Moving up from a Frontier.

[p nut]

I have test driven both, the 4 banger wasn't bad for daily duties, actually quite peppy, surprised me a bit....V6 is pretty dang nice though. We have beat this dead horse a couple few hundred times Price Toyota wants for the V6...around $32K if you can find one...puts you into a fullsize truck territory. Wish they offered the V6 in the SR...in the $26-27K range...that seems reasonable...at $32K+ no so much.

Used market on Tacoma's is nuts...high mileage and commanding high dollar. Seems like there is hardly anything out there under 50K miles that is reasonably priced, Seeing some that are going for more than they were new! WTH!?

Chevy does offer their V6 in the Colorado WT model...jury is still out on its' longevity. Could always buy one of those, if it gives you trouble trade it in.

Ok, watch carefully now...bringing it back around, full circle....for the 87th time.............that's why you go with a V6 full size.
_
Truck
I'm sure you could get a bit more off of that. Supercabs, which I believe have the same/similar back seat room as a double cab Tacoma, is a few grand less.
_
Doesn't this just say, "No Fluff; All Business":

 

[Regcabguy]

If you don't pull or carry a camper get the V-8.
Non-turbo should be more problem free over the years and yes the modern V-8's last a long time. Maintenance is indeed less. Oil,filter,trans fluid service,air filters,brakes and plugs every 100K.
I've ridden in Ford F-150 3.5 turbo. They're rocket ships with decent fuel economy but I know those turbos are going to be an issue down the line.
A 1/2 ton should serve you well

 

[Clutch]

Ok, watch carefully now...bringing it back around, full circle....for the 87th time.............that's why you go with a V6 full size.
_
Truck
I'm sure you could get a bit more off of that. Supercabs, which I believe have the same/similar back seat room as a double cab Tacoma, is a few grand less.
_
Doesn't this just say, "No Fluff; All Business":

Ha ha! I knows!

I do like those Super Cab F150's with the 6.5' bed...in the no BS XL trim. Real curious about the new Ranger, c'mon Ford...XL trim, V6, 4WD, and manual trans for $25K....you can do it, you can do it!


Cheapest Extra Cab Colorado V6/4WD I could find....not bad. "Only if" it came with a manual trans.

LINK

 

[p nut]

If you don't pull or carry a camper get the V-8.
Non-turbo should be more problem free over the years and yes the modern V-8's last a long time. Maintenance is indeed less. Oil,filter,trans fluid service,air filters,brakes and plugs every 100K.
I've ridden in Ford F-150 3.5 turbo. They're rocket ships with decent fuel economy but I know those turbos are going to be an issue down the line.
A 1/2 ton should serve you well

Just curious, for sake of discussion, do you personally know of anyone that has had turbo's replaced on their Ecoboost? Sincere question, not trying to argue. I know several people with Ecoboosts. Most or all are in the construction industry. Don't know of anyone that had engine issues. Even on an early Ecoboost. Mileage range from 70k to 150k. One guy tows his 10k lb trailer with it.
_
Turbo's definitely add to the complexity, so I'm not doubting that some have/had issues. I bought one, fully aware of history of turbo's. But today's turbo's seem to be much better designed than old ones (like in my friend's Saab and Audi back in the 90's). And in reality, they've got less moving parts than the V8 counterpart (2 less cylinders, valves, etc.). Coyote 5.0's have had issues as well. But that's all engines. Even Toyota's 4.0L and 2.7L's have had issues in the past.
_
I'm not arguing turbo engines are more reliable. Just curious to find a bit more of people's experience with today's turbo engines. I also find it curious that (some) people readily recommend "TURBO" diesel engines, yet leery of gas.

 

[p nut]

Ha ha! I knows!

I do like those Super Cab F150's with the 6.5' bed...in the no BS XL trim. Real curious about the new Ranger, c'mon Ford...XL trim, V6, 4WD, and manual trans for $25K....you can do it, you can do it!

And don't forget, optional rear end gearing and locking diffs. I think that would entice a lot of people over.

 

[Clutch]

And don't forget, optional rear end gearing and locking diffs. I think that would entice a lot of people over.

Ford is pretty good about letting you à la carte the options you want.

ya know the Colorado looks pretty good on paper. V6 308HP/274TQ, Payload 1532lbs, Towing 7000lbs...not leaps and bounds better than a Tacoma, but looks good...and a little cheaper. Roughly the same price as a 4 banger SR, and don't have to deal with the anemic 4 slugger, which only has a 3500 lbs tow rating.

Looking at the Chevy site, can get the new 8 speed tranny...might be able to eek out some fairly decent mpg out of the V6. hmmm...

 

[2025 deleted member]

Just curious, for sake of discussion, do you personally know of anyone that has had turbo's replaced on their Ecoboost? Sincere question, not trying to argue. I know several people with Ecoboosts. Most or all are in the construction industry. Don't know of anyone that had engine issues. Even on an early Ecoboost. Mileage range from 70k to 150k. One guy tows his 10k lb trailer with it.
_
Turbo's definitely add to the complexity, so I'm not doubting that some have/had issues. I bought one, fully aware of history of turbo's. But today's turbo's seem to be much better designed than old ones (like in my friend's Saab and Audi back in the 90's). And in reality, they've got less moving parts than the V8 counterpart (2 less cylinders, valves, etc.). Coyote 5.0's have had issues as well. But that's all engines. Even Toyota's 4.0L and 2.7L's have had issues in the past.
_
I'm not arguing turbo engines are more reliable. Just curious to find a bit more of people's experience with today's turbo engines. I also find it curious that (some) people readily recommend "TURBO" diesel engines, yet leery of gas.

Friend of mine is a concrete salesman so his truck is mostly highway miles and visiting customers to shake hands. His 2014 F150 with a 5.0 locked up at 25k miles, and his company is crazy about maintenance. Ford warrantied it at least.

 

[p nut]

Ford is pretty good about letting you à la carte the options you want.

ya know the Colorado looks pretty good on paper. V6 308HP/274TQ, Payload 1532lbs, Towing 7000lbs...not leaps and bounds better than a Tacoma, but looks good...and a little cheaper. Roughly the same price as a 4 banger SR, and don't have to deal with the anemic 4 slugger, which only has a 3500 lbs tow rating.

Looking at the Chevy site, can get the new 8 speed tranny...might be able to eek out some fairly decent mpg out of the V6. hmmm...

I passed by a Z71 the other day. Looked pretty nice. I think it had a little lift and 32" tires which gave it a pretty aggressive look. Looking at the specs, do they come stock with 3.42 rear end? I wonder if the 4.10 would eat into MPG. Nice looking truck though.

Friend of mine is a concrete salesman so his truck is mostly highway miles and visiting customers to shake hands. His 2014 F150 with a 5.0 locked up at 25k miles, and his company is crazy about maintenance. Ford warrantied it at least.

From what I've read, Ford warranty Dept had been good to deal with. But any motor can have issues. I wouldn't have problems buying the Coyote V8. I'm sure your friend just had one of the few flawed engines. I still love my twin turbo, though!

 

[east_tn_81]

Don't forget there is the N/A v6 and the smaller 2.7 v6 turbo ford makes. I am not really sure why we all worry about the longevity of turbo engines. Turbos on engines today are built to last. They usually produce low boost have ceramic bearings better oiling system and a great cooling system. This usually translate to much longer turbo and engine life.

 

[D45]

Doing that many miles a year, would probably go with an Ecodiesel. [/IMG]


Too bad their towing and payload ratings are horrible with the Ecodiesel

I am sure the Frontier will have better specs in this department

The MPGs are impressive, most claim 22-27 real world.......my Ecoboost is horrible in the MPG department (13-15.5)

EcoBoost
3.5L V6 213 cid
365 HP @ 5,000
420 TQ @2,500
------------------------

Ecodiesel:
3.0L V6 182 cid
240 HP @ 3600
420 lb-ft @ 2000

 

[D45]

Are you dead set on a new vehicle?

Find a used F-150 FX4 with the Max Tow (12.100 pounds) and Max Payload (2,600) pounds packages, either with the 5.0 or the 3.5

5.0L V8 302cid
360 HP @ 5,000
380 TQ @ 4,200

3.5L V6 213 cid
365 HP @ 5,000
420 TQ @2,500

I drove in a friends GMC with the 5.3 and it was underpowered, another friend has a 6.2 in his half ton and its a beast, but cant clear 12 mpg

Tundra trucks are also nice, but in the Crew Max the bed size kills it for me

 

[D45]

If you don't pull or carry a camper get the V-8.
Non-turbo should be more problem free over the years and yes the modern V-8's last a long time. Maintenance is indeed less. Oil,filter,trans fluid service,air filters,brakes and plugs every 100K.
I've ridden in Ford F-150 3.5 turbo. They're rocket ships with decent fuel economy but I know those turbos are going to be an issue down the line.
A 1/2 ton should serve you well

Too bad the Ecoboost eats stock Iridiums, that should last 100k........20k seems to me the norm

 

[Clutch]

I passed by a Z71 the other day. Looked pretty nice. I think it had a little lift and 32" tires which gave it a pretty aggressive look. Looking at the specs, do they come stock with 3.42 rear end? I wonder if the 4.10 would eat into MPG. Nice looking truck though.

The owner of a shipping/mail box store up the road from us has a CCLB, I keep on looking at it when I drive past, dropped some stuff off the other day, parked the Tacoma beside it, it isn't all that much bigger than the Taco by eyeballing it.

Yeah, guessing 4:10's would eat into the mileage...my Tacoma with 190HP/220TQ with stock gearing handles 32's just fine (think there are 4:10's in it) the Chevy with so much more power on tap should be able to handle 32's and 3:42's no problem.

Too bad their towing and payload ratings are horrible with the Ecodiesel

The MPGs are impressive, most claim 22-27 real world.......my Ecoboost is horrible in the MPG department (13-15.5)

EcoBoost
3.5L V6 213 cid
365 HP @ 5,000
420 TQ @2,500
------------------------

Ecodiesel:
3.0L V6 182 cid
240 HP @ 3600
420 lb-ft @ 2000

Yeah, I don't know why Ram specced it with such poor capacities, seems like that engine should be able to handle more...420 lbs/tq can yank around a lot.

Have a client with the 3.5 Eco, can't get any better than 14 mpg out of it, he downsized from a 2500 Cummins, said he likes the Eco Ford much better, tired of messing with diesels. Most of my moto friends are going back to gas after owning diesels. Gas is a lot less fussy.

Coming from a Tacoma, I could make the Ecodiesel work...payload and towing isn't all that much different than what I have now. Wouldn't want to own it out of warranty though...under my thumb I would out of warranty in 3 years. I see expensive repairs in its future. I don't think the Ram is like Toyotas, where you can run those up to 200-300K without much fuss. Have 338,000 on mine...still on the original engine and trans. having such a bomber truck, it makes it hard for me to buy anything else other than Toyota. Though the Chevy Colorado has peaked my interest, just too bad you can't get a manual trans in the 4WD V6. Autos are more expensive to repair out of warranty, one of several reasons why I don't want an auto. (I like to get 15 years/300K out of my vehicles, so I look long term when considering a vehicle) Obviously I am due for a new one, can't find exactly what I want...every manufacture seems to miss the mark here and there. No manuals available in the 1/2 tons or Colorado. The Tacoma SR 4 banger is the closest, but the engine is a bit under powered for being loaded down. To get the V6 and a manual in the ACLB you have to buy the Sport...which is about $7-8K more than I want to spend. Really don't want to spend any more than $25K for a silly truck. Eats into my travel and dirt bike hobby budget.

 

[D45]

Have a client with the 3.5 Eco, can't get any better than 14 mpg out of it, he downsized from a 2500 Cummins, said he likes the Eco Ford much better, tired of messing with diesels. Most of my moto friends are going back to gas after owning diesels. Gas is a lot less fussy.

My previous truck was a 2004 Dodge Ram 3500 (SRW) Quad Cab, 4x4 with the long bed......and a Cummins diesel

With 4.10s, I ran a 6" lift with 37s and was able to get 16.5-18 mpg all day long

My Ecoboost has 3.73s, 2" lift and 34s.........I vary from 13-15.5

I do miss the diesel, greatly.........however, I did not need it

 

[Clutch]

My previous truck was a 2004 Dodge Ram 3500 (SRW) Quad Cab, 4x4 with the long bed......and a Cummins diesel

With 4.10s, I ran a 6" lift with 37s and was able to get 16.5-18 mpg all day long

My Ecoboost has 3.73s, 2" lift and 34s.........I vary from 13-15.5

I do miss the diesel, greatly.........however, I did not need it

Said he liked the Cummins better for pulling his TT, but after a couple expensive repairs, and general maintenance is more, he is over it. He was daily driving it too, the Ford is a much more mild mannered for a daily.

About the only thing I find appealing about the Ram Ecodiesel is the mileage, don't need that much torque for my needs. See a bunch of expensive repairs down the road when I look at them.