What's my best choice for a cheap (<$5000) truck that

Why not rent a uhaul for like 20 bucks a day when you need to haul shit and rep the mpgs with your sedan/crossover?

f250 with the boxy 80s style body. maximum greatness

older F150s with the 300 I6 are bulletproof. Tacomas are good but some of the early motors had headgasket problems. careful about those.

Nissan pickups of the same generation were okay.

Chevy 1500s of the early 2000s have LS motors and can sometimes be found for nice and cheap. These are a great option.

really just depends. A lot of this stuff is subjective.

>>17862954
I mainly want it for picking up furniture. The problem is that anything with a decent price requires at least a 30 mile drive out (the furniture that is,) and U-Haul charges per mile on top of the $20 charge. This is also why reliability is important. I don't want to have to get towed from 100 miles away.

>>17862960
I'm in the midwest. A truck from the 80s will be more rust than steel.

>>17862970
I didn't think of Nissan trucks. Are Rangers any good? They seem to be among the cheapest trucks available.

>>17862992
dont get a 97-03 f150/f250 with the triton v8's in them, ask me how I know.

>>17863004
Do tell, how many spark plug holes were helicoiled?

>>17862992
The rangers were fine, but the 6cyl models had some issues. Try to get a 4 cyl.

Past that, don't think they had any major problems.

RAM 1500s/Dakotas from the mid to late 90s are good. They're cheap to buy and as long as it's the manual, the reliability isn't bad.

File: 20616129_10207413800423621_1676654605_o.jpg (504KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 2048x1152px

>>17863012
none so far, i replaced the engine with a new 4.6L.
if i had the time i would have just done a 5L swap.

Pic Related: most recent picture.
Bought the truck when I was 18, im 23 now, replaced the engine at 192,000 km's (bought it at 190,000 had a knock so I low balled the fat whale for $1200, she wanted $2500 for it. Soon after the engine got replaced transmission went, as I assumed it would.

I should have gotten rid of it a long time ago, but i probably wouldnt even get $3,000 for it in its current state, so i'll just drive it until it dies, that or i'll keep it and throw a 429 crate motor in it and really confuse people.

>>17863024
>Try to get a 4 cyl.

>4cyl Ranger

Unless you want an absolutely gutless truck dont do this. You can read the horror stories of people maxing them out hauling mundane things. I was going 25 up a slight grade and so on and so forth.

I get that semis going up a grade need to slow down, but your personal truck? Thats a huge hazard.

I had a 2001 3.0 V6 and while reliable, it was gutless although it could get up to speed OK. I can not imagine a fucking 4 banger.

If you want a dangerously slow outdated truck then a base 4 banger single cab is the truck for you!

>>17863094
>I can't imagine a pickup not being a race car
Get the fuck out of here faggot. They're slow, but adequate. Albeit only just.

>>17863004
You know, the explorer had the 5.0 from 1996-2001. had 215 HP/288 torque. headers for the explorer were trash due to size constraints.. With decent headers its easily 300+ lbs torque stock.

Honestly, it should have been made an option for the 10th gen F series from 97-2001 at least.

I have owned two explorers and both had the 5.0. One went 225k miles and still ran good when I sold it. The other has 100k on it.

The 5.0 is bulletproof, even if it did never make more than 215hp in truck/SUV applications. The torque is there and thats what matters for trucks.

But no, ford had to stay competitive with chevy. Honestly the 5.0 could have been made to last a few more years until they got the whole modular V8 think figured out.

>>17863106
Dude. I have experience in this.

Im telling you that a 4 banger ranger is fucking dangerous when loaded or pulling a trailer.

The 3.0 should have been the base engine from the get go. I get that 4 bangers had an appeal for small jobs but god damn they are some of the most overworked trucks.

>>17863123
Yeah so they could all blow up and end up in my junkyard instead of just half of them.

>>17863115
yeah, I never understood why they didnt have 5L editions of the f150's, hell even the ford lightning's should have had supercharged 5.0L's instead othe supercharged 5.4L.

>>17863134
I still see guys driving around in early 90s 5.0 trucks and 5.8s on daily basis.

I see a LOT less of the early modular trucks.

For some reason you either have a 80s-90s ford or a new one made in the last 10 years.

>>17863159
thats because the 97-about 2004 f150's were garbage, once they dumped the whole modular engine idea is when you started to see more and more of them around, the 4.6L and 5.4L would have been pretty decent engines if they spent more time working on them.

The early 5.4's/4.6's didnt have enough threads in the head so the spark plugs would shoot out, then you'd helicoil them, then the newer 5.4s/4.6's had too many threads in the heads so when you'd go to take out the plug itself you'd break it in the head and had to basically get a new one.

>>17863128
This.
>>17863123
>overworked
Yet they keep going.
Anyway, if you'd been paying attention (which you clearly haven't), OP just wants something to haul furniture that won't fit in sedan/wagon. A 4 cylinder compact pickup is perfect. I'll bet you're the kind of faggot who thinks that towing 5000lb requires a 3/4ton HD pickup.

>>17863183
>I'll bet you're the kind of faggot who thinks that towing 5000lb requires a 3/4ton HD pickup.

No but NO ranger has any business towing that kind of weight regardless of engine.

you want a truck that can handle it and then some. Why run your truck ragged and at the absolute limit? Its not only dangerous its stupid. Sure itll work for furniture but not much else. Why not step up to the 4.0? Useable power there at least.

Its about maximizing your money spent, better to buy a more capable truck from the get go. Not saying the 4 pot is bad, they were reliable and hard workers. Just very bare minimal. And thats not what you want from a truck.

>>17863209
>No but NO ranger has any business towing that kind of weight regardless of engine.
No one said they're towing that weight with a Ranger you fuckwit, that was an example.
>Not saying the 4 pot is bad, they were reliable and hard workers. Just very bare minimal.
No shit Sherlock, that's what OP wants. Is your IQ similar to your shoe size?

File: taynger.jpg (721KB, 2032x1148px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 2032x1148px

>>17863209
2.3 who towed a 8000lb trailer across the states lives across from me. done it 4 times without issue (Ministry of Transport doesn't really exist in most states like it does up here). that's around 20k km of 2.3 towing a 8000lb RV

i tow a 3000lb car with a dolly quite often with my 4.0 and barely feel it's back there. disc brakes front and back and he has drums.

In any case, the 3.0s are useless as all hell. either 2.3 or 4.0.

>>17863115
Or a 5.0 swapped ranger
apparently cummins 4bt swaps are easy on them, too.

>>17863245
I am. 2.3 limas are surprisingly capable with their high 3.xx gears.

I wouldn't recommend towing. but if my neighbour's 1998 is anything to gawk at, they're more than capable of towing 4000lb +. Remember their brakes and guts are the same as the 4.0s except for their engine.

fine line between bravery and stupidity, tho...

>>17862948
73-87 Squarebody for $2000-4000. The more rust prone your state the more you'll want to pay to avoid it.