V6 full-sized pickup as DD?

Would like to hear about anyone's thoughts concerning late model, 6 cylinder, full-sized pickups from "the Big 3", as far as DD duty. Trucks I'm looking at are newer than '02, so keep that in mind. First truck is a '04 Dodge with the 3.7 and a 5 speed manual. Second truck is a V6 Ford (4.2?) with a 5 speed manual. Last truck is a V6 Chevy with the 4.3 and AUTOMATIC transmission. All trucks are regular cabs with 6 foot beds...the only notable difference between them being 20 inch wheels on the Dodge. All will be used as "simple" transportation by someone who wants to project a "certain image" and needs something easy to get into and out of....but doesn't want an SUV (my father).

The Chevy is very slightly more expensive than the other two, but I would think most of that is due to automatic/ and cruise options.

I'm not a fan of the Ford. The ergo's for me are just all wrong. I have no problems with the Dodge provided there is a decent and verifiable service history behind it. If not, run unless you like wrenching A LOT. Everybody and their brother can fix the Chevy including rotting cab corners and rockers.

I'd go with the Chevy, but the handful I've driven have all had driver's seats so sagged I'd include a replacement in my budget.

Timely. I just talked to a buddy in Edgewater, Fl who told me he bought a new, left over 2012 Chevy 6cyl, short bed, WT work truck edition with absolutely zero options other that AC and after incentives his purchase price was crazy low, like $14k or $16k. That is cheap, even for an economy car.

The 4.3/auto combo is about as reliable as gravity, my dad ran a 94 to 280k, sold it running. By 200k of beating and/or infrequent maintenance(my dad is a mechanic and I think it was a construction truck before he bought it), it started burning enough oil that changing it was unnecessary, just top off with the cheapest 15w40 and spin on a filter now and then. It was slow, but it had adequate amounts of torque to haul anything, and plenty of power in 4LO. We would routinely fill it with wood till the frame was sitting solidly on the axle. I liked driving it, it was relaxing to putter around in.

Note that the trans will like to slam into 2nd on on-ramps and sound like the engine is going to come through the hood, doing this several times a day for 8 years didnt seem to bother it. I would avoid any V6 full size if you don't like that.

Ranger50 wrote: I'm not a fan of the Ford. The ergo's for me are just all wrong.

I kinda like the Fords except for how everything is a pain in the ass to work on, and then the intake manifold sucks all the coolant into one of the front cylinders and the rod gets all squiggly and then the crank hits the piston.

Got another one in like that. This one somehow punched a maybe 4cm hole in the side of the oil pan. Still runs but makes the worst sounds I've heard from an engine, and I've been working on cars for maybe 17 years...

Kenny_McCormic wrote: The 4.3/auto combo is about as reliable as gravity,

I dunno about that. I mean, I've seen gravity fail before.

The 4l60 is good if it isn't abused and has had trans flushes.

I dislike the 3.7 dodge and 4.2 ford for different reasons.

You didnt say what year the Ford was...

But, im gonna go with the Ford in this case! If it were me i'd prefer the earlier 02-03 body style.

Just my .02. I dislike working on the 4.3 and 3.7 more than i dislike working on the 4.2.

There is no point. With an auto, the v6 models get the same mpg as the v8's, might as well get a v8. I dont know what image a v6 regular pickup projects besides being poor anyways...

It'll also kill resale, so make sure they are cheap if he goes ahead.

i like my 4.3 5 speed shortbed so much that i'm never getting rid of it. however with close to 300k miles i will be changing the engine soon just because i can.

Avoid the 3.7 dodge. Crap fro gas and power. 4.3 chevy will run forever, but gets crap for gas. 4.2 ford is also crap for gas, but I've found they don't leak oil like the chevys. Why a v6 truck?

We run the Ford V6 trucks and have had good results with them. These are pretty standard. Earlier ones had 5 speeds, with always seem to have minor issues. They don't break, they just don't shift all that well. Never checked the gas mileage, but didn't think it was that bad for a full size truck.

I vote Chevy. Cheapest parts and easiest to work on.

After owning a pair of 4.3V6 chevy trucks, I would have to say that's the "miata" answer here. No, it's not fast. No, it's not hte most modern drivetrain. No, it's not fancy.

But what it lacks in that crap, it makes up for in durability, longevity and lack of any real needed maintenance.

These trucks seem to be one of the fastest changing fields in the automotive world.

I can say that a friend has a full sized Chevy truck from about 5-8 years ago. It's been reliable, albet very cheaply made. We've used it to pull various trailers and such. I was astonished to learn the other day that it has a V6. I thought surely it had a V8.

Ford has my interest with the Ecoboost, just wish it was in a 4x4 model.

I've got a late T100 with a V6. Father in law has an early Tundra with a V8. He gets better gas mileage than I do. More power as well.

The cheap skate in me has me thinking some 1980's 4x4 truck, but the comfort, reliability, safety and gas mileage of the later generation trucks, dang.

In reply to JohnRW1621:

2wd only for this price?

I know a guy who has a late 90's 4.2 V-6, manual F150 2wd with like 250,000 miles+ with most of the original parts still on it. It had it since it was almost new and it hardly cost him a dime. But then he just went out and got a Chevy Silverado 4x4. I figured he would have stuck with the F-150.

2wd only for this power level?

Fixed that for you..

There is no point. With an auto, the v6 models get the same mpg as the v8's, might as well get a v8.

And with a 5spd, the v6s get better mileage than the v8s and in the old days even accelerated about as well as the base v8/auto.

But, there is a v6 dead zone throughout most of the 2000s. V8s moved a LOT and v6s made almost no improvement until the end of the decade when they gained 80-90 hp across the board. So for most of the 2000s the v6 was really a disprportionately inferior-looking option because manufacturers were improving the v8s so much.

Back in the old days (pre-04) i definitely prefer the 4.2 Ford over a 4.6 Ford.. like by a lot!

My fiancees parents have an 04 4.2/auto F150 classic (old body style) and in ~250k the only thing that thing has needed is 02 sensors and an intake manifold gasket set. It probably still has original trans and rear end fluid in it. If they hadnt wrecked it id be first in line to try and get it when they get rid of it at near 300k, if ever!

I think a t100 is a unique case of an engine that is too small in the first place and thus gets worked too hard. I still would like to have a nice one.

I have a coworker with a 2006 Silverado WT, V6, and it's got a miss. I gave him some ideas on ways to diagnose and what sort of maintenance items I'd do just to have them dealt with before trying to find the source of the miss. And lo, I discovered that the stupid thing still has a distributor. How, that late in the game, that it still had a dizzy...

Told him I'd loan him my timing light after he shotgunned the plugs, wires, and inspected the cap and rotor. Truck has 101,xxx miles so I imagine all that stuff is original. Oh, and in-tank fuel filter to change. Thanks GM, not like there's no frame to tie it to if it was left external and more serviceable...

My brother has a '96 1/2 ton long bed chevy with the 4.3/auto that came under his "care", if you will, at something like 150,000 miles. It now has somewhere well north of 200k. I think the intake manifold gasket was about the only major failure he's had, and he's not known for being easy on things. Last year he towed a 4500# load from SC to MD with it, on the highway, and averaged 16mpg. Unladen it does about 20. The truck is soundly beaten and thrashed out, but it -just-keeps-going.

I briefly had a similar truck but with the 5 speed stick, and was amazed- that truck would get 25 mpg all day long. If I needed a cheap beater truck, that's what I'd snag.

pres589 wrote: Oh, and in-tank fuel filter to change. Thanks GM, not like there's no frame to tie it to if it was left external and more serviceable...

Not GM's problem. You can thank the EPA for that change, GM is just following their rules.

In reply to Ranger50:

I've a hard time swallowing that. URL?

Ranger50 wrote:

pres589 wrote: Oh, and in-tank fuel filter to change. Thanks GM, not like there's no frame to tie it to if it was left external and more serviceable...

Not GM's problem. You can thank the EPA for that change, GM is just following their rules.

Dodge started that game in 1994.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Ranger50: I've a hard time swallowing that. URL?

No URL. Look up "evaporative emissions" or the emissions given off when a vehicle is NOT in motion or running. So, which give off less emissions, a solid fuel line with only two end for hooking up to the pump and fuel rail or the line that is broken up with two additional hookups, plus the fuel filter emissions?