I would take any 80's full-sized sedan over any so called large sedans of today. Everything looks alike (much as it did then) but even worse now IMO. At least back then the cars were soft, comfortable, and I like the formal boxy look better than todays organic turtle look.
I've actually got a '92 with the 2.8 and a 5 speed. It's 200000 on it and runs like a top. Gets 21 mpg, and it'll do 85 all day long at part throttle in overdrive.
Sold my 82 with 200,000 miles only because i needed room for a young family back in the day. Never gave me a blink of problems and got great mileage, the guy that bought it drove her for many more miles. Excellent truck
I had this truck when my daughter was first born, that was in 1989. I bought it from a lot in Reno Nevada, from a dealer called Bobs Auto World. That truck served me well for years, until someone t-boned me at a light. That truck really was all I had, and it served me well. Bobs auto world turned into Suzies adult bookstore lol, I swear. He folded up that place and opened up another buy here pay here lot, and called it Rajin Cajin, Bob was one heck of a guy, his sons run his dealership these days. Really cool kids, my daughter bought a really clean Suburban from them a few years back. They gave her a smokin deal on it because of my past with their pop. I love these trucks.
I just checked out what $10k in 1982 adjusted for inflation is in 2019 and it came to about $25k. I only speced out a new colorado, but you can actually get a base model for $22k. Keep in mind, today's base models often include things that used to be considered luxury items (power locks/windows, cruise control, radio, A/C, etc...). That said, I do miss this era of pickup when they used to have a more rugged feel and weren't aimed at appeasing suburban slickers in the parking lot of the organic fair-trade shops so much.
it'd interfere with sales of their bigger trucks. i truthfully wish they'd make a " cross-over" pickup truck for ppl who want to haul drywall, lawn mowers, and want to get an MPG in the 30s.
These were definetly good trucks, I had an '87 with the 2.8L & Automatic. It's been 10 years since I've owned it, but it had over 350,000 miles on it. It started to fall apart, exhaust fell out while going down the road one day, and it wouldn't do over 55 anymore. I was told it needed much more than it was worth so I parked it in the cul-de-sac I live in for $500, sold it to a Hispanic gentleman who was going to drive it from IL to Texas, told him not to do over 55..... the next day when I got on the interstate to go to work in my brand new '05 Impala it was on the shoulder.... he blew the motor up most likely doing 65-70.
I love the retro reviews. Mostly cars I never saw (I am European). I love the comments too. Mostly full of remarks how crappy these cars were. Not this one though...
+bikephil newer cars won't last as long as some of these retro cars, due to being much more technical and needing more servicing/replacement parts. People are falling out of love with cars these days and all they want is features and more features never mind about the engine (covered by plastic!) and home servicing. Thats all in the past. I have owned new and old cars (8 in total) i currently drive a 24 yr old car and its been one of my most reliable if not the most reliable i have owned.
Nearly $10K for a compact pickup in '82?! Holy smokes! That said, the S10 was a huge hit for GM for many yrs and is highly sought after to this day. Easy to work on, cheap, readily available parts, including body panels are everywhere in the aftermarket. Early carbureted examples are the 1's to stay away from, with EFI models much more reliable and give better power and mileage. These are sturdy little compacts were good for hauling lighter items too large for a trunk, which is why Ford built their Rangers for so long, and is bringing them back, so the story goes..
Adam Trombino Yeah I bought my grandma's 2001 S-10 from her. It's only a 2WD but for basic hauling and commuting to my less than clean job, it's more user friendly than my '15 F-150. Because the bed is lower and therefore easier to load, I used it instead of the full size to move out of my rental.
I would much rather have the 1986 Ford Ranger XLT 2.9L V6 more reliable truck never broke down it had a 5 speed manual with Ice cold A/C Factory Cloth Interior and floor Factory Am/FM 8 Track player, PS/PB Long Bed Dual Tanks, ans Sliding Rear window Had Power Mirrors and windows No Tilt CC PLor power seats drove that truck for 8 years paid 2100.00 and sold it for 2800.00 8 years later Had an 1986 S-10 Tahoe with the 2.l V6 junk burned leaked oil the S-10 was an auto with overdrive junk air quit bought for 200.00 drove only 2 month got 50.00 for at the salvage yard. Stay away from these oil burning nightmares. The s+10 did improve in 1991 with the Vortex 4.3L that was a good little truck rusted away in one winter while the 1986 Blue and white Ford Ranger XLT 2.9L v6 5 Speed still running never rusted out and had over 361, 000 miles when I sold it for 2800.00 The guy brought it didn't care about the high miles has all the service records new transmission at 350,000 miles tune-up done all fluids changed did all the brakes front to back did the work]k my self all the parts back in 1997 was about 250.00. He drove it another 5 years and last time I knew he is using it as an old farm truck now he said the odometer rolled to 626,000 last October and still doesn't burn oil Buy A Ford Ranger these little trucks even with the 2.3L 4 cylinder if serviced right will reach over 400, 000 miles with out trouble even the 2.9L v6 had been known to go over the 1 million mile mark if properly maintained.
He opens the master cylinder when the sides are clear. I understand, he's used to the old style metal ones where you had to open and check. But the whole point of the clear plastic is that you don't have to open it.
Not bad! they didn't change those much until the very early 90's I think, decent payload for the time and that motor made plenty of power with a manual box
+Kingsoupturbo Interior got revised in 86, along with the 2.0 being replaced with the 2.5 liter Fuel Injected Iron Duke in 84, and the 2.8 gaining Fuel Injection in 86. Front end and trim changed in 91, but mostly until 94 when the more round and modern second gen came out, they stayed totally the same. They're awesome little trucks. I love both generations.
I still see a lot of these in SE Washington State, I always thought these were robust trucks, I would prefer mine to have the 4.3 Liter V6 which appeared halfway through the 1988 model year.
My first new vehicle vcr was a 1982 gmc s15 . Loved that truck m whent for ever on a tank of gas . Mine had the four cylinder iron Duke . Wish I had it now .
GhostSpectre I guess that's not too bad for the times, the Chevette made 60hp with a 1.8... a sporty hatchback with a hairdryer can break 200hp with a 1.8
I had an S-15, but mine was an '88 with the Pontiac 2.5 four and a 5 speed.....and manual everything, including the steering. I felt that the basic design of the truck was pretty solid as far as the body/frame/interior goes, but it had typical GM reliability problems (mainly sensor/electronic stuff). Overall, I wished I had bought a Toyota or Nissan pickup instead.
+Farts McGee Right? All these "GM are best" guys are getting really old really quick. I'm not saying I don't like the S10, but saying that they're better than Japanese trucks from the era is just ignorance.
My late father bought a brand new 82 S-10 Tahoe. It had the 2.8 and a 5 speed tranny. it was a fun little truck. we put over 200,000 miles on it. It was finally totaled out in front of our house by a runaway bobtail truck in '97.
in the early 90s, you could buy a stripper mitsubishi mighty max for about $ 7,000. that was plenty truck for most people and a lot of them are still on the road. just not enough profit for the auto companies though.
chieftp don't forget to adjust for inflation, $7,000 in 1991 is $12,404 today, which is still impressive, the Chevy spark, the cheapest car available in the states today, starts at $13,000
"we would prefer the V6 with a manual transmission and a less flashy interior" wow fast forward 35 years and they now want more useless gizmos and gadgets and a more flashy interior making trucks in this class cost upwards of 50 grand... even accounting for inflation this truck is just over 26k, that's what small trucks start at...
Can somebody help me? I don't understand the use of an open cargo space. The stuff is not protected from rain and it can be lost, causing damage to the products and the people behind it. Why is so popular? Because it's cheap? Thank you.
How in the world do you only manage to get 110hp from a V6 engine?? And that stopping distance was a joke, along with that wandering rear end. Basically you're paying $9900 for a death trap.
as a kid my dad had 3 of this and i got to say idk y he liked them so much they were slow boring little trucks better then there competation back in the day but still boring and extreamly slow
+Wade McKenney 86 was a bum year. I bet if you looked at your door sticker it was made really late in 86. 87 was the first year for the 4.3 at full steam.
It's weird, I forget these are so old because I see them so much since I live in the country. Great trucks.
Ricky X the ones i see today are rusty pieces of shit
I see rangers toyotas and s10s and d21s
You know the top 4 small pickups ever built.... always all tge time lol. Older ones too but mostly 90s/2000s
Well late 80s/90s for d21 and toyota
this really makes you appreciate the 4.3 v6 compact trucks. that v6 is horrifying.
Almost all early 80s vehicles were horrifying. It was the low point in in American vehicles anyway.
I would take any 80's full-sized sedan over any so called large sedans of today. Everything looks alike (much as it did then) but even worse now IMO. At least back then the cars were soft, comfortable, and I like the formal boxy look better than todays organic turtle look.
tyler2610 The modern turtles aren't dead in the water by 100k miles though.
I've actually got a '92 with the 2.8 and a 5 speed. It's 200000 on it and runs like a top. Gets 21 mpg, and it'll do 85 all day long at part throttle in overdrive.
the 4.3 is a POS as well...lol
Sold my 82 with 200,000 miles only because i needed room for a young family back in the day. Never gave me a blink of problems and got great mileage, the guy that bought it drove her for many more miles.
Excellent truck
GMC S15 and Chevy S10 is best trucks, my favorite, 1985, 1986 , 1987 and 1988 is my favorite
And the introduction to these compact trucks paved way to the "minitrucking scene" of the late 80s. This truck is a good example.
Yes, 1982 introducing Ford Ranger, 1983 Chevy S10, 1982 GMC S15 and 1987 Dodge Dakota
Such a beautiful truck !
2.8 and a 3 speed watch out
I had this truck when my daughter was first born, that was in 1989. I bought it from a lot in Reno Nevada, from a dealer called Bobs Auto World. That truck served me well for years, until someone t-boned me at a light. That truck really was all I had, and it served me well. Bobs auto world turned into Suzies adult bookstore lol, I swear. He folded up that place and opened up another buy here pay here lot, and called it Rajin Cajin, Bob was one heck of a guy, his sons run his dealership these days. Really cool kids, my daughter bought a really clean Suburban from them a few years back. They gave her a smokin deal on it because of my past with their pop. I love these trucks.
I just checked out what $10k in 1982 adjusted for inflation is in 2019 and it came to about $25k. I only speced out a new colorado, but you can actually get a base model for $22k. Keep in mind, today's base models often include things that used to be considered luxury items (power locks/windows, cruise control, radio, A/C, etc...). That said, I do miss this era of pickup when they used to have a more rugged feel and weren't aimed at appeasing suburban slickers in the parking lot of the organic fair-trade shops so much.
The 80's versions, I hardly see them on the road anymore but I still see the 90's versions once in a while on the road.
LOVE John's VERY '80's shades in the opening here!!!!!!
You really pulled up this GM footage! Thank you for bringing this one up. More GM and Ford( Lincoln and Mercury) footage please. Thank you again.
This is all motor week test footage
Such a handsome and durable truck, I’ve dailied one for 8 years now
I still see at least 2 of these a day, very common in the southwest.
Even the northeast winters can't kill these things. I still see many.
+Dom The Suplexer just sold mine about 3 months ago... Still ran good too
even in the south east (Florida) there are still plenty around.
Northwest along with the nissan toyota and ranger
This being posted made my day.
I love seeing what the engine bay and interior on my 85 2.8 should really look like.
2:23 my grandpa had one of those lunch boxes when I was growing up & we still have it
Why can''t Detroit make something this size again? Sell it as an alternative to small cars not larger trucks.
Because we Americans are fatter now than we were 30+ years ago. Lol
AZDuffman they do, the chevy colorado
The Colorado is damn near the price of a full size half ton, the S series was smaller and cheaper.
Fuel economy regs. Cafe prevents them from building a truck this small.
it'd interfere with sales of their bigger trucks. i truthfully wish they'd make a " cross-over" pickup truck for ppl who want to haul drywall, lawn mowers, and want to get an MPG in the 30s.
These were definetly good trucks, I had an '87 with the 2.8L & Automatic. It's been 10 years since I've owned it, but it had over 350,000 miles on it. It started to fall apart, exhaust fell out while going down the road one day, and it wouldn't do over 55 anymore. I was told it needed much more than it was worth so I parked it in the cul-de-sac I live in for $500, sold it to a Hispanic gentleman who was going to drive it from IL to Texas, told him not to do over 55..... the next day when I got on the interstate to go to work in my brand new '05 Impala it was on the shoulder.... he blew the motor up most likely doing 65-70.
I love the retro reviews. Mostly cars I never saw (I am European). I love the comments too. Mostly full of remarks how crappy these cars were. Not this one though...
Don't let them fool you, these were not great trucks. Durable? Yes, but the Japanese trucks at the time were worlds better.
It saddens me to think one day these retro reviews will end :(
+Mike Z They will never end. In 25 years, a 2015 review will be retro!
+bikephil newer cars won't last as long as some of these retro cars, due to being much more technical and needing more servicing/replacement parts. People are falling out of love with cars these days and all they want is features and more features never mind about the engine (covered by plastic!) and home servicing. Thats all in the past. I have owned new and old cars (8 in total) i currently drive a 24 yr old car and its been one of my most reliable if not the most reliable i have owned.
+Chunk Quagmire Have to agree there. Cars are really soulless nowadays.
+Chunk Quagmire OLD CARS RULE
Carmakers are slowly getting rid of aftermarket support and development...
First time I've noticed Jon participating in the review.
And to think i have an 84 s15 and its still in great shape considering i live in canada and it only had 212 thousand kilometres on it
Nearly $10K for a compact pickup in '82?! Holy smokes! That said, the S10 was a huge hit for GM for many yrs and is highly sought after to this day. Easy to work on, cheap, readily available parts, including body panels are everywhere in the aftermarket. Early carbureted examples are the 1's to stay away from, with EFI models much more reliable and give better power and mileage. These are sturdy little compacts were good for hauling lighter items too large for a trunk, which is why Ford built their Rangers for so long, and is bringing them back, so the story goes..
Adam Trombino in fact, the S-10 nameplate is still used down in Brazil
Adam Trombino Yeah I bought my grandma's 2001 S-10 from her. It's only a 2WD but for basic hauling and commuting to my less than clean job, it's more user friendly than my '15 F-150.
Because the bed is lower and therefore easier to load, I used it instead of the full size to move out of my rental.
I would much rather have the 1986 Ford Ranger XLT 2.9L V6 more reliable truck never broke down it had a 5 speed manual with Ice cold A/C Factory Cloth Interior and floor Factory Am/FM 8 Track player, PS/PB Long Bed Dual Tanks, ans Sliding Rear window Had Power Mirrors and windows No Tilt CC PLor power seats drove that truck for 8 years paid 2100.00 and sold it for 2800.00 8 years later Had an 1986 S-10 Tahoe with the 2.l V6 junk burned leaked oil the S-10 was an auto with overdrive junk air quit bought for 200.00 drove only 2 month got 50.00 for at the salvage yard. Stay away from these oil burning nightmares. The s+10 did improve in 1991 with the Vortex 4.3L that was a good little truck rusted away in one winter while the 1986 Blue and white Ford Ranger XLT 2.9L v6 5 Speed still running never rusted out and had over 361, 000 miles when I sold it for 2800.00 The guy brought it didn't care about the high miles has all the service records new transmission at 350,000 miles tune-up done all fluids changed did all the brakes front to back did the work]k my self all the parts back in 1997 was about 250.00. He drove it another 5 years and last time I knew he is using it as an old farm truck now he said the odometer rolled to 626,000 last October and still doesn't burn oil Buy A Ford Ranger these little trucks even with the 2.3L 4 cylinder if serviced right will reach over 400, 000 miles with out trouble even the 2.9L v6 had been known to go over the 1 million mile mark if properly maintained.
Chris Lemaster You pay $2100 for one truck and $200 for the other and bash the $200 one for being junk?
Lol...
I really miss seeing these on the road today and back in the day these trucks were extremely popular .
I love GMC S15. 1985-1988 is my favorites
He opens the master cylinder when the sides are clear. I understand, he's used to the old style metal ones where you had to open and check. But the whole point of the clear plastic is that you don't have to open it.
I think the point is to show how easily you can add fluid
Not bad! they didn't change those much until the very early 90's I think, decent payload for the time and that motor made plenty of power with a manual box
+Kingsoupturbo Interior got revised in 86, along with the 2.0 being replaced with the 2.5 liter Fuel Injected Iron Duke in 84, and the 2.8 gaining Fuel Injection in 86. Front end and trim changed in 91, but mostly until 94 when the more round and modern second gen came out, they stayed totally the same. They're awesome little trucks. I love both generations.
Quality control was heinous on both S10 generations though, having driven a 2002 Sonoma and a 1997 Hardbody the Nissan feels a lot tighter all around.
We need more sunglasses John Davis
I still see a lot of these in SE Washington State, I always thought these were robust trucks, I would prefer mine to have the 4.3 Liter V6 which appeared halfway through the 1988 model year.
They are robust for their size.
My first new vehicle vcr was a 1982 gmc s15 . Loved that truck m whent for ever on a tank of gas . Mine had the four cylinder iron Duke . Wish I had it now .
awesome trucks mines a 1992 with the 4.3 V6 regular cab long bed
110 hp v6 these days would get you beat up
+omar khan 110hp from an inline 4 might get you beat up too!
+omar khan There was a 2.0 L with even less horsepower.
+GhostSpectre Didn't that one have like 80hp?
+Just Here For The UA-cam 90 or so, I think.
GhostSpectre I guess that's not too bad for the times, the Chevette made 60hp with a 1.8... a sporty hatchback with a hairdryer can break 200hp with a 1.8
Stop! You're spoiling us. XD
I had an S-15, but mine was an '88 with the Pontiac 2.5 four and a 5 speed.....and manual everything, including the steering. I felt that the basic design of the truck was pretty solid as far as the body/frame/interior goes, but it had typical GM reliability problems (mainly sensor/electronic stuff). Overall, I wished I had bought a Toyota or Nissan pickup instead.
+justsomeguytoyou Comments like this are my favorite in retroreviews. Realistic comments from real owners. Cheers.
+Farts McGee Right? All these "GM are best" guys are getting really old really quick. I'm not saying I don't like the S10, but saying that they're better than Japanese trucks from the era is just ignorance.
***** Silverado's or S10's?
***** Where do you live? They practically triple salt the roads here in Ohio so that could explain why I don't see many 80's pickups.
Can’t believe that I only now found this video clip
My late father bought a brand new 82 S-10 Tahoe. It had the 2.8 and a 5 speed tranny. it was a fun little truck. we put over 200,000 miles on it. It was finally totaled out in front of our house by a runaway bobtail truck in '97.
jewllake wtf is a bobtail truck
the Chevy s10 and Gmc Somoma lasted from 1982 to 2004
That cab would hold 5 teenagers in a pinch. With a standard transmission you had to let a middle guy run the stick lol
My dad had one of these. V6 manual transmission Gypsy trim level.
Mpg - 22 city 33 highway...tested mpg 19 haha. Maybe they listed the four cylinder epa mileage numbers
when you could buy a new truck for less than $30k
chieftp some full size base models today still go for less than 30K, though you're talking about a regular cab and no options
in the early 90s, you could buy a stripper mitsubishi mighty max for about $ 7,000. that was plenty truck for most people and a lot of them are still on the road. just not enough profit for the auto companies though.
chieftp don't forget to adjust for inflation, $7,000 in 1991 is $12,404 today, which is still impressive, the Chevy spark, the cheapest car available in the states today, starts at $13,000
$27k for a new Chevy Colorado
I had one. My first vehicle, what a lemon.
But Doc, all of the best stuff is made in Japan!
The GMC S15 would later be known as The GMC Sonoma.
33 highway lol. No way it ever got that high
Back when people wanted to buy American made stuff
Meanwhile the 22RE’s made a whopping 116HP lol
"we would prefer the V6 with a manual transmission and a less flashy interior" wow fast forward 35 years and they now want more useless gizmos and gadgets and a more flashy interior making trucks in this class cost upwards of 50 grand... even accounting for inflation this truck is just over 26k, that's what small trucks start at...
Nothing about the (2.5 "Iron Dike") in the S series!?!?
Duke, not dike! ;)
That is one flashy interior...! 5:28
please post more pick up reviews
I always thought these trucks were compact but I guess they were a midsized pickup compared to the Chevy LUV
My goodness, we really didn't like imports back then, did we?
What is the longest stopping distance they've had
Can somebody help me? I don't understand the use of an open cargo space.
The stuff is not protected from rain and it can be lost, causing damage to the products and the people behind it.
Why is so popular? Because it's cheap?
Thank you.
That truck would max out capacity at 2 Americans of today’s generation.
What's up, Great Enthusiasm fire believe What's your opinion about 1!
wait this isn't a nissan
Never could and still cant understand why they bother with GMC...
Because they look better than Chevys.
How in the world do you only manage to get 110hp from a V6 engine?? And that stopping distance was a joke, along with that wandering rear end.
Basically you're paying $9900 for a death trap.
Technology had not caught up with the emissions standards quite yet. Low-performance motoring was the norm.
as a kid my dad had 3 of this and i got to say idk y he liked them so much they were slow boring little trucks better then there competation back in the day but still boring and extreamly slow
That 2.8 was total garbage.
Sierra Classic? You mean Sonoma. :O
um the 2.8 isnt the biggest u could get for it. it was the 4.3
+Wade McKenney The 4.3L wasn't available until '87 in the S-Series
+Warren262 really well my truck is an 86 and came with a 4.3
.... the 4.3 didn't exist until quite some time later.
+Wade McKenney 86 was a bum year. I bet if you looked at your door sticker it was made really late in 86. 87 was the first year for the 4.3 at full steam.
....Six thousand fucking dollars? Holy jeebus crust that is cheap as fuck, even for back in the day. god damn.
Did you adjust for inflation? I think that's about $15,000 in today's dollars.
GhostSpectre
True, but even the cheapest cars aren't much cheaper than that today, let alone a truck.
You want a small truck these days? Finance $30K, and pay for shit you don't need.
lol these things were garbage
the S10 and s15 were the worst pickup trucks ever made. the canyon and recallarodo are even worse lol
absolute junk.... Zero thought in styling or usability