new project build

wanting to start a ew 4x project, but do not knw where to start. would like something small like an S10 or something of the sort. just want to do some trailing and just good mudding. would like to know wat to look for and where to start. something low cost and easy. any ideas????  

If you're looking for something like an S10, then a Toyota pickup is what I'd recommend.  If you get one that's a 1985 or older, they all had straight axles from the factory which is a big plus, if you go 86 or newer, they all had fuel injection and 86 was the first year of the V6.  You can get solid axle swap kits for the 86 and later trucks that are dialed in and 100% bolt up.  Toyotas are known for their reliablity and long life.  I have had 3 of them and you will never hear me say anything bad about a Toyota pickup other than the older ones are pretty underpowered.  But hey, I'd wheel a 82 or 83 Toyota before I'd pick anything else.  The truck I learned to wheel in was an 82 longbed with no power steering and it would go anywhere and piss all the Jeep guys off in the process.  In my humble opinion, there is no better value for used rigs than an older Toyota pickup.  Plus the fact that like Jeep, everyone makes something for a Toyota pickup.  If Jeep is the "small block Chevy" of the four wheeling world (being that everyone makes an accessory for the Jeep, like a SBC), then Toyota is the "small block Ford" of the four wheeling world.  Good luck!  

thank you. i had an 83 when i was about 13. my uncle gave it to me to fix up and drive when i was 16 but needless to say i played a little to hard with it. yanked the bed, doors, and nocked the glass out of it and just had fun out on the farm and gravel roads  

454 small block from Jegs, NVG4500 5 speed, 9" rear, detroit locked and loaded, you can get 13" plus brakes from numerous companys to stop as you go instead of feet on ground, 33/13.50/16 mudda trucka tires
Chevota?@7.0 liters, and a 6 speed, from a LS7 Vette 9" rear, front and rear locked and loaded, a 4 to 1 reduction box, and a big stereo...ohhh and 36/15.50/16 muddas  

'88 was the first year for a V6 Toyota. '86 was when IFS appeared (and I believe the Turbo 4-cyl option as well).

I'd look for an early-mid '90s Ranger pickup with the 4.0L engine. IMO, I think it's a better truck when compared stock-to-stock. More power, stronger axles (no birfield joints), their frames don't disintegrate (rust), and they just feel much more solidly built when you slam the doors or hood (like a real truck should). You also shouldn't need a kidney belt to ride in one.
It is very true you can buy more offroad accessories in the aftermarket for an older Toyota, however this becomes a non-issue if you got a decent welder (plus you'll save a ton of $$$ in the process, along with having the gratification you built it yourself). All of the popular differential lockers and gear ratios to 5.13:1 are available for a 4.0L Ranger. Good luck on your decision.  

SFR, you are correct about the V6 introduction, it was 88 and not 86 like I thought originally.  However, I have to strongly disagree with you on your thinking that the ranger is a better truck.  While they may have more power (the older rangers vs the older toyotas), I think that is where the superiority of the ranger ends.  There is no way on earth that the ranger had stronger axles than the Toyota.  Yes the toyota had birfields, but those are just as succeptable to failure as a u-joint.  That axle was never designed to run 35" and bigger tires, therefore it only makes sense that when exposed to them, failures do happen.  However, not all birfields break.  You could make the same arguement about factory Dana 44 u-joints vs CTMs.  Besides the fact that you are comparing a solid front axle to an idependent front suspension that came on all ford rangers.  If strength is even a remote issue, the toyota front axle wins that battle hands down.  Not to mention that the toyota axles are just mini versions of the famous Ford 9".  Yes, when you swap V8s and large tires, like with any 1/2 ton truck drivetrain, you push the limits and expose yourself to breakage.  Thats where driver finesse and experience come into play.  Also, I don't know where you get your info from, but Toyota frames are not known to just disintigrate.  They have a fully boxed frame and quite to the contrary are known for being darn near indestructable.  I can say, without a doubt that your opinion is definately the minority on this issue though, as you certainly don't see people standing in lines to buy these older rangers that you are so fond of.  For a better example of the reliability and great reputation of the Toyota trucks, find the same year Toyota and Ranger, that are in the same condition and see which one costs more to buy.  Also, if the Ranger had such a substantial edge from the factory, as you proclaim, then why hasn't the aftermarket jumped on the bandwagon and produced more off road accessoried for the Ranger.  In it's 20+ years in production, surely you haven't stumbled onto something that has been overlooked by every aftermarket manufacturer out there have you?  No, I don't think you have.  While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion, like I said earlier, I have to holeheartidly disagree.  One other point, I just realized you are comparing an early to mid 90's Rangers power to that of a carbuerated 4 cylinder on a Toyota?  Of course the Ranger will have more power.  Also, if you want to compare straight across, year to year, an early to mid 90s Toyota didn't have birfields either.  

LOL, Another Die-Hard Toyota fan!!

OK, Lemme see about bringing some facts to the table here, being that it appears your opinion might be based mostly on hearsay and the opinions of others (sorry it's so long, but please just read):

Toyota has recalled all of their mid-late '90s Tacomas due to frame rot (actually buying them back). Reason? The fully boxed frames collect water, dirt, road salt and other crud inside them where it sits in there (unbeknownst to the owner) and rusts it from the inside out. Even though other older Toyota models weren't recalled, the same boxed frames still rusted just the same, they just took a bit longer to rot through (allowing more of them to reach the "useful service life" cutoff point they established for the recall, leaving many owners of older or higher mileage trucks out in the cold).

Ford frames, while not boxed, are made of thicker gauge steel. Not being boxed also allows less crud to collect in them, and lets it dry out faster. They do flex more than boxed frames, I give you that, but that does not make them weaker. Their crossmembers are riveted in place instead of welded to accommodate it flexing.

Axles:
Here's where all too many seem to get confused:
All Toyota front axles use CV joints (commonly called "Birfields" on the '79-'85 trucks). Sorry, but they are not stronger than a D44 u-joint (the Spicer 5-760x in particular) when turned. It's debatable whether they're just as strong when pointed straight. The axle shafts have 27 splines (1.16" dia.) where they enter into the Birfield joint. I believe the stub axles are 27 spline as well.
Toyota uses a standard Lo-Pinion gear where the front axle "drives" on what is normally supposed to be the "coast" side of the ring gear teeth, costing them about 30% of their strength (the gears are quite very strong when backing up in reverse though).
Only the '84-'85 housings are of fairly decent strength, due to the lower gusset on the bottom that was finally (on it's third revision) extended all the way to where the leafspring mount is. They are still pretty thin on the front of the diff though, forcing many owners to weld skidplates and what-not on it to better protect it.
Solid axle Toyotas (the ones coveted by offroaders) also had thin unvented brake rotors that were prone to warping. Then you have those knuckle seals that are nearly impossible to seal properly.
The Toyota rear axle with it's 30 spline shafts has quite a bit going for it however. Overall it's quite comparable to Ford's 28 spline 8.8" & 9" axles used in many Rangers, the small early Bronco and similar and even in V8 Mustangs and T-birds. It still doesn't quite compare to that of the 31 spline versions used under Explorers and fullsize trucks though.

Rangers started out on a bad foot initially when it came to axles (and is likely where some of the confusion comes from). The early Dana 28 frontends didn't belong under anything heavier than a golf cart or ATV.
This changed in 1990 when the 4.0L engines came out (and is why I specifically mentioned 4.0L models). These models have a Hi-Pinion Dana 35 front axle that (except for the centersection) is built out of parts shared with fullsize truck D44 axles (of most importance here, the axle u-joints, which remains the weakest point). Hi-Pinion (reverse-cut) gears means they are designed for use in a front axle, and are stronger because of that (easily making up for the 0.44" difference between the Toyota's ring gear size and the Ranger's). The 27 spline axle shafts are the same size Toyota uses, but of course without the Birfields.
All Rangers (even the early ones) have vented front brake rotors.
IFS? Yeah, I guess technically it is, but you can't compare it to any other. With the long TTB arms you can still get 20" or more articulation if you set it up right (and it doesn't have to take any more coin than for a coiled straight axle setup either). For durability, just take a look at what some of the desert guys are doing, they jump these things 6+ feet in the air spanning 80 or more feet repeatedly without failure.

As for reliability being based on what a truck costs... ROTFLMAO I'm like falling out of my chair here! People have been brainwashed to just automatically assume Toyota = reliable. There was once a time back in the '70s to mid-'80s a Toyota was generally more reliable than a same-year domestic, but again, that has changed (especially today, just look how well Ford's been doing, they haven't taken a cent of our tax money for a bailout like the others). This assumption about toyotas & reliability (imports in general) continues on though, and makes for a lot of ignorance out there, especially when few people ever bother to come out from under their rocks and look at how such statistics have changed over the years.


To answer you last Q about why the aftermarket hasn't warmed up as much to the Ranger... on the contrary, they actually have, but probably just not in the area most people are familiar with.
Take a look at the desert scene. You'll find a ratio of 10:1 products made for a Ranger vs. a Toyota (things like long-travel prerunner suspenions, coilover kits, modified beam kits with crossover steering, etc.). However companies have also been starting to release more & more products for the trail-use and crawling scenes too (things like BW-1354 dual transfercase kits and what not). Will we see any of the major high-volume suspension companies come out of the '80s and update their catalogs of Ranger suspension kits?  Companies like Longfield releasing chromoly axle upgrade kits and what not? That I'm not sure, but it's only a matter of taking the better of the suspension kits available now and swapping out the stiff coils & shocks for something better (and in a lot of cases the crooked steering too) and you'll have something that'll keep up with most anything else out there on the trails.
If you're a stone-cold die-hard and want nothing but an actual straight beam axle under there, no vehicle out there is even remotely close to as easy to put one under than a Ranger.


I would suggest checking out a few sites like www.therangerstation.com , www.explorerforum.com , and even www.pirate4x4.com . You'll soon find out that Ford did indeed have a great little truck. It just took them some years to iron things out is all. ;-)  

While you certainly point out alot of strengths about the little Ranger that I wasn't aware of, I still think it is unjust to compare a mid 90s Ranger to a 82 or 83 Toyota which is what I initially recommended in my first post.  I admit that I was unaware of the factory recall of the 90s era Tacos, and it is very shocking that I didn't hear about it, especially since I am a die-hard Toyota fan (even though I now own a Scout II).  As far as me being under a rock though, I want you to know that when I speak about Toyotas legendary reliability, I do som from experience.  The 82 longbed that I spoke of above was given to me as a graduation present many moons ago.  My dad had bought it brand new and we had wheeled the snot out of it on all the Sierra Nevada trails.  Rubicon, Fordyce, Barrett Lake, Hell Hole, it was a helluva truck.  All it had was 3" of suspension lift, 2" of body lift, 4.88s, a TRD limited slip in the rear and 33" tires.  Let me tell you, that little truck went everywhere and was absolutely indestructable!  I rolled it off of a cliff when I was 19 and there was 249K on the ticker.  It sat down at the bottom of a ravine in Auburn, CA next to the Bear river for about 2 weeks.  It had rolled about 10 times, 2 or 3 of those being end-over-end, and smashed into some huge boulders that prevented me from going into the river.  The radiator was pushed into the fan, all of the antifreeze and a good portion of the oil leaked out.  The transmission was stuck in reverse and all the tires were flat from the rims crushing against rocks as it rolled.  After a full day of winching it up the cliff, we got 4 decent spares underneath it so it would roll.  Pryed the hood open and topped the engine off with oil, then proceeded to drive it out to HWY 49 while it was stuck in reverse, about 5 miles!  The frame was still straight, but the body was a total loss.  We ended up parting it out to friends in the 4wd club we belonged to (Sierra Treasure Hunters in Sac).  Last I heard, the motor and transmission were still in use (almost 15 years later) with no rebuild after dislodging the shifter from reverse, and the truck they are in is out on the trail quite frequently.  The axles went to a good friend named Chris Collard, who now is a freelance writer for magazines including FOURWHEELER.  I'm pretty sure that the axles reside under his 81 Toyota SWB flatbed that he started out with.  So, my point is, not everyone that speaks highly of these old trucks do it because it's what they've heard.  The reputation started somewhere, and I can speak of it with first hand experience.  While you have certainly brought to light some strengths of the newer (2nd gen??) Ranger, I still believe that the 79-84 (82-83 in particular) years of the Toyota pickup is probably the best value in used 4wd mini trucks out there when thinking of a trail truck.  And, for the record, I wasn't trying to compare the strength of the birfield joint to the stock Dana 44 joint like you may think.  It was more of an analogy as to say that any stock u-joint exposed to an oversized tire and harsh terrain is exposed to more of a chance of failure.  I certainly know that a 44 joint, especially the newer 5-760s are stronger than birfields.  As they should be, the vehicles they were designed for are much heavier than Toyota pickups.  Also, for what it's worth, in the 15 years that we wheeled that truck on the trails I mentioned, we never broke anything.  The worst damage was a flat tire.  

what about like a BRONCO2 or somethin along the lines of a Samuri. i am thinking something small nible but yet can still get me through a little bit of mud or down those rocky creek beds here in MO  

Cool story WYJAX. After reading all that I'm glad to see that you are still here typing away.

When I was comparing the trucks, I did not purposely compare different years to skew it, I was comparing the best of one to the best of the other (specifically '90-'97 Rangers vs. '79-'85 Toyotas). Nor was I specifically accusing you of being the one who's under a rock, I'm just pointing out what it is I hear all the time, which is not always true. I guess I really shouldn't be complaining though, it lets me pick up a Ranger (or a car like a Focus) for close to half what the import equivalent goes for lol.



racer_boy, the Bronco II is a very close relative to the Ranger (so is the Explorer). It's definitely something to consider, especially if you're looking for a "SUV"-type vehicle the size of a Jeep (but not a Jeep), and with a lot more interior room. Most BIIs did not get the better axles & transmissions seen in the later Rangers, however the later D35 front basically bolts right in place of the small D28, the rear axle (Explorer 8.8" is usually the preferred choice) needs a small bit of welding (moving of the leafspring perches).

I actually have a BII myself that I take wheeling. It has the above axles under it (both locked) with 35" tires. Done Rubicon, Dusy/Ershim (twice), Barret Lake, Swamp Lake, along with a dozen or more similar trails in other areas (still haven't done Fordyce Creek yet though).
The biggest thing I've had to deal with so far (knock on wood) is a bent transmission crossmember from high-centering it on a rock with 3 wheels dangling (yeah, a couple tires as well too).
It's coming up on 170K miles now and still runs good as new (and I mean that literally... burns no oil, and passes California's shitty state smog test with flying colors).

I'm thinking if you want to stand out from the vast sea of Jeeps and what not that exists on pretty much any good trail, these would be the vehicles to do it with. It turns a few heads no doubt when you're right there in the middle doing the same things they are lol.


Hope that helps.


.