Once upon a time, pretty much all pickup trucks had two doors, and only one row of seats. Then a few manufacturers started offering “crew cab” trucks, with a second pair of doors and a rear seat, but you still didn’t see very many of them; they were mostly used as work trucks, and therefore held actual crews, not families. Nowadays, that situation has reversed: four-door trucks are the default, and if you want a single-cab, you have to go talk to the fleet sales manager, and you’ll probably only be able to get it in white.
Today we’re going to look at a couple of small trucks (and yes, I’m being generous with the term “truck” in one case) from during the changeover years. They represent very different ways of going about it, but functionally, they both serve more or less the same purpose: they’re built for daily car duty and occasional truck use. And they both have somewhat weird engines for trucks.
But before we look at those, let’s get Friday’s foregone conclusion out of the way. The old Forest Service Dodge won easily. Of course it did. It was up against a Corvette with no title and two other junkers that didn’t even run. Yeah, it’s more expensive than any of them, but it’s also the only complete, viable vehicle that you could buy, drive home, and put straight into service. And it’s by far the coolest looking of the bunch.
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s look at a truck, and a vaguely truck-shaped object.
2003 Subaru Baja – $4,590
Engine/drivetrain: 2.5-liter OHC flat 4, four-speed automatic, AWD
Location: Urbana, IL
Odometer reading: 222,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
We’ve all seen one at some point: Someone has an old station wagon, and something compels them to cut the back portion of the roof off and make it into a truck. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. When the factory does it, you get what we have here. This isn’t the first time Subaru has created a ute from a passenger car, of course: for a decade or so in the 70s and 80s, it offered the BRAT, a clumsy acronym for “Bi-Drive Recreational All-Terrain Transport.” In Australia (and other places as well, I think?) it was called the Brumby, which I always thought was a friendlier name. For this second offering, Subaru named its ute the Baja, after part of Mexico, or maybe after the famous race that’s held there, or maybe a flavor of Mountain Dew. I’m not entirely sure.
The Baja’s platform and basic mechanical spec was the same as the Outback, which in 2003 meant a 2.5 liter version of Subaru’s famous flat-four, driving all four wheels through, in this case, a four-speed automatic. I know; I’d rather have a manual too. Like the Outback, it doesn’t really have much off-road capability unless you jack it up, but like any AWD Subaru, it’s a beast in the snow. This one runs and drives well, the seller says, with well over 200,000 miles to its name.
It’s pretty much an Outback on the inside as well, except for the rear end. The Baja’s seats fold down, and a little hatch can be opened to stick long stuff through from the bed. The rear window is fixed, so it’s not as versatile as the “midgate” on a Chevy Avalanche, which opens up completely, but it’s enough of a pass-through for lumber or an IKEA Billy bookcase or something. This one is in good condition inside, with only a little wear and tear, and the seller says the air conditioning is nice and cold.
The early 2000s were the era of silver lower cladding, and I never thought I’d miss it, but it looks so much more interesting than today’s flat-black fender bulges. It makes a nice contrast against this Baja’s yellow paint, too. The only problem is that the cladding can hide rust, which is a concern in central Illinois. You’d be wise to take a peek underneath and make sure it’s all ship-shape.
2005 Chevrolet Colorado LS – $3,000
Drivetrain: 3.5-liter DOHC inline 5, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Chicago, iL
Odometer reading: 166,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
General Motors product lines rarely stay in production for the correct amount of time. They either get canceled right when they start to get good, like the Corvair and the Fiero, or they cling to life for far too long, until they are hopelessly outclassed by their competitors, like the Cavalier, and this truck’s predecessor, the S-10. The Colorado and GMC Canyon were a clean-sheet design, hoping to claw back some sales from Toyota and Nissan, which both offered trucks that made the S-10 look like an ox cart.
Not only were the chassis and body new, but the engines were as well. GM finally put the old 2.2 and 4.3 liter engines out to pasture in favor of its new “Atlas” inline engines, available with either four or five cylinders. This one has the five-cylinder, an odd choice for a truck; the only other five-cylinder truck I can think of is the old Mercedes Unimog. (If you know of another, please mention it in the comments.) It puts out more power than the old 4.3 V6, but less torque, and drives the rear wheels through GM’s 4L60-E automatic. The seller claims in the ad that this one is 4WD, but I doubt it; it doesn’t sit high enough, and I see no sign of a transfer case lever or a button on the dash.
This is right before trucks started to get fancy inside. It has power windows and air conditioning and whatnot, but other than that it’s pretty basic. It’s also refreshingly open and airy compared to modern interiors. Where did all that space go? It’s in good condition for the mileage, though it looks like a clip or two is missing from the center dash trim. But it wouldn’t be a GM product if every piece of plastic was properly aligned.
Outside, it looks pretty good, except for a slightly bent rear bumper and one missing rear door handle. It also looks like it used to have a tonneau cover; the frame is still there, but the cover itself is gone. And I just noticed some brackets hanging down on the sides – maybe it had running boards at one time as well? Strange that they would take all that stuff off. It’s probably a good idea to do a rust check on this one, too.
This is another one of those situations where your intended use will probably make the choice for you. If you want a commuter, the Baja and its higher fuel economy is probably the better choice. If you want to pull a little travel trailer, you’ll probably want the torquier, body-on-frame Colorado. Or, as always, you can just choose which one you like better. I’ll leave it up to you.
The Baja just looks like more fun to drive.
Well, this was easy…Colorado! Since it’s not an…ugly Baja. Even though I don’t like the headlight setup on the Colorado, I still like it as a very useful truck. It’s in pretty decent/clean shape. I’ll enjoy putting it to work
Yes, you can slide Billy bookcases thought the door in the Baja. However you can also load the bed with 4×8 sheets of plywood, and an 8 foot couch. Yes, they are “in he bed” but of course also on the “roll bar”. The 4x8s you slide up and over the gate, then they against the gate opening, not even against the gate. The couch, we.. That was interesting. I mean the wife really wanted that couch. So I just kept pushing until I could close the gate and ratchet strapped it down (yes I pulled on the straps and said “that’s not going anywhere”). I regularly load way more into her little Baja than the average Ramsuperdutysilverado in the Home Depot parking lot. Oh and I generally smoke them at stoplights too.
Actually when I’m doing a Lowes run the amount I load is based more on who or if I have helping me unload it. From a pallet of cement mix to 1800 sq ft of vinyl flooring I learned just because a forklift can load it in 2 minutes doesn’t mean it won’t take two days for me to unload it
The baja is infinitely cooler and I always wanted an STI swapped one until I found out how unreliable the boxer engine is
Early on, the Colorado had a sporty variant (probably a GM three digit option code) that gave you a sporty, manual transmission available version of this truck. Personally I was going to buy it with the extended cab, I-5, and manual transmission in yellow. By the time I was ready to buy a newer car, I was able to get a low mileage 2004 RX-8 for less than a new Colorado.
An Internet friend had the exact truck I wanted, and it was indeed a fun driver to the point that he did some autocross and track work with it. It was slightly down on power compared to the Tacoma X-Runner, but had a similar power-to-weight ratio.
Unfortunately, it sounded like the I-5 had some oiling issues at high lateral g-forces, and he had an engine failure. Not sure if it was still under warranty, but either way, it soured him on the Colorado and he moved on to an actual sports car. It’s a shame that GM didnt consider that a sporty street truck could be used in such a manner, as it was one of the cheapest ways at the time to get a sporty RWD vehicle.
I figure that swapping in an LS and a six speed manual these days would make the most sense. I do like these as they’re the last of what I’d consider compact trucks vs. midsize like the current small trucks. This was codeveloped with Isuzu and so is in some sense the last Japanese-ish truck sold here as well.
Edit: It was the ZQ8 package, and it lasted long enough to get the 5.3L, albeit automatic-only. A manual swap should be a no-brainer for these.
“We’ve all seen one at some point: Someone has an old station wagon, and something compels them to cut the back portion of the roof off and make it into a truck.”
It’s not only limited to wagons, though. I recently saw a 7th gen Accord with the mini truck treatment
Just take the trunk lid off and car and bolt in a claw foot tub and shazam you got yourself a one off Ute.
They both deserve a spot in the shitbox showdown due to condition and price.
Both perfect cars for the buy here pay here lot.
The same buy here pay here lot that’s Owned by a cigar smoking guy who just came from the copart auction where he was trying to buy a used Nissan NYC taxi as he heard that they were great reliable cars to drive across the country in.
The GM 5-cylinder.
All the power of a 4-cylinder, and the fuel consumption of a 6-cylinder engine.
I’ve heard it was reliable, though.
That Baja is definitely rusty
I am surprised the buy here steal here dealer showed the Dry rotted tire on the Banana. I would also be seriously concerned about rot hidden under that plastic. the Baja’s seem to look great up close and then when lifted up to inspect, you seem to want to not take the risk of ducking under to check the holes in the rear near the suspension mounting points. But if those are all well, I would probably still take the nana split in this case.
Like so many others, if the Chevy was a 4×4 I’d probably go for it, but since it isn’t, the Subaru is the choice. Plus, living in the epicenter of Subaru popularity, not only can I throw a stick and hit 5 specialized Subaru mechanics, but I’d get all kinds of envious glances rolling in a Baja.
If the Subaru had less mileage, had the manual or was selling for the same price, I would have picked it.
But I went with the Colorado because of the lower price, lower mileage and I’d rather have that Atlas I5 than the ‘worry about the headgaskets’ Subaru H4.
Strangely Head Gasket Failure on the Atlas is pretty common, but not as meme worthy I guess.
it wasn’t as popular so it never got much traction. Moreover it was only common on the 3.5 which was only offered on 2004 to 2006 MY. The 3.7 was much improved in that regard. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 3.7 with HG issues.
JDE,
I see a lot of issues with the VW Atlas using coolant and having head gasket issues but haven’t run across a Chevy I5 yet but that certainly doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue .
I was going to pick the Colorado, but since it’s rear wheel drive, not great in snow, I decided to go with the Baja. Of course with that milage and it being in Illinois, a rust check would be mandatory since they are known to have significant rust issues.
Baja is cooler, but not cool enough to be cool on its own. It’s only slightly cooler than an Outback (IMHO). It’s not cool enough to justify the fun car spot in the garage. It’s also not truck-useful enough to justify having it around for utilitarian reasons.
I’m going with the Chevy to use for truck things.
I have a car and an SUV already, so I could actually use a truck.
Have an Outback and I need a truck so I went Chevy.
Exactly the opposite for me. I have an old pickup for truck things, so picked the Baja. Plus, it looks great in yellow.
Subaru. I don’t really need a truck, so it would handle my rare large-cargo needs, it gets better mileage, and it would fit more easily into my (narrow) driveway.
That Colorado is indeed 2WD – the shift buttons for the 4×4 would be in the black plastic on the center stack between the radio and the air vents.
I like the Colorado, but I also have a soft spot for the Baja. Were the Colorado a 4×4 it would get my vote, but today I am going with the Subie even though there is a 95% chance it is pure rust underneath. Today’s vote is pure emotion, no logic.
Years ago we test drove a used Baja. I really wanted to buy it, the the previous owner smoked (not entirely sure what) in it, and it stank so bad we had to pass. Ended up with a Sport Trac, which got worse gas mileage and had a less useful bed (no pass thru).
I went with the Subie, for what might have been.
The address for the Colorado is smack in the Oakwoods cemetery. Not sure if that’s a testament to the truck or the owner, who insists we CALL HIM ARNOLD
Too many miles for that price on the Baja. I would prefer the Baja over the Colorado though.
I really want to vote Subaru,but it’s too expensive I think and the Colorado is more truck.
Without seeing underneath I went with the Colorado, even if that bed is rusted away under that drop in liner the chances of the Baja being rusted so bad it can’t even be jacked up are even higher.
I had an onsite customer who had a Baja in exactly the same color. He took me out to lunch one and I couldn’t scoot the seat far back enough to get comfortably seated. And it’s not like my legs are that long–32″ inseam.
I like the way the Colorado looks better, but I’ve never been in one. But it gets my vote, at least pre-test drives.
Were Audi 5-cylinders only SOHC?
Both seem like decent choices. For voting purposes I went with the Chevy; it is the more useful vehicle and is cheaper. The Baja is cool, though.
Yet again half of the comments are implying these vehicles are going to be rusted to oblivion since they are located in the midwest. I lived in the midwest for 25 years and I never had problems with severe rust, even with older cars. Maybe this doesn’t exist elsewhere, but in the midwest they have this fabulous invention called a “carwash” which is exactly what it sounds like (i.e. you take your car there and the car is washed using water, soap, and other cleaning products – the fancier ones will wash it for you, and in many cases, dry it). You can avoid severe rust by washing your car semi-regularly during the winter. It worked great for me and, given the fact that I rarely saw cars that had major structural rust, it appears to work for most other people as well. These vehicles might be the rare exception that are rusted beyond repair, but they probably aren’t.
While I think it can certainly help, I think there is a lot of other factors. Vehicle, driving conditions, weather conditions, water draining based on vehicle design, local municipalities use of sand vs gravel, etc. I tried clean the bottom of my vehicles too but the rust still prevailed. Unfortunately I think the factors weighing against you typically win. Really, as soon as any opening in the rust prevention (ED coat, paint, etc) is there, even keeping salt out won’t stop the rust.
I can only speak from my experience, but I just haven’t seen rust as a major issue for almost any car built after 2000 or so (I have definitely seen 90s and earlier vehicles that had severe rust after less than 10 years). Also, I don’t think I have ever seen a car that looked good inside and out (like today’s vehicles) that had major structural rust. I’m sure severe rust happens on modern vehicles, but it isn’t so common that I would avoid a midwestern car. Obviously, though, I thoroughly inspect any car I buy irrespective of its place of origin.
I agree it depends on where you drive, though. For whatever reason, I have seen a lot of new-ish Michigan vehicles with severe rust. I don’t know what they use on the roads there, but I regularly saw severely rusted vehicles when I lived in Detroit. I currently live over a thousand miles from Michigan, but even here probably 7 of 10 rusty vehicles I see have Michigan plates.
I live in the upper Midwest, and while my cars don’t have rust since none of my cars are ever old enough, I still see plenty of badly rusted cars on the road. Mostly Subarus and domestic pickups. I have seen multiple Colorado’s that have body/bed mounts rusted out, so they sag, and the whole thing looks like it has its back broken. Lots of Subaru Outbacks with huge rust holes and cladding hanging off. Any pre-Aluminum Ford, pre-2015 GM truck, and almost any RAM will have at least some rust. Almost any truck more than 10-15 years old could easily have cab corners, rockers, and rear wheel wells with big holes.
One thing that might account for some of the differences in our observations. The first is what the local area applies to the roads, along with the road surface. All the folks I know who spend any time on gravel roads have their cars disintegrate quickly. The same surfaces that are hit with water and ice are also hit with stones, and the combination is destructive.
I’m in MA, and just this morning I saw a 2015-2019 era Silverado with rust bubbling on the rear fenders. For that reason alone, the only fullsize truck I would consider buying is a F150.
Earlier this summer I found a spot of rust coming out from under the fender flare on the front pass side of my 2013 4Runner. You can’t have anything nice around here. Luckily the rear fenders and doglegs are still rust free, and a color matched front fender is only 400 bucks. I think some grit got between the flare and paint and chaffed the paint.
That sounds familiar. An aluminum-bodied Ford with the 5.0 is likely the best bet for a full-size domestic truck. While it is completely anecdotal, I have noticed that Toyotas seem to do a bit better as well. I wonder if they made significant changes after the rust recall debacle.
Toyota does pretty good with their bodies, but the frames have been a tough spot. Supposedly the new TNGA trucks are supposed to be better.
My buddy has a 2018 F150, his chassis is surprisingly clean, much cleaner than my 4Runner’s was when it was that age.
We bought our current home in the midwest specifically because it had room for 5 (now 6) vehicles and it was a block away from a car wash.
2 years after we moved in, the car wash broke and was shut down.
The owner claimed it would cost more than he would ever recoup to bring it up to required EPA water-recycling standards.
The next closest car wash is 6 miles away, but those are 6 salt-covered highway miles from November through April.
So now the rockers on my GMC Canyon are more than half eaten away by cancer. It was a 5-year-old rust-free California truck when I bought it 10 years ago.