SultanOfSwing

That is a nice car.

My dad had a Mk.2, but it was just a Popular Plus .

markonline1

Even me, Mr Anti Truck think the Ranger is a good vehicle (for a work vehicle). We had em at work. We then changed to L200's. The ranger was far better in my opinion, felt far more solid!

Bob

They're shit, especially if you're hauling stuff.

Chevy Silverado is nice, especially on the rough stuff. Ford F-150 is a lot of fun too.

Bob

The GMC rebadged Silverado is another good option.

The light array isn't as good though, so not as much fun putting in extra lights like moose lights and the off road package isn't usually as good by default.

Cape Blue

I had a couple of Mk1 Mexicos in my early career - second one caught fire as I was driving home from work one day - fuel pipe steel insert pulled out of the carb body and sprayed the engine - had to coast to the side of the road and get out of the passenger side (fuel pipe on fire under the drivers side, flames licking up the door).

Shame, it was a great car, I had got it in a part-ex for a really rough Mk2 RS2000 ex-rally car I had been hacking around the woods in for the previous year.

TimNiceBut

Most of them have their quirks, the smaller ones like the Toyota T100/Ranger & Mazda B2000/B3000/whateverthechevyiscalled tend to drive a little more car like, the bigger ones - especially older ones - a bit more agricultural.

The big question is - Diesel or Petrol? With a Diesel you're stuck with 3/4 ton and up full size trucks. Enginewise, with the Diesels it is Cummins (Dodge) > Ford (6.9 and especially the various 7.3s) > GM. Forget the GM 6.2 if you ever want to get anywhere that's not in walking distance, they're that slow. The later 6.5TD isn't a bad engine but requires certain maintenance that people often don't do (like new harmonic balancers every 100k or the crank snaps).

Petrol, I'd go GM or Ford - I've had a GMC in the past, but I probably go look for a Ford next for "hauling stuff to the dump and the track car to the track duty".

TBH I'd shop for the best pickup in your price range and don't get hung up on a brand. Most of the ones in that price range are pretty long in tooth. Oh, and I'd also try to get one with a shell, that makes them much more practical.

Pulaski

It's funny what model names get used. I can't see Ford, or any other manufacturer, badging a car "Mexico" and expecting it to sell in the US. ..... I can't help but wonder what HO in Detroit thought when the UK operation said, "Hey, we have this great plan to sell an up-rated Escort, and we're going to call it the 'Mexico' ".

I think the look of the MK1 Mexico has improved with age, because back in the 70's I preferred the look of the MK2 RS2000, but I'd happily take either now.

SultanOfSwing

Wasn't it named after a rally though?

Pulaski

What's a rally?

(Yes, it was.)

Boomhauer

I'm lookin at getting a 2nd hand crewcab dually diesel Ram, primarily for hauling and towing a gooseneck. I want a Ram for the Cummins engine, which is the best diesel engine by far in a fullsize pickup.

Bob

It's still a Dodge....which is still a piece of shit.

Engine might be nice but it doesn't help when the tranny, or everything else about it falls apart when you're hauling more than a pair of lawn chairs :/

Where FIL works, they're finally getting rid of the last Ram. They had a small fleet due to getting a good deal and the best one of 5 lasted 30K miles before the engine fell out of the rest, one's had a engine replaced or partially rebuilt twice and couple others have gone through at least a pair of trannys and they're all spent as almost as much time in the shop as on the road and they're not even 4 years old, well maybe close to 5 now.

They were all used for hauling heavy gear and off road wood tracks.

What's popular with the woodsmen out there, Chevy/GMC and Ford, mostly because of cost of maintenance and number of dealers but the ones who have Toyota say good things about them, but the dealer is a ways out for most of the crew and Nissan/Mazda/Honda get laughed at.

Edit: Having driven a mix of the works trucks to go get FIL on a few occasions and taken a ride while he's towing things...Dodge was also the least comfy by a country mile, the bog standard F-150 was a nice ride on the rough but not as comfy hauling in nit and FIL's Chevy isn't a fair comparison as it's fully loaded and has a bit of custom work, but it does feel a hell of a lot better than most, but even his old Silverado wasn't a slouch. Not been in the GMC off road, but on it, it's just like the Silverado.

Cape Blue

Between that fire and a tree landing on my MGB 3 years later, it was an amusing few years on the car front.

Bob

Lick of paint will buff that right out

dakota44

I spent enough time with Chrysler to know that Rams are nowhere near the top of the heap. The Cummins is great, but as you say, most of the other bits are crap. Also know too many people who have had serious issues with Chevs and I wouldn't touch one with my money. Ford is fine. For towing, I love the Tundra 5.7L. Hauls with no effort and very reliable. Compared to the Fords and Chevs of a 3 years ago, head and shoulders above them. Hell, the back brakes on a Tundra were bigger than the front brakes on a Ford. All around it had much better bits. Can't speak for the newer Fords or Chevs.

Boomhauer

The Ram I want is a 3500 year 2006 or 2007 , with less than 160K. On Ebay most of the Rams of similar vintage and mileage are around 18K and over (with a Cummins). I'd imagine they must be decent trucks to still command that price.

The Ram trucks that you hear about and have expereince with, are they 1500, 2500 or 3500?

I am only lookin at a 3500 dually 4x4 because I need the hauling capacity of the 3500.

Don't want the Cummins 6.7L cause it is reputed to be less fuel efficient than the 5.9L due to emissions add on equipment. Would get a Ford but their diesels aren't as fuel efficient especially under heavy load . Both the Ford and GM diesels were desgined for consumer use while the Cummins was designed for commerical/industrial applications from the start.