Looking at a compact pickup - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Looking at a compact pickup

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2009, 01:10 PM   #11
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
7point62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Decisive Terrain
Posts: 2,038
Liked 1359 Times on 690 Posts
Likes Given: 1015

Default

Take the 4x4 V6 with ext cab


__________________
Stay smart, stay motivated, stay dangerous
7point62 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 01:19 PM   #12
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
spittinfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maiden,NC
Posts: 9,663
Liked 83 Times on 54 Posts
Likes Given: 5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stalkingbear View Post
I too like 4x4, manual transmission, and a good engine BUT the (IMO) biggest optional engine is barely adequate if you're going to really use it like a truck should be used. The manufacturers are so concerned about fuel economy that performance suffers-especially in smaller than full size trucks. My Dakota has a V8 and I've added performance goodies & lifted it. Now I can not only go anywhere I want, I can also haul/pull whatever I want-damn the measely 18 mpg fuel milage.
I agree with this. I've got a 4.0 v6, the largest engine offered in a Ranger and while it will pull 6,000+ lbs(and yes, I do it), you know you've got a load on. I've added a few performance parts as well, full exhaust, limited slip front and rear, intake, just bolt on stuff. I really wish Ford would have slipped the 5.0 in Rangers, that would have been a SWEET little truck!

Hey bear, what size tires are you running on your Dodge? Mine left the factory with 31s on it and they're still there.
__________________

If the pain is lacking so is the discipline...

"the only 911 call I need is chambering a round" - Mr. Muller, MO car dealer

spittinfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 02:10 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: everywhere
Posts: 9,639
Liked 9 Times on 9 Posts

Default

What about carbon emissions? I frankly want a poor performer. Something that gets 6 MPG and spews sulphur. Performance isn't nearly as important as me impacting the environment.

I want a truck that runs off of wood from virgin rainforests.

__________________
Benning Boy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 03:11 PM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
CA357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 19,871
Liked 1175 Times on 510 Posts
Likes Given: 2978

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benning Boy View Post
What about carbon emissions? I frankly want a poor performer. Something that gets 6 MPG and spews sulphur. Performance isn't nearly as important as me impacting the environment.

I want a truck that runs off of wood from virgin rainforests.
Now that's damn funny.
__________________
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”Samuel Adams
CA357 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 03:14 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Stafford, Virginia,The state of insanity.
Posts: 14,043
Liked 34 Times on 29 Posts

Default

Sounds to me like you want to old chevy Luv.

you put a weak 4cyl in a 4wd and your not going to be doing anything but getting stuck.

__________________
cpttango30 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 03:19 PM   #16
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
spittinfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maiden,NC
Posts: 9,663
Liked 83 Times on 54 Posts
Likes Given: 5

Default

I disagree with that tango, there are TONS of 4wd 4cylinder trucks and jeeps out there. I don't want one but they can work.

__________________

If the pain is lacking so is the discipline...

"the only 911 call I need is chambering a round" - Mr. Muller, MO car dealer

spittinfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 03:51 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
stalkingbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lebanon,Ky
Posts: 3,621
Liked 11 Times on 10 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

My wife made me get rid of my last "toy" while I still had a driver's license-it was an 89 Ranger that I took a 5.0 & bored/stroked out to 347ci built up, and installed with a police interceptor transmission (6 clutches in each pack instead of 5, and wider overdrive band). It was getting an honest dynoed 430 hp (at flywheel) . It was only 2wd so wasn't very practical-damn fun to drive though.

My Dakota has locker in rear, 3.73s, 33x12.50 m/t (thinking about going bigger- to 35s), ported heads, "slightly bigger" cam, 8" total lift, jet performance chip, bigger, free flowing exhaust, ram cold air intake, Higher pressure injectors, I'm almost done with it. I wish I knew how to post a picture on here (it asks for url-whatever that is). It does "pretty good".

My latest project is my nephew's 1950 Ford coupe. I'm "helping" him build it from a rolling chassis. It's going to have a 416ci 351w. The best thing about it is he's paying for all of the parts/machine work. The only I can afford to build anything anymore.

Sorry for hijacking thread-back to the subject at hand. I had 2 4 cyl Rangers with 5 speed manual & both times my hard usage proved to be simply more than they could hold up to.

I gave my ol Dodge 250 with all 1 ton running gear (dana 70 rear,dana 60 front), 4.10 lockers, 446 ci to my boy & I still miss it. It gets about 4 mpg. I've done things with that truck that God & Dodge never meant for that truck to do.




Quote:
Originally Posted by spittinfire View Post
I agree with this. I've got a 4.0 v6, the largest engine offered in a Ranger and while it will pull 6,000+ lbs(and yes, I do it), you know you've got a load on. I've added a few performance parts as well, full exhaust, limited slip front and rear, intake, just bolt on stuff. I really wish Ford would have slipped the 5.0 in Rangers, that would have been a SWEET little truck!

Hey bear, what size tires are you running on your Dodge? Mine left the factory with 31s on it and they're still there.
__________________

Sometimes you earthlings REALLY amaze me!

stalkingbear is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2009, 11:23 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Northeast, AL
Posts: 327
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus View Post
4X4 = more weight and more moving parts so more energy required to do the same task. The 4 cylinder may not be able to handle the extra work required and still have the longevity customers expect.
I take it you have never owned a Toyota Pickup(pre-Tacoma) or Nissan Hardbody. The Nissan wasn't quite what the Toyota was, but I owned one for several years and put it through a very tough life. I saw it a couple weeks ago still running to the guy I sold it to.

I've about decided to get the Ranger with the ext. cab and V-6. If I do, I'm sure I will wear it out the first week I have it in the woods, just like I did my Jeep.
__________________
cameronguyton is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 04:38 AM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
fisher77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lubbock, TX
Posts: 232
Default

I had a 4 cylinder ranger once. It didnt get but about 21 to the gallon, and if I was driving into a 40 mile an hour head wind, wich happens quite often on the south plains, I would have to hold the pedal to the floor to maintain 60 miles an hour. I think the Ford 4 cylinder is way to under powered for a 4x4. As far as the toyota goes, a buddy of mine has one jacked up with big as# tires, and has the same trouble with the wind, but says it off roads just fine. I would go for the 6 cylinder.

__________________

If you can't make them see the light, make the feel the heat: Ronald Reagan

fisher77 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 01:06 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 4,808
Liked 1109 Times on 657 Posts
Likes Given: 348

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronguyton View Post
I take it you have never owned a Toyota Pickup(pre-Tacoma) or Nissan Hardbody. The Nissan wasn't quite what the Toyota was, but I owned one for several years and put it through a very tough life. I saw it a couple weeks ago still running to the guy I sold it to.

I've about decided to get the Ranger with the ext. cab and V-6. If I do, I'm sure I will wear it out the first week I have it in the woods, just like I did my Jeep.
Nothing is set in stone but if your looking at a new vehicle in America today when you add in all the safety features(weight) most 4x4's(weight) don't match up well to 4 bangers. I drive a 4 cylinder vehicle that is faster than most V-6's out there and some V-8's but its a smaller lighter vehicle, and I got a turbo.
__________________

"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson

Yunus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
BlackGunOwners.org, Adopt-A-Hwy, Litter Pickup JohnnyBlk45 General Handgun Discussion 10 06-18-2009 07:19 PM
Compact 9mm G19 or G26? eapking Glock Forum 16 02-07-2009 11:49 AM
New XD9 sub compact for me! spittinfire XD Forum 1 12-31-2008 03:06 AM
9mm CCW S&W M&P compact or Beretta PX4 sub-compact UberMonkey Semi-Auto Handguns 5 08-04-2008 07:24 PM