Real world S10 review

Thinking a bit i would like to DD a small truck, maybe in stead of the Saturn wagon. Truck would be a lot more practical in some ways but less people carrying capacity. Its a toss up but I need to learn about em a bit.

Whats the pros/ cons of S10/Sonomas?

Thinkin 2WD cause of MPG. (If i got 4X4 i might as well get a full size truck, which i dunno if i want) What is real world MPG?

I would prefer the Vortec V6, i enjoy that motor.

Lastly whats a similarily priced alternative? I want as new as possible. Seems like 3,000$ for a 2000ish S10 is easily doable. What else is in that price range?

THanks guys

I have the 4 cylinder extended cab 2wd S10. It has the automatic and over 200K miles so not exactly new. It does get good mileage, 24 mpg with kayaks on the ladder rack at 65. It has no power, would have been happier cruising at 55.

As much as I enjoy hating on GM products, I don't think I can fault the S-trucks.
That's being said, I'd get a Dakota so I could have a truck that's just a bit bigger, and get a V-8 if I wanted it.

I've had a pair of them, both of them extended cab 2wd versions.

1. 86 S10 2.8/Auto Was a tank. Slow, but always got the job done. Even if the job was going 20+ miles with no coolant. I think I saw in the low 20's with it. It's been over 10 years since I've had it though.

2. 96 S10 2.2/5 Speed. Didn't have the tank feeling, but still slow. For what it was it got great gas mileage. about 27 on the highway, mid-low 20's in town. It had a chronic WP coolant leak, but that was the only real issue I had with it. It left my wife stranded 2 times and they were probably related. first time was when she hit a 4x6 that fell off a truck. It cracked the wheel about 270 degrees around the interface betwen the barrel and center. Then about 2-3 years later, the upper balljoint on the same side let go. Still had a good boot.

I wouldn't tow much of anything with either, but they were awesome for a non people carrying daily drivers that would do everything I needed to as a homeowner, EXCEPT tow the race car. Bucketloads of mulch, no problem. Stacks of lumber to build a shed? Soup.

As much as I enjoy hating on GM products, I don't think I can fault the S-trucks.

Wow. Maybe we should refer to the thread where someone purchased an s10 blazer that had a pile of receipts dealing with all their major issues and then proceeded to rattle off like ten of them?

Personally, ive kept WANTING to like s10s over the years, but i keep coming back to just not liking them. If they had another motor option that would help a lot. The 2.2 is way too underpowered and the 4.3 takes up too much of the engine bay. imo.

I really want to get my hands on a 2.2/5spd model, and replace the 2.2 with a 3800sc mill out of a GTP or the like. I have no smoking gun proof, but Ive read that the 3800 from a FWD GM will bolt up to the 2.2/5spd with little fuss. I think a dropped S-10 with the eaton boosted 3.8 would be great fun.

2.2/5spd (1996) was my first vehicle. Taught me a lot about working on cars. That engine is garbage. But yeah, high 20s on the highway. Got terrible round-town mileage (mid-teens) because I ended up revving it pretty hard to keep up with normal traffic. But that's mostly my driving style.

Seems like the S10s tend to be less than comparable-era Rangers, and way less than comparable Tacomas. That said, if you can swing it I would go for the 4-cyl Tacoma over the 4-cyl S10 any day. OTOH, a 2.2 would make a great V8 swap chassis. I think you want to avoid the 95/96 because their wiring harnesses are a pain to splice into. Painless Wiring might sell an easy harness, though.

Have a buddy who has one with a 4.3 motor and he loves it. Nice thing is it's 3/4 of a 350, so a lot of accessories overlap.

wanna drive mine?

my dad has a 99 4 cyl and gets mid 20's but it has no balls.

my 91 gets 22 highway.

knowing you and how tall you are i really would recommend the extended cab. the boxy ones have a little more room in the regular cab but they changed the seats with the body change and they got bulkier. i have a hard time fitting a 94+ regular cab and end up with sore legs.

the underneath is bulletproof. they are time tested simple gm front suspensions and leaf springs. the 7.5" rear end is fine unless you put a v8 in and stomp on the gas. even then it's probably fine but it is one of those universally internet rumored things that a 7.5 will blow up if you have more than an iron duke.

even on a clean looking 2nd gen look for rust on the firewall at the seams and by the footwells. my dad's truck was clean looking outside when we got it but it ended up having holes in the firewall and floor that he cut out and rebuilt.

he does tow a teardrop trailer to the river in west virginia every weekend with his truck and it has close to 200k. the trans was rebuilt at 115k because my uncle treated it like a fullsize when he owned it and we used to load the bed and a small trailer with firewood and abuse the poor 4 cylinder.

with my 91 shortbed regular cab 4.3 i did pull my 2000# car hauler from my parents place to mine - about 4 miles - and it did just fine.

moerdogg wrote: Seems like the S10s tend to be less than comparable-era Rangers, and way less than comparable Tacomas. That said, if you can swing it I would go for the 4-cyl Tacoma over the 4-cyl S10 any day.

I'll half agree with this. I had a roommate with a mid 90's ranger and a good buddy with a late 00's ranger. Both rode like a turnip truck. I hated them compared to the S10/Tacomas I've been in.

On the flip side, my dad's got a 96 Taco that he bought new. I think it's in the 170K range now. All he's done is add gas, tires, oil and a single clutch. The Regular cab/2.4/5speed gets 29-30 highway and over 25 around town. It's been ridiculously reliable.

we used an '01 sonoma 4.3 / 5sp short/short ZQ8 to pull the corvair to the challenge in '02, '03, and '04. detroit to gainesville via I-75, pulling 75 - 80 mph the whole way we averaged about 22 mpg on each of these trips. AFAIK they are friggin' tanks that just run and run and run. cab corners rust out. ext cab would've made the drive much more comfy, and i'm only 5'9".

Vigo wrote:

As much as I enjoy hating on GM products, I don't think I can fault the S-trucks.

Wow. Maybe we should refer to the thread where someone purchased an s10 blazer that had a pile of receipts dealing with all their major issues and then proceeded to rattle off like ten of them? Personally, ive kept WANTING to like s10s over the years, but i keep coming back to just not liking them. If they had another motor option that would help a lot. The 2.2 is way too underpowered and the 4.3 takes up too much of the engine bay. imo.

I should also say, I've never owned one. I've just not had to do much work to them. But I'll bow to those with more knowledge...and point you to a nice Dakota.

I've had great luck with the 2.8 / 5-speed combo. Hi 20's on the freeway, 21-22 around town. Simple, reliable, etc. Not a power house, but swapping in the multiport injection from a same year Camaro/Firebird would be a big help.

Downside is that the 'newest' one you'll find is 20 years old.

Had one with 153K before it blew it's third and final 4 cylinder motor. Been in one family since new.

3 motrors 1 transmission

97 S10 standard cab 2wd.

No love here

I got an '85 S-10 on a barter deal with a blown 4. Nice 350 with a few goodies, (Balanced, pocket ported 041 heads, Crane 260* cam) Saginaw 4 speed. Proceeded to have way too much fun with little boys in their 5.0s. Used a Hooker mount kit that was easy, had lots of room around the engine. Used it as my work truck with a FG topper with ladders strapped on top. A true sleeper. All told, a lot of fun for short money.

Flight Service wrote: Had one with 153K before it blew it's third and final 4 cylinder motor. Been in one family since new. 3 motrors 1 transmission 97 S10 standard cab 2wd. No love here

I had a pair, a '00 2.2L 5sp, and a '98 4.3L 5sp

Both had major issues......the '00 seemed to kill transmissions like clockwork(every 35,500....give or take 500mi), 2 rear ends were replaced, and 3 alternators.....

the '98 lost a rear end right off the bat, ended up replacing that once more to a 4.10 lsd rear later. Lost the engine in the Deathcool fiasco, and had a driveshaft warp at high speeds and come out at 125ish.....

In the times inbetween all those issues, nothing else ever seemed to go wrong......Just a word of warning, the M50 transmission is either garbage or GM kept giving me defective ones(likely)

Edit: Both of mine were standard cab, 2wd, zq8's....

They are meh. Nothing really super wrong with them except for the horrendous rust issues in the rockers, cab corners, and bedsides, along with the wears out way too fast steering linkage and ball joints. LS swaps are sooo easy to do and net better MPG then the 4.3 and rivals the 2.2, especially if you can stick with a stock DOD/AFM 5.3L. The 8.5 10 bolt in the later V6 models will hold SOME V8 abuse before breaking, but then it is a really simple to swap in an Exploder 8.8 for little money and upgrade to rear disc brakes. The seats in them SUCK. Replace them with something aftermarket to get rid of the overstuffed barco lounger feel and seating position to something lower and further back.

In reply to Ranger50:

I've never seen an 8.5" rear axle in a 2wd s10 from the factory......several swapped though......thats why zr2 s10's are always missing the rear end in junkyards

In reply to yamaha:

I was told that if it had the G80 RPO code, Eaton "gov-lock" in it, it was an 8.5 10 bolt, but only for V6's. ZR2's, IIRC, also were 2" wider overall then the regular 2/4WD rearends.

was g80 the general code for lsd or was that g85(forgive me, its been awhile).......my '98 had the factory 3.42 lsd, and was still a 7.6" 10 bolt

my 95 ext cab 4x4 with the 4.3 and NV3500 5-spd got 19mpg regardless and could pull way more than it was rated for.

Man, I miss that truck

My first one was a 91 blazer. Bulletproof, 4.3L, auto, 4x4. Traded that for a 94, same thing.

I had an 83 for a while with a 5.3L/T56. Talk about wild. That thing would shred tires and deafen passengers with earplugs.

The one I had the longest was my 03 ZQ8 (suspension/wheel package). It was 2wd, 4.3L, auto. 3.42 posi rear. It surprised me with one tank of calculated 26 mpg, but mixed driving returned 20-22 mpg.

As far as reliability is concerned... They come with a 4.3L which is a 350 minus two cylinders. I think its safe to assume that its a proven reliable setup. The 4L60E tranny isn't fantastic as a heavy duty thing, but in a light truck they last forever. Rear axles will be the weak-ish 7.5" but again... light truck, not overpowered.

Its just about as proven and reliable as you can get. Rangers have problematic OHC chains that are impossible to change. Dakotas have... well, they have the Dodge symbol on them. S10 is just so right.

I'm thinking about getting an early 2.8 v6 4x4 as a winter beater.

I have a '96 Sonoma - 4.3 V6, auto, 4wd, extended cab, <90K miles; no it doesn't get driven much as it's one of three vehicles.

Pretty reliable though I've replaced the alternator, water pump and a battery; no biggies as it's 16yrs old and those are basically wear items. Intake manifold went bad, but this is a common (notorious) issue with the Vortec's; radiator was replaced at the same time as the manifold fix. A/C needs a compressor.........

I've got up to 24mpg on extended trips while keeping it at 65-70mph. Around town mileage is high teens.

There is no good reason to consider selling it in the foreseeable future.

father-in-law has a '98 ex-cab with a 2.2 auto with almost 200k on it... trans was rebuilt in '05 or so... beyond that nothing major mechanical issue...

but it's DOG SLOW... it has trouble getting out of it's own way, FIL would take back roads to work instead of the interstate most of the time... he's towed a utility trailer to move mo bro-in-law a few times and again he avoided the interstate, the thing just wouldn't do interstate speeds towing the small load he had.

the 4.3L would def take care of that...

my grandmother-in-law on the other hand has a 95 standard cab/short bed with the 2.2 auto and it's not nearly as miserable... it's not fast by any stretch of the imagination but it will "catch a wheel" when taking off if you ask it and gets up to speed fairly quickly.

they aren't the biggest small trucks out... I'm 6'4ish and it's a bit of an art getting in... right leg has to roll under the steering wheel... I want to say 2nd gens are a little better then the 1st gens... but nothing to write home about.

no news on rust or anything like that here from the non snowy south... my '88 farm truck doesn't have a bit of rust on her...

all that being said... i'd check out the ranger (last one I drove was an '84 so I don't have a good idea on those)... and mopar... I know after an s10 you'll feel like the mopar is a full size... not a bad thing when you are someone my size

Are the tacomas similar to the S10? the 4 cylinder ones get good mpg but get a 4X4 and it plummets.

They look smaller

curtis73 wrote: The 4L60E tranny isn't fantastic as a heavy duty thing, but in a light truck they last forever. Its just about as proven and reliable as you can get. Rangers have problematic OHC chains that are impossible to change. Dakotas have... well, they have the Dodge symbol on them. S10 is just so right.

If GM hadn't done the 3.06 first gear, crappy input drum sprag, and the thin sun shell splines, it really is a decent trans minus a few stupidly quirky powerflow problems that call for the aforementioned upgraded parts.

Really, yet again on the crappy 4.0 chains? Most of them I see are 3.0/auto that I find cruising CL. Besides crappy MPG and lower then the rest in power, nothing wrong with a Dakota. They fail parts at the same rate as anything else out on the road, especially when you put the cheapest offshore crap in them. The S10 is just so wrong.