ford ranger or chevy s10? after doing some research in hopes

>>15186406
which years?

The first gen S10 was a utter piece of shit, and the 4cyl ranger won't get you any better mileage than an F150 with a 5.0

>>15186406
S10 lasts a little longer, not by much.
Ranger looks better.
S10 has more aftermarket support.
Ranger clutch feels better.
S10 is wayyy more available.
Ranger has better suspension in terms of ride.

5cyl Colorado

>>15186406
the color of the gloves is backwards

>>15186406
Rangers had some weird electrical issues, but were pretty solid all the way around. Mine liked to cut out the windshield wipers when it was moist out. The 4.0 isn't a bad motor, though. Be warned that the 2wd ones will slide around like no one's business in the snow.
>t. Ranger owner

File: 2016-01-23 17.38.59.jpg (2MB, 1377x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1377x2448px

>>15186406
4.0 gets shitty mileage, but the 4.3 is probably not much better. Both are very reliable, mine has 176k on it and runs perfect. The 5r55e in the newer rangers can be problematic, get a stick.

>>15186406
always look up the TSBs for the year/range you want
if you're too retarded or lazy to look up TSBs, then goto car complaints.com
that site is fairly informative. you wont find 100% of auto issues, but its usually around 70-90%

>>15186433
all colorados are shit

The Ranger is just a better truck all around, make sure you get the v6 though.

>>15186406
Ranger 100%. 1998-2000 were the best years; OHV V6 and improved C3 transmission

I've had multiples of generations of both.
The s10s usually have a bunch of small problems here and there (fuel pumps,idler arms,ect). The rangers usually have more serious problems like the garbage automatics,timing chains and the leaf spring shackles falling apart.

2.3/2.5>2.2
3.0 is fucking trash
4.0<4.3
Ranger interior<s10 interior

the iron duke is probably one of the most reliable and easy to work on engines ever made so...

File: IMG_1936.jpg (2MB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1280px

I like mine though I've never had an S10. IMO only the first generations of either look good.

File: Honda-S2000-2006-c.jpg (303KB, 500x614px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 500x614px

Can never unsee
th-thanks honda

>>15187064
>Ranger interior<s10 interior

this is how I can tell he is lying

>>15186406
I've got a 2000 V6 Ranger XLT. To put it bluntly, this post will be shorter if I list its redeeming qualities rather than what annoys me about it.

>It's simple and cheap to fix
>Small crashes or impacts won't do much to the body since even the bumpers are steel.
>It's so spartan it's idiot-proof.
>Cheap enough that you can beat on it without hesitation or worry.

Basically everything else other than what I listed is terrible. The transmission refuses to stay in gear when you want it (like when you want to, say, keep it in "DRIVE" at 70mph on the highway) and will only upshift after reaching ~3800rpm, which can take quite a while given the lack of power. Almost any steel component you can think of WILL rust. The cheap plastic door handles will break off if you pull them too hard. It is terrible off road, and on inclines. Unless you can get a 4x4 in mint condition, this is a car that may seriously hurt you one day.

An S10 will go to shit all around you but somehow continue to run and drive. Rangers stay mostly nice but avoid the Vulcan engine. Anybody claiming that engine is reliable is falling for memes