissions too. Particulate filters are not an Achilles' heel exclusive to Diesels nowadays.