diesel ranger. it exists. make it happen.
diesel ranger. it exists. make it happen.
grimmelshanks wrote: diesel ranger. it exists. make it happen.
Yeah! I was gonna suggest a small diesel anything, since that's the only thing I can think of that will get upwards of 27 mpg. Nissan diesel Hardbody maybe? The Rabbit pickup and the Rampage Dodge are the few gassers that come to mind as possibilties. There just isn't much, with that list of requirements.
So then...where do you stand on the diesel issue, Senator?
The rampage can easily get over 27 mpg (several have gotten over 40 on hwy) and fit a sportbike in the bed with the gate down (ive seen it) but it will NOT take a beating off road AT ALL.
Ive seen L-bodies with the struts punched THROUGH the strut towers from a hard hit.. they cant hack it off-road.
1986- mid '90's Nissan (Hardbody) 4 banger 5 speed 2WD done as a Pre Runner would do everything you want except the 4x4 bit. The extended cabs are much roomier than the others of the era as well. I lubbed my '85 1/2 V6 SE 4x4. 
I think the best way to get what you want is to make it. The only thing that you'll really have trouble with is the off-road capability with the handling in the twisties. You can have some serious off-road capability without the massive lifts, so keep it stock height or just lift it enough to clear the tires you want. You'll also have to define off-road capability... are you talking about crawling Moab, or sprinting Baja?
I would pick the truck you want and swap a small diesel drivetrain in it. That's the only way you'll get 4x4 with 27 mpg. I'm fixing to put an 80's Mercedes diesel in my 65 scout. Getting it to mate up to the NV3550 I want is another story :)
The S10 ZR2 would make an excellent start, except that they aren't 80's boxy. I agree... I LOVE boxy stuff - E30s, Early S10s, 90's volvos. The ZR2s had a completely different ladder style frame than the regular S10s. Much stiffer. They also came with 8.5" rears instead of the wussy 7.5". Drop in a Mercedes diesel, a 4BT, or something similar and have fun.
80's Toyota pickups would make a great start. There are few things slower than a 4x4 4cyl Toyota pickup, but it will get you close to 25 mpg and awesome reliability if you don't mind going slow.
I owned a '94 Ranger with a 4 cylinder and the manual trans. It could ALMOST hit 27 on the highway....but it would really tick off all those drivers behind me, because I couldn't exceed or maintain 65 mph. And without cruise control long trips were ankle busters.
As others have pointed out, sporty handling and 4X4s are nearly always mutually exclusive. To be a capable off road vehicle requires LOTS of suspension travel, and with the exception of some vintage French cars, no one has been able to get a long travel suspension to turn corners in a sporty manner.
For the last 6 months I've looked at CL in hopes of finding a 4 cylinder 4X4. There's actually a Nissan Hardbody here in my area that is a KingCab, 4 cylinder, manual trans, 4X4. But I know it isn't capable of much over 20 MPG. I've also found a few '86 to '97 Rangers in this area that are regular cabs with 4 cylinders and 4 wheel drive...but I know they won't handle all that sporty.
If you dump the 27 MPG (to a more realistic 20 MPG) and decide whether you want a 4X4 or sporty handling....you will find nearly any small truck COULD fit your bill.
Taiden wrote: 7 and 8 are in direct competition... but my main point was I don't want something boring to drive. I want to be able to hit up some rough stuff and not yawn on the way home...
If by "not boring" you mean "terrifying," get a 1980s Ranger with a really low quality lift kit.
But if by not boring you mean, fun, you're probably screwed. Trucks make bad sports cars, off road capable trucks make really, really bad sports cars.
ok ok since we're completely off our rockers lets say:
Vehicross with 3.0 bluetec diesel swap and a utility trailer..
high 14s, low 15s 1/4, decent truck handling, 27mpg, and plenty of off-road capability, and pulls a bike or 3 or 4! Hell, only ~12k, a crapload of effort, and you're there!!
The big sticker is the mpg requirement.
Toyota's 4-cylinders are pretty bad on fuel, all things considered. My 2wd 'yota pickup with NO accessories on the motor would get 22-24mpg at absolute best. My buddy's bone-stock 22RE 4x4 Xtra cab got worse mileage than my '98 Cobra (I'd get 15/24, he'd get 13/20).
I haven't heard much better about the mileage of the Nissan minitrucks.
914Driver wrote: 2001 Ranger. 2.3, 5 spd. 20 mpg and I beat the crap out of it.
Yeah, I've got about the same, Mazda B2500 with 2.5 Lima (last one before the 16 valve). I get 22 on the highway, 20 everywhere else.
ReverendDexter wrote: My buddy's bone-stock 22RE 4x4 Xtra cab got worse mileage than my '98 Cobra (I'd get 15/24, he'd get 13/20). I haven't heard much better about the mileage of the Nissan minitrucks.
Which is why the Big 3's half-ton offerings of the last 10 years look like a much better value than a mini-truck. Why not have the utility and performance if you're going to get 18mpg anyway?
Tyler H wrote:ReverendDexter wrote: My buddy's bone-stock 22RE 4x4 Xtra cab got worse mileage than my '98 Cobra (I'd get 15/24, he'd get 13/20). I haven't heard much better about the mileage of the Nissan minitrucks.Which is why the Big 3's half-ton offerings of the last 10 years look like a much better value than a mini-truck. Why not have the utility and performance if you're going to get 18mpg anyway?
I agree 100%. Having owned a ranger and a toyota 4x4 truck, I could have gone full size and have gotten the same mileage.
Vigo wrote: ok ok since we're completely off our rockers lets say: Vehicross with 3.0 bluetec diesel swap and a utility trailer.. high 14s, low 15s 1/4, decent truck handling, 27mpg, and plenty of off-road capability, and pulls a bike or 3 or 4! Hell, only ~12k, a crapload of effort, and you're there!!
And for SUCH a reasonable price too! ONLY an arm and a leg, NOT both arms!! Man, such a deal!
just as feasible (to the OP) as many other suggestions here 
I bet a lowered S10 with a 4.8 LSX swap and a t-56 would get some awesome MPGs.
2002maniac wrote: I bet a lowered S10 with a 4.8 LSX swap and a t-56 would get some awesome MPGs.
With an air dam and a tanau, conceivable
Swap back the stock motor and throw a trailer on it.
Past that, the OP is basically asking for tall shortness or whitish black.
You want classic? I'll give you classic.
1) was small - check
2) could fit a bike in the back - check, although it's much easier with a 109
3) was reliable - can be fixed by a schoolkid in Africa using just a rock. Excellent lifespan, does require maintenance.
4) got > 27 mpg highway - not unless it's on a trailer.
5) was awesome in the snow - heck, mine was once a snowplow in Northern Ontario.
6) was a 4 banger - but of course
7) could take a berkeleying beating off road - let's put it this way - it was the first vehicle ever seen by a fairly significant amount of the world's population if lore is to be believed.
8) could be fun in the twisties (is that possible???) - you'd actually be surprised. Aluminum body and steel chassis for a low CG, little power and weak brakes mean you have to maintain momentum in the twisties without using the brakes, making it a lot of fun.
You'll need to log in to post.
