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

I'm downsizing my business and don't plan to tow heavy trailers any more for work, so.... Hoping to go from full size 350/3500 diesel work truck/s to something like older Chevy Colorado/Canyon, Nissan Frontier, or Toyota/(ranger?) ex cabs (probably not Tacoma 4-door double/crew cabs due to inflated used buy-in cost). Since I know folks will probably ask - We really do need & use a pickup bed, even a wimpy short bed 4.5-6ft is a better option than a van or wagon or car pulling a trailer for my purposes.

I always drive with a soft foot and frequently apply some degree of mild to medium hypermiling techniques when applicable, but half the time I'm trying/have to keep up with suburb freeway traffic at 65mph minimum speed (75mph average speed of most drivers)- so I have to keep my mpg expectations realistic.

I'm mainly looking at the 2000-2007 range, and always prefer older vehicles as I do my own maintenance/repairs, but might be able to stretch the budget for a steal of a deal on trucks upto 2012-2015 if 'newer' really made sense. I can't afford or justify any of the uncommon "1500" size diesel pickups that have shown up in the last 5-7 years.

I know ALL the arguments against 4x4 are solid (weight, extra rolling resistance in some cases, &why not 2wd with locker?/etc) but 4wd is worth the...let's say upto ~2-3mpg hit... for me... living in snow country, plus being able to put it in 4L and crawl out of being stuck is a "comfort" I've gotten used to/ not willing to give up. I've grown accustomed to crew cabs as well, so strongly lean towards 4 full doors for the family, tools, and workers.

I understand diesel has slightly more available btu's per gallon than e10 gas but still.... 4-5000lbs vs 7-8500lbs scale curb weight, for example, should make more of a difference. I really wish there was a convincing argument to downsize to smaller "work" pickups.

The problem is my already optimized 1 ton diesel trucks get just as good "real world" , and "on paper" mpg's as what I'm seeing for anything out there in the small/mid size range. I'm not talking inflated #'s you see all the time online. I've owned all of the pre-emissions "big" diesel truck options over the last 20 years, almost always in crew/4wd, and often push 25mpg mixed tank averages with dodge cummins or 20-22mpg with ford 7.3's .. Examples:
87-03 ford 7.3, crew, 4x4 manual, 3.73 = 17/20mpg (avg real city/highway)
89-93 dodge 5.9 ex cab 4x4 manual 3.54 19/23mpg
94-06 Dodge 5.9 quad/crew, 4x4 manual 18/22mpg
6.2 & 6.5 Chevy 16-24ish (that's been quite a few years)

"On paper" (fueleconomy dot gov & similar resources), below is the list of the most promising "smaller" truck options I can find: *Keep in mind these are ALL 4wd*

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

~01-06ish Nissan Frontier crew 6cyl manual 15/19
2015 16/21 6cyl auto

~ 2003ish Toyota Tacoma crew auto 6cyl 15/18 (manual & 4cyl NOT available)
~95-2009ish Toyota Tacoma EX cab, 4cyl, 5spd 17/21
2012 4cyl 5spd ex cab 18/20

pre-1996 Ford Ranger EX cab, 4cyl, 5spd 18/23
1997+ Ranger EX cab, 6cyl, 5spd 16/19

I don't think any dakotas make the list and ~2001-2004 s10 crew cabs are all 6cyl so didn't seem like they would be worth looking into either. 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.

Just in case... are there any significantly above average mpg OLDER 1500/f150 trucks?

My dream is the Nissan pre 1997 double cab import (from asia, sd25, td27/etc) but that's not what this thread is about. I'm not willing to go transit/sprinter (big fan of old 02-06 Sprinter but this thread is about 4wd options specifically), nor am I looking at mini vans (Another rig I've tried, Astro AWD 1995-2005 gets 16/18mpg, quite hard to even push 20 btw). 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.


I've searched and read all I can here and elsewhere, and started the hunt to see what pops up for sale locally. I'd greatly appreciate ANY thoughts, experiences, or input...especially on what's achievable at highway speed with the 4cyl & 5cyl "older" Colorados, and perhaps 6cyl Frontier of any year..or any others.... thanks in advance!

https://ecomodder.com/forum/member-f...4-100-1057.jpg

This is the ultimate in utility. Unfortunately we're all priced out of the market. But here you have 5-6 passengers, a short bed and lockable trunk in one vehicle. My panel van got 30MPG and cruised at 75 on I-5.

'what's achievable'
 

I got the '94 Toyota T-100, from mid-twenties to up to 39.9-mpg at 60-65-mph, strictly with aero. Four-banger, manual 5-speed, 2WD.
It's just a crude proof on concept.
Only you would know your limits on 'practicality.'
https://www.google.com/search?q=Stre...id:9AS-FbafeQ4

Since you mentioned it, I did find something along those lines, an "updated" version, (T5) Eurovan 3-door doka, (2wd 1.9l td / aaz?) listed on fb marketplace in lebanon OR, I have it in my bookmarks "just for fun" ..not really seriously considering it... almost seems semi reasonable @ $9k, for someone on the west coast usa. I liked everything up through vanagons, never have gone the eurovan route yet. I guess I'm imagining lower to the ground 'mini' trucks, anything resembling, for example 80's datsuns /720, etc as more ideal at this point in time.

Newbie so I can't post links or pictures yet,, eurovan double cab:
facebook dot com/marketplace/item/650871540150692
Also - Thanks for the inspiration and encouragement Aerohead, I've read through many of your posts. I need an open bed about half the time but will be scratching my head and digging further into the concept of any retractable/fabric/softtop canopy type options that are shaped in a way that might reduce drag.

https://ecomodder.com/forum/member-f...02-5-26-32.png

I'd consider something like this. It's a hybrid of a Camper World race truck spoiler and the GM half-tonneau. I talked to the manager and he knew it got better mileage, but not by how much.

The one change I would make is to chamfer or bevel the ends. On a stanced mini-truck the front half of the bed would be accessible.

How far is a typical trip, and how many miles per year?

Financially, seems best to stick with what you've already got, since you already know what condition they are in.

You'll take a hit if selling/buying retail. Then there's all the unknowns of the "new" used vehicles.

Thank you all. It's not only a financial consideration, more just "downsizing" - I will still have access to 1 ton or larger work trucks if needed, and the smaller work runabout trucks will be cheaper to run & keep on the road going forward, overall.

About 3/4 the usage will be short trips 1-4miles barely enough to warm up, and the remaining longer freeway avg~ 40-120 miles

The frontrunners in this category of older crew cab so far; (thinking I'll probably end up giving up 4x4 in favor of a more common 2wd 5spd 4cyl - otherwise I'd be looking forever for a unicorn, or doing a transmission/engine swap)

-Nissan frontier (2wd) 5spd 4cyl from around 1999+ and the
-GM Colorado/Canyon ~2005+ 5spd 4cyl (4x4 or 2wd)
From what I can find so far, curb weight starts very roughly around 36xx for the lightest configuration listed on both

I like toyota as much as anybody but hard to justify the inflated buy in cost for older tacomas, plus just don't want one of their 6cyl , unimpressed (mpg & reliability) with a 6cyl ex cab toyota in the past

My experience with vehicles that old is that I buy one, a day later the check engine light shows up and starts flashing, and turns out I need a new engine, transmission, brakes, and everything else, and I can't get parts for them that last more than a month or two.

I usually go for way older vehicles, something that costs next to nothing and is cheaper to repair. These vehicles have also "proven themselves" to a certain degree meaning that if they made it this far they probably can keep going for many more years with a little TLC. You can probably purchace and rebuild the engine and transmission on a 40 year-old vehicle for the price of a 20 year-old vehcile that needs a rebuilt engine and transmission.

Or I'd go for something a few years old with low mileage, except with vehicles that are a few years old there's the problem right now of high prices, prices so high you might as well as get a new one.

Unless you're doing 2,000 miles a month or more, I'd stick with the big truck you already have.

Reminds me of a friend who had a 10 cylinder pickup, he traded it for an 8 cylinder pickup and got the same fuel mileage. He then traded that for a 6 cylinder and still got the same fuel mileage.

If you want good fuel mileage in a 4x4 pickup you'd have to do some drastic mods. Or get a little diesel one (or an EV if you can afford one).

For the money, if I were looking for a great fuel mileage truck, I'd try to get a brand new Ford Maverick hybrid. Yes, they cost over $20,000 and have something like a two year waiting list. (I'm also not sure if the hybrid comes in AWD.)

But from there I wouldn't consider anything else, except maybe a Chevy Colorado (GMC Canyon) 4 cylinder diesel. But expect to pay $20,000 for one with 150,000 miles on it.

From there I would go back to a 1980's pickup. The VW non-turbo diesel pickup would be my first choice as I owned a 1985 VW Golf non-turbo diesel. The thing was gutless as all getout, but it got as much as 60mpg on long trips. It is also immortal and just won't die, but just keeps going. But those pickups are FWD and do not have a crew cab.

Graft a Rabbit pickup bed onto a Golf two- or four-door? With a Type III engine under the bed?

The 2001 Frontier I had supposedly weighed a little less than 3200 lbs. It was a 2.4L 5 speed with an extended cab. I usually got 28-31 mpg. It was regularly getting 30mpg until I had two used tires put on the front. My mileage then dropped to 28mpg. No matter how much I tried I couldn´t get 30 mpg with those tires.

The Frontier taught me that I never want another extended cab. The extra weight wasn´t worth it. My 1991 base model Toyota Pickup is a much more efficient truck for getting actual work done.

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


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.


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.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9GNNmerX4...-dianteiro.jpg


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


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.

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

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.


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.


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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Not sure if you bought already, but this may help others reading. I own and have owned many trucks. In my experience, a small pickup with a v6 is dismal on fuel, based on my 2005 4.0v6 6-speed manual getting 13-16 mpg. So you end up being way down on capacity and room with a midsize that gets similar mpg to a fullsize with a v8.

Now I've had a 1996 Tacoma 2.4l 2wd 5speed, which I hypermiled to 29mpg, but was useless for towing and fairly useless for hauling over 500lbs. Also, they are so small and cramped in the interior. Even my 2nd gen 2005 DCSB 4-door, I hate how cramped it is.

I also drove a stock 2011 4x4 Tacoma AC 6' bed 2.7l 4cyl 5speed manual and it was gutless and geared like a sportscar, not a truck, was hard to get moving with it empty, can't imagine hauling or towing.

A great option is a 2000-2006 Tundra to down size to, ok mpg with v8 if you keep tiny highway tires on it, 6' bed (anything less is irritating) and you can breath in the interior, big improvement over my 2005 Tacoma.
The Tundras are generally affordable and very reliable if you do the maintenance, they were also the safest truck you could buy in the early 2000s.

Was your '96 Tacoma a single-cab?

Yes it was, the seat couldn't go back far enough for a 6' tall person driving a manual, I wouldn't want to own one again without an extended cab (I'd modify if necessary), but they're also very narrow, also old world crash safety.

Those old-school Japanese compact trucks from late-'80s through the '90s were far from great regarding cabin space, yet I didn't think they were so awful at all.

If you are a 6'1" tall 250 lb american like me, getting into any Toyota is an effort in small space squeezable contortionist humans. A upward tilt steering wheel would help emormously, as would bucket seats or an extra 4 " of space.

This pretty much stops me from buying one

I'm 6' and 215, you'd fit in a 2000-2006 Tundra, Sequoia, and with room to spare in 2007 up Tundra.

I have the new 2022+ Tundra, very roomy, without being enormous. I just hate being nannied and controlled by the lane and brake assist. (doesn't get good FE by the way, ~15mpg, but I 34.8" tall 285/75-18 Toyo AT3 on it)

I'm around the same height, but only around 188lbs. Footwell has been my main complaint about some Japanese compact utility vehicles around that vintage.

Duh forgot about footwell. Hitting gas and brake pedals at the same time is common for me

Maybe this explains why it was so convenient for me, with my bum knees, to try the punta-tacco for the first time, while driving a square-body Mitsubishi L200. Even the Opel Corsa B that I was more familiar with at the time seems to have a larger footwell.

For purposes of comparison:
https://www.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/644728.jpg
https://www.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/644728.jpg

Last time I drove a Beetle was in 2006. That was also the last time I drove anything with the pedals mounted directly on the floor, instead of the suspended pedals which are more usual among modern cars. But its footwell didn't seem so awful.

I always found that on the long drives I used to take, not being able to stretch my left leg was really uncomfortable. I'd wind up with my left foot under my right knee.

Still doesn't sound as bad as the previous-generation Suzuki Jimny.

Or my brother's one owner 1984 Samurai.

Maybe your Toyotas. The Tundra/Sequoia are full size and huge. I'm 6'4 and do fine. I agree though on the small toyotas. Rav4, prius, Tacoma, 4runner are all the exact same size. You can thank the world market for making them so small.

I really don't see how any of the pickups mentioned could beat a Tacoma or a tundra. Outside of the 3 point blow they all will do double and triple the mileage of the other trucks. There's a lot of things that go into ownership cost on top of gas mileage. I personally just got a 2001 Toyota Sequoia 4wd with 297k for $1900. I did oem toyota upper and lower ball joints and tie rod ends, centric brake rotors and akebono pads, new take off 245/75/17 michelin highway tires off a jeep and replaced some cracked hoses and did fluids etc... All in at less than $3000 it runs fantastic and still gets 17.5mpg. I even put in my speakers and have the cd player bluetooth adapter so the stereo is nice and convenient as well. Automatic dim mirror, power exterior mirrors, auto headlights, heated seats, auto climate control, sunroof etc... Its really modern and still looks relatively good in modern times. I've owned 4 UZ's now and they all have ran like new regardless of mileage which is wild. I will say every thing works except the light for D after 297k and 22 years. But I've seen plenty do many many more miles (see the million mile all original ones from a couple years ago).
I would say grab a high mileage sequoia (once they get close to the 300k mile range they nose dive in value) and take a gamble as values are really low compared to trucks and so are property taxes, but you need a truck so check out the tundra. A v6 tundra with the 3.4L v6 and 5 speed manual would be one you could hyper mile. Its essentially an americanized T100 though.

The big thing is stay away from the rusty ones unless you know what you can and can't deal with.

I am truly happy for you then. Must be nice to buy off the rack clothing that fits well. However: Enjoy your Toyota's. I will stick with vehicles I actually comfortably fit in without grease, pry bars or levers. Nothng like driving a 700 mile trip with a piece of plastic digging in somewhere much like freebeard and his left foot Volkswagen trips

Ah i see. My bad i was little bit rude on my first sentence.

Might also be quite troublesome to me. The current generation OTOH was improved considerably on that matter.

He wants to take it to the Portland Roadster Show this weekend. So I'll only have to drive halfway.

I may sit in the back.

You better be a tough guy to ride around in a samurai. Those things are the roughest riding vehicles ive ever rode in. The only redeeming quality is they can get more than 400-600 hours on the engine unlike side by sides and are already road legal lol