Mid-sized pickup with manual transmission?

[pacem]

Looking for a mid-sized pickup truck with a 6-cylinder and a stick-shift, something of 10-year old vintage. Any idea what my choice is?
Dodge Dakota? Toyota Tacoma I would rather stay away from due to price and rust issues.

6-cylinder to get the best gas mileage.

Dakota seems very marginally bigger than Ford Ranger and that thing is tiny with an uncomfortable cabin/seats.

 

[loyd]

What do you envision using your pickup for?

 

[exranger06]

Any 6 cylinder truck is not going to get fantastic mileage. You'll be lucky to get 20 mpg highway, 16-18 is more typical.

Regular cab Rangers I agree, are kind of cramped. Extended cab Rangers are not. I'm guessing you decided to not fix your Ranger?

 

[Cadenza]

I'd find a nice 2005 Toyota Tacoma. Rust issues of the earlier generations were associated with the frame members, and apparently cured after that.

 

[JTK]

The first brand-new vehicle I ever bought was a 1993 Dodge Dakota, 2wd, reg cab, shorty with a 5spd manual and Magnum 3.9L. That thing had so much power (for the time) it was hard to keep the back end to the back!

The p/u truck and Jeep standard transmissions I've owned were nicer shifting vehicles than my new Subaru XV Crosstrek 5spd.

 

[pacem]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
Any 6 cylinder truck is not going to get fantastic mileage. You'll be lucky to get 20 mpg highway, 16-18 is more typical.

Regular cab Rangers I agree, are kind of cramped. Extended cab Rangers are not. I'm guessing you decided to not fix your Ranger?


the 01 ranger I have now is a regular cab and that's a big pain in and of itself.
It is a 4-cylinder 5-speed and gets wonderful mileage, 30mpg at times.

The downside is it's very uncomfortable, no storage space, no way to recline the seat. I am not even getting into how slow the 4-cyl is. The stick shift kind of gives it some speed but it's still slow.

Wondering if I should upgrade to a 3.0L Ranger with X-cab, or a Dakota. Dakota seems to have a lot of quality issues more so than Ford however and despite the appearance, seems to be very marginally bigger, just 1" wider.

Tacoma I hear is the best value in mid sized pickups but in my area all Toyota vehicles are vastly overpriced. For the price it sells for, I could get a full sized F150.

 

[millerbl00]

How about a silverado? I have a 2012 thats a V6, auto that averages 20 mpg in town and 23+ hwy. Got it very cheap.

 

[pacem]

Originally Posted By: JTK
The first brand-new vehicle I ever bought was a 1993 Dodge Dakota, 2wd, reg cab, shorty with a 5spd manual and Magnum 3.9L. That thing had so much power (for the time) it was hard to keep the back end to the back!

The p/u truck and Jeep standard transmissions I've owned were nicer shifting vehicles than my new Subaru XV Crosstrek 5spd.


Question. Is the 3.9L something new or a derivative of the old slant 6 Dodge engine? If so, it should be powerful, reliable and not get very good MPG, meaning not close to 30mpg. That's the combo I am looking at. Don't want to get into 4.7L, or 5.2L engines.

 

[pacem]

Originally Posted By: millerbl00
How about a silverado? I have a 2012 thats a V6, auto that averages 20 mpg in town and 23+ hwy. Got it very cheap.


That is actually an interesting idea. How common are the 6-cylinder / 5-speed combinations?

 

[AandPDan]

Originally Posted By: pacem
Question. Is the 3.9L something new or a derivative of the old slant 6 Dodge engine? If so, it should be powerful, reliable and not get very good MPG, meaning not close to 30mpg. That's the combo I am looking at. Don't want to get into 4.7L, or 5.2L engines.



The 3.9 is not related to the slant six at all. It's based on the 5.2 and many of the parts interchange.

2002 was the last year for it in a Dakota. The 3.7 (based on the 4.7) came out in '03.

The 4.7 will do as good if not better than the 3.9 in fuel economy.

 

[pacem]

I would rather stay away from 4.7L in Dakota.

 

[millerbl00]

Can't get 5 speed in the newer models



Originally Posted By: pacem
Originally Posted By: millerbl00
How about a silverado? I have a 2012 thats a V6, auto that averages 20 mpg in town and 23+ hwy. Got it very cheap.


That is actually an interesting idea. How common are the 6-cylinder / 5-speed combinations?

 

[AandPDan]

It's actually a very nice engine. Mine runs like a top, never had any problems. A 2000 with 135k and a 5 speed. Had it since new.

The problems are that most are neglected. They don't like not having oil changes.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: pacem

Question. Is the 3.9L something new or a derivative of the old slant 6 Dodge engine? If so, it should be powerful, reliable and not get very good MPG, meaning not close to 30mpg. That's the combo I am looking at. Don't want to get into 4.7L, or 5.2L engines.


I'm pretty sure the "Magnum" line of engines are a thing of the past. The 3.9L was a V6. I believe it was a 318 V8, with 2cyls lopped off. Unsure of that though. They were a great engine.

 

[Jimmy9190]

My 01 Dakota has a Magnum 3.9 V6 and 5 speed manual and routinely gets about 18 mpg on average, sometimes a little more, sometimes a litle less. I track my mpg on fuelly.com. Mine is an extended cab so it looks to me to be bigger and have more interior room than a Ranger. You can find Dakotas with a V6 and manual, lots of V6's out there but you really have to hunt for the ones with manuals. Rust is not a problem here in Florida but you really don't hear much about Dakotas rusting anyway. Maybe up north there is more chance of rust but Dakotas are great trucks and built very well. A Dakota older than 5 or 6 years might have paint and or clear coat problems though.

 

[jeepman3071]

I'd get an extended cab ranger with the 3.0 V6 and 5 speed transmission. You can't beat the reliability of that. My grandfather had a 3.9 Dakota and it was okay, but it started rusting out faster than I would expect a garaged and babied truck to rust. I'm not sure about the 5 speed since his was an automatic.

 

[Shannow]

I'm a big fan of the Nissan Frontera (???), as I've owned a Navara (Oz/Europe) version of same for over a decade, trouble free.

 

[eljefino]

I've had three dakotas. All 2wd sticks. One was a short cab/ short bed 2.5 K-car motor. 25 MPG.

One was an extra cab/ short bed/ 3.9 Magnum/ 5 speed. A hoot to drive, but the extra cab made the thing turn more like a school bus.

One was a short cab, short bed, 3.9 Magnum/ 5 speed. On death's door, but a good truck nonetheless. They were all 91-92s, a still-handsome body style. The New Venture gear boxes all had great synchros and very nice gear feel.

If you're going to haul sheet goods, the gap between rear tire/fender dents is about 3 foot 10 inches.

Also had a mazda B4000 that drank gas. 3rd gear on the manual trans made all sorts of noise, a common problem. I didn't think it was super-fast despite having the huge engine-- probably had tall axle ratios. I still liked it though. Xtra cab had headroom and recliney seats but the sideways jump seats are illegal to use with kids or booster seats which is why you don't see them anymore.

 

[copcarguy]

I have had many Rangers that I've bought new, all 4x2 and XLT's. '91, '92, '03, and '07.

I got 396,000 out of the '91 SuperCab which was a 3.0 / auto.

The 1992 Reg. Cab longbed I turned into a show truck, that one's a 2.3 / stick

The '03 was a 3.0 / stick Reg Cab short bed - very quick

The '07 was a 2.3 / stick Reg Cab. I got 31 mpg day in & out. It was cramped (I'm 6'1") but I used it for commuting. My good friend ordered a Ranger at the same time, but 3.0 Supercab /stick. He insisted on getting the V6, and was giving me [censored] about ordering a 4 cyl. I told him he probably wouldn't feel the difference.

When the trucks came in he admitted I was right - you couldn't feel the difference in driving / power with no loads or even slightly loaded. I was getting MUCH better mileage. I was in high twenties mpg, he was in high teens mpg around town.

Maybe you could find a 2.3 / stick Supercab Ranger? Believe me I wish I had a Supercab sometimes to just recline the seats a teeeeeeeeeny bit lol.

 

[IndyIan]

I think you could get a Nissan Frontier with a manual trans with the 4 cyl for quite a while, 2007 maybe?
Anyways, the 2.5 4 probably has more hp and equal torque to the 90's V6's.
GM still had the 4.3 V6 4x4 with a manual trans up to 2000ish?