Real world S10 review

Only thing I can add to this conversation is that one of our LeMons team cars, "The Boat", is based on a '94 S10. It's a 2WD, 5spd 4.3L. We beat the ever living snot out of it, and it's held up fairly well for 3 races. The fuel pump quit last race, literally as I crossed the checkered flag, but we had run it out of fuel earlier in the day so that's a likely culprit there. Not great power, but not bad. Handles like...well like a truck with a boat body, but it's sure fun to whip. I'm pleasantly surprised how well it's held up to the abuse.

I sold my 96 Ext cab 4x4 with 232,000 on the 4.3 and it was still getting 20-21 on the highway and still didn't need to add oil between changes.

I replaced the intake plenum gaskets, put a check valve in the fuel line to solve a bleed down problem, and all 4 ball joints.

I also had to replace the 4L60e at 180,000 miles. Put in a cheap CL rebuild and had to install a Transgo kit to fix the P1870 code.

Overall not bad, and in some ways I wish I hadn't sold it, but not good for my commute.

I'm in this very same position of wanting a small truck that gets good gas mileage and something new enough to be found at a dealership so I have a shot at trading in my current Oldsmobile DD appliance machine. Leaning towards a Taco only because of age and Mazda not selling the real B-Series since 1992 in the USA. Maybe a Nissan is worth a look? It seems like the Toyota holds resale value better than other, probably-as-good options.

I've had three in the past:

82 S10 2WD longbox 2.8 carb 4 speed posi and no other options. Company truck then personal. Sold it with 280,000 miles. Would go through snow up to the front bumper with the posi, snow tires, and sand bags. Would start outside regardless of how cold it was. This truck was driven hard.

92 S10 2WD shortbox 2.8 5speed. First new vehicle. Drove it 3 years and sold it. The open rear end wasn't fun in the winter. Did get 20mpg in town and 22-25 highway with a thrush cat back exhaust, flipped air lid and Accel Foam Filter.

2000 GMC Sonoma ZR2 ext cab 4x4 "highrider". Great truck. The 4.3 sucked gas more than a V8 with the 3.73 gears and 31 inch tires. A blast to drive though.

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.

Well, im a tech for a living so ive done my share of work to them including motor r&r.

As for a dakota, good thinking! Ive got 2.

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.

pffft.. a 350 drops right in and takes up even more of the engine bay. the result is the truck GM should have built.

any legal 4.8 or 5.3 or other swap that would help with MPG side of things?

Cheap and easy swaps....

"legal" is dependent on state, but I would think a 6.2/6.5 NA with tall gearing would give good fuel economy without too much weight or electronics penalty and be unique.

I used to get 20-21 mpg highway with a 6.2 in a 1990 K2500 with 3.73s and no O/D.

CarKid1989 wrote: any legal 4.8 or 5.3 or other swap that would help with MPG side of things? Cheap and easy swaps....

The jist is as long as your engine is newer then the vehicle, is in the same "class" : IE- no car engine into a truck and vice versa, and keeps all the emissions crap, you are legal.

I can say this, if I am getting 16-17mpg in a 04 4WD Avalanche weighted down with 2k extra pounds in it on top of the 6k empty weight through a literal slutomatic transmission, eliminating all the weight plus smaller air profile will equal mid 20's without any cylinder deactivation needed.

the V8 swap is so easy and so common, you can do something smart and buy one somebody else already did.

pffft.. a 350 drops right in and takes up even more of the engine bay. the result is the truck GM should have built.

The bigger engine in the same bay idea had pretty much no appeal to me until someone brought up the 6.5 idea. Now to go see if it has been done..

Vigo wrote:

pffft.. a 350 drops right in and takes up even more of the engine bay. the result is the truck GM should have built.

The bigger engine in the same bay idea had pretty much no appeal to me until someone brought up the 6.5 idea. Now to go see if it has been done..

it has, as has been a d-max.

jj wrote: I had read that v8 swaps may be easy, but they are expensive. Need engine, trans, ecu; wiring harness, radiator, mounts, oil pan, headers that fit, new front springs, rear end, etc.

Since when?

With the LS swap specific to the S10:

Oil pan - As long as you can live with the 2" underhang for awhile, the truck pan is just fine. Change it out for the H2 pan at some later date.
Wiring/ECU - depends on how you are getting the JY motor and at what price. Some yards are everything included in the price others are just the motor and that is that.
Trans - If are are swapping out a dead 4.3 V6 (it does happen on occasion), the bellhousing might not have the upper bolt hole for the LS, but it is still a SBC pattern and bolts up. As long as the trans doesn't have a lot of miles on it, it will survive for awhile, but a fresh trans at this point is saving money.
Rearend - It will survive for awhile too.
Front springs - NOBODY changes them out. Really.
Headers - Not needed. You can get by with the plain iron manifolds.

Most everyone that bitches about a swap being expensive are trying to get the end result in one fell swoop. Sure, some of this isn't the prettiest stuff to get and use, but it gets you running without modifying anything so drastically, you can't un-modify it to run the product you really want to use.

Little OT, but the Ranger is the same way. Everyone wants a 347 with some AFR 185's or Twisted Wedges, E/F cam, Victor, 750DP, and not made by anyone 1 3/4" long tubes backed by a C4 and 8.8. Really, a SIMPLE swap should be a Explorer 302, AOD/AODE/4R70W, stock 7.5, your choice of being carb or EFI with some vert Mustang mounts and shorties. Get it running then lets modify.

I'll stop there and get my keyboard some Immodium after this post....

We've had 2, 88 2wd with a 2.8/5 speed that really just wouldn't quit. Still sitting in the yard needs a lot of TLC though. Still starts up though. Just more work than I want to do right now.

The wife's current DD is an 02 stepside with an 2.2/auto that is slow as hell but still gets high 20's at 75 mph. It's much happier at 55 though. Personally, a 5 speed, and extended cab would make it a perfect runabout/commuter. We've loaded 800lbs of scrap in the back and had no worries with it. She routinely drives it back and forth between FL and West Virginia, she says you can't be in a hurry in the mountains though. Parts are cheap, getting up near 180k miles on it, and we haven't put more than 100$ a year into repairs till this year, and that's just because I rebuilt the AC system this year. (new compressor, lines, drier, etc) Prob gonna break down and rebuild the front suspension soon. ball joints are starting to pop if you turn it full lock and move. And we've never towed anything with it, I wouldn't consider anything bigger than a pair of jetski's or there about that size.

jstand wrote: "legal" is dependent on state, but I would think a 6.2/6.5 NA with tall gearing would give good fuel economy without too much weight or electronics penalty and be unique. I used to get 20-21 mpg highway with a 6.2 in a 1990 K2500 with 3.73s and no O/D.

I got mid to upper 20's highway with my 6.2 88 k2500 3.73's but ran a taller tire to bring my gearing down. To the tune of I was indicating 63 ish, and actually running a bit over 70. Stay in the right or center lane, don't be in a hurry. Never skipped a beat with a u haul auto transport and 3rd gen f body behind it. Just sayin, oh and good luck finding a donor 6.2 or 6.5 in decent shape. I've never thought about dropping one in a S-10 but that would rock! 3.27 or there about gears with a lower drag profile would make for one heck of a hypermiling beast. Always wanted a 5 or 6 speed to put behind mine insted of that beast of a 4 speed. I swear that thing weighed 200lbs by itself.

NEVER, ever, ever again will I consider one. I bought one new in december of 1999. 2000 Sonoma reg cab sportside bed, 2.2L/5-spd, 3.42 rear end. It was slow. Never got over 25mpg on the highway and was the most uncomfortable 62k miles I put on a car in 2 years than I have ever done.

It made riding in my C4 seem smart.

In reply to Spinout007:

hmm I have a fresh rebuild 6.2 just sitting around as a spare for my cucv....you are giving me bad ideas.

Spinout007 wrote: Always wanted a 5 or 6 speed to put behind mine instead of that beast of a 4 speed. I swear that thing weighed 200lbs by itself.

Makes you wonder why they put an aluminum top cover on that tranny.

jstand wrote:

Spinout007 wrote: Always wanted a 5 or 6 speed to put behind mine instead of that beast of a 4 speed. I swear that thing weighed 200lbs by itself.

Makes you wonder why they put an aluminum top cover on that tranny.

Wwwwwhhhhhaaaaaaattttt? There was an aluminum part on that tranny? I think that was the only transmission I've ever pulled that you HAD to have a tranny jack for. Two of us could not lift it into place.

jj wrote: I was thinking of swap from a I-4. In which case you would need a rearend and trans. I had also read that factory manifolds don't have the clearance, but I could be wrong on that.

If it is a stick, you have to change the trans anyways, so it is a wash. If it is the removable bell 4L60 auto, you just need a new bell and $75 converter. Rearend is the same, except you might have 4.10's or 3.73's instead of the 3.42's. Truck manifolds, I don't recall issues with them, but I have slept since then. GTO or F-body manifolds are readily available for cheap still.