What's a dependable, older, small pickup?

This

Are there any year ranges you'd suggest? My friend said I shouldn't get any F150's past 1997 for instance.

Worse mpg, no obd2, not much more capability than the 4 cylinder. At that point you might as well get a v8 full size.

Nissan D21 yo

>you can tell people it's got a 240sx motor
>you'll be wrong
>but you can still tell people that

Is a mid 90's Ranger a bad choice? I found a clean 95 Ranger with 88k for $3750, is that a terrible deal?

This is the actual truck, I dunno why I used another pic for the other post

I second these anons, get yourself an 89-92 Toyota "Pickup" which I think was the T-100... My dad had I think a manual '90 one and aside from having a max speed of like 75 it was bulletproof, finally died a horrible death of throwing a rod on the freeway at about 400k miles

Good lord those things are shit.
Unreliable trash.

Hilux obviously

If your a poor fag then ford ranger dodge dakota or gmc sonoma. All with the 4 cylinder engines. The ford rangers have crazy popular parts making them really cheap to fix. Sort of similar for the gmc and the dodge. They all should only cost you 1000 dollars for one in good condition if it is older then 2000. Anything made after 2002 should only run you from 5 to 7 grand. user earlier said get a toyota tacoma. Correct on reliability but they are all pretty expensive and hard to find.

This. Also, first gen Tacoma's are just fine. They are functionally identical to the Toyota Pickups that they replaced (the only difference is body work and style, and the engine is electronically fuel injected instead of carbureted).

I want this meme to end

What meme?

>a pickup has to have an arbitrary minimum capacity whether or not relevant to your needs
Not 100% sure but I'm reasonably certain that meme.

No one said there was an "arbitrary" minimum.

Just that the smaller trucks sacrifice all of the things that make them good trucks in order to be better at being a car.

>small trucks are less dependable than large trucks
What

S10s and Rangers are pretty decent and have lots of parts floating around.

If you can find one of those Rabbit trucks, I'd snatch that up too.

Under the same usage with similar design, larger components last longer.

I had an s10 with the 2.8 and it had 365k on the original motor when I sold it. suuuper reliable engines, and they can sound great with a proper exhaust. virtually no aftermarket though, and it is dead slow stock.

If wiling to look at SUV that are pretty much trucks, look at toyota 4runners, third Gen with the V6 being bullet proof.

The 4runner is pretty much a baby land cruiser, with out sacrficing off road capablity

>Just that the smaller trucks sacrifice all of the things that make them good trucks
Elaborate fool.

>robust heavy duty drivetrain
>plenty of torque
>strong frame
>large payload capacity
>large towing capacity

Small trucks still have all that. If you had a real statement you would be listing specific defects with specific models instead of these train-of-thought assumptions you keep making. Every Mexican drywaller out there in a D21 Nissan (read; all of them) proves you wrong.

>What is a first gen tundra and are there any other ways I can put my general retardation on display for all to see?

Get an obd2 one. Post 1996

No the 2.4ls are really good motors so are the vg33e 3.3l

You can find an older Nissan 4x4 for a good price. It's a good truck and can take a beating. Most people in Oregon use them as mudders or hunting rigs. This is a pristine example though.

The Tundra is a really shitty full-size that meets that description you mongoloid.

They arent.
Both are of poor design and the electronics fail easily.
See

Your right the Toyota T100 is way better. It BTFO all the gm boys and ferd Cucks.

>tfw no small good pick ups in your area:miami

Right. It's so much more robust and torqy than a 7.4l k3500.

Which is all more than adequate for their intended purpose, unless we're going back to the point of you placing some sort of arbitrary minimum capacity whether relevant to your needs or not, you fucking mouth breather.

More than adequate for your arbitrary usage scenarios that require a car with a bed rather than a truck?

1st gen Dakota with the 5.2 V8

No Mr Shitlord, more than adequate for OP's practical usage that requires a small truck rather than a fullsize truck.

OP didn't specify his usage, shitlord. And don't you dare ask for clarification.

>OP didn't specify his usage
So why do you claim a compact is inadequate for his purpose?

Can confirm 88s10 had 2.8 88 Camaro and 86 Camaro had 2.8. All were dead slow

They're still also catching a pretty penny for high mileage beat ones

>I want the toyota camy of compacts
>no you don't you want a fullsize
Suburban owner detected

OP here, I kinda figured
>toyota camry
implying both compact and reliable and
>light duty
meant that I didn't want a full size truck.

Full size trucks are cool, but I just want a beater truck so I can cheaply pick up stuff that my Camry can't fit.

$3750 is a bit high. The XL trim is poverty grade and probably manual windows/locks, which isn't a bad thing.

I'd be a player closer to 3k.

This kek

Can confirm. That engine won't die come hell and high water but the flipside is that its slow

Does the cleanliness of the body add anything to the price? I live in a city where they salt the roads, so a non-rusty older vehicle is sort of rare. Thoughts on getting financing through a dealer vs. an auto loan through a bank? We only have one car currently, but my non-driving wife will probably end up needing my little camry, which means I need a beater work truck to get around. I sort of thought an early-mid 90's light duty truck would be a good buy for that sort of purpose.

Nearly $4k for a beater is a complete rip off.

>I want the toyota camy of compacts
He didn't say compacts, he said light duty, which doesn't make much sense. Also:
desired features =/= intended usage

see
>meant that I didn't want a full size truck

full size and beater are not mutually exclusive.
Smaller trucks are cheaper new, but the same can't always be said for used trucks.

Can't use that as your reasoning if he posted that after you.

>he said light duty, which doesn't make much sense.

autotrader.com/car-tips/light-duty-vs-heavy-duty-trucks-which-is-right-for-you-209314

"Light Duty" is a perfectly cromulent term user.

>"Light Duty" is a perfectly cromulent term user.
I wasn't saying the term "light duty" doesn't make sense, I was saying that seeking out a pickup truck based on it having the least capability available and being willing to pay more for a truck because it has less capability doesn't make sense.

>projecting your stupidity onto others
I knew what he meant.

Seeking out less "capability" is no problem. As that could potentially lead to a more suitable vehicle.

Paying more for a 700kg payload vs a 1500kg payload is where the retarded starts.

>seeking out a pickup truck based on it having the least capability available and being willing to pay more for a truck because it has less capability doesn't make sense.

I was thinking it would save a bit on gas and I really only need the capability offered by a smaller truck, where are you getting "more expensive" from?

Me too.
You're an idiot.
>it doesn't make sense to look for an appropriate sized vehicle when you could buy something with a needlessly larger capacity

Suburban faggots are convinced fullsize wagon/pickup gets 20mpg because it has a bigger motor.

Pic related is a '97 XLT I scooped up for $1700 this spring. 125k miles, single owner, rwd 4cyl 5spd. A bit rustier than she lets on (rotted out front body mounts on the rad support), and it needs some odds and ends, but it's been a solid little commuter and weekend hauler so far.

I'd say it has more things wrong with it than an equivalent Toyota would at this mileage, but the parts are beyond cheap and it's simple to work on.

>They all should only cost you 1000 dollars for one in good condition if it is older then 2000

Complete bullshit. At least in the midwest, that would be a rusted out basketcase for $1k. I'd say the average is more in the $2000 range for something driveable but needing a bit of attention, with about $500 higher or lower depending on miles and condition and trim. 4wd I'd say is $2500 and up even with being older and higher miles.

>As that could potentially lead to a more suitable vehicle.
>to look for an appropriate sized vehicle
That's more dependent upon cab and bed configuration than midsize vs fullsize classification. The size difference between a single cab 6ft bed midsize and single cab 6ft bed fullsize is negligible.
"I'm looking for a single cab and don't need a long bed" makes more sense than "I NEED a midsize"

>needlessly larger capacity
Not NEEDING the extra capacity does't mean you NEED a vehicle without it. Why are you so firmly against the mere concept of someone considering a fullsize truck?

>where are you getting "more expensive" from?
The fact that you even considered $3750 for a vehicle that in your words is to be a "beater"
Beaters should be under $1k, never over $2k.

Pretty sure someone on here has a lifted gas burb that gets 16-17 mixed. 20 out of a stock diesel should be no problem.

At least use the colored version famalam

Any love for the jeep comanche?

>The fact that you even considered $3750 for a vehicle that in your words is to be a "beater"
>Beaters should be under $1k, never over $2k.

Arbitrary guidelines made up by a poorfag. I agree that the Ranger is overpriced, but to someone making some good money who would otherwise maybe consider spending 25k+ on a new truck, a 15+ year old one for $3k or even $5k for something could easily be seen as a "beater," something they're not afraid of parking in bad places or abusing a bit offroad, etc.

The meme-factor makes them way overpriced for what it is.

>when you're this worried information from people with different experiences than you could bring the entire foundation you've built your life on crumbling down around you

Stay in your bubble. Outside beliefs are dangerous. Kill the infidels to attain your 72 virgins.

>Not NEEDING the extra capacity does't mean you NEED a vehicle without it.
Unless it brings no benefits with by he introduction of economic drawbacks. >Why are you so firmly against the mere concept of someone considering a fullsize truck?
Nice projection strawman, but I'm absolutely by no means against anyone considering a fullsize truck, whether it be for practical reasons or simply out of want. You however seem to be firmly against someone considering a compact.
>beaters should be limited to this arbitrary figure

Literally in the OP.
>I'm a poorfag,
Great irrelevant contribution to the thread though.

You're arguing with someone for bringing up the possibility of a fullsize, man. Just accept who you are and what you have become. Veeky Forums did this to you.

>when nobody subscribes to suburban owner bullshit

>anyone that doesn't obsess over compact pickups is a Suburban owner and everything they say should be ignored

Are you developing your own third world religion?

Let me guess, you worship the Hilux?

Pretty sure that someone is full of shit, or drives downhill with a tail wind everywhere.
>You're arguing with someone for bringing up the possibility of a fullsize, man.
No Mr Strawman, I'm arguing with someone who claims a compact is inadequate and a fullsize is bare minimum. Just accept who you are and what you have become. Veeky Forums did this to you.

>ask around on Veeky Forums about a suburban
>accept that it will only get 8 mpg and be difficult to navigate in city and park
>decide to buy it anyway

>18mpg highway, 14-16 city depending on traffic
>easy to drive and park

Everything turned out better than expected.

>Pretty sure that someone is full of shit, or drives downhill with a tail wind everywhere.
If you drive downhill to work, you have to drive uphill home. How many Suburbans have you driven and with what options? Believe it or not a 90s 350 is way better on gas than a 70s 454.

>If you drive downhill to work, you have to drive uphill home.
That's the joke, they're full of shit.

>things that didn't happen

It sounds more like you're full of shit.

>because I said so
Insecure GM fangirls everyone

>people that have never owned vehicle X know more about its' fuel economy than someone that drives it every day and pays to fuel it

>Hilux

I think this suburban vs hilux rivalry is becoming a little too real now.

>because I said so
>anecdotes that lack evidence count as a viable source
Insecure GM fangirls everyone

In regards to fuel economy, anecdotes are far better than baseless guesses.

Actually, I'd take a calculated estimate over bullshit spouted by one with a vested interest.

Nissan's got pretty reliable trucks. I bought this one off a family friend for $1500, and the only major issues with it are cosmetic/interior work and the (slight) possibility that it won't pass smog.

>calculated estimate
You don't have any numbers to calculate. You're literally just guessing and refusing to believe your guess could be wrong.

>vested interest
I gain nothing by lying about fuel economy. I'm not selling a Suburban, much less to anyone here, and wouldn't use "great on gas" as a selling point if I did. 18mpg isn't great but it's obviously a lot better than you think it is.

>You don't have any numbers to calculate.
It's a 5700lb SUV with a 5.7 V8 and a slushbox 4 speed. I've got all the number I need.
>I gain nothing by lying about fuel economy.
Except rampant shitposting arguments when ever someone expresses doubt.
>I'm not selling a Suburban, much less to anyone here
Could've fooled me :')

Every truck thread nowadays

I died, thanks

Quite accurate. /ORG/ used to be the containment zone, now it's spreading.