So I have a first gen Tundra (extended cab) which I use for work.

>>16299082

>Rangers are rust buckets, unreliable, and with shoddy automatic transmissions. Not to mention small and uncomfortable

Correct on all counts. Also all the small controls/knobs/door handles like to break.

If you don't need a ton of space and/or don't haul large awkward objects, get a ford transit, one of the dinky ones.

>>16299082
what do you haul?

>>16299082
why was a ranger your first thought and not a taco
downsize to that or a mitsubishi raider if it could be within your budget

I have a 2006 Ford Ranger XLT. So far my only issue I've had by far was the A/C going out which was a common issue on this year Ranger. I also am just about the same height as you, the truck has decent amount of leg room but too comfy if you ride in there too long, to me personally. Although if you might buy a Ranger, I don't know what adventures await you with it since your experiences may differ. But if your feeling uncertain about buying one, I would recommend looking at other pickups. Probably a half ton V6 pickup if fuel consumption and a lack of leg room is sort of an issue.

>>16299150
>too comfy if you ride in there too long
Damn phone.. I meant to say NOT too comfy

>>16299135

I do need space, but I can do with less
Not many Transits around here (rural Ontario), the ones I see for sale are pricey. Might test drive one to see

>>16299142
Tools, jugs, cans, ladders. The occasional passenger

>>16299148
old Tacomas are rare around here b/c of the recall.

>>16299150
You can find a lot of second hand trucks around here but most have been abused by farm boys

I got this one from an old farmer who maintained in pristine condition so yeah.....muh ToyYoda reliability meme asides, what other V6 trucks are as bulletproof as Tundras/Tacomas?

>>16299209
Well I can say for sure really, but my pops did have a Chevy S10 (i think a 1999) for a good while before he replaced it with a Ford F250 SD. What I can tell you is that it survived a good 300k through our abuse. Semi spacious interior, better than the Ranger's. So I would check that out too.

There's also that Dodge Dakota, but I don't know to much about them or Dodges in general. Might have to look up info for that truck

>>16299082
My friend is 6ft 6 and sat in the back of my extended cab ranger for 8 hours yesterday with no issues. Though, he doesn't have to do this every week so that's the other point.
In the front seat, you can definitely be comfortable but you will have some issues with resting your arm unless you have the window down.

Automatic transmission and SOHC issues were a pretty big issue up until 2008 so either get the OHV engine or get the SOHC post 2008. 2.3 only if you need to haul. 4.0 otherwise.
S10 (Colorado / Canyon) might be a better idea if you really want the MPGs (due to the Chebby's firing sequences) and if you can find an I-5, that'd be even better.

>>16299135
Rust bucket isn't that big of an deal if you slather it with appropriate grease. The Colorado was worse for rust but you might want to consider a Tacoma.

>>16299209
Where are you in Ontario? I do the haul from London <-> Kingston <-> Timmins every two or three weeks.

>>16299082
Watch out for the 4.0L SOHC with the 4.10 rear axle. I love mine, but it only gets around 17 mpg.

>>16299209
what kind of mpg does the tundra get? V6 rangers get in the teens as well but a 2.3 ranger or b2300 will get mid 20s.

File: y'UMMM.gif (4MB, 394x504px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 394x504px

>>16299410
I'm at 4.10 geared 4.0L SOHC Ranger, too. Gets 20mpg on the highway where I do most of my dribing. 17 mixed sounds about right. I also do a dedicated amount of offroading and the gearing allows me to run 32 duratrecs with ease. It's better than the Bronco or K5 I would've gotten anyway. Though a taco would've been an equal choice, desu.

I think the sport trim gets 3.55 gearing which doesn't allow much offroad but does allow you better fuel economy

Do you have a trucc cap?

>>16299082
keep the Tundra

besides, in a couple of months gas is going to be less than a dollar a gallon

>>16299494
dumb tayposter

File: ranger.jpg (82KB, 922x540px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 922x540px

05 here, does it look like a rust bucket to you?

its a good truck, but my dad is 6'3" and he can barely sit in it because the back of the seat hits the window. if you get an ext or double cab itll be fine

3.0 gets about 22 mpg

>>16299082
>small and uncomfortable
they're decent little trucks and reliable as long as maintained, but you'll need an ext cab ranger just so you can move the seat back, might as well get a civic and a trailer instead

>>16299082
the gas saving isn't much and really if you're used to driving a full sized truck you'll absolutely fucking hate driving something small like a ranger

>>16299373
dakotas will suck more then even the biggest gas truck. nice compromise between a light truck and full size but other then that there's very little good about them. also good luck finding one in Ontario not rusted to fuck

>>16299881
he's in Canada which is currently about $1/L($3.78/gallon) and will go up a good bit over the next few years due to the new carbon tax cash grab

>>16299082
I have an 02 Tundra V8 and have driven many a Ranger.

All I can say is drive around in a Ranger for a few hours then get back in your Tundra. You'll realize that the Rangers are total fucking pieces of shit, even the 2010s.

Keep the Tundra dude, just don't let your timing belt or lower ball joints fail as those are the two meme parts of the truck.