I’m guessing you test drove a 4-cylinder S-10 . . . ?
we still have a few 2003 4-cylinder S-10 trucks in our fleet
they can’t get out of their own way
The Rangers of the time were FAR better trucks, in my opinion
3 Likes
Funny thing, I’ve been looking at small trucks recently and the best gas milage I’ve found in compact trucks is the Nissan Frontier at 24 MPG highway. The Ford F-150 has a model that gets 26 MPG highway.
1 Like
I had a 1964 Dodge A100 van with the 170cc slant-6 engine. It only had 101 horsepower. I drove it all through the mountains of Colorado for several years, often filled with people or stuff.
It may not have been the fastest, but it easily got the job done wherever I took it.
1 Like
It would be impossible for it to pass crash standards, emissions requirements, and it lacks a ton of required stuff like ABS, TPMS, ESP, rearview cameras, airbags, etc.
That’s why it only costs $9000 and not $19,000.
5 Likes
I’m sure it holds its own, speed wise, compared to some of the other vehicles I saw when I was in China in 2008:
1 Like
Still I kinda like my $1000 trailer. Neighbor and I were hauling landscape rocks. I had my trailer and he borrowed a 1/2 ton pick-up. I would normally haul about 1800# with easy shoveling from the low bed into the wheel barrow. He put about 1500# in the truck and it about squatted on the driveway. Plus a pain in the neck shovel from that high. If you need something to haul furniture, lumber, ladders, rock and so on, hard to beat a trailer.
2 Likes
Dad has the same design as the Harbor Freight trailer, only it was $200 for the kit 20yrs ago, we had 1,000lbs of gravel in the box with no problems.
There’s absolutely a market for something like this because I’d love to have one!
A light duty, no frills, actual “work” truck without having to worry about scratching the paint and newer than an old Ranger.
The original VW Beetles and Vans only had 40 HP but were cheap, could do most of what you needed to do and VW sold a boatload of them
You lost even more than you indicated. The inflation rate in 1974 was 12.34%. In constant dollars normalized to 1975, you lost over $19. 
2 Likes
Depends what you’re doing with it and what the torque figures are. When I was a kid we had a 110hp full sized van that we drove around in the Rockies. It worked fine. I mean, it wasn’t gonna win a hill climb or anything, and you had to put it in D2 to keep it from hunting on the really steep stuff, but it got us up to our house on top of the mountain every day, no problem. I suspect this truck won’t go anywhere up hill fast, but it should be able to do it.
I kinda love the fold down bed sides. That’d come in really handy for hauling plywood, etc.
1 Like
First truck I ever drove was probably a 50’s IHC, manual trans, trips to the post office for work, In town the thing was a haul master, I don’t know it could have gone more than 65 on the highway
I would buy this in a heartbeat. This is what like. Bare bones, no frills cheap work truck. I bought an F150 last year and I hate it. It’s a chore to park, need an acre to make a uturn and very difficult to load and unload cargo due to the bed height. I still drive my S10 every day. I haul cargo every day in mine, not baby seats. Give me something practical.
1 Like
Those trucks were known for top speed of 45 MPH and also for taking 40 acres to turn around.
2 Likes
Home depot rents flatbeds for $20 for the day to their customers here in south Jersey.
1 Like
More needs than just the Home depot trip, enough that a rental won’t quire work.
@jtsanders “You lost even more than you indicated”.
Thanks for the information. I may start a “Go Fund Me” page to make up for my loss. I may have written the $5 off on my taxes for depreciation on that old truck.
Back in those days, a half ton Studebaker truck came with a 169 cubic inch flathead 6 engine. One option available was the Borg Warner overdrive. I wonder how the gas mileage on that truck would compare with today’s half ton trucks.
1 Like
For goodness’ sake . . . !
Sure, there’s “a market” for that truck here in the USA
But not enough of a market for GM to ever consider selling it here
And . . . as others have already said . . . there’s no way in heck the truck can meet our safety standards and still be dirt cheap at the same time
4 Likes
Well no wonder I’m destitute in my old age. I paid $275 for my 59 Pontiac and sold it for $120 three years later. I never recovered.
The family broke even on the early 60’s Dodge D100 that Dad purchased in 1975 or so for $300 and sold it in 1980 for $300, Mom figures the scrap value hadn’t changed much but she just really wanted it out of our driveway. Had a purpose when they were building their own house and moving in but was rusty with not much left of the floor.
The first car my parents had in the early 50s was a pre-war Chevy. It was mechanically in reasonable condition but the floor of the trunk was totally rusted out and gone. Open the trunk and see through to the ground. Don’t know what they paid for it but after a few years Dad sold it for about what he’d paid.
In the mid 70s my brother bought a Very Worn Beetle for $80. The seat covers were worn through to, I kid you not, straw ticking for the seat “cushions” such he used folded old towels for seat covers. The ignition switch didn’t work so to start and stop the engine he twisted hot wires under the dash. I don’t recall all its other luxury features aside from its paint color best described as sun blistered, faded, and missing. He drove it some two or three years before selling it after his foot went through the rusted floorboard, for $110, making a $30 profit.
1 Like