Late '90s - early '00s 1/2 ton pickups: problems?

[dnastrau]

Greetings:

My dad's '95 S10 fell victim to a large deer this week. He is looking to replace it with a late 90s-early 2000s 1/2 ton pickup. He would prefer a V8 automatic extended cab; 4WD is not a necessity as this will be used as a secondary vehicle. I wanted to see if anyone had any feedback on what to look out for on the usual suspects. This is what little I know from Google searches:

Ford: 4.6 and 5.4 V8 spark plug thread issues where engine spits out plugs. Potential $$$$ to repair. Transmission problems before '98 (accumulator piston, torque converter.) I am not sure if the 4.6 plastic intake coolant crossover issue (i.e. Crown Vics) applies to them.

Dodge: Front end problems (bad ball joints.) Some report transmission problems as well (related to governor pressure sensor and solenoid.)

Chevy: Transmission valve body and general electrical issues (fuel pump, climate control module, etc.)

When I look at underhood photos of the three, the Chevy looks like it is the easiest to work on and the Ford the hardest. All three look like they can rust in areas where salt is used on the roads(not a surprise).

Any feedback is appreciated!


Thanks,

Andrew S.

 

[Scienceman]

I would look at a 2000+ Ford F-150, particually with the 4.6
those are indestructable engines. As far as the spark plugs, blah...I have never heard of any problems with all the Ford guys I talk to.

The 5.4 is a good engine to..but I would rather have the 4.6

 

[motorguy222]

What seems to be the main problems with Dodge is the trans troubles but I think that was back around the 94 to 95 or so models.The ball joint problems were from what I know in the Durangos.

Some have said that the Dodge trucks with the 318 and 360 have sludge problems but I havent really heard of any problems with sludge in anything but the Durangos.

The Fords do have head problems.The heads were first tapped with only two threads to hold the plugs in,that made trouble.Ford later made the the heads with four threads and that seemed to help.

Chevys do have problems with some of the transmissions,they dont hold up well in some areas.

It really comes down to which one you like then best.Chevy would probably be the cheapest when it comes to buying parts because they are so many of them.Ford claims to be the top selling truck but when you add the sales of Chevy and GMC together,they sell more than Ford.

 

[Scienceman]

The newer model Fords (I'd say 2005 and up) will not give you spark plug or head problems. Ford is the number 1 truck for a reason.

Chevy trucks 2000 models+ do have random transmission issues, and there seems to be some random problems with some of the 5.3 trucks (see mech. maint. section or search)

Dodges I really do not know.

What about a Toyota Tundra? The 4.7 engine is awesome, and the transmissions seem to be good.

 

[Bill in Utah]

My 2000 Silverado was a manual so no transmission problems (I was STUPID for getting rid of that truck) It has over 100k now with no problems.

My Mom has a 2002 with the Auto and its doing great with 90k on it. We do drain and refills on the transmission every 30k.

No question which one is easier to work on. Not even close. Plus the frame/cab on the Fords in that vintage were unsafe compared to other mfg. (Check out crash test videos on the ext cabs)

I'd personally stick (and did with my 2004) GMC/Chevy. My new to me 2004 is a great vehicle with only 124k on it and doing well. They get better MPG also which will count in the future.

Good luck! bill

 

[MNgopher]

I only have experience with the Fords of that era. Honestly, all the trucks are pretty good out of the box.

-Spark Plugs: Is an issue, but not as prevalent as some make out. You'd think every truck has the problem by the internet. Our fleet of fords at work has never had this, and we usually get at least one that has a well known gremlin when they exist. Not saying it doesn't happen though...
-Intake manifold: not an issue on the trucks. All metal...

All in all, my '99 F150 (190,000 miles on it) is still the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned, with my '97 a close second. With the reliability I've had, it is my low cost per mile vehicle to drive despite being the least fuel efficient. Our '88 Chevy 1/2 ton was a rattletrap at this point in the mileage game (retired it with 240,000 miles), but this truck is about as rattle and squeek free as can be. Remarkable...

Oh, the power on the 5.4 went up substantially I believe in '99, if thats important to you.

 

[mechanicx]

I'd go with the Chevy pick up. I like easier to work on. They also have the highest dependability based on registration from 1981-2007. The 97-03 Ford were probably as reliable or more, but they did have a pretty major crash structure safety problem.

 

[FL-400S]

I'd recommend a Tundra too. Both the 3.4L and 4.7L are strong and last a long time. Timing belts on each is due at 90k miles. The older 4 speed trans is strong and has both a drain plug and dipstick, which I can't remember if the newer 5 speed does. The differential also has a drain plug. It takes something like 3.5 qts of gear oil. The radiator is easy to drain if you take the skid plate off. Fuel filter is under drivers door frame. Very easy truck to work on. Top crash test ratings. Built in Indiana.

The weak spots are the brakes on the earliest Tundras (00-02). There was a recall for fuel filler tubes, some front suspension parts (tie rods?), and frame rust.

 

[Spazdog]

Why not a Dakota?

It's certainly a step up from an S10 and it's easier to park than a C1500/Ram 1500/F-150 and quite nearly as big as an early Tundra/T-100.

Less expensive than a Tundra too.

There are some reports of sludging on the 4.7. But I see the reported mileage of some of these "sludgers" and they are near 200,000 miles so

IMO, the Chrysler 4.7 is as reliable as the Ford 4.6.

I found the Dakota to be more comfortable and fun to drive than any of the full-sizes from that era.

 

[mrsilv04]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Why not a Dakota?


I'd have gotten a Dakota instead of a full size... but I couldn't find a compelling reason to... especially when the gas mileage is virtually the same, but the Dakota is a smaller truck.

Plus, the Dakota's have that nasty problem with the ball joints on the front end, where the front wheels literally try to fall off.

No thanks.

 

[rat]

The most common issues with the Chevys hat we see around here are fuel pumps,(module assy's) electrical issues such as insrument cluster failures, radios, switches, heater and a/c control issues, window motor/regulator assy's, steering shafts, wheel bearing hubs, transmission shift solenoids, door and tailgate handles. Other than that, they are decent trucks.

 

[SLCraig]

That balljoint thing would not stop me from buying a Dakota. They are great trucks and are very solid. If that area is inspected every once in a while, it should never be a problem if addressed.
I have driven a few and they are my favorite overall for their good midsize, but not puny S10 size, and not mammoth size overall.

The 318 is a good engine in the late 90's, and the 4.7 is great going upto 2004 in the 2nd gens. They are also I think very handsome overall.

They are my favorite overall pickup truck out there.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: SLCraig
That balljoint thing would not stop me from buying a Dakota. They are great trucks and are very solid. If that area is inspected every once in a while, it should never be a problem if addressed.
I have driven a few and they are my favorite overall for their good midsize, but not puny S10 size, and not mammoth size overall.

The 318 is a good engine in the late 90's, and the 4.7 is great going upto 2004 in the 2nd gens. They are also I think very handsome overall.


They are my favorite overall pickup truck out there.

I agree.

I test drove a lot of 02-04 Dakotas when I was car shopping in addition to the Ranger/B-series, S10s and a Colorado. It was just so much better than the others.

I just couldn't get past getting less than 20mpg. But I liked all the trucks. (particularly one black Quad-Cab)

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
That balljoint thing would not stop me from buying a Dakota. They are great trucks and are very solid. If that area is inspected every once in a while, it should never be a problem if addressed.
I have driven a few and they are my favorite overall for their good midsize, but not puny S10 size, and not mammoth size overall.

The 318 is a good engine in the late 90's, and the 4.7 is great going upto 2004 in the 2nd gens. They are also I think very handsome overall.


They are my favorite overall pickup truck out there.

I agree.

I test drove a lot of 02-04 Dakotas when I was car shopping in addition to the Ranger/B-series, S10s and a Colorado. It was just so much better than the others.

I just couldn't get past getting less than 20mpg. But I liked all the trucks. (particularly one black Quad-Cab)


For sure. I want one so bad, but I cant justify owning a truck, the practical side of me just shuts down the idea.
If I had more space, and a little more disposable income, I would probably have one even just for the odd time it would be convenient for me to use it. And I'd be in the same years ideally as you, 02-04, 4x4 only, 4.7L only.

 

[dnastrau]

Thanks for all of the replies. I will post back with the final result.

 

[JustinH]

I had a 98 f150 nascar edition, 4.6L, automatic, 3.73 rear end.

That truck was very well made, I wish I never sold it.

 

[IndyIan]

A 3 valve 5.4L F150 would be a towing beast with half decent mileage. By canadian mileage ratings it gets about 20% better hwy mileage than the 2 valve.

 

[Hokiefyd]

I was going to suggest a Dakota as well. They're very good trucks. Mine is a '97 2WD Club Cab with 179,450 miles as of the ride to work this morning. It has the 5.2L V-8 (the Magnum version of the "old" 318) and the 44RE transmission. The V-6 trucks got a lighter duty 42RE transmission, and the 5.9L V-8 trucks got a heavier duty 46RE transmission. The rear axles are usually problem-free, and come in the Dodge 8.25" and 9.25" variety. The only real "issue" I know of is the Magnum engines have a sheetmetal "turkey tray" bottom to the intake manifold, and the seal between the intake manifold and the turkey tray can fail and cause oil consumption. Seems like most of the Magnum engines will eventually have this problem, though it's not the end of the world. You may use more oil, but it's not like a coolant leak or something like that. Good repair kits are available that eliminate that problem.

I don't pay much attention to the ball joint deal. From what I understand, it was a problem with a PART, and not with the DESIGN, but I'm not positive. The trucks were recalled, the bad parts were replaced, and everybody's happy.

The best part about the Dakota is the interior and the way it drives. I'm partial to the earlier interior (1997-2000). 2001-2004 had a more squared-off Fisher Price look to the inside. The earlier 2nd gen Dakota (97-00) had a more rounded interior with a more pleasing look. Ergonomics are excellent. And the drive, at least in the 2WD version, is excellent. It really does drive and handle much like a car. It'll tow anything within reason (typically around 5,000-6,000 pound capacity), and it has a near-full-size bed (6.5' length as I recall). The interior is roomy, with plenty of headroom, but it's not as wide as Kansas, so it has a cozy feel. I definitely like the compromise between a full-size and a compact truck.

The relability of mine has been excellent. I've only owned it for a few years, but know the previous owner, and have all the records. "Normal" parts have been replaced on it due to age/wear. It needed a radiator a few years ago, and a PS pressure hose. I put a water pump on it a few years ago also. Shortly after I got it, I changed the transmission fluid, and the transmission works just fine. I have a Class IV hitch on it, and it tows jet skis and flat bed trailers very well. The head lamps have a good light spread and pattern to them and everything on the inside is lit pretty well also.

Overall, it's a very trusty truck. I don't think I'd discount any one truck over another because of the minor things previously listed that may or may not be an issue. You may end up not considering a truck that would be perfect for your needs, for a problem that may never happen anyway. I'd look hard at what's out there, and drive a good number of different types of trucks. Used car dealers are great for that, because you can usually find decent examples of what you MIGHT be looking for pretty easily...even if you don't buy from them.

Good luck!

 

[JustinH]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
A 3 valve 5.4L F150 would be a towing beast with half decent mileage. By canadian mileage ratings it gets about 20% better hwy mileage than the 2 valve.


My 98 4.6L 2v was terrible on gas. Even with a careful left foot, I could never get over 15mpg with the truck. Never.

The truck was tuned up and ran perfect also.

 

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: JustinH
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
A 3 valve 5.4L F150 would be a towing beast with half decent mileage. By canadian mileage ratings it gets about 20% better hwy mileage than the 2 valve.


My 98 4.6L 2v was terrible on gas. Even with a careful left foot, I could never get over 15mpg with the truck. Never.

The truck was tuned up and ran perfect also.


You accelerate with your left foot?