s10 or ranger, which is better? am an american btw
If you were a real American, you'd get a Toyota Tacoma in honor of our troops.
>>28644762>4 bangerranger>V6S10, for the love of god do not buy a 3.0 or 4.0 ranger t. GMfag
>>28644762hank hill owned a ranger
>>28644770i will not support those sneaky japs, i only buy american
>>28644794>Do not buy a 3.0 rangerIf you want to add power I agree. It just does not like mods. But if you are keeping it stock then I believe it will last damn near forever.>4.0Only the OHC. Pushrod is great too.t. 3.0 owner
>>28644804tacos are made in burgerland
>>28644770>our troopsyou mean terrorists
>>28644812they steal american jobs and all the profit is funneled back to the emperor anyway
>>28644824Nope, Tacomas were exclusive to Americans. Anyone else would be driving Hiluxes or Land Cruisers.
> s10 or ranger>am an american btw
>>28644762Whatever is in the best condition. They're only trucks. They do truck stuff. S-10 are easy to SBC or LS swap though. Their drawback is they're not full size pickups but they're useful to many owners. We did horrible things to both where I wrenched and they would not die.
>>28644811It'll last forever while making 4 banger power and getting V8 fuel economy. I'd rather just have the 4 banger.
>>28644848Hes not talking about going deep into debt getting a 10 year old silverado 2500 with the highest lift and widest wheel spacers. fuck texas and fuck houston specifically. everyone theres is a faggot or a disgusting lazy eyed wet back. nuke houston. demolish houston. assure nothing escapes alive.
>>28644830Again, terrorists
>>28644762Just look at how many old Rangers you still see driving around vs. the near nonexistence of S10s and I think the question basically answers itself.
>>28644902Yeah, the S10s were lowridered and hotrodded to death. Clearly the better platform.
I borrowed a Ranger for a day and honestly it was scary to drive because it was so slow. It could hardly merge onto the freeway and trying to pass modern cars felt like I was torturing the truck. 90s-00s era cars are the worst.
>>28645023If you think that's slow, don't ever drive anything from the 80s. That Ranger was probably faster than a Fox Body Mustang.
>>28644887And thats okay. My only concern is longevity.
>>28644828lol
>>28644762The V6 S10 was awesome, and towed like a champ for its size. However, they all got ran into the ground and/or rusted out prematurely. They're more expensive for not much better. If you need to tow more than 2k regularly you probably need a bigger truck,Rangers are cheap and plentiful, but for the love of god get a manual. The auto swallows all of your fuel economy and power. The manuals have their own issues (primarily the internal slave cylinder) but are pretty reliable outside of that.My current Ranger gets 30 MPG in the summer, 25 MPG with winter fuel and studded snow tires. Sure, it's a dog unless I crank on it, but it's been very reliable so far. Easy to work on, too. Biggest haul was a pair of F250 axles plus some other bits and bobs, ~1200lbs in the bed. Spent a lot of time in 3rd gear but the old bird took it all and asked for more.>>28645023You need to let that 4-cyl breathe. If you aren't flooring it, you can't complain about a lack of power. All of your real torque is between 3-4.5k RPM. Keep it between 2-2.5k for economy/unloaded.>t. former owner of a 4.3L V6/auto S10, current owner of a 2.3L L4/manual Ranger
>>28644762Been also in the hellscape that is the small pickup market, been looking pretty much all summer, my take away though is: (with the caviat that im not American, but live in the great white north of FUCKING SALT) Rangers are by far more common, but generally in worse condition when it comes to body and frame condition for the price.after a lot of test drives, i prefer the s10 in terms of seating position and interior (although the ranger 3rd gen is probably more appealing to those in the market) but the stock s10 does certainly leave me wanting for ground clearance.(especially the ss model) the one 1st gen ranger i drove though i also loved.for the ranger about 1/3 of the OHC v6's i saw either had suspiciously noisey/ratteley chains or other serious engine issues. persionally im quite suspicious of those motors, similar with the later I4's (not the 2.3 lima)worth noting though my budget has largely kept me to looking at rwd models although 4x4 would be much better for my use case.I am currently in the process of buying an s10, currently waiting on the seller to get it passed safety. even though i suspect hes just stringing me along and dosent want to go through the deal.Although i very much regret passing up on that 1st gen ranger i saw, it needed a rear main seal and the seller was an asshole though.My current car also has the LN2 engine, the non vortec injected 2.2 I4 in the s10 and its been bulletproof and ill be defentley keeping around when i get a truck
The S10 all the way. Parts are cheap, wide aftermarket and you have the options to swap in a 3-fiddy or LS/LT motor. I've owned two Rangers which were very cramped and anemic compared to the 5 or so S10s/Sonoma's I've had.
>>28645269Bruh 5?!? Mind sending one of them up my way lol
>>28644762These are the real questions that belong on /o/
>>28644762The four pot manual ranger is unkillable.
The 97 s10 was the most miserable automotive experience I've had so far. I got a 93 ranger and it's been great. Granted, I went from a 2.3 to the 4.0 but the gm build quality can't even compare. At the time I had the s10 I also had a toyota of the same year and it's legitimately a wonder that gm even still exists.
>>28645269The 'new body style' interiors of both trucks suck. I had a 00 Sonoma with no tilt and I sold the truck over that, could not get in and out of the fucking thing, the steering wheel practically sat in my lap. Riding shotgun in a newer ranger also had my knees in the dash. The old trucks are great though, 2.8gm and 2.9 Ford V6 suck ass
>>286450902.3 Lima Ranger and 2.5 Iron Duke S10 are both slow and unkillable Your riding lawnmower has a better sounding more refined engine than the Iron Puke. It may run forever but you won't be happy about it.
>>28644762Depends on how tall you are. >manletChevy>lankletRanger Nothing else really matters in that category. Go sit in the damn things.
>>28644887>t. GMfanboi that doesnt know anything about Fords.The 3.0 has more HP/L than the 2.3, 2.8, 2.9 or OHV 4.0.
>>28646600And? I've driven enough of them to know they're slow as shit regardless
>>28646696That trope about "dur hur 4 banger power and v8 fuel economy" is bullshit.Its literally where it should be between 4 cylinder and v8 fuel mileage.Youre just a dumbfuck that parrots false information you've heard from other dumbfucks.
>>28646711>parrotsNo, it's experience
>>28646713lots of experience sucking your dads dick maybenot so much with engines
>>28646732>ad hominemI accept your concession
>>28644770I will shove a crippled vet out of his wheelchair into a puddle for a 302 swapped 1987ranger.
>>28646713Youre just a dumbass.Rangers had factory options for 3.08-4.56 gears- that alone has immense effects on performance.Just because you drove some fleet-spec ranger at work that was beat to shit after having idiots like you drive them for a decade is not indicative of the platform.You personal (unsubstantiated) claims are the opposite of industry and owners claims.
>>28646808>bro the ranger you experienced sucked you just have to get this special snowflake one instead So I'm not wrong about the 3.0 sucking ass, is what I'm hearing
>>28646869How fucking stupid are you?>I drove this work truck with 300,000 miles on it, unknown maintenance history, unknown gear ratio, and it was slower than my personal truck to has an engine twice the size therefore the 3.0 must suck....>Ford Ranger 3.0L- 145hp>Chevy S10 4.3L- 165hpLol. Over 40% more displacement for a 20hp increase.
>>28647332That's a lot of assumptions, anon.
>>28647356Prove me wrong.
>>28647502https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
>>28647506See:>>28646696The burden of proof starts with that post.Faggot.
>>28646494I do t have those. I have glorious Vulcan.
>>28647628And I posted one of the ones I've driven. Cry some more, shitlips
>>28647639Let's recap:>you've never owned a ranger>you've only driven highly used, 30 yearold ranger(s) with unknown service history or mileage.Is this information correct?
>>28645237>All of your real torque is between 3-4.5k RPM. Keep it between 2-2.5k for economy/unloaded.That's all of the old V Ford engines. My 351 only hauls ass when you floor it, otherwise it's mild.
>>28647657No
>>28644848Mexicans don't buy old Fords as much as they do old Chevys
>>28647744>TexasWell no wonder.Spics dont maintain their vehicles. You've probably been running the same oil for 50k miles. You've driven an otherwise nice truck into the ground.
>>28647781>more assumptions cool strawman, bro
>>28647675With a V8, your torque peak is actually much lower on the tach, probably between 2-3k. Naturally, the horsepower peak is much higher up, but the low end is what you really feel when pulling. Shit, the 300s made 250ftlb at 2k. Absolutely nuts. Anyways, you know your torque range by feel. When driving a naturally aspirated L4, the difference below 2k compared to 3.5k+ is really noticeable.
>>28645682This much negative offset maximizes wheel bearing functionality
>>28645793>mad that the base model truck has base model featuresskill issue
>>28645793>could not get in and out of the fucking thing, the steering wheel practically sat in my lap.On a scale of Lizzo to Shamu, exactly how fucking fat are you ?
>>28648529Im 5'10 152lbs
>>28644762When I was 16, my mom talked (I don't even want to think about what this means) a used car sales guy into loaning me a 92 Ranger over the weekend. I used it to learn driving a manual, returned it, and bought an auto v6 85 S-10. But only because it was cheaper. The Ranger was in far nicer condition. That S-10 was a true shitbox, but it was certainly reliable. Perfect for a novice construction worker.
