Small truck that can handle?

First Gen Colorado w/ Z85 package.

Locally saw a x runner at auto x. Guy was doing well 

To make a truck "handle"....

Make sure the suspension doesn't move. Then make sure the frame isn't flexing.

Even though I have a complete polyurethane body mount kit for my ranger, I've seriously thought about hockey pucks.

Ranger 3300 lbs 207 hp 238 ft lb   = 15.9 hp/lb

toyota 3835 lbs 235 hp  256 ft lb =  16.32 hp/ lb 

Toyota claims 0.9g on a skid pad stock..  The ranger would need some work to get there.

JesseWolfe said:

In reply to ebonyandivory :

Ranger's never came in 4.0 and 2WD, that's engine and transmission swap territory. 

Not sure what you are trying to say.  Rangers came with 4.0 liter v-6 in 2 wheel drive.  I had one with the super cab for 22 years, a 1997 model. It handled pretty well, probably better thans my old 65 mustang with standard suspension.  It was horrible off road.  The front and rear suspension would get into an out of phase  hopping on rutted roads that would literally bounce the truck sideways above 25 mph. And traction sucked without mud grip tires.  I got stuck on wet grass once with the factory tires.     I have no experience with 4wd rangers so cannot comment. 

  Rangers also came in the standard cab with 4.0 Liter v-6, the Splash model is an example.

   This was in the 90's with the Twin I-Beam.    I don't think the v-6 in regular cab was available after 1998 when they switched to wishbone front suspension.      But a lowered Ranger will handle pretty well in either configuration. 

jharry3 said:

  Rangers also came in the standard cab with 4.0 Liter v-6, the Splash model is an example.

  

can confirm.   Saw one autocross in Charleston SC.  It was stock height, needed bed weight and a drop.. but did well.

rothwem said:

What do the mini truck guys do about the leaf springs in the rear to make it handle?  Is there a watts link kit or something for these trucks?

Caltracs or similar combined with a softer monoleaf is supposed to really help the back end. You lose some weight capacity, but that's a tradeoff you have to decide upon.

As far as the S10s go, the front suspension is based upon the G body but stock there is a dynamic camber issue. There are plenty of aftermarket G body or C10 parts that will bolt up to fix the geometry.

Just to add a data point, the X Runner weighs over 3800lbs.

It's also the overall fastest small truck you can buy that isn't a V8. Only certain v8 Dakotas, and a 5.3 Colorado, would be quicker.  

Fueled by Caffeine said:

jharry3 said:

  Rangers also came in the standard cab with 4.0 Liter v-6, the Splash model is an example.

  

can confirm.   Saw one autocross in Charleston SC.  It was stock height, needed bed weight and a drop.. but did well.

I almost bought one of the two the dealership had at the time in 96. 4.0/5spd without the splash package graphics and step bed but had the same suspension.

Oh to be able to go back and have that choice again.... Do you hear me car manufacturers???

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Ranger 3300 lbs 207 hp 238 ft lb   = 15.9 hp/lb

toyota 3835 lbs 235 hp  256 ft lb =  16.32 hp/ lb 

 

Toyota claims 0.9g on a skid pad stock..  The ranger would need some work to get there.

 

Right. But the X-Runner was lowered an inch, had stiffer springs, special sway bars, chassis bracing, and performance tires in a wider size. The skidpad wouldn't really be apples to apples in stock form. Those are all basically the first things most GRMers would modify anyway. You can do all of those things with any other minitruck fairly easily and get similar results in a lighter package. It just depends whether you want to buy one that the factory has put together or do it yourself. It's the good old "Built vs Bought" argument.

X Runners tend to sell in the 10-20k range depending on miles/condition. 2WD Rangers/S10s are everywhere for under $4k. That leaves something between $6k-16k in the wallet for parts/tires. That can buy a lot of fun.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Ranger 3300 lbs 207 hp 238 ft lb   = 15.9 hp/lb

toyota 3835 lbs 235 hp  256 ft lb =  16.32 hp/ lb 

 

Toyota claims 0.9g on a skid pad stock..  The ranger would need some work to get there.

 

Rangers after about 1999 had a 207 hp  overhead cam 4.0 liter V-6.  The ones before that had a different 4.0 literengine,  an OHV  V-6, and it was 160hp.    You could get a little more out of it with headers, better exhaust and a larger throttle body but not much.  

I had a 2000 Tacoma 4x4 extended cab, 3.4, 5 speed, TRD/Eaton blower. According to Toyota, supposed to be 250/275 HP/torque. 

In a truck set up to handle, it would be a great drive train, that thing was seriously quick for what it was. 

I used to launch it in 4-wheel drive, then pull the transfer case shifter to two wheel drive before shifting into second. You wouldn't have that option with a two-wheel drive, but with some sticky tires and something to control the axle wrap, you wouldn't need it

Floating Doc said:

I had a 2000 Tacoma 4x4 extended cab, 3.4, 5 speed, TRD/Eaton blower. According to Toyota, supposed to be 250/275 HP/torque. 

In a truck set up to handle, it would be a great drive train, that thing was seriously quick for what it was. 

I used to launch it in 4-wheel drive, then pull the transfer case shifter to two wheel drive before shifting into second. You wouldn't have that option with a two-wheel drive, but with some sticky tires and something to control the axle wrap, you wouldn't need it

I had the 2001 Double Cab. Same body style as your truck. 

The X runners are seriously fun. I think they were almost on par with the 350Z when they came out. Local dealer had a red one with 80k miles, asking 12K. Literally sold in 4 hours. 6MT.

I like the idea of an S Runner or X Runner, but both are just a little too pricey for me.

I know about all the parts for the S10s, I've already built 2 lowered S10s and I have also owned an AWD Bravada. Unless I can find a first gen S10 in NICE shape in the configuration I want(very unlikely) then I am somewhat avoiding them. Maybe if I find a second gen 4.3 manual trans reg cab, and thats a big maybe. I really cannot stand the interior in the second gen S-series, I've had 2 already.

Ranger guys... If you had to choose a third gen ranger between these two, which would you pick: regular cab short bed with the duratec 2.3 and a stick, or 4.0 extended cab auto?

Reg.cab short bed with a duratec all day long. Manual trans and way lighter, plus shorter wheelbase. Duratec will handle 10-12psi of boost on stock internals if you want more ponies.

I might be tempted to try a 5cylinder Colorado.  They seem to like boost. 

Crunky944 said:

Ranger guys... If you had to choose a third gen ranger between these two, which would you pick: regular cab short bed with the duratec 2.3 and a stick, or 4.0 extended cab auto?

What Gumby said. Duratec/manual for sure. Between the shorter body, and the lighter engine/ trans combo the truck is probably 800-1000lbs lighter weight than the 4.0/Auto/extended cab, and it will have a bunch less weight in the nose of the truck for better F/R weight distribution. It's as close to being an NC Miata as a truck can be.

If you're shopping for a Ranger with handling in mind, it's also worth noting that there were 2 front frame sections and suspensions used from 98+. ALL 4 cyl trucks and SOME of the v6 trucks got the SLA/coil spring suspension (usually denoted with "XL" or "XLT" trim).  There was also the torsion bar front suspension that was used on ALL 4wd Rangers after 98, and SOME 2wd rangers with v6 powerplants (usually denoted with "Edge" or "Sport" trims). Besides the obvious coil springs/vs torsion bar differences, the torsion bar front end got some heavier duty cross members that hang down lower and add weight along with different control arms. None of that makes it easier to turn. So, it's probable that the 4.0 truck is likely to have torsion bars up front where as the Duratec truck will have the SLA/coil spring front suspension and smaller/lighter crossmembers, etc.

In reply to STM317 :

In addition to the bars vs coils and differing crossmember variations, the aftermarket for lowering the front suspension is vastly different.

For the "handling" goal, only shop coil spring trucks. Control arms and coils are available to bring the ride height down. Springs are a standard configuration, so you can seriously raise the rate if desired.

Torsion bars trucks start with a higher CoG and have limited options for correction. Drop keys will get you about 3" which is basically 1" below stock coil spring height. That's it...there were some drop spindles at one time, but they were just a bandaid for buying the wrong truck.

Thanks guys, I did not know that 2wd Rangers got the T-bars as well. I think I've pretty much narrowed my search down to 2001+ 2.3 reg cab short bed Rangers. I will consider some of the other options if I happen to see anything priced right, but the Rangers are common enough that I think I can get the configuration I want for cheap.

As a guy who autocrossed a 1st gen dime, I gotta say I am a big fan of the Ranger (you'd be hard pressed to find someone who has logged more miles in one) and the 2.3 in particular. They like boost, lots of cam options, and reliable as the sun.

I know nothing about this topic, but what about the Ridgeline given that it has IRS?

Snrub said:

I know nothing about this topic, but what about the Ridgeline given that it has IRS?

faster than hyundai or kia trucks...

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Snrub said:

I know nothing about this topic, but what about the Ridgeline given that it has IRS?

faster than hyundai or kia trucks...

I see what you did there.

I know nothing about this topic, but what about the Ridgeline given that it has IRS?

The teams that race Odysseys might have some good info on that.  

In reply to JesseWolfe :

I owned one, I assure you, they did.

The body change in 2002? took away the manual option I think though.