Thinking about buying a Truck.... ( 3k to 5k )

[awsomeears]

Past two months I was able to earn about a solid $4k :stare without much effort, now I'm a saver and hate spending $$$ on things I don't really need.

But...

I'm looking for a truck that is 4x4 but not some honking mud truck, I was thinking 94-2002 Dakota or a Ford F150. Anything GM probably not, I just don't have faith in GM's front ends/suspension that relates to my price range that may have medium miles...

Any thought ?

Main use would be a Daily Driver, but I plan to purchase a Home soon and know I'd need a trailer. Plus moving boats up north for my family would be easy....

I have this 93 Plymouth Grand Voyager with 200K and it still runs like a TOP, has a ticking noise but has been diagnosed at timming guides. Mechanic told me it will last another 100K just drive the dam thing. So I'm sure I could get at least $800 for it that I'd put toward a truck...

[88Nightmare]

Honestly 96-99 silverados can be had for that price. Ive had numerous ones and never had an issue ever with front ends. In fact if you're concerned about front end issues, fords might be the last thing you wanna look at. Any truck for that price range is probably already beat to fuck so it doesn't really matter which brand you choose

[Rocket Power]

Love my F150 Screw. If you get a 97 or newer f150 get the 5.4, the 4.6 is gutless. My truck has 166,000 miles in the last year I've done balljoints and outer tierod ends, easy as pie, and that's the only front suspension "issues" I've had, at 10years and 166k miles I call that maintenance. Should be able to find a late 90's early 2000's F150 supercab in that price range.

[theavenger333]

i'd stay away from the Dakotas. The 90's versions ran very well, but were gas hogs. They're also sorta hard to find in decent shape, because they are/were popular. The 2000s versions were built for shit imo. i drove one for work for awhile, and a buddy owned one. everything rattled, it was an even worse gas hog, and there were constant problems. What was said above, is that you can get an F150 or a Silverado with miles for that price. Both are very good options, better then a dakota IMO

[The Shaolin]

If I had your cash and your goals, I'd probably pick up a clean, mid 90's, appropriately optioned Chevy half ton.

[Prince Valiant]

If you get a dakota, look for one with the newer SOHC engines...while the 318 (5.2) (220-230hp) magnum is a great, reliable engine and very well matched to the 4wd dakota's, the 3.9 v6 (175hp) is a little overmatched unless it's a reg cab.

The 3.7 v6 (210hp) is certainly better matched if you're looking for a smaller engined truck in the dakota.

The ideal dakota to me would be the 4 full-door (quad cab) w/ a 4.7 sohc v8 4x4. You get a smaller pick-up bed, but offset that with a usable interior that can actually carry more than one friend. The 4.7 is a bit more efficient than the 5.2.

BUT, when you really look closely at it...weighing gas mileage, capabilities, room, etc...there really is no advantage to getting a dakota, as a Ram is maybe a couple bucks more, right there in mileage, yet can carry/tow much more. The only reason someone like me might end up with a dakota over a ram is that a ram won't fit in the current garage as it's too tall, while a dakota 4x4 fits just fine.

Quad cab 4x4's w/ v8 are just out of the range you specify, (a couple v6's are there though), but wheeling and dealing should get you close enough.

[77thor]

i'd stay away from the Dakotas... IMO

+1 on that one....

[The Shaolin]

The ideal dakota to me would be the 4 full-door (quad cab) w/ a 4.7 sohc v8 4x4. You get a smaller pick-up bed, but offset that with a usable interior that can actually carry more than one friend. The 4.7 is a bit more efficient than the 5.2.

Friend of mine has this exact truck. He daily drives his, but complains about being underweight depending on what you're towing. Gotta remember that's a quarter ton chassis. He also grenaded the rear end in his.

[Slow5oh]

picked up my 2000 Ram with the 5.9 360 with 103k for 6k including tax/title/plates. I love it.
Off road edition so Skid plates, shorter wheel base, 4:10s, tow hook and paint matched bumpers

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn293/quick93fox/257565_10150212390746624_510846623_7169284_4094336 _o.jpg

[Prince Valiant]

Friend of mine has this exact truck. He daily drives his, but complains about being underweight depending on what you're towing. Gotta remember that's a quarter ton chassis. He also grenaded the rear end in his.there are two rear's available...an 8 1/4 and a 9 1/4, though I can't recall the mix of options that gives one which. Some 8's have the smaller, but all 5.9's I know have the bigger. If towing is important, go for either the bigger, or the ram (all have 9 1/4's).

[Rocket Power]

BUT, when you really look closely at it...weighing gas mileage, capabilities, room, etc...there really is no advantage to getting a dakota, as a Ram is maybe a couple bucks more, right there in mileage, yet can carry/tow much more.

This^

When I bought my screw, a former coworker bought an extended cab ranger with a V6. He got 1-2 more mpg than me, but I can tow more and have 5 adults in my truck vs 2 adults and some maybe a small child or twoin his.

[BoosTT]

I doubt you'll be able to find anything full sized newer then about 2000 for under $5k unless you are willing to concider V6's or work trucks. With this said, I would look into getting a GM 1/2 ton.

I'm in the same situation as you. I need a new truck, but don't want to spend $17k+ to get something not dated, stripped out or with 120k miles. I don't think trucks depreciate the same way as cars. It's not like you can buy a brand new kia truck for $169/month.

I would also only go the full sized route. My 4.0L ranger sucks gas and doesen't tow as much as I would like.