Hi guys. I'm going to be getting a bike relatively soon

Dirtbike I assume? Ranger is always a good buy, get 4x4 though if you're riding anywhere on private property, entrances usually become mud pits.

"small trucks" get shit MPG too
its a secret nobody tells you until you buy one and get 10mpg city
no joke

unless the truck is from 2008 and beyond its only going to get maybe around 15mpg city

just buy a cheap fullsized suv, then buy a bike trailer

If your real concern is mileage. Then find an '87 Isuzu p'up with the diesel and feed it waste oils.

Otherwise all the small trucks of similar ages are similarly bad or good in mileage.

Ideally you'd just grab a trailer to stick on the back of your Mazda 3

>>17548397

What people don't realise is that when you get 8 MPG in a full size that it is a 20% difference.

A 2 mpg difference isn't relatable when the difference is at 30mpg or 10mpg

>>17548397
What small trucks are you driving?

>>17548323
A duratec 2.3 ranger (2003+) should average mid 20s mpg and have acceptable performance.

>>17548410
4.0 rangers get the same mileage as modern full size half tons with 100 less horsepower

>>17548323

Generally small trucks will get shit gas mileage relative to their capacity, I've got a 4cyl 2wd 1996 Tacoma and I get around 30-32 Highway and 20-25 city with no cap depending on how I drive, now keep in mind that's according to an OBD2 reader so I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is.

That's also with a manual and I coast in neutral frequently so the city mileage will drop significantly if you don't or you go with an autotragic, I also suspect that adding a cap improves the aerodynamics significantly, but I've only got base points with the truck heavily loaded on the highway which resulted in around 30ish highway.

>>17548677
honestly, i keep seeing this. and other than the low weight, low profile, and it being slightly narrower, why do people still want 4.0 Rangers (the only rangers worth getting nowadays).

Their fuel economy is horrid!

>>17548778
That's good enough for me. do you like it overall?

>>17548778
The new Colorado with the 8 speed and V6 or the diesel get pretty good real world mpg's. A tiny engine working hard to drag around a truck is going to use more fuel than a V6 just chilling.

whats your budget? If used go with a ford ranger or tacoma. Other wise if new look at the chevy colorado or tacoma. All these trucks will get shit gas mileage unless you go with the 4 cylinder 2wd models.

>>17548797
I get 14.5 just pure city driving with my 99 4.0. 5 speed 4x4 ranger and just under 20 mpg highway. Pretty happy with it, it's been a good reliable truck for the past 3 years I've owned it.

File: rid56823_r1_800.jpg (128KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 800x600px

Bike trailers start at 200 bucks, brah.

>inb4 boohoo it's not rated for towing in the US
Europe rates it for 1200 lbs unbraked and 2600 - 4000 lbs braked depending on engine. You're gonna be fine with 500 lbs behind it.

>>17550141
Just make sure the tongue weight (i.e. the weight pushing down on the trailer hitch) stays below 150 lbs, that's the limit Europe has set.

>>17550067
Prob 5k.
and by bike I meant motorcycle. I guess I should have said that originally