help i am looking for a 96 impala ss

north of you in virginia

Furd Ranger?

kinda my thoughts fyi ive been replacing lots of parts on those. depending on year trannies suck and the dont like to hold an alignment or suspention bushings

If they have the twin beam suspension like their full size counterparts, they eat through tires just because of their design. This would back up the not holding alignment theory. Look at this diagram & you can see why their inferior design changes camber with every bump. How do I know they eat up tires? I owned an 83 Bronco that chewed through fronts on a regular basis.

ight i can care less about how they eat through the tires i just want something i can save gas on, it wont matter if i have to change the tires a little faster than any other car

77malibu77 wrote:ight i can care less about how they eat through the tires i just want something i can save gas on, it wont matter if i have to change the tires a little faster than any other car

Seriously!?!?!? What do new tires cost? Will the savings you experience in fuel costs really offset the cost of new tires? You need to think this through. People here are giving you very good information.

74Malibu383 wrote:

77malibu77 wrote:ight i can care less about how they eat through the tires i just want something i can save gas on, it wont matter if i have to change the tires a little faster than any other car

Seriously!?!?!? What do new tires cost? Will the savings you experience in fuel costs really offset the cost of new tires? You need to think this through. People here are giving you very good information.

lol we had a ranger here at my house and we had it for 3 years and still didnt need to change the tires, and my friend chris had one same year but in silver and he only changed his once out of the 6 years he owned it.

What year? 2wd or 4wd? This can make a difference in suspension design so I don't want to jump the gun & shoot down your thoughts. If it's a 98+ model, then you should be good to go since they replaced the TTB with a wishbone suspension. Also 4 or 6 cylder motors can have an impact on tire wear with the TTB due to weight differences not making the suspension move as much/often while driving down the road. Lowering is nearly impossible/bad idea & lifting requires dropping the pivot points to retain some of the camber. I guess I'm getting too far into this Found On Road Dead talk though.

Rago wrote:What year? 2wd or 4wd? This can make a difference in suspension design so I don't want to jump the gun & shoot down your thoughts. If it's a 98+ model, then you should be good to go since they replaced the TTB with a wishbone suspension. Also 4 or 6 cylder motors can have an impact on tire wear with the TTB due to weight differences not making the suspension move as much/often while driving down the road. Lowering is nearly impossible/bad idea & lifting requires dropping the pivot points to retain some of the camber. I guess I'm getting too far into this Found On Road Dead talk though.

yeah theres were at least 2000's. 2wd and i think its 6 cyl. but i was thinking about the extended cab so i can have somewhat of a backseat and its pretty decent on gas cuz there small trucks. and yeah id rather drive a chevy but whatever saves me gas money. plus they dont look to bad.

I knew there was a reason why your friend & family's Rangers didn't eat up tires. There's always a catch. Go with a newer one if you decide upon a Ranger, but a v6 truck isn't going to get any better mileage than a fuel injected v8 car..... food for thought.

I'm not a brand loyalist BTW. I only own one GM in my current fleet, one Furd, one Dodge, one import. I've had around 30 or so vehicles from a variety of manufacturers (admittedly more A Bodies & Eclipses though). I've owned FWD, RWD, AWD, 4WD 4, 6, & 8 cylinder cars & trucks ranging in weight from 1600lbs to 5000lbs. Motors from 1.3L to 455 cid & everything in between. I base my opinions on knowledge & NEVER brand loyalty.

you got 9 years on me lol almost ten. ive just always based my opinion on the anograms found on road dead and fix or repair daily. lol
and GMC is great mountain climbers

but they do run pretty strong

i mean its your choice but i would pass on rangers not not due to brand heck i own an expidition but experience in the shops ive worked in. s-10's not bad but can be a pain to aligin. in 4x4's the vacuum/electric selinoid on axle are a job and should be replaced with maual cable. they both are prone to rust 2.8 are good s-10 motors in early ones then the 4.3 except late models (my opinion) you can not fool comp and adjust timing all done from electronically . also 4 banger s-10 rangers in my personal opinion are way too under powered

wait so your saying s-10s arent good?? i was actually thinking one of those too or the ranger.

Having an S-10 as my first car, I would definitely recommend them for a cheap vehicle. Parts for them are ridiculously cheap, and they are easy to work on. As for the computer controlled stuff, that's not a big deal either. Their computers should still be working, but if it's not, ECU's for them are all over eBay.

awesome thanks for the info indy!
maybe an s-10 is what i need, plus there chevy