Old truck, or REALLY old truck?

[Phil Thien]

I had been playing with buying a 2nd-hand Ranger or Dakota or something. Maybe someing 7-10 years old. I'd probably only drive it once or twice on weekends. Go get materials. Take the dog for a drive, etc.

But then I was looking through craigslist and started seeing 60's Ford F100's and Chevy C10's from people that either restored them, or a few that never had much use. And some of them were even from CA or other states where they don't use sale on the road (like here).

And they don't have computers, they don't have cat. converters, etc. They seem quite a bit more simple than a 10-YO Ranger or Dakota.

How nuts am I to buy one of these? My wife was smiling when I was telling her about them because she thought my mid-life crisis would not come in the form of a truck as old as I am.

What am I missing? I know, safety. No modern safety features (seat belts, I hope). I woudn't drive in the snow, or probably even the rain. This would be a sunshine car. Not a daily driver.

Talk me into or out of this.

[Brian Kent]

My guess from the sidelines is the answer to the question - "Do you love working on old trucks as a hobby?" If so, have a blast. If not, get a later model and start driving to the hardware store. :)

[Brian Elfert]

The local fairgrounds has a fleet of 1967 Chevy pickups. They saw regular use during the summer up until the late 1990s. I believe they still use them during really busy times. They are beat to death, but they still run. There isn't a straight piece of sheet metal on any of them.

They are dead simple. The straight 6 engine takes so little room that one could almost stand inside the engine compartment. The downside is that they require regular tuneups and you have to deal with periodic carb problems. They aren't as trouble free as a lot a lot of modern vehicles.

[Jamie Buxton]

I once bought a rolling junkheap of a sports car -- 25 years old, and showed it. I worked on that car for years, and finally got it into good shape. But when it was finally roadworthy, I was scared to drive it. I was afraid some drunk in a junker would run into it. I finally figured out that a car which I didn't drive didn't make any sense, so I sold it. Cars (and trucks) live in an abusive environment: the road. Ya gotta drive something you don't care much about, because eventually it is going to get hit, or road salt is going to rust it, or pollution will eat its finish. If you can keep your old pickup just as a clapped out old pickup, you're okay. If you let it turn into a cherished possesion, you're in trouble.

BTW, I drive an appliance -- a Ford Ranger with 150,000 miles on it. It hauls lumber and furniture and everything. Good, solid, reliable. I'd buy another if Ford hadn't stopped making them.

[Larry Edgerton]

I have a weakness for old trucks. Right now I have a 1947 Dodge. My daily driver is a 2011 Ranger though.

I see you give Milwaukee as an address, would most of your driving be in the city? City driving would be easier in a Ranger, not really a Dakota fan myself. They have half the space and no benifit in mileage.

How many miles per year? Less is more. If you are doing say 25K, then a Ranger would make more sense. I am getting about 30mpg with mine, which is why I am driving it. I do about 30K a year.

60's Chevys and Fords are very dependable compared to what came before, handle reasonably well, achieve decent fuel economy unless it is a big block, and are very easy to find parts for. If you treat them with care your investment may appreciate, something that is hard to do with a new car. but you have to make a commitment to have to tinker once in a while, nothing big necessarily, but all of it is simple on these years and was never a problem for me. New ones, I can't fix them so I feel a bit helpless. Maybe that is why I keep my 47 around.

Larry

[Rich Engelhardt]

Be careful with the older F-100's. They were more car than truck.
Then again.....there wasn't a heck of a lot of difference between an old LTD and a truck anyhow - so toss that idea aside ;).

IMHO - the truck engine reached perfection w/the Ford 300 CID, the GM 292 CID and the Chrysler 225 CID "slant six".
The big old monster V8's get all the attention, but, the 6 cylinder power plants were simple, easy to work on due to the enormous free space under the hood and actually pretty economical to operate.

Also - one thing nice about that vintage of truck is that inside the glove compartment (GM for sure) there will be a plate that lists all the equipment the truck came with when manufactured.
From that plate, you can determine the rear axle ratio. IIRC, for the "half ton" truck the standard was a 2:73.
I'd personally avoid anything with a 4:11 or 4:76, only beacuse those probably saw a lot of heavy hauling.
Everyboday that owns a pickup will run it overloaded. Everyone. It's unavoidable.
Just beacuse it's called a "half ton" doesn't mean you can load 1000# in it. The heaviest payload rating I ever saw on a "half ton" was 750#.

BTW - the litte trucks? Like the S10? The S10's had a standard payload of 1000#. Every single one, even the most basic truck, could hold at least, 25% more weight than even the heaviest duty full sized "half ton". Most people don't realize that. I went to school at GM in 1984 to learn how to spec out light and medium duty trucks and picked that info up there. The payload sticker on the inside of the glove compartment is dead on as far as the payload capacity. If it says, 473#, that's all that truck was built to carry - assuming a driver and passenger.
99% or better of the people that buy a half ton just ignore that & load it up with 2000# of firewood and figure the mfg has some sort of safety margin build in....

If you have the $$, I'd say go for it big time.

There's probalby a lot of people strapped for $$ right now that have to get rid of their "toys".
I saw a similar situation w/motor homes back in the 70's during the oil embargo and again in the 80's druing the recession.
You could pick up a cherry motor home for pennies on the dollar back then.

[Jim Matthews]

The four cylinder Ford Ranger has power and capacity limits but is amazingly durable.
As mentioned before - simpler is better. I would only choose an older truck that was in high production, to source spare parts.

One of my neighbors has a short haul 1989 with the straight four and original transmission. He averages 18mpg for short hops.
At this stage, he dare not travel farther than 20 miles from home. Things are beginning to fail, but they're cheap fixes.

[Phil Thien]

Good feedback, thanks.

I have looked under the hoods at a few 6-cylinder F100's and see nothing daunting. Compared to looking under the hood at (for example) our 2-YO Honda Odyssey, the difference is night/day.

For some reason, I cannot explain it, I am sort of interested in tinkering with an old truck, too.

Of course, if there is a job that is beyond me, I'm sure I can find a trustworthy mechanic.

[Mac McQuinn]

I've always driven older trucks(46 Ford, 63 Chevy, 71 IH, 72 Chevy), etc, and feel specific older trucks, design wise will fit your needs well. My last one was a 1972 C10 Chevrolet I owned for 12 years. These trucks are so simplistic in nature due to the era although modern enough to provide basic creature comforts. My 72 had power steering, disc brakes at the front, lap seat belts, safety glass and no stupid buzzers. Tune-up? You can install points, plugs condenser in a V-8 model in 1-1-1/2 hours and all you really need is a screwdriver, 3/8" ratchet, spark plug socket, plug gap tool and feeler gauge. A dwell meter is nice if you have one although not a requirement. The coil rear spring suspension on this truck delivers a ride IMO better than any new truck and still capable of hauling 35 sheets of drywall. The Power steering available as an option was the old style with plenty of boost allowing one finger steering when backing up to a loading dock. Tires are cheap, heaters excellent and you don't need a step ladder to help you get into it. I've had great luck with NAPA stores in providing parts for older vehicles.
Good luck,
Mac

[Steve Meliza]

My first truck was a 1949 Dodge B1B, though I never did get it on the road. When it came time to sell the car for a truck I seriously considered an older pickup, but I realized I needed to get to work each and every morning on time and not covered in grease so I got a 2006. If I had the parking space for it I'd drive a newer model car to work and an old pickup on the weekends when I need to haul stuff.

One downside I can think of with older trucks (other than the obvious lack of creature comforts and safety devices) is what Rich said about a very high gear ratio in the rear end, you might be flat out at 50 MPH, which is probably fine considering the lack of safety features. If you do your research you can find transitional years where they added features you find important, like an FM radio, safety glass, disk brakes, etc. Oh yah, watch out for engines without hardened valve seats that were designed to run with leaded fuel.

I can echo what Mac said, my local NAPA had a distributor cap on the shelf for my 1949 Dodge.

[Greg Portland]

But then I was looking through craigslist and started seeing 60's Ford F100's and Chevy C10's from people that either restored them, or a few that never had much use. And some of them were even from CA or other states where they don't use sale on the road (like here).
What am I missing? I know, safety. No modern safety features (seat belts, I hope). I woudn't drive in the snow, or probably even the rain. This would be a sunshine car. Not a daily driver.

It's a bit of a loaded question. Some of these restorations drop in brand new motors w. fuel injection, new brakes, better transmissions, etc.. The old stock trucks will require a good bit of babying to get them to daily-driver status. One of my friends completely redid an old GMC 100 (kept the body and frame, replaced everything else) and it's a great truck.

You are right that the old trucks are not as safe (seatbelts, no airbags, no crumple zones, etc.). I'd install a shoulder belt and call it good.

[Matt Meiser]

If buying an old truck, do you know what to look for to make sure someone's "restoration" wasn't just slapping a bunch of bondo and paint on?

[Stephen Cherry]

I've got a 1992 ford f150 4x4 with the 300 six. Just keeps going.

As far as older trucks go, I would skip it. Fuel injection, electronic ignition, even catalytic converters are big pluses. The older trucks just smell from all of the fumes. And need, what used to be called tune ups. I personally have changed points and condensers, but I would prefer not to do it again. With over 100 k miles, I finally broke down and changed the plugs on my ford.

So, in my opinion, old is OK, but not so old to not have a decent efi. The cars in the mid 70's to mid 80's with carbs, in my opinion, should be avoided.

[Kevin Bourque]

You'll regret buying an old truck the day you have to drive more than 10 miles in the thing. They're noisy, burn lots of fuel, and the suspension and drive train make you feel like you're driving a brick with wheels. I almost forgot about no A/C.

[Phil Thien]

If buying an old truck, do you know what to look for to make sure someone's "restoration" wasn't just slapping a bunch of bondo and paint on?

I doubt I'd actually buy a fully restored unit. I've seen a couple that are solid, and from the south or SW. The paint is faded, but otherwise in good shape.

Then I'd get it up on a lift and have an expert take a look.

[Larry Edgerton]

Phil there is a lot of misinformation and false generalizations flying around here. All older trucks are not toxic, nor do they drive badly, ride can be comparable to today with the right model, and the best mileage I ever got with a full size truck was a 1972.

All things considered the model and year I would look for if I were you would be a Chevy from 67-72 with either a straight six or a small V8. Parts from places like Traders are easily available, in fact I think it is almost to the point where you could build a whole truck from reproduction parts. They have a great ride in the half ton trucks, are easy to drive, motors are dependable, simple to fix if need be.

Now my 47, that is slow, crude, an bit smelly, and did I mention slow? It doesn't ride all that bad though, and the windshield cranks out. Mine is the deluxe model, it has a crank out windshield, a heater, and not one, but two electric wipers. Thats it.

Larry

[Stephen Cherry]

Phil there is a lot of misinformation and false generalizations flying around here. All older trucks are not toxic, nor do they drive badly, ride can be comparable to today with the right model, and the best mileage I ever got with a full size truck was a 1972.

All things considered the model and year I would look for if I were you would be a Chevy from 67-72 with either a straight six or a small V8. Parts from places like Traders are easily available, in fact I think it is almost to the point where you could build a whole truck from reproduction parts. They have a great ride in the half ton trucks, are easy to drive, motors are dependable, simple to fix if need be.

Now my 47, that is slow, crude, an bit smelly, and did I mention slow? It doesn't ride all that bad though, and the windshield cranks out. Mine is the deluxe model, it has a crank out windshield, a heater, and not one, but two electric wipers. Thats it.

Larry

I'd have to disagree on the toxic part- these old vehicles put off plenty of fumes. I can sometimes smell one as it passes me on the road. BUT, for styling, I don't think that Cheby has made a better looking truck since 1972. Of course a Ford of any year or condition will be a better looking truck.

[Richard Wagner]

If you can't "fix it" then don't buy it. But if you are mechanically inclined and interested in doing that sort of work - go for it. Be aware that you may find it as much fun as making saw dust.

[Mac McQuinn]

My experience w/ older trucks is if you smell it, it's not been well maintained. Even though these trucks are simplistic in nature, this does not mean you can avoid all maintenance. A small pump oil can and a length of fresh pliable Vac hose will go a long way in making things work like they should. No different than a nice piece of wood working equipment, if you want it to work well, you need to take care of it. Once you work on something pre-73, you'll really appreciate how things were done back then.
Mac




I'd have to disagree on the toxic part- these old vehicles put off plenty of fumes. I can sometimes smell one as it passes me on the road. BUT, for styling, I don't think that Cheby has made a better looking truck since 1972. Of course a Ford of any year or condition will be a better looking truck.

[Larry Edgerton]

Hey Mac, do you have any old iron now?

I am closing in on 300 cars/trucks, and many of them were old trucks. I just love tooling around in them and for quite a few years I drove them daily. All this tv coverage has made it alot harder, everyone thinks they have a goldmine in their back forty.

I am on the prowl for a 67-72 chevy long box myself, 3/4 or 1 ton to haul my tractor, but am in no hurry. I want to put an aluminum flatbed on one so I can load/unload material with the forks.

Larry

[Paul McGaha]

My dad bought a new 1972 Chevy Cheyenne, if you guys remember that truck. It was pretty nice, kept it in the family a long time, I got it went my dad upgraded. Really bad gas mileage as I recall. 350 Engine, 4 Barrel Carb.

I used to have a 1979 Chevy also.

I don't know, Just my $.02 but I think the late model trucks are more reliable, get much better mileage, and go a lot further now than the older trucks used to. I currently have a 2001 Ford F-150 and I'd rather have this truck than a 70 something Chevy.

PHM

[Mac McQuinn]

Larry,
I'm in between right now although looking for a decent 63-72 C10, I've had (3) and feel GM peaked with this model. You could buy the C20 with either Coil or Leaf spring rears(I've seen more GMC's with leafs) and they made a Longhorn version with 133' WB and 8.5' Box to accommodate the campers of the day. I believe this only came with BB engines. That would be neat for your purpose. I've seen several and they seem to survive well due to the designated purpose of the truck.
Good luck,
Mac



Hey Mac, do you have any old iron now?

I am closing in on 300 cars/trucks, and many of them were old trucks. I just love tooling around in them and for quite a few years I drove them daily. All this tv coverage has made it alot harder, everyone thinks they have a goldmine in their back forty.

I am on the prowl for a 67-72 chevy long box myself, 3/4 or 1 ton to haul my tractor, but am in no hurry. I want to put an aluminum flatbed on one so I can load/unload material with the forks.

Larry

[Brian Elfert]

I have to agree with the folks who say today's trucks ride better. The unfortunate part is that the 1/2 ton trucks have been dumbed down to ride real nice as most of them spend more time as people haulers than as cargo haulers. To haul real cargo you need a 3/4 ton truck these days. A 1 ton truck won't ride well without some weight in the back.

[Matt Meiser]

Me too. My dad's 76 F100 looks cool, but I'd much rather drive my 2009 F150. The F100 is really basic. No power anything. About the only problem with it has been the transmission which I'd chalk up to poor treatment or poor maintenance by some previous owner as the C4 transmission it has would normally be a pretty bulletproof transmission. With some mods its not uncommon to use that trans in drag cars with several hundred horsepower. His came out of Georgia, but when exposed to Michigan winters did develop some minor rust relatively quickly. Small un-noticable chips and scratches didn't fare nearly as well in the salt as modern alloys and coatings would.

I tend to think that if you can and want to tinker and do some work on it, go for the old truck. If you just want to drive it, get the newer.

[Jason Roehl]

While I like the look of the old trucks, Lord willing, I am done with carburetors. I've owned a couple carbureted trucks and several motorcycles, and I'll take fuel injection any day. I've spent more time driving FI vehicles, but I guaranteed I've spent more time trying to start the carbureted ones than I have fixing problems that rendered the FI vehicles not drivable. Those computers are not as fragile as one might think. And, don't confuse unwillingness to learn how to fix them with difficulty in fixing them. With all the OBD-II (1996 and later models, excluding 3/4-ton and up trucks, which vary when they got OBD-II) vehicles I've owned, pretty much all repairs have been simple with a cheap code reader (or a stop by an auto parts store for them to read it) and a little online research.

For the record, my 1990 Ford F150 (half ton) truck had a payload of about 1500 pounds (GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating--from the door sticker minus the curb weight). My 1993 F250 (3/4-ton) has a payload of about 2800 pounds. You can get F350s with payloads of up to about 5000 pounds. The moral of the story is that the "half-ton, 3/4-ton, one-ton" nomenclature is a legacy terminology that has nothing to do with modern weight ratings.

I'd find a small pickup (1/4-ton, like a Ranger or S10/Colorado) with a 4-banger and a stick that's 5-10 years old with 100k-150k on the clock (whatever you can afford). Cheaper on gas, tires, batteries and insurance, plus if you need some more capacity, you could get a small flatbed trailer and still be many dollars ahead of buying a full size truck.

[Myk Rian]

I was looking for a truck such as you were. Decided I wanted AC in it, so I bought a 1997 Ranger. Great truck.

[Phil Thien]

Me too. My dad's 76 F100 looks cool...His came out of Georgia, but when exposed to Michigan winters did develop some minor rust relatively quickly. Small un-noticable chips and scratches didn't fare nearly as well in the salt as modern alloys and coatings would.

Don't like the sound of that!

[Phil Thien]

I was looking for a truck such as you were. Decided I wanted AC in it, so I bought a 1997 Ranger. Great truck.

Yesterday I was leaning towards old (60's) classic. This afternoon, I'm leaning towards newer (7-8 years old) model.

[Andrew Howe]

I would recommend you buy a toyota pickup. They are very reliable and are far better than any older truck. I also agree that you are better off getting a later model vehicle with better technology than buying nostalgia.

[Kenneth Speed]

Well Andrew suggestion is much like mine, I have both an old truck and a Toyota. I have a 2001 Toyota Tacoma with a easy to maintain four cylinder and manual five speed and that has about 130 thousand miles on it and runs very well. My maintenance costs are pretty negligible.

I'd have still had my 97 Toyota that had almost a quarter of a million miles on it except Toyota bought it back from me.

People love my truck and often say they had one and how much they regret replacing it with whatever they have now.


Ken

[Stephen Cherry]

I would recommend you buy a toyota pickup. They are very reliable and are far better than any older truck. I also agree that you are better off getting a later model vehicle with better technology than buying nostalgia.

Toyota pickups are great, although they have a history of evaporating from rust.
http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2011/06/28/tundra-frame-rust-photos/

As I said, I have a 1992 Ford, and I see other fords from the same era, but how often do you see a 20 year old Toyota truck? The more modern toyota engines also have timing belts. Who wants to spend a thousand dollars on changing timing belts? Other than that, the Toyotas are probably the best cars out there. My impression is that you can drive the wheels off for 12 years. I've had toyotas also, camry, pickup, Landcruiser fj80 and fj40.

[Kenneth Speed]

Stephen Cherry stated, "Toyota pickups are great, although they have a history of evaporating from rust.... how often do you see a 20 year old Toyota truck?"

These are specious comparisons. I might ask how often you're heard of Ford or GM buying back one of their old vehicles for 1 1/2 times book value like Toyota did with Tacoma's a few years ago. I was one of the ones whose truck was purchased so I know wherof I speak. I drove that truck for six years and Toyota bought it from me for what I'd paid for it originally. My current Tacoma is a 2001 and you're welcome to look at it anytime and you will not see any great amount of rust on the body; that's a problem Toyota fixed years ago. Speaking of my 01 Tacoma, Toyota put a whole new frame under it, for free! Not to mention that they gave me the use of a loaner truck for a week or more while they did it. Hmmm...I don't think I've ever heard of GM or Ford or Dodge doing that either, come to think of it.

Since I bought my 2001 I've put over 50,000 miles on it over three or four years. During that time I've replaced an air conditioner compressor, front and rear brakes and had to have a piece welded on the exhaust pipe to stop a leak. Other than those things, everything has been normal wear and tear items like fan belts and light bulbs.

You can damn Toyota trucks with faint praise if you wish but I fully expect that I'll get at least a quarter of a million miles out of my truck just like I would have done with my first one ( I had 225,000 miles on it) if Toyota hadn't had the buyback.

[Rich Engelhardt]

For the record, my 1990 Ford F150 (half ton) truck had a payload of about 1500 pounds (GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating--from the door sticker minus the curb weight). Wouldn't it be nice if it was really that simple? That would no doubt put an end to an endless number of bar fights ;).
It's a whole lot more complicated than that.
I really don't want to get into it since it would take a few hours - or days - to go over the whole thing.
A whole lot of the two week training I went through W/General Motors back in 1984 dealt with weight ratings and how to figure them.

[Jason Roehl]

Wouldn't it be nice if it was really that simple? That would no doubt put an end to an endless number of bar fights ;).
It's a whole lot more complicated than that.
I really don't want to get into it since it would take a few hours - or days - to go over the whole thing.
A whole lot of the two week training I went through W/General Motors back in 1984 dealt with weight ratings and how to figure them.

Yes, I left out the complicated part. The GVWR on that particular pickup was 5900 lbs. I took it absolutely empty (save for me and fuel/fluids) to a gravel pit and weighed in at 4360. The RAWR (Rear Axle Weight Rating) was 3800 lbs (axle code 19: Ford 8.8" axle with a 3.55 ratio open differential). Now, if the rear took 50% of the weight empty (it's much less!), it would have had 2200 lbs on it, so adding 1500 lbs to the bed would still not exceed the RAWR. I don't recall what the FAWR was, so I can't speak to that, and I never put it on a scale that weighed the axles separately.

I've never had my F250 across any scales, but its GVWR is 8800 lbs. I estimate the weight (based on what I've found online) to be between 5500 and 6000 lbs. The RAWR is 6250, which is coincidentally double the weight rating of the stock load range E tires--so the tires are actually the limiting factor on that rating (a shorter version of that same axle/differential is used on the F350 duallies, and with 4 D-range tires, gets a higher rating).

I've been hanging out at a huge Ford truck forum pretty much twice a day for over 8 years where several Ford repair techs and even some retired Ford engineers frequent (just the '87-'96 F-series section gets about half the traffic SMC does), plus I've owned two Ford trucks and have done most of the wrenching on them myself.

Needless to say, I stand by my statements, though my main point was just that the nomenclature (half-, 3/4-, 1-ton) was outdated and not descriptive of actual capabilities, yet that nomenclature endures.

[Myk Rian]

Let's try to keep the flaming out of this, before it gets locked down, and Phil is sorry he brought it up.

[Jason Roehl]

There was no flaming. Just a discussion. I'd happily quaff a cold one with Rich any day.

[Stephen Cherry]

Stephen Cherry stated, "Toyota pickups are great, although they have a history of evaporating from rust.... how often do you see a 20 year old Toyota truck?"

These are specious comparisons. I might ask how often you're heard of Ford or GM buying back one of their old vehicles for 1 1/2 times book value like Toyota did with Tacoma's a few years ago. I was one of the ones whose truck was purchased so I know wherof I speak. I drove that truck for six years and Toyota bought it from me for what I'd paid for it originally. My current Tacoma is a 2001 and you're welcome to look at it anytime and you will not see any great amount of rust on the body; that's a problem Toyota fixed years ago. Speaking of my 01 Tacoma, Toyota put a whole new frame under it, for free! Not to mention that they gave me the use of a loaner truck for a week or more while they did it. Hmmm...I don't think I've ever heard of GM or Ford or Dodge doing that either, come to think of it.

Since I bought my 2001 I've put over 50,000 miles on it over three or four years. During that time I've replaced an air conditioner compressor, front and rear brakes and had to have a piece welded on the exhaust pipe to stop a leak. Other than those things, everything has been normal wear and tear items like fan belts and light bulbs.

You can damn Toyota trucks with faint praise if you wish but I fully expect that I'll get at least a quarter of a million miles out of my truck just like I would have done with my first one ( I had 225,000 miles on it) if Toyota hadn't had the buyback.

Kenneth, I certainly did not mean any offense by my comments about rust, but rust is rust, and there really is no excuse for it anymore. I've had a toyota pickup that rusted almost from the begining, and I've also had a toyota landcruiser that was built like a tank and did not rust, but landcruisers at that time ('96) were not even built by toyota, and were built without a lot of compromises. I'd like to buy a 10 year old tundra, but I don't want to take the chance with the frame rusting out.

If you don't mind me asking, why did toyota buy your truck back?

[Larry Edgerton]

[QUOTE=These are specious comparisons. I might ask how often you're heard of Ford or GM buying back one of their old vehicles for 1 1/2 times book value like Toyota did with Tacoma's a few years ago.

You can damn Toyota trucks with faint praise if you wish but I fully expect that I'll get at least a quarter of a million miles out of my truck just like I would have done with my first one ( I had 225,000 miles on it) if Toyota hadn't had the buyback.[/QUOTE]

I have a Dodge van with 274,000 miles, and the frame hasn't rusted in half, runs like a watch, and burns no oil. Toyota's are no more or less dependable than anything else.

I have had the same with all but GM, and I have had good GM trucks until my 08. I have owned Toyotas, and they were uncomfortable for a lot of miles, but they did break just like everything else. They are just cars. I owe no loyalty to any machine.

My current new truck, a Ford Ranger is comfortable for a big guy like me, gets me about 30 MPG, and are known to run for 300,000 trouble free.

Larry

[Rich Engelhardt]

Yep - I'd be more than happy to bend an elbow w/Jason any time! :)


The GVWR on that particular pickup was 5900 lbsHere's where things get sticky..
The GVWR on the plate is for classification. Class 1,2,3 for light duty trucks.
The only way to establish the true weight the truck can carry is to start with the chassis and figure out each option weight.
Even that gets complicated since "options" can also include standard equipment.
Running the truck onto a scale tells you how much the vehicle weighs - but - it doesn't tell you how the weight is distributed and what effect that distribution has on each axle.

For example, a power steering option on a C10 (2 wheel drive half ton) would be listed J50 85/-10 the J50 is the option code for power steering and the 85 is how much weight it adds to the front axle. The -10 is how much weight it subtracts from the rear axle - since the power steering unit is in front of the front axle.
That same J50 on a K10 (4wheel drive 1/2 ton) would be listed J50 65/-15. Even though power steering is standard on the 4x4, it's still considered and option for figuring out load capacity.
The actual weight of the power steering unit can be less than what the option weight is. The power steering unit itself may only weigh 50 pounds. But - because of it's location, the front axle acts as a fulcrum and 85 pounds is added on a 2 wheel drive and ony 65 pounds is added on the 4 wheel drive.


A very good real world example of this is the spare tire carrier cable Toyota just replaced on my 2010 Sienna van. The new cable adds 10 pounds to the rear axle and the dealer is required by law to add a sticker to the door plate saying the paylod has been reduced by 10 pounds. No way, no how the replacemet cable comes anywhere close to 10 ponds, let alone 10 pounds more than the old one.
However, because it's behind the rear axle, it's tiny bit of extra weight shifts weight from the front.

It's a mess of confusing and conflicting numbers & mostly meaningless.
Seriously....
Nobody pays attention to what the actual load capacity is, w/the exception of places that take a chassis or a truck and convert it to a tow truck, a bus or a conversion van.
That's the only time I recall ever having to figure a truck from the chassis on up.


so the tires are actually the limiting factor on that rating (a shorter version of that same axle/differential is used on the F350 duallies, and with 4 D-range tires, gets a higher rating).

Correct. More than any other single component, the tires are what affect the weight limit. They are always the weak link in the chain.

There's a whole lot more to it also..
My whole point is that the GVWR on the plate is only an approximate value. The actual weight rating can be as little as 50% of that figure.
You can't go by that figure - or the figures listed in the sales literature either for that matter.
If you read all the fine (and confusing) print you'll notice they always mention somewhere that actual payload capacity depends on the options.

W/out a doubt a lot has changed since 1984 when I went to the GM school. Just a quick glance at sales literature and some door post plates however and a few (what they now call) "Camper Stickers" (they used to be payload capacity), tells me a lot has stayed the same. - such as the "standard" weight for passengers still be 150#.


my main point was just that the nomenclature (half-, 3/4-, 1-ton) was outdated and not descriptive of actual capabilities, yet that nomenclature endures.On that point, I agree 100%. It's pure legacy and in no way reflects the capacity.

[Larry Edgerton]

Phil

Back to the old truck thing......

I would suggest that you go get a ride or better yet drive a old truck from the mid sixties to the early seventies. That way you will know if it is something that you want to mess with. If you get a kick out of it like Mac and I do then it is worth having one around, if not then they are not what you need. They are a bit of a hobby, but one some of us enjoy.

If you look online nationally there are a few new Rangers left on the market that can be bought cheap, close to 10K for a basic one. I bought a XLT cab and a half 2 wheel drive, 4 cyl, stick for $15,800.

Larry

[Kenneth Speed]

Stephen Cherry asked, "If you don't mind me asking, why did toyota buy your truck back?"

That's a very pertinent question and somewhat confusing issue. They did buy the trucks back ostensibly because the frames were rusting but the trucks they bought back were trucks that were eight to thirteen years old at the time of the buyback which was in 2008. I'm not denying that Toyota had a severe rust problem at one time I'm just saying that they've addressed it and I'm hard pressed to imagine any other manufacturer doing what Toyota did. It strikes me as the same as the Ford thing, for years people would say that FORD stood for fix or repair daily but recently at least one ford car has been writen up as one of the most dependable cars on the road. Things change.

Tons of the people who had their old trucks purchased by Toyota immediately bought new Toyota trucks so I don't think it was completely an altruistic policy on their part.

Ken

[Stephen Cherry]

Stephen Cherry asked, "If you don't mind me asking, why did toyota buy your truck back?"

That's a very pertinent question and somewhat confusing issue. They did buy the trucks back ostensibly because the frames were rusting but the trucks they bought back were trucks that were eight to thirteen years old at the time of the buyback which was in 2008. I'm not denying that Toyota had a severe rust problem at one time I'm just saying that they've addressed it and I'm hard pressed to imagine any other manufacturer doing what Toyota did. It strikes me as the same as the Ford thing, for years people would say that FORD stood for fix or repair daily but recently at least one ford car has been writen up as one of the most dependable cars on the road. Things change.

Tons of the people who had their old trucks purchased by Toyota immediately bought new Toyota trucks so I don't think it was completely an altruistic policy on their part.

Ken

Yes, Fords have been a hit or miss proposition. I've known people with ford cars with bad head gaskets with low miles. I've been pretty lucky with my pickup and I also had an older crown vic, which I gave away with over 250 k and it lasted to almost 400k until the rear axle came out. Other than that it ran OK.

That said, if I had to buy another pickup; new it would be a toyota tundra, used, who knows. I like the 10 year old tundras, but I am afraid of the rust as it ages. The 7.3 power choke fords where very long lasting, but too big for me.

I also like the Dodge Freightliner MB sprinters, but I've seen them rusted also. Plus, I would be afraid of the high dollar parts.