Best old truck or SUV with decent towing capacity for $4-5k?

[Bartman39]

Question...? Why is everyone (almost) listing or suggesting a 3/4 ton truck...? Almost any 1/2 ton should pull 5k-6k in weight...? I got on craiglist and found a ton of descent $3500-$5500 price ranged 2000-2005 Chevrolet trucks both ext. cab and crew cab (4 door)... Here is one that only has 162,000 miles on it...? https://houston.craigslist.org/cto/d/2006-chevy-silverarado-crew/6553612731.html
Here is another one that needs a bumper but is only $3500 https://houston.craigslist.org/cto/d/2005-chevrolet-silveradodr/6545591938.html


???????????????????????????

 

[slag]

Good question Bartman and I don't disagree. Even my wife's explorer sport will tow 5k as will my old ass 4runner.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Like someone else already suggested, a heavy van like a Ford E-150 is relatively cheap and will hit your towing target. When I think race track, I think vans are way better. Room for your car on your trailer, while you can through your Tools and Gear in the back of the van without worrying about the elements or other people.

 

[JCH13]

I guess it depends on the part of the country you are in. Here is a local example that's decent. F250

They guy wants to tow 5-6klbs... don't you think an F250 is a bit of overkill?

Also, F-Series pickups don't seem to be remarkably reliable.

Edit: as someone who has done a modest amount of racing and towed with a van... ugh. I get that locking your things up inside the van seems appealing, but if you're driving a significant distance it's worth having a vehicle that's not totally utilitarian.

 

[scannall]

They guy wants to tow 5-6klbs... don't you think an F250 is a bit of overkill?

Also, F-Series pickups don't seem to be remarkably reliable.

Edit: as someone who has done a modest amount of racing and towed with a van... ugh. I get that locking your things up inside the van seems appealing, but if you're driving a significant distance it's worth having a vehicle that's not totally utilitarian.

The gas ones are not all that reliable, with the exception of the 300 ci straight six (Very uncommon engine choice). The diesels are pretty strong though. The Triton gas V8's were really not suited to truck use, and had some issues. I'd avoid those. The straight six is 'old school'. Not fast, lots of torque and durable.

 

[pauldun170]

Avoid the Mercury Mountaineer or Explorer with the 4.6 and 5spd auto combo!!
You can look forward to transmissions replacements every 60K

 

[mizzou]

2500 commercial van w/ hitch

 

[JCH13]

The gas ones are not all that reliable, with the exception of the 300 ci straight six (Very uncommon engine choice). The diesels are pretty strong though. The Triton gas V8's were really not suited to truck use, and had some issues. I'd avoid those. The straight six is 'old school'. Not fast, lots of torque and durable.

Do you have any real data to back up your reliability assertions?

 

[scannall]

Do you have any real data to back up your reliability assertions?

I have had one for 15 years now. The diesel model. No problems at all, just routine maintenance.

Edmunds reviews for 2000 F250

 

[monkeydelmagico]

You towing in the flat lands or hilly country?

 

[JCH13]

One anecdote at one review source with 17 entries is not a meaningful amount of data by any measure. To have reasonable confidence in F-series reliability you'll need around 400 samples.

Some perspective: LTQI has information from 7k Tundras and 41k F-Series.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Edit: as someone who has done a modest amount of racing and towed with a van... ugh. I get that locking your things up inside the van seems appealing, but if you're driving a significant distance it's worth having a vehicle that's not totally utilitarian.

When you're spending 4-5K on something that's going to be pulling 5,000 pounds around, Utilitarian is really all you should be looking at. Also I can't imagine why "driving a significant difference" makes any difference with a van vs. a truck. I grew up with both vans and trucks. You can put the same things in them. It's not like he's going to be impressed with what he gets stock regardless of the type. Not in that budget.

 

[JCH13]

When you're spending 4-5K on something that's going to be pulling 5,000 pounds around, Utilitarian is really all you should be looking at. Also I can't imagine why "driving a significant difference" makes any difference with a van vs. a truck. I grew up with both vans and trucks. You can put the same things in them. It's not like he's going to be impressed with what he gets stock regardless of the type. Not in that budget.

I said 'significant distance' not 'difference'

$5k can get a used GX470 with the desired tow rating, a comfortable interior, and a decent ride. Reliable, durable, nice, capable, and in-budget. I do not see the need to resign oneself to driving an unpleasant vehicle just because of these budget constraints.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I said 'significant distance' not 'difference'

$5k can get a used GX470 with the desired tow rating, a comfortable interior, and a decent ride. Reliable, durable, nice, capable, and in-budget. I do not see the need to resign oneself to driving an unpleasant vehicle just because of these budget constraints.

Well sure, you can get any vehicle for the right price. You can of course discuss Lexus and Toyota's degree of reliability all day on a forum, but the fact of the matter is that paying 5K for a GX470 approaching a quarter of a million miles vs. a Van with half that is going to be a gamble one way or the other.

 

[jlee]

Well sure, you can get any vehicle for the right price. You can of course discuss Lexus and Toyota's degree of reliability all day on a forum, but the fact of the matter is that paying 5K for a GX470 approaching a quarter of a million miles vs. a Van with half that is going to be a gamble one way or the other.

Or you can look at reliability statistics and prove your point with data.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Or you can look at reliability statistics and prove your point with data.

I'd be curious about how you'd get properly correlated data to make that comparison. For one thing how would you collect accurate reliability data this many years down the line? How would you correlate with the difference in number of vehicles on the road? How would you correlate with the demographics, as the uses and reasons people bought a GX 470 are vastly different from the reasons people bought a cargo van.

While I'm sure there's lots of *data* out there, I'm not as convinced you'd find usable and properly weighted *statistics*.

 

[jlee]

I'd be curious about how you'd get properly correlated data to make that comparison. For one thing how would you collect accurate reliability data this many years down the line? How would you correlate with the difference in number of vehicles on the road? How would you correlate with the demographics, as the uses and reasons people bought a GX 470 are vastly different from the reasons people bought a cargo van.

While I'm sure there's lots of *data* out there, I'm not as convinced you'd find usable and properly weighted *statistics*.

LTQI gives you a better indication than a completely baseless claim of "that is going to be a gamble one way or the other."

 

[thecoolnessrune]

LTQI gives you a better indication than a completely baseless claim of "that is going to be a gamble one way or the other."

LTQI is a better indicator. However, LTQI does nothing to account for points I just mentioned. LTQI also only discusses powertrain issues, not electrical issues, so it wouldn't account for the GX 470's airbag leaking issues just like it wouldn't account for the Lincoln Navigator's airbag leaking issues.

As the name implies, it's an indicator, not a statistic. Certainly not something you could conclusively use to say "Lexus GX 470 at 225,000 miles is more reliable than a GMC Savanna at 125,000 Miles."

 

[JCH13]

Well sure, you can get any vehicle for the right price. You can of course discuss Lexus and Toyota's degree of reliability all day on a forum, but the fact of the matter is that paying 5K for a GX470 approaching a quarter of a million miles vs. a Van with half that is going to be a gamble one way or the other.

You mean that there's risk when buying a used vehicle?! Oh my stars!

Or you can look at reliability statistics and prove your point with data.

I'd be curious about how you'd get properly correlated data to make that comparison. For one thing how would you collect accurate reliability data this many years down the line? How would you correlate with the difference in number of vehicles on the road? How would you correlate with the demographics, as the uses and reasons people bought a GX 470 are vastly different from the reasons people bought a cargo van.

While I'm sure there's lots of *data* out there, I'm not as convinced you'd find usable and properly weighted *statistics*.

LTQI is a better indicator. However, LTQI does nothing to account for points I just mentioned. LTQI also only discusses powertrain issues, not electrical issues, so it wouldn't account for the GX 470's airbag leaking issues just like it wouldn't account for the Lincoln Navigator's airbag leaking issues.

As the name implies, it's an indicator, not a statistic. Certainly not something you could conclusively use to say "Lexus GX 470 at 225,000 miles is more reliable than a GMC Savanna at 125,000 Miles."

Hold up here. You don't seem to know what a statistic is...

Index - "an indicator, sign, or measure of something"
Statistic - "a fact or piece of data from a study of a large quantity of numerical data"
Datum -"a piece of information"

In this case the index (the actual number LTQI presents) is derived from statistics calculated from a database of used car data. LTQI is one way to distill reliability data and statistics into a usable number, the index. Implying that LTQI is just data or just an index, but not a 'statistic,' shows ignorance of how that index was calculated.

More to the point, because LTQI has so much data it is safe to assume that most or all secondary correlations that you allude to come out in the wash. This is why large sample sizes are great - you get measurements from numerous possible conditions: from the idiot trust-fund kid who abused his GX470 to the old-timer who took religiously good care of his GMC van. It is also noteworthy that LTQI normalizes for age and miles driven. Can you tell that the 225k GX is more reliable than the 125k Savanna? No. But if you have two of similar age and mileage, then you can make a good decision. If you were curious about comparing high-mileage reliability, look at the total mileage distribution of each model.

The LTQI is just a tool. It has recognized limitations, but is a great starting point. Far better than a few anecdotes for sure. But, at the end of the day, buying a used car is highly contextual. One can find good and bad examples of any make/model if you try hard enough. LTQI and other indicators point one towards the highest chances of a favorable result.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

You mean that there's risk when buying a used vehicle?! Oh my stars!

Hold up here. You don't seem to know what a statistic is...

Index - "an indicator, sign, or measure of something"
Statistic - "a fact or piece of data from a study of a large quantity of numerical data"
Datum -"a piece of information"

In this case the index (the actual number LTQI presents) is derived from statistics calculated from a database of used car data. LTQI is one way to distill reliability data and statistics into a usable number, the index. Implying that LTQI is just data or just an index, but not a 'statistic,' shows ignorance of how that index was calculated.

I think these are mostly fair points. I was being too generic in my verbiage. It's acceptable to say LTQI is a usable index when looking at an individual vehicle. I would definitely say that across the same segment in similar price ranges and mileage, you could say that the LTQI is a usable index across vehicles in the same class. Framing that the LTQI is an index that can be used to compare vehicles across classes I disagree with. I do not see any evidence in the way that they derive the numbers that shows this provides a meaningful result.

More to the point, because LTQI has so much data it is safe to assume that most or all secondary correlations that you allude to come out in the wash. This is why large sample sizes are great - you get measurements from numerous possible conditions: from the idiot trust-fund kid who abused his GX470 to the old-timer who took religiously good care of his GMC van. It is also noteworthy that LTQI normalizes for age and miles driven. Can you tell that the 225k GX is more reliable than the 125k Savanna? No. But if you have two of similar age and mileage, then you can make a good decision. If you were curious about comparing high-mileage reliability, look at the total mileage distribution of each model.

No I don't agree with this at all. There is nothing in the LTQI data that indicates that sheer sample size would normalize across different vehicle classes and use cases. Do you think LTQI indexes would be comparable between the Peterbuilt 367 and the Honda Accord even when miles and age is taken into account? No, because the use case is very different, the initial price is very different, and the price at each age and mileage point is going to be very different. The index is very different when the use case is very different. I have not seen any sign that LTQI can normalize effectively between vehicles with a very high fleet and commercial use vs. vehicles with an average buyer age of nearly 60 years.

The LTQI is just a tool. It has recognized limitations, but is a great starting point. Far better than a few anecdotes for sure. But, at the end of the day, buying a used car is highly contextual. One can find good and bad examples of any make/model if you try hard enough. LTQI and other indicators point one towards the highest chances of a favorable result.

I agree. LTQI though can only point you in the right direction if you use it appropriately within the bounds of the data you have. LTQI can be a great indicator for instance that the GMC Savana might be a more reliable choice compared to the Ford E-150. But what is LTQI doing to normalize a vehicle with a large fleet presence and large degree of commercial use vs. a vehicle from a manufacturer who's average buying age is 59 and some change? I don't see any indicator that large use-case disparities like that can be solved by just throwing more samples at it.

 

[jlee]

No I don't agree with this at all. There is nothing in the LTQI data that indicates that sheer sample size would normalize across different vehicle classes and use cases. Do you think LTQI indexes would be comparable between the Peterbuilt 367 and the Honda Accord even when miles and age is taken into account? No, because the use case is very different, the initial price is very different, and the price at each age and mileage point is going to be very different Peterbuilt is not in the LTQI database. The index is very different when the use case is very different. I have not seen any sign that LTQI can normalize effectively between vehicles with a very high fleet and commercial use vs. vehicles with an average buyer age of nearly 60 years.

1) FTFY.

2) Why?

You keep bringing up purchase price and buyer age - why is that relevant?

 

[JCH13]

I think these are mostly fair points. I was being too generic in my verbiage. It's acceptable to say LTQI is a usable index when looking at an individual vehicle. I would definitely say that across the same segment in similar price ranges and mileage, you could say that the LTQI is a usable index across vehicles in the same class. Framing that the LTQI is an index that can be used to compare vehicles across classes I disagree with. I do not see any evidence in the way that they derive the numbers that shows this provides a meaningful result.



No I don't agree with this at all. There is nothing in the LTQI data that indicates that sheer sample size would normalize across different vehicle classes and use cases. Do you think LTQI indexes would be comparable between the Peterbuilt 367 and the Honda Accord even when miles and age is taken into account? No, because the use case is very different, the initial price is very different, and the price at each age and mileage point is going to be very different. The index is very different when the use case is very different. I have not seen any sign that LTQI can normalize effectively between vehicles with a very high fleet and commercial use vs. vehicles with an average buyer age of nearly 60 years.



I agree. LTQI though can only point you in the right direction if you use it appropriately within the bounds of the data you have. LTQI can be a great indicator for instance that the GMC Savana might be a more reliable choice compared to the Ford E-150. But what is LTQI doing to normalize a vehicle with a large fleet presence and large degree of commercial use vs. a vehicle from a manufacturer who's average buying age is 59 and some change? I don't see any indicator that large use-case disparities like that can be solved by just throwing more samples at it.

Do you have any evidence to demonstrate the effects of vehicle classes and use cases on reliability? Do you have any evidence to contradict the LTQI results? Do you have an objectively better source of information from which to evaluate reliability information?

I would love an MTBF- or long-term-TCO database to draw conclusions from... but I do not have that, so LTQI will have to do.

Edit: I think that you're seeking some ultimate 'all variables normalized' reliability indicator. A noble endeavor, but perhaps not practically useful. Do you want to buy a beat-up van because when normalized for abuse it's better (in a certain sense) than a luxury SUV that's been babied? Or do you want to buy the babied luxury SUV? In other words: if the reliability index tends to favor un-abused vehicles, that's what I'd like to see!

 

[thecoolnessrune]

1) FTFY.

2) Why?

You keep bringing up purchase price and buyer age - why is that relevant?

1. It doesn't have to be regarding my point.
2. See the point you cross out.

3. I already noted why. A vehicle that is reliable as a grocery getter for a 60 year old in Florida might not be reliable for a 35 year old pipe fitter, because the use case is very different. If it was an outlier that would be one thing, but if it is the general use case for a vehicle because of the demographic that uses them, then what why would this not matter?

Would you expect a model of vehicle with large numbers of fleet ownership to have different mileage distribution numbers from a model of vehicles that are almost exclusively purchased and leased?

Would you expect a model of vehicle with large numbers of vocational usage to have different reliability figures from a vehicle that is largely purchased by an older demographic and doing little aside from moving itself?

I think the GX 470 is reliable by most accounts, both numerical and anecdotal. However, I have still not been shown anything that shows the the LTQI statistics could be used to compare vehicles across classes and their typical use cases.

Do you have any evidence to demonstrate the effects of vehicle classes and use cases on reliability? Do you have any evidence to contradict the LTQI results? Do you have an objectively better source of information from which to evaluate reliability information?

No evidence to demonstrate the effects of vehicle classes and use cases on reliability. All I have is thought on it. I feel like a Honda Accord, while highly reliable on LTQI, would have more reliability issues as a track car vs. a Corvette. Perhaps not though! I genuinely have no evidence on me to immediately show that. I have no objectively better source of information to evaluate reliability information, but that of course has nothing to do with whether or not it's beneficial to use information in a certain way or not.

I would love an MTBF- or long-term-TCO database to draw conclusions from... but I do not have that, so LTQI will have to do.

Using information you have available is fine, but again, I don't see where comparisons across vehicles from different use cases are particularly helpful.

Edit: I think that you're seeking some ultimate 'all variables normalized' reliability indicator. A noble endeavor, but perhaps not practically useful. Do you want to buy a beat-up van because when normalized for abuse it's better (in a certain sense) than a luxury SUV that's been babied? Or do you want to buy the babied luxury SUV? In other words: if the reliability index tends to favor un-abused vehicles, that's what I'd like to see!

I'm not seeking anything really. I'm not hunting for a vehicle.. I'm saying that just because an Index is being used for multiple vehicles and classes, it does not mean that the index is useful compared from one group to another. I will say that there are pages on the site that display LTQI scores amongst various vehicle classes. I would indeed consider that to be more useful, as the sample size is much more likely to normalize within the same use case.

 

[jlee]

1. It doesn't have to be regarding my point.
2. See the point you cross out.

3. I already noted why. A vehicle that is reliable as a grocery getter for a 60 year old in Florida might not be reliable for a 35 year old pipe fitter, because the use case is very different. If it was an outlier that would be one thing, but if it is the general use case for a vehicle because of the demographic that uses them, then what why would this not matter?

Would you expect a model of vehicle with large numbers of fleet ownership to have different mileage distribution numbers from a model of vehicles that are almost exclusively purchased and leased?

Would you expect a model of vehicle with large numbers of vocational usage to have different reliability figures from a vehicle that is largely purchased by an older demographic and doing little aside from moving itself?

I think the GX 470 is reliable by most accounts, both numerical and anecdotal. However, I have still not been shown anything that shows the the LTQI statistics could be used to compare vehicles across classes and their typical use cases.



No evidence to demonstrate the effects of vehicle classes and use cases on reliability. All I have is thought on it. I feel like a Honda Accord, while highly reliable on LTQI, would have more reliability issues as a track car vs. a Corvette. Perhaps not though! I genuinely have no evidence on me to immediately show that. I have no objectively better source of information to evaluate reliability information, but that of course has nothing to do with whether or not it's beneficial to use information in a certain way or not.



Using information you have available is fine, but again, I don't see where comparisons across vehicles from different use cases are particularly helpful.



I'm not seeking anything really. I'm not hunting for a vehicle.. I'm saying that just because an Index is being used for multiple vehicles and classes, it does not mean that the index is useful compared from one group to another. I will say that there are pages on the site that display LTQI scores amongst various vehicle classes. I would indeed consider that to be more useful, as the sample size is much more likely to normalize within the same use case.

Do you have data behind any of these assertions? What we "expect" is irrelevant.

Re: your Accord/Corvette comparison, I would venture that a Corvette would be more reliable than an Accord across the board, whether used as a track car or not.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Do you have data behind any of these assertions? What we "expect" is irrelevant.

I do not have anything prepared and even said as much in my last post. There's nothing from LTQI that indicates that these have been evaluated either. But it doesn't have to be. Genuinely. Having the question unanswered doesn't leave me with shaking doubt, nor does it make be doubt the capabilities of the GX 470. You just simply go on not knowing.