PDA

View Full Version : Test Drove a 98 S-10 and a 2003 Tiburon Today!



T5_X
05-31-2002, 04:52 PM
Hey guys! It's me, Ranger_X from Abcars! Someone is already named rangerx here though so it wouldn't let me sign up under my normal name :madred: that's so wierd, I signed up on automotive forums a while ago, they have almost 30,000 members and my username was'nt taken there! Anyway, on with the summaries!


After I tested a 98 Ranger ext cab 4L last week, I needed to test a 4.3 S-10.
Found a beautiful one today. 98 4.3L ext cab V package.

I was extremely impressed with this truck!!! The 4.3 is so damn torquey! With the V package, which lowers the truck from the factory (actually sat lower than my 3/4 dropped ranger) the thing handled soooo well, though the steering tugged a lot more than the ranger, and I didn't find it was as tight as the 98... more stable around the turns though, and firm but really pleasent ride, felt better than the ranger. The package also adds LSD as well as nice little other features. There were so many little unexpected things that were nice, like you were able to turn off the airbag, there was a shift light and the radio keeps playing till you open the door. And i have to say, the 4.3 sounded and felt a lot better than the 4L. I've never felt the new 4L SOHC (207HP V6 on 00+ rangers) but as far as the 98s go, the S-10 wins hands down with the engine. I also felt the seats and overall interior was much nicer on the S-10 (especially the gages)
Now for the bashing- The shifter felt so incredibly cheap! I dreaded each shift with it! And the clutch was pure crap, it grabbed so quickly and it was way too stiff (you may remember me complaining about the stiff clutch in the ranger, this was much worse) What's with only having one jump seat? with the buckets, that means this S-10 will carry only as many passengers as my reg cab ranger, while the 98 ranger i tested will haul 5 people if needed! The windows were not tinted in either truck, but the cab of the s-10 was darker. And the biggest problem though by far was the feeling of the whole drive train mated to the throttle and shifter. The gas pedal was way too sensetive, I just could not drive the thing smoothly, so this truck would take a TON of adjusting, it'd be nice in auto tranny though.
Both trucks were about equal pricing. The ranger was $17 500, but had 100,000 km, and the S-10 was $18 500, but only had 60,000 km.

Overall, I'd have a really hard time deciding. I'm considering selling my truck and buying either of these two. I'm leaning more to the ranger though because it is kind of unfair comparing an XLT to a V package (I'm sure the ranger will handle just as well with a couple grand into suspension) and the ranger comes with a tonneau cover and rangers just feel more solid and I know they're more reliable. The S-10 is a better value when looked at on the surface though, and there is a larger and cheaper aftermarket. I just wish you could combine that 4.3 vortec with the rest of the ranger!


Oh yah, I tested a 2003 hyundai tiburon just for fun today too. I was really impressed by it. The clutch, shifter, veiwpoint (not slung low like lots of sports cars) and steering worked perfectly with me, and it had quite a bit of zip for a base model (140HP 4cyl, 0-60 in about 8.3) Lots of value for the buck too! If anyone is looking into an entry level sports car, don't overlook this! It's a very nice ride! Other good points: cheap options (the one i drove had tons of options and was only 2 grand off the 22,000 base price), 2 way sunroof, very comfortable seats in either leather or cloth (i thought the cloth was actually more comfortable) nice looking interior, very nice looking exterior IMO (they've done a good job stealing external features from other companies). The only complaint i had was the center console was annoying and obstructive for me when i was shifting, and the sunroof is only supposed to be a one-touch, but i needed to hold down on it the entire time, the salesman seemed a little embaressed with that. Only thing now is to wait for the reliability reports to come out. Why didn't i test the V6? Well they only had one V6 there and it wasn't the GS-R, so it was basically the same thing as the 4 cyl with the santa fe engine in it. I thought I'd get a feel for the more practical car, i know from road tests that the V6 only shaves off maybe 1/2 a second for 0-60 time, there's basically NO aftermarket for the V6 either. I would stick with the base model for sure cause there's just way more value.

Fluidic
06-02-2002, 11:31 PM
Sweet review... that's awesome dude... so much detail!!

OMG... I can't get over how much effort you put into that!!

YOU DA` MAN!

Go Ford... LOL!!

Peter

redline_13000
06-02-2002, 11:32 PM
thats the shit...i know what u mean when u say the s10 4.3 has so much torque:D :thumbsup:

T5_X
06-02-2002, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by redline_13000
thats the shit...i know what u mean when u say the s10 4.3 has so much torque:D :thumbsup:

Man, you have no idea! With your automatic Jimmy at near 5000lbs, you can't feel near the grunt as with a 3500lb 5 spd pickup! :thumbsup:


YOU DA` MAN!
Are you coming on to me Peter? :rofl: LOL, j/k, thanks.

redline_13000
06-03-2002, 12:00 AM
shit dude..if my jimmy feels that powerful..i gotta see what an s10 can do:bigpimp:

T5_X
06-03-2002, 12:08 AM
add a vortech blower with a few minor tweaks and you're pushing 300 ponies easy :D :hitit:

redline_13000
06-03-2002, 12:15 AM
hehe i wish man...i want to add a borla exhaust or flowmaster soon

Ben
06-03-2002, 01:49 AM
1989 Chevy S10 4.3Lw/ Filtercharger and dual 3" Manifold Back Exhaust does in excess of 210km/hr...

Those 4.3's are wicked motors.

Stock 190HP 220FT/LB TQ.

500 bucks worth of mods, I had it at 220horse and 245tq...

redline_13000
06-03-2002, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Benny
1989 Chevy S10 4.3Lw/ Filtercharger and dual 3" Manifold Back Exhaust does in excess of 210km/hr...

Those 4.3's are wicked motors.

Stock 190HP 220FT/LB TQ.

500 bucks worth of mods, I had it at 220horse and 245tq...

damn right theyre wicked...my jimmy will hit 160 and only be at like 2 000 rpms :mad: ..i need to take out that governor and see what it can do:bigpimp:


oo benny...its 250ft/lb of TQ if ur talking about the new motors....im not sure about the 89

T5_X
06-03-2002, 02:35 AM
1989 Chevy S10 4.3Lw/ Filtercharger and dual 3" Manifold Back Exhaust does in excess of 210km/hr... Those 4.3's are wicked motors.

Stock 190HP 220FT/LB TQ.

Your 89 was no where near that figure, here's what it was in 89: 160 HP / 230 TQ 4.3L TBI V6 (Vin Z).

they were bumped up to 165/235 in 93, then in 94 an optional 195HP/260ft-lb engine (that would be the first appearance of a 4.3 vortec) was introduced for 4X4 and SS models.

Then in 96 they introduced the CSFI engine to replace both the 165HP TBI engine and the 195HP CMFI, it's ratings were 180HP/245Tq on 2WD models and 190HP/250tq on 4X4 models. The 180HP CMFI is the one I drove. Both are Vortec which makes the engine much more powerful and more efficient

As for your top speed, well, I'm not sure, you could have had low gearing though


500 bucks worth of mods, I had it at 220horse and 245tq...

Are you the creator of Hi and Lois? Because you are making me laugh http://frinkian.com/blastpast/icons/simpson280.gif You could MAYBE free up 10-15 HP/Tq with 500 bucks, as well, they aren't the most reliable of engines so chances are your engine was not at stock rating. I drove my friend's 89 2 door blazer and the engine felt nothing like the current 4.3. Unless you have major mods into them, the pre-96 TBI 4.3s are pretty gutless pigs (especially in a blazer) I'd take the ford OHV 4L over one anyday.

speedracer
06-03-2002, 11:41 AM
My friends and I test drove the tib as well.
I didn't care too much for the shifter - way too long for 3rd gear. Then again I'm spoiled with a close gear ration gear box. :rolleyes:

Handling felt very good. Very responsive. Must be the Porsche engineering.

Acceleration: Not that impressed for a V6

Room:
Interior: Ok, but the plastic knobs (also found on the RSX) just doesn't appeal to me.
Front: driver and passenger :thumbsup:
Rear : Even asians don't fit in the back. My head hit the rear window. :thumbsdow :

T5_X
06-03-2002, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Benny
I bought the truck dynoed at 199hp/221tq at the wheels...as far as I knew, it had exhaust and a filtercharger.

LOL, did you get proof of the dyno? To suddenly get those numbers at the WHEELS (that would be much more at the flywheel) with those mods is impossible, unless you're some sort of ninja einstien and you custom made a variable valve timing system for it, it doesn't make any sense. For a dyno on the rear wheels of a 1/4 ton truck, both torque and HP should go down about 20 %, so a stock 89 4.3 s-10 should dyno in at ~130HP/184TQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit:

Ben
06-03-2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Ranger_X31


LOL, did you get proof of the dyno? To suddenly get those numbers at the WHEELS (that would be much more at the flywheel) with those mods is impossible, unless you're some sort of ninja einstien and you custom made a variable valve timing system for it, it doesn't make any sense. For a dyno on the rear wheels of a 1/4 ton truck, both torque and HP should go down about 20 %, so a stock 89 4.3 s-10 should dyno in at ~130HP/184TQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit:


Dude, whatever man, I bought the truck already done up. and thats all i know, I bought it because I liked the paint and the style, and knew jack shit about the motor (i only know euro, not american) you dont have to get all pissed off, and sream bullshit and this and that...Albertacars.net drama all over again.

Ask anyone who knew my truck, it went like stink. Dont worry about it, its long since crashed sold and scrapped.

Fuck, who gives a shit anyways.

What difference does it make from your point of view.

EDIT: I called up the guy I bought it from, and I'm sorry, it was a corrected 260tq and 199hp at the flywheel. It was a long time ago buddy, christ. I was misinformed, or took was misunderstood...it happens. He said he had the motor rebuilt with a new ignition, valve springs, throttlebody, the filtercharger, and dual exhaust manifold.

The point is, the 4.3 is a wicked motor, and I loved it very much, thats all I have to say about that.

HRD2PLZ
06-03-2002, 01:11 PM
hhmmm, I like the new Tibs, pretty inexpensive with all the options too. I still don't know if I'd be comfortable buying a Hyundai though...:dunno:

Ben
06-03-2002, 01:18 PM
Well, the new tibs are different...its really hyundais first try at their new V6, as well as integrating a 6speed into the scheme of things. Not sure if I would hop on thier bandwagon yet...i wouldn't buy a car fresh out of the gates with new equip. never really marketed befor...i would wait and see hhope things hold up...also a good chance that they will up power and fix quirks for the 2004...

I dunno, maybe I'm just paranoid, nah, I'm just not a fan of hyundais, but they seem to be onto something, lets hope it all goes well, free from recalls or problems, *knock on wood*

T5_X
06-03-2002, 02:39 PM
Sorry Benny, I didn't mean to come off as an asshole. I'm not pissed off or anything, I just wanted to make a point of not belive everything you hear from the owner when buying a used vehicle. I agree that the 4.3 is wicked, but only after it went vortec. Trust me, if you hopped in a new s-10, you'd agree :)

About the tibby, I stand behind my statement of getting the 4cyl. The V6 was designed to be put into the santa fe, and mated to hyundai's 5 speed shiftronic transmission. As usual, Hyundai has jumped into this too fast, they just frankenstiened stuff together quickly to make a package that looks sweet on the surface, but isn't as good as it seems. For the 2000 model year, C&D tested the hyundai tiburon's 0-60 time in 8.1 sec, that's with the same 4 cyl. Now, add a six speed and 40 horses, and what do you expect? Well SCC tested a new 2003 GT V6 at 7.6 sec with the 6 speed, I don't even know if it will be quicker at all with the standard 5 speed! Something seem fishy? Closest example is ford's SVT focus. Take a 2L zetec 130 HP ZX3, add 40 horses and a six speed and 0-60 time is shaved off by nearly 2 seconds!!! I know the weight stretch is more in the tib, but things still don't add up. Also, since this probably was just a quick design, things will definitly not be as reliable as with the 6 year old 4 cyl.

Damn nice looking car though. They stole styling ferrari's 456M and headlight design from the MKIV supra.

HRD2PLZ
06-03-2002, 04:50 PM
I might go test drive one and if I like it see how the reliablility issues go until the '04s are out. Thanks guys

GTS Jeff
06-03-2002, 05:01 PM
Maybe one day I will become a crazy bomber and bomb the Hyundai factory so people will stop even considering such junky cars.

C&D was pretty harsh on the Tibby in a sport coupe comparo too.

boi-alien
06-03-2002, 05:26 PM
the tib actually looks half decent, if someone gave me one i'd drive it for a while(mebbe a week) before i sold it hehe...

ah well, i wouldn't go out and buy one tho.

Anorexic Hi-Fi
09-17-2002, 08:52 PM
hyundais are great cars, i own a 2003 tibby its awsome. no poblems so far but only 7000 kms on it... it great fun to drive and hyundai doesn't have much reliablity issues any more... they had some along time ago when mitsubishi was making there engines but they stoped that and its gotten a lot better now...

Stratus_Power
09-17-2002, 09:05 PM
thanx for the awesome review.. The new tiberon is in my list of car i want to get next year when i get a car ( along w/ SE-R and GOLF ).. i am extremely impress w/ the new tiberon exterior design, sure is a head turner, though probably not as fun of a ride as Golf or SE-R, its still great for its price!!! i heard that the interior has this rubberish feel.. but i have yet to sit in one yet.. ( also heard rumors that if u r talling than 5"6 or watver u wont fit int he car??? ) haha but either way i will definitly not overlook the new tibby When my time comes :thumbsup:

T5_X
09-17-2002, 09:39 PM
LOL, this is so old. It was my 1st post on beyond ever!

Yah, I don't think anyone over 5'11 or so would be comfortable in the tib. It was almost perfect for me, and I'm a short bugger (5'7)

GTS Jeff
09-18-2002, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Stratus_Power
i heard that the interior has this rubberish feel.. but i have yet to sit in one yet..lol, its the shifter that has a rubberish feel.

id still rather go with an rsx.

Dope Dealer
09-18-2002, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Ranger_X31
LOL, this is so old. It was my 1st post on beyond ever!

Yah, I don't think anyone over 5'11 or so would be comfortable in the tib. It was almost perfect for me, and I'm a short bugger (5'7)

I had trouble getting into the car (I am 6'1 or so). But once your in, it isnt too bad. The seats should go back a bit more though. :)

Stratus_Power
09-18-2002, 12:14 AM
hmm Im 5'10 and maying still growing.. guess i just need to head down for a test drive sometime int he future

T5_X
09-18-2002, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Jeff TYPE R
lol, its the shifter that has a rubberish feel.

id still rather go with an rsx.

Shit, I'd take a base model tib over the RSX! You save what? 5 grand? The GT and GS-R are useless though, read earlier comments on why I think so. In that case, I'd get the RSX, but then I'd get an SVT focus or VW GTi or 2.5 RS before one of those.... so many choices :thumbsup: