Small trucks with big cabs

Crappy title, I can' spell anything more meaningful this morning.

This is pure mental masturbation, folks.

What sub 6k trucks are there that have four real doors and room for three kiddos in the back. No full size. Excellent fuel economy a must, 2wd perfectly OK, manual transmission nearly required.

Excellent fuel mileage and four doors kills it. Unobtainium.

There was no crew cab Tacoma 4cylinder, manual trans 2wd. Sorry. Maybe a Nissan, but fuel mileage will be only 1-2mpg above a full size.

Explorer Sport trac is better at being an "interior" than it is at being a "bed"
But, being plastic, the bed will not rust.
In years '01 to '03, there was a 2wd 5 speed manual V6 offered but it still only returns mpg of 15/20

Would the Subaru Baja would qualify?

I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed in the fuel economy of "mid size" trucks. Pretty sure that's what killed the market for them.

JohnRW1621 wrote: Explorer Sport trac is better at being an "interior" than it is at being a "bed" But, being plastic, the bed will not rust. In years '01 to '03, there was a 2wd 5 speed manual V6 offered but it still only returns mpg of 15/20

Holy crappy fuel economy Batman! Fuelly has 4 of 69 showing higher than 20 average, and one of those claims a highly unlikely 33.

moparman76_69 wrote: I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed in the fuel economy of "mid size" trucks. Pretty sure that's what killed the market for them.

Yes, this. I don't understand it, though. I drove a hardbody that got 33. It wasn't that light or aerodynamic. Couldn't Nissan build essentially that same thing for today with a crew cab taking up some of the bed?

Heck, my (tired example, I've used this on this board a thousand times) 84 carbed, non OD full size truck got nearly 20, how come a modern Colorado with a smaller engine, smaller aero profile, modern engine controls, etc, only get 20-22?

foxtrapper wrote: Would the Subaru Baja would qualify?

Interesting. Fuel economy looks crappy and they also look expensive, but neat nonetheless.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Excellent fuel mileage and four doors kills it. Unobtainium. There was no crew cab Tacoma 4cylinder, manual trans 2wd. Sorry. Maybe a Nissan, but fuel mileage will be only 1-2mpg above a full size.

That was my first thought as well.

tuna55 wrote: Heck, my (tired example, I've used this on this board a thousand times) 84 carbed, non OD full size truck got nearly 20, how come a modern Colorado with a smaller engine, smaller aero profile, modern engine controls, etc, only get 20-22?

I can get almost 30 in mine.

Zomby Woof wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Heck, my (tired example, I've used this on this board a thousand times) 84 carbed, non OD full size truck got nearly 20, how come a modern Colorado with a smaller engine, smaller aero profile, modern engine controls, etc, only get 20-22?

I can get almost 30 in mine.

seriously? stick or auto? Details, please.

Not sure what kind of fuel econ, but this was my first thought.

JohnInKansas wrote: Not sure what kind of fuel econ, but this was my first thought.

I thought the four door requirement would have covered it: "modern safety".

Yep, I think what you're talking about is a complete impossibility. Drop one of the requirements and you might have something, but not all of them.

not $6K: 2014 dodge 1500 diesel no kids: 2.2L s10, Taco, Hardbody, etc No bed: Any small wagon Protege5, etc.

tuna55 wrote:

JohnInKansas wrote: Not sure what kind of fuel econ, but this was my first thought.

"modern safety".

THAT is why your old trucks got better fuel econ. safety is weight. modern is better for te environment.. which means worse fuel econ.

if we dropped off the safety, and green-ness restrictions on cars, we could get cheap 9like sub 10k) cars that are hitting insane fuel econ numbers.

SCARR wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

JohnInKansas wrote: Not sure what kind of fuel econ, but this was my first thought.

"modern safety".

THAT is why your old trucks got better fuel econ. safety is weight. modern is better for te environment.. which means worse fuel econ. if we dropped off the safety, and green-ness restrictions on cars, we could get cheap 9like sub 10k) cars that are hitting insane fuel econ numbers.

I think I weighed my old truck at some point and it was roughly 3800 lb. The Colorado/Canyon crew cabs are right there.

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/tech/163_0904_2009_gmc_canyon_crew_cab_tech_specs/viewall.html

V8/auto 4000, I6/auto 3800, I5/stick 3600. So that can't be it.

MAYBE emissions, but still, the old truck just had a Qjet and a 350 with an HEI. A modern I5 at the same weight but smaller frontal area can't do better?

they made quad cab Colorados and Canyons.

I know they can be had 2WD, but not sure of the drivetrain options. (not sure if could be had with a 4-banger stick)

EDIT: The can be had with a 4-banger and crew cab.. EPA was 26hwy/21city. combined with a manual is rare though, and almost non existent or very high mileage at $6K.

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=48911&endYear=2014&keywordPhrases=crew&listingType=used&driveCodes=2WD&engineCode=4CLDR&listingTypes=used&transmissionCode=MAN&sellerTypes=b&doorCode=4&transmissionCodes=MAN&pricesOnly=true&mmt=%5BCHEV%5BCOLORADO%5B%5D%5D%5B%5DGMC%5BCANYON%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&doorCodes=4&modelCode1=COLORADO&sortBy=derivedpriceASC&driveCode=2WD&makeCode2=GMC&modelCode2=CANYON&showcaseOwnerId=56285093&startYear=1981&makeCode1=CHEV&engineCodes=4CLDR&searchRadius=0&listingId=346321609&listingIndex=1&Log=0

Was the Dakota available 4 cylinder 4 door? Probably still lousy fuel economy though, and it would be definition of the word dog.

If you are going for an older one then Explorer SportTrac all the way, none of the others even come close in the interior department.

If you're talking a new one then the full sized pickups get better gas mileage, or at least the ones with good interiors do.

Most small PUs have a nod towards a back seat rather than a fullon car type backseat.

Safety? Duh... it's a Volvo. Check

MPG's? Check. Even a diesel option.

RWD? check

Manual Trans? check

Sub $6K? For dayssssss....

In reply to xflowgolf:

You could get the manual behind both the 4 & 5 cylinders in your taco......errrr, I mean colorado/canyon.

yamaha wrote: In reply to xflowgolf: You could get the manual behind both the 4 & 5 cylinders in your taco......errrr, I mean colorado/canyon.

The Tacos probably the better truck, but the GM twins seem to be the only relatively modern turn key package at 20+MPG's that come anywhere close to budget. Taco resale values seem to be crazy high.

In reply to xflowgolf:

agreed.....the gm twins are partially taco's aren't they(that was the rumor when they switched to them)

Was the Dakota available 4 cylinder 4 door? Probably still lousy fuel economy though, and it would be definition of the word dog.

No, only ext cab. Not lousy economy. I drove an extended cab about 400 miles a month or two back and got 24mpg being nice to it. I think it would have done better with smaller/lighter tires. I got 23 going 5-10mph faster. It is slow accelerating at highway speeds (dont have to downshift to 4th, it's not THAT bad) but the low-speed acceleration didn't bother me at all. I like the trucks a lot and would like a single cab for myself, which i think i could push up to ~28mpg.

But, to get that drivetrain in a true quad cab would involving putting it there yourself. :(

That Colorado/Canyon crew cab on Autotrader is pretty cool. I'd rock a crew cab 4cyl 2wd three pedal with the lowered suspension..