Welcome back to another week of questionable automotive decisions! We’re starting off this week with a pair of pickup trucks with unusual numbers of cylinders in their engines. Which oddball makes more sense? That’ll be up to you to decide.
On Friday, I showed you a couple of imports that had been altered from their factory color schemes. I had a feeling that the stripey Toyota Van was going to be hard for you all to resist, and I was right. It won handily. A lot of you liked the idea of the Tracker, but the one-two punch of the Tijuana interior and two-wheel drive ruined its chances.
I actually have no interest in that van, so you all can fight over it. It’s cool to look at, and I’m glad it exists, but I don’t want it. I’d have a lot more fun with the Tracker. And I’m used to 2WD SUVs; we’ve had a couple of them, and for general use, they’re just fine.
For a long time, no matter which manufacturer you went with, your engine choices for a pickup truck were pretty much the same: a standard inline six, or an optional V8. The inline sixes gave way to V6s eventually, not long after small trucks gained popularity, all of which offered a standard inline four or an optional V6. The details and displacements differed, but the formula was pretty much the same across the board. Only occasionally did truck manufacturers mess with this formula; Mazda (in)famously tried to power a small pickup with its rotary engine in the ’70s, but it was another couple of decades before anybody else tried anything weird with truck engine configurations. We’re going to look at a couple of those weirdos of the truck world, and see which one makes a better cheap truck today.
1996 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT Laramie – $2,999
Engine/drivetrain: 8.0-liter OHV V10, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Joliet, IL
Odometer reading: 245,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Dodge’s all-new Ram pickups made a big stir when they came out in 1994. No one had seen anything quite like them, and they arguably set the stage for today’s enormous family-toting crew-cab trucks. Advertised as being not only more comfortable and civilized than earlier trucks, but also damn near indestructible (even tornado-proof), Dodge had a hit on its hands with the new trucks. This is one of more than 400,000 of its kind sold in 1996.
Most of the Ram’s engines were carryovers from the old bodystyle, including the LA-series V8s and the popular Cummins diesel inline six, but Dodge had something bigger on offer as well: a V10 engine, displacing a frankly ridiculous 488 cubic inches. This is not the Viper V10, by the way, even though it’s the same size; this one is cast-iron and tuned for torque rather than high-RPM horsepower – note the low redline on the tach. Fuel economy, as you might imagine, is not its strong suit, but if you need to pull a big-ass trailer, this is the right tool for the job. This one is approaching a quarter-million miles, but its seller says it still runs just fine.
If you were used to the trucks of the ’80s, sitting in a mid-’90s Ram was a revelation. It was more like a contemporary Chrysler LeBaron inside than a typical truck, with comfy seats, a car-like dashboard, and all the creature comforts. They held up pretty well inside, too. This one looks great for its mileage, but there is an extra cushion on the driver’s seat that might be hiding some wear.
It’s a little rough outside. White paint in the mid-1990s wasn’t fond of staying on the cars to which it was applied, and had a tendency to come off in sheets like this. It mainly happened to horizontal surfaces like this truck’s hood. The seller says it has “minimum rust,” which I suppose it does, by Chicagoland standards. It’s pretty crispy along the rocker panels, and there’s some bubbling on the front fenders. But some cosmetic flaws won’t stop it from doing truck things, which is what you buy a truck this old for.
2008 Chevrolet Colorado LT – $3,499
Engine/drivetrain: 3.7-liter DOHC inline 5, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Howell, MI
Odometer reading: 233,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Chevy replaced the long-running S-10 with the all-new Colorado in the mid-2000s. And in this case, it really was all-new; the new truck shared the same basic layout as the old one, but no parts. Two new engines were available, part of GM’s Atlas line of engines: an inline 4, and – bizarrely – an inline 5.
The first version of the Colorado’s inline 5 displaced 3.5 liters, but this one has an improved version, enlarged to 3.7 liters. Unusual as it may be, it puts out plenty of power for a truck this size: 242 horsepower and 242 pound-feet of torque, though both at higher revs than trucks typically see. It runs and drives fine, even with all the miles on it. It drives the rear axle through GM’s ubiquitous 4L60-E automatic, which at this mileage has almost certainly been rebuilt once.
It looks good inside, especially for the mileage, and as an LT model, it has a bunch of power options. It also has a pretty snazzy stereo for 2008:
That’s right; it plays MP3s and WMAs. Do WMA files even exist anymore? I mean, I guess someone out there could still be using a Zune…
It’s a single-cab short-bed, the typical “sporty” configuration for trucks. It’s not as useful as some other truck styles, but it’ll still haul stuff home from the hardware store just fine. It’s a little beat-up outside, and it’s hard to tell from the photos if it has any rust, but if it does it isn’t serious.
Having a good, cheap truck around is very handy; take it from me. Yeah, it’s another vehicle to keep up, more insurance, more gas, but when you need a truck, it’s there waiting. One of these is an absolute beast that can do anything, but will take up a lot of space when you’re not using it, and burn up a whole lot of gas when you are. The other is less capable, but a whole lot friendlier. Which one fits your life better?
I’ve had a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Gen Ram and also worked at a dealership when those Colorados were being sold. I saw more than a few come in with engine or transmission issues.
I’d take a 2nd day ALL day long. 90s cushion seats, Walker Texas Ranger style, and surprisingly great capabilities for hauling / towing. I had the tried and true LA-360 and it made gobs of power. Stopping power was very very meh, but overall, it was, IMO a part of US pickup truck history that was where they hit luxury boxes, comfort boxes, and capability boxes all before they got too indulgent.
Also, I just think the Colorado is too small. lol
already own a full-size truck, so the Colorado for me. It would make for a handy little ride with some pep. Having about the same FE as my current truck sounds a bit off putting, but that’s still much better than cutting it by half
Neither of these really appeal to me, but I guess the Chevy, because newer?
I’m going with the L O N G B O I.
The Dodge has a few things going for it:
-The V10 trucks got the same driveline as the Cummins trucks, so they can handle having a quarter million miles on them better than the “Oops, All Neutrals!” 4L60E
-The V10 is basically a Magnum 5.9 with two more cylinders, and those engines are great for longevity and power
-That generation of Ram is comfortable inside as long as everything is intact, and it looks like it is
-I watched a friend try and fix the steering column/ignition key cylinder of a similar Colorado for nearly a month before he was able to get it repaired correctly (thanks, GM for such a great design), so I want nothing to do with that
-You can tow with the Ram and probably won’t even feel whatever you’re towing thanks to the enormous wheelbase
-The Ram just looks better than the Jake Tucker upside-down-face Colorado
As much as I do like the Atlas engines, and all the things you can do with said engines, I like them best installed in other vehicles than what they originally came in.
Single cab truck? Yep, even with GM plastics inside.
For doing truck things, it’s all about value. On a dollars per cylinder basis, the Dodge wins hands down.
I’m leaning heavily toward neither but given no choice but to choose, I’d go with the Chevy. I don’t need to drag around, let alone drive, an entire zip code. So I’ll take something that at least kinda-sorta pretends it might be compactish.
IIRC, the Dodge V-10 was a stretched version of the old LA 360 V-8. It was created to fill in for the demise of big-block Chrysler engines. Aside from adding 2 more cylinders, this was a tried and true design. The GM Atlas engines were still teething.
Based on that, I’d take the Dodge over the Chevy if I was forced to pick. But the Dodge is too big for my needs. If I really needed a truck, I’d just pick neither and continue shopping.
At 148,000miles our 2012 Colorado Extended cab 4×5 with the I5 shows no sign of any rust and we live in SouthWest Wisconsin where the roads are COVERED in salt at the least hint of snow or ice. Has only had a couple of big repairs and fits in our garage which no full size pickup can do. Even the current Colorado would have a hard time fitting. Would strongly recommend one IF it has not been abused.
I should have sent you the local listing for a Isuzu I-350. If only I would have known. Similar price, less miles, 4×4. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17eWbAH5Yp/
I’m gonna go with the Dodge.
I wouldn’t daily either of these. So why would I want a pickup?
For the odd time to haul lots of shit… or haul people and a lot of their shit.
So that Dodge could haul just about anything I’d ever want to haul and accomodate at least 5 people while doing it… which would make it good for a rig for an annual camping trip and stuff like that.
Yeah the fuel economy would be terrible. But that won’t be a big deal if it’s only used for the occasional special purpose where I’d need the capability.
And hell… while not using it, I’d rent it out on Turo as the best capability-for-the-buck in my area.
That wouldn’t be the case for the Colorado… so the Dodge gets my vote.
Plus into the future, I could see these old V10 pickup trucks becoming somewhat collectible if only for the novelty of that V10.
And because of that novelty, if the rest of the truck is good, I’d even consider taking it to a body shop to fix the rust and getting it repainted.
Nobody is gonna build a truck with an engine like that in the future.
Chose Colorado. Neither is really good for what I use a truck for in the mountains. The RAM is too thirsty rusty and big and it’s RWD. Driving a big RWD with an unloaded bed in the mountains in the winter is not as fun as you’d think even with snows on it. So reluctantly the Chevy today.
Since I already have TWO gas guzzling trucks (’64 F100 crewcab + 92 F350 longbed dually crewcab) at least the single cab would get better mileage. I did own a single cab a few years ago, and after growing up with the ’64, single cabs are just weird.
I’ll take a trip in the Colorado rather than trying to park USS Trucknutz.
I don’t want to pay for gas to daily either of these, so they’ll only be getting used when I need a truck. I hardly ever need a truck, but when I do, I want to have enough! Plus the ol’ 2nd gen is just one of the coolest trucks out there
Besides, the Ram is $500 cheaper, and given how little I expect to use either of these trucks, that’ll probably cover the fuel difference for the foreseeable future.
Of these two, the Chevy for sure. It doesn’t look leperous, and it’s all the truck I would have any use for. The problem is it would cost me about a grand a year just to register and insure.
Well this generation of each truck certainly has specific Transmission problems, which is strange to me since the 700R4 was seemingly better than the other two brands back in the late 80’s so you would think the 4L60 and 4L60E would have just gotten better, but I think it went the other way.
Still I feel like neither of these are really good choices. but if I had to choose, I suppose I might have daydreams of building the V10 with Viper parts if they fit. Maybe end up with a blown 488 in a Malaise era Dodge Magnum or something.
I picked the Ram because that generation of truck is so iconic, and the interior seems to be holding up well. Luckily, Menards is only 3 miles away so it is rare that I have to drive very far to do truck stuff, and I can leave it street-parked 99% of the time.
“Does it have 10 cylinders, or only 5? Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kind of lost track myself. But being this is a Dodge Ram, the most powerful pickup truck in the world, you have to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do you punk?”
I’ve wondered for a while now what GM’s plan for the Atlas family was- it sure seems like a lot of effort to create an engine family with three engines in it and only use them in two platforms. Does anybody know if GM was planning on using these engines in more platforms?
I was baffled back when they came out. the 270 flow through head, 270 HP straight six seemed like it was tailor made to replace the rough 4.3 3/4 350, especially as the 5.7 v8 was getting replaced by 6.0 and 5.3’s. I really thought the New Camaro would get the Atlas 4.2 as the base motor and wished they would have give it a turbo or two for the RS Camaro’s to really cover the field of sporty car desires.
I think some of the teething pains of the new motor ended up limiting it though. I really really thought it was a fail to use the 5 in the baby hummers at the time. the lack of a solid axle up front was already a deficit in the Jeep to hummer comparison wars at the, a 5 cylinder, even though not worse than the 3.8 minivan motor still seemed to be a deficit until the All aluminum 5.3 hit the bay.
General Motors’ strategy in the 1990s and 2000s was to consolidate their engine offerings by creating more engine families, while never discontinuing their existing engine lineups.
There is a reason why they ended up in bankruptcy.
chose the dodge. i own an ’04 crew cab colorado z71 albeit with the 3.5 I5 instead of the 3.7. the 3.7 is appealing because it was 242hp as opposed to the 220 3.5. its good enough and roomy but my 04 has given me issues, the factory head unit for instance has decided it liked a CD so much it stopped ejecting them twice. my 4 door colorado was the perfect balance of utilty, the 2drs to me are just to small to do anything but read meters and deliver medical test samples.
Shorty Chevy for me, I’m not sure if I’d have room to park the Dodge at home.
The Dodge is just too big and too thirsty for what I would ever need it for. I don’t feel like parking way out in the Walmart lot just so I can find the 2 spaces needed to park a truck 1/2 a football field long and I don’t want to feed a 8 mpg beast either. Also, under those fender skirts and running boards is almost certianly a rusty, crunchy horror show. Those flares love to catch salt and grime and save it up for months or even years for constant corrosion.
I’ll go with the right sized Chevy for a basic weekend yardwork / Lowes runner.
Could be a both day for sure, but make mine the Colorado since I’m forced to choose. It has more day to day utility for me. I’ll slap a double-DIN sized AA/CarPlay head unit in there and drive it for years.
Where’s the both option? I’d snag both.
But as it stands, give me that Dodge!