Find Reviews by Make:
Kelsey writes:
My boyfriend recently sold his F-150, and we’ve been looking at ’95-2000 4Runners as a replacement. He needs a V6 to tow his work trailer occasionally, and our biggest concern is reliability, then efficiency. We’re working with a $7,000 cash budget. Should we broaden our search to other makes/models?
59 Comments on “Ask The Best And Brightest: Reliable V6 Utes Under $7k?...”
Read all comments
In my personal experience, and those of friends and acquaintances, 4Runners are bulletproof. I’ve got one in my driveway (2002 model w 3.4L v6) with about 115K miles on it and it still drives as new. Think the key is to ensure you avoid any 4Runners that spent time in the rustbelt. Other than that, you should be golden.
I know most on here will flame any domestic choices, but the old boxy Cherokees are actually pretty reliable, and the 4.0L straight six combined with the Aisin AW4 automatic pulls like a freight train…my father towed several different toys over the years with his, ranging from boats to campers to large utility trailers.
The “original” body had the 4.0L/AW4 from 1987-1996, and they refreshed the body and interior in 1997…it lasted through 2001. 1995/1996 are often considered the best of the “old” bodystyle since they have an airbag and better engine electronics/controls. Within the 1997-2001 bodystyle, there really isn’t much difference other than some package content changes.
I can get behind the 3rd-gen 4Runner and late Cherokee. Excellent vehicles both.
$7000 is way more than you need to spend on a 10-15 year old V6 SUV. You have tons of choices available to you, vehicles nobody else wants now, so a great buyer’s market. For $5k you should easily find something that fits with relatively low mileage and in great shape. If reliability is your #1 thing, I agree with the 4Runner…a Pathfinder is a good choice, also. I have a 150k mile 98′ Blazer ZR2 that has been great to me but I would never recommend it over a 4 Runner unless you had a smaller budget…it is a good value, but not as reliable. I have, however, seen Explorers run to some very high mileage numbers so I’d say they’re the best of the domestics and probably an excellent and inexpensive choice.
Basically the same answer as others.
The 4Runner works fine, but looking into a 4.0L Jeep Cherokee or Grand Cherokee couldn’t hurt.
The Jeeps are fairly robust vehicles, and because they aren’t Toyotas you should be able to find a lower mileage/better condition example for the same money.
I had a ’91 4Runner in high school. It ran the same V6 that can be found in the ’95 model. I’d recommend looking elsewhere if efficiency is a priority. The 4Runner regularly runs about 13mpg. My parents bought it new and are still using it. It has about 260k miles and still runs perfectly, but it’s and always has been a thirsty truck.
I had a ’98 4Runner. It was a POS. Gutless. It couldn’t pull a hot knife out of butter.
4Runner or Cherokee Sport. Both drink gas, but they are bulletproof trucks. I have a close friend who is an absolute monster when it comes to doing crazy things that are terrible for cars. He hasn’t managed to kill his Cherokee Sport yet.
I’m currently eying a 2002 4Runner at a local lot w/ 70k miles as my 3rd vehicle for camping/hiking/mountain biking and when my German hatches inevitably break down. Dealer won’t come down from $11500 so I’m playing the waiting game. He’ll deal when it has been there another month or so.
Having owned two of them, I can heartily concur with a second generation Cherokee. I had two 2000’s, with an M3 sedan in between (wife was a real estate agent).
And you’re going to be talking change from that $7000 to boot. Oh yeah, I was able to get 20-21mpg highway under cruise control at a steady 65. For what it was, that was nothing to complain about.
I was pissed with the wife totalled the second one. It took a Porsche 924S to get me over it.
If your boyfriend’s work trailer has a gross weight under 3000 pounds, you might want to look at the Suzuki Grand Viagra Vitara. A quick search on AutoTrader.com shows a pair of 2004 Grand Vitaras listed under $7000. With Suzuki’s 7 year / 100,000 mile transferable powertrain warranty, this would give y’all at least some factory warranty coverage.
Is that seven grand with or without the rollover bar?
Another thumbs up for a late model Cherokee. The straight-6 is bulletproof, with plenty of power, and the AW4 automatic transmissions are equally durable. Parts are readily available and inexpensive. They can be had much cheaper than the 4Runners, and there are a gazillion of them out there to choose from.
Or you could get a 96 Bronco (the 5.8L). It’s really just a short F-150, so labor, parts and upgrades are cheap. Not the most stable car but a ton of fun and a lot more nimble feeling (subjectively) than any of the others.
The 96-00 Pathfinders with the overbuilt 3.3L are great for long-term reliability and a great alternative to a comparable 4Runner’s sitting-on-the-floor seating position, wayward handling, and rear end sag. Mine runs like a top after 10 years and 130k+ miles with just routine service. Just be sure to go aftermarket when you warp the front rotors – I went through three OEM sets under warranty until I finally replaced them with some Brembo rotors.
Though certain examples may be reliable, I have never been impressed by the build quality of the domestics from the same era, especially as the miles and years pile up.
Pass on the 95 4runner… the redesigned 96+ with the 3.4 V6 is much better. Also I would be more concerned with condition and maintenance records than the milage. A well maintained 4Runner can easily go 200, 300k ++ miles without falling apart.
That 4Runner is a piece of ****. I know because I had one. The g******** engine blew after 10,000 miles. You would be better off buying a used Bronco, Tahoe, Explorer, or K-5 blazer. More durability, power, reliability,
If you get a V6 4Runner, stay away from the 3VZE version of that engine as used in 1995 and earlier. It is notorious for blowing head gaskets thanks to a design marginality. Other routine work on that engine, like checking valve clearances, is also a major pain. The 4Runner had a major redesign for 1996 which included an engine redesign. Personally I don’t like first year of production of anything, so I would look for a 1997 or later if going for a 4Runner.
A few resources to help you become a better-informed consumer
Web Resources:
ttac.com; truedelta.com; kbb.com; edmunds.com; crashtest.com; iihs.org; citizen.org/autosafety; nhtsa.dot.gov; carconsumers.com; nada.org/Advocacy+Outreach/Auto+Safety+Initiatives/; safecarguide.com/exp/safety/idx.htm
Books:
The Car Book; Consumer Reports Annual Auto Issue
By the way, with zero-percent financing, you have substantially more to spend on a vehicle than $7,000
I’ve had two Isuzus, a Rodeo and a Trooper. I sold both of them with over 150K and I would buy another again in a heartbeat. They were both very reliable for me. The Trooper is probably most similar in size and cargo as the 4runner, but a lot cheaper. The last year of the Trooper, 2002, would probably be your best bet as far a reliability (late 90s Isuzu V6s require a close eye on the oil level, but will run forever if you don’t neglect them). I wouldn’t pay more than $7K for a 2002 Trooper.
My wife has a 99 4 runner… yes it is gutless and yes it is an indestructible tank. 10 years old, still looks new ZERO problems… amazingly reliable…
Pathfinders and QX4s are definitely good bets; I drove a QX4 with 200,000 miles as my first car and apart from a couple of bulbs going out and a minor issue with the emission system nothing ever went wrong.
Are all of these “gutless” 4Runners people are talking about 4 cylinders or V6’s? I could imagine a 4WD with a four banger would be gutless but I don’t think Toyota has made a 6 cylinder vehicle in the last 20 years that didn’t haul ass.
Get the newest full size tahoe or blazer that $7000 will buy. Its mileage will be at least good as the Toyota’s.
The 350 (5.7) with the 4 speed automatic will last forever.
npbheights,
they would be referring to the V6s, as I don’t think anyone was making a mid-size SUV with a four banger at this point. to be honest though, all of the V6s were pretty gutless as they were only putting out 170-180hp and having to push around 4000+ lbs of vehicle. the 4.0L Ford V6 put out 205hp and was apparently underrated by Ford so as to not compete with the V8, so that might be a good bet if performance is your overriding criteria. of course, in 2001, Nissan dropped the 3.5L VQ in the Pathfinder and introduced a level of performance to the SUV market not seen outside of the V8 and blown six models, further escalating the horsepower war (after having started it by putting a variant of the same engine in the Altima).
4Runners – my sister had two in a row out in BC. Up and down the mountains and down logging roads and whatnot into survey sites. SOLID. The type of vehicle that built Toyota’s rep.
4Runner is good, Cherokee too, but if you want really cheap there is also the Isuzu Trooper. Parts are plentifull and the market for them is in the tank since Isuzu pulled out of the US (not that their resale was any good before that).
I have a ’98 Rodeo 4×4 with well over 200k miles and have had only minor problems. It has a 3.2L V6 that is probably a little weak, but the Troopers have a 3.5L V6 that has around 250hp which should be plenty. As said above, Isuzus burn a little oil but as long as you keep an eye on it they will run forever, and a lot of the parts are GM parts so you don’t have to worry about being able to find any even though they bailed. You can get one for under $4k.
Early oughts Mitsubishi Montero Sport. Mines been bulletproof over 5 years as a work and play truck.
Avoid any Cherokees with the RENIX (Renault) fuel injection computer. Also avoid any with the 2.8 GM V6. They like to spin bearings. The 4L straight six is the best bet.
+1 on the Cherokees. We bought (years ago) a Grand Cherokee used (was a 1997) as my wife liked the relative creature comforts of it, but I was really hoping for the Cherokee. Something about a basic brick on wheels appeals to me. And with the 4.0, it’s almost a hotrod in comparison.
I’ll have to disagree about the Cherokee on this one, unless you get one of the last ones and with low miles.
The engine is a very, very old design. It will leak, and it’s not that strong for its size. The power steering, air conditioning, and engine cooling, and electrical system are standard Chrysler products which means they are most likely going to break on you.
The suspension is rugged but balljoints and shocks wear quickly. The 4×4 system is usually still working on the higher mileage vehicle I see, so at least this is a plus.
I think there are better alternatives. What about an Expedition, especially a 2WD version? It has the same rugged powertrain as the F-150s basically.
I like the 4Runner idea but you have to buy a very old one to fit in your budget.
My advice is to not touch the reliable Roadrunner and its domestic unreliable ilk, unless you are 100% sure that fuel cost is not an issue for you.
A friend has a landcruiser V6, he bought it in 97 or 98 before they switched to v8s, and its MPG is DISMAL. His 1990 Mercedes 300 SEL is 33% MORE fuel efficient than the POS Landcruiser, and he drives the Merc as fast as its weak I-6 will go!
My colleague’s Landcruiser V6 gets 15 MPG average, so did another colleague’s Cheapo Trailblazer lease, and he IMPROVED his MPG by leasing a… Hummer H3 with the 5-cyl.
TOday, Motorweek tested the two OUTSTANDING BMW Diesels, the 335d and the X5 d. Their REAL mixed loop mpgs were STELLAR. the heavy X5 d in particular got over 27 MPG in REAL mixed loop, while its HIGHWAY mpg is 26!
But they are not cheap new, and they will not be cheap used.
I hope, 10-20 years from now, almost ALL SUVS and Light trucks are DIESEL powered.
I had a ’97 then a ’01 4Runner. On the ’97 or earlier just check that the rear coil springs arent shot from the previous owner. I bought my ’97 used and didnt realize the rear suspension was worn out most likely due to towing by previous owner. They even issued a TSB for the rear suspension problem. It rode really rough and I ended up just trading it in on the ’01.
Wasn’t the Explorer one of the most popular trade-ins during C4C? I would expect you could find a bazillion 10 year old Explorers that have never gone offroad and plenty of spare parts in case you do have a problem.
“Wasn’t the Explorer one of the most popular trade-ins during C4C? I would expect you could find a bazillion 10 year old Explorers that have never gone offroad and plenty of spare parts in case you do have a problem.”
I doubt the posters are in the market for an unsafe, (if you get the narrower, earlier models) unreliable, total POS. There is a reason so many owners DUMPED their Explorers. The price difference you’ll pay to get a decent vehicle as the 4Runner will soon be eclipsed by the fuel bills, if you do any kind of miles with either vehicle.
I am sure I will get a ton of hate mail for the above, as there still are millions of Explorer owners out there. I hope they all get ford fiestas soon.
Be carefull of 4Runners if your from any area in the rust belt because they have bad frame rotting issues. The Jeeps with the old reliable straight 6 4.0 are a decent bet too and neither one is very good on gas.
I think its a bit disinegenious to say that the Explorer was a total waste of a vehicle… sure there was a gabillion of them produced, and they surely were not the most capabale, reliable vehicle. But judging from anecdotal evidence, many were traded in simple because there would be no other oppertunity to get as much money for them. All the Exploers I saw traded in had A hundred thousand plus miles on them, many in the high 100’s…. some even above 200K. If they were so unreliable, I assume these things would have been dumped long ago. They were no Land Rovers, thats for sure.
Wasn’t the Explorer one of the most popular trade-ins during C4C? I would expect you could find a bazillion 10 year old Explorers that have never gone offroad and plenty of spare parts in case you do have a problem.
Any vehicle that was traded in under C4C will NOT be sitting on a lot. At least not in the “For Sale” section. They were mandated to be rendered inoperable and then crushed. If anyone knows the government’s rational for this seemingly absurb decision, I’m all ears.
The 4Runner is best with the four cylinder and 5spd.
A friend has a landcruiser V6, he bought it in 97 or 98 before they switched to v8s, and its MPG is DISMAL. His 1990 Mercedes 300 SEL is 33% MORE fuel efficient than the POS Landcruiser,
Autosavant….Unless you’re referring to non-USA market Land Cruisers (and I don’t think you are), specifically the Land Cruiser Prado series sold in other markets, there is no such thing as a V-6 Land Cruiser. The 80-Series Land Cruisers, the series made before the switch to V-8 power in the 100-Series in 1998, were all IN LINE 6’s.
Also, calling ANY Land Cruiser a “POS” is about as uninformed and inaccurate as it gets. Land Cruisers (particularly the 80-Series) are known worldwide as one of the MOST bulletproof, overbuilt vehicles EVER. They were made to operate in some of harshest conditions on earth, literally in cases where if your vehicle fails, you die.
You are correct on the fuel mileage front however, they get truly dismal fuel economy numbers.
The old 6 Landcruiser WAS a POS from the Fuel economy viewpoint, and that was my thinking when I wrote it.
As an off-road vehicle is excellent, but FEW, really really few, of its buyers ever used it as such. SO my comments were 100% CORRECT, given the way the VAST majority landcruisers ARE USED IN THE USA. Which is NOT as intended in their design.
My colleague used it 100% as a stupid Minivan. He and his wife are VERY lucky when that top-heavy landcruiser ROLLED OVER one winter and required 13,000 in repairs, and took a month to do these repairs. The wife was pregnant at the time, and am,azingly she did not lose her baby. That’s why I consider them very lucky.
For such an expensive vehicle, the LC was ALSO Butt-ugly, and looked narrow and tall from the outside, but from the inside it looked wider and not as tall.
“Roundel :
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
I think its a bit disinegenious (SIC) to say that the Explorer was a total waste of a vehicle”
Waste is very accurate. Given how they were USED, again, their vast majority was used as stupid commuting cars or stupid minivans, they were WASTED Designs. IF the owners had an ounce of brains, they would KNOW that they could do what they wanted with a vehicle that weighed 1,000s of lbs LESS, and burned two-thirds or even HALF the fuel the stupid Explorers burned. AND for many, many years, FOrd Cheapskate planners sold NARROW Explorers that were VERY rollover-prone, to save a few measly bucks per vehicle, and only much later did they finally correct this glaring design fault.
But the reason Explorers sold 400,000 units a year back in 2000-01, is that gas was DIRT CHEAP, and the whole SUV craze, an utterly auto illiterate craze, was justified from the econs POV, if fuel is so cheap, why not buy the POS? Esp. for those believing in the myth that the SUV was safer than their sedan or minivan, limiting themselves to PASSIVE Safety.
For $7K you could get a 02-06 Trailblazer with less than 100k miles. All the ones I’ve seen have been pretty solid.
Sorry to jack this thread, but
Autosavant, under your criteria a lot of vehicles that weigh 6000 lbs must be POSs. Name a vhicle in 1997 that weighed as much and got better average mileage. I disagree that all US Landcruisers were used by soccer moms, check out IH8MUd.com to become informed. I can’t think of very many vehicles that can be repaired from a non-injury rollover these days, much less for $13K. You have a serious problem with this vehicle, for some reason.
OP, Any 97 or later 4runner or cherokee are pretty reliable bets for this price range. Always stay away from a rusty truck(for cosmetic reasons, at least), but I’ve had some rusty trucks that held together really well. And I have not seen a 97+ 4runner that has a rust hole, anywhere.
So kids…
The word of the day is: STUPID
The acronym of the day is: “POS”
Everyone got that?
You answered your own question…. The Explorer’s popularity was due to cheap fuel and the relative new invention of the SUV as the new family sedan. The Explorer surely wasn’t any differnt than other SUVS. It was rollover prove… because every other SUV is with a high center of gravity.
You are making a hindsight is 20-20 observation that wasn’t exactly appropriate for the times. Why buy a v6 midsize sedan, when for a couple thousand more you could have gotten a larger vehicle that could do far more than the sedan… remember fuel economy didn’t matter then. People were making the rational choice at the time.
As for the question at hand… I would look into Grand Cherokee’s, family had a 99 that went well over 100k before being sold. Never had any problems what so ever.
That being said, any SUV can be bought for a dime a dozen now. Sure there may be many less on the market after C4C, but now the selection has been refined to take the real crap off the road.
Find a nice Cherokee with 4.0L and Aisin 4-speed auto. We had a 93 “country” version for 15 years and it was rock-solid reliable and in primo shape. We should NOT have sold it to a relative. Our Honda CR-V replacement has been very problematic by comparison (Rear diffy, A/C compressor failure).
The Cherokee will have no problem pulling a trailer. Maintenance parts are readily available and cheap too. Sure, the engine gaskets may weep. Simply focus on finding one without rust or early ABS models then take super care of the body and you should have a gem. Are they perfect? No, but they will do quite well if you have the right one.
It was disgusting to see so many of these Cherokees destroyed during the cash for clunkers program!
Best of luck….
Cherokee, Pathfinder, Explorer triplets, Trailblazer quadruplets…so many choices really. How heavy and big is the trailer? An Escape V6 can pull 3500 lbs, or most small to medium trailers, but it may be smaller then he’d like.
While I currently own Toyota products, Im going to recommend GM here. A Blazer/Trailblazer should cost half the budget listed and my past experience with the 4.3 V-6 and 4L60E transmission (in a full-size pickup) towing up to 4000lb was hard to beat.
If you look around you can also find a 1st year (1999) Nissan Xterra in that price range.
FWIW I bought a ’99 4runner in July and paid $8100 OTD plus tax from Enterprise Car Sales. This is for a V6, auto, with near-new tires and the much prized locking rear differential. Mileage was 117k but the 3.4/auto combination is about as bulletproof as a drivetrain can get.
A Limited model for 99 – 2000 would also get you leather seats plus a neat multi-mode 4wd system that lets you run in 4wd on the pavement as well as 2wd (in essence, an AWD system.) Starting in 2001 this became standard on the 4runner.
Also definitely stay away from the 95 or earlier 4runners, they’re cheap but the 3.0 V6 is known in Toyota circles as the “Three-point-slow” for a good reason, as well as for it’s penchant for eating head gaskets.
The 3rd generation (96-02) 4runners also have a superior front and rear suspension to the 2nd generation (90-95) models.
“Roundel :
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The Explorer surely wasn’t any differnt than other SUVS. It was rollover prove… because every other SUV is with a high center of gravity”
You MUST be kidding me. The above could not be more false! NO, All SUVs are NOT alike, even the Expedition was NOT as rollover prone as the early explorer. You are obviously not very familiar with the most basic facts and numbers. Even the later Explorers did NOT have the same problem, aftewr they made them much WIDER than the original.
And you would NOT ever hear that the SUBURBAN, or the Grand Cherokee, was rollover prone. And last time I checked, they both are SUVs.
The obvious answer is for the poster to buy a “magnificent 7” plenty of power to haul anything, loads of space, and all the bells and whistles you could ever need. Anything else suggested is ridiculous due to it probably being a POS or something like that.
Question: why not the XTerra? It’s about as reliable as the 4Runner, and usually a little cheaper to boot.
I’ll chime in on the Explorer. I have a 1995 model, the first of the ‘jelly bean’ design. I have 254,000 miles on it, and while it’s been a pretty good vehicle, there are some design flaws that would have me caution you with.
If you are at all interetested in pulling a trailer, the look for a V8 model, as they have real truck transmissions. the V6 models have what basically amounts to a Pinto transmission, it’s not very strong, and doesn’t last long. I managed to get 225,000 miles out of mine, but I’ve heard of reports of them failing as early as 70k. The pushrod V6 isn’t as hard on the trans as the OHC 4.0 is.
i get about 18mpg out of mine in town, on the road it averages 23mpg.
To help mitigate it’s tipsy attitude, I lowered mine an inch, which helped in instance where it was spun at speed on a highway. It sat bolt upright and didn’t give me any feeling that it was going to roll. My girlfriend was driving and someone cut her off, she cut the wheel and it started wagging the rear, she had no experience in how to handle that..
I later found out that it had 32psi in the front tires and 24 in the rear thanks to the tire shop after they replaced the rear tires and I specifically told them to put 32psi in them. The solid axle Explorers are VERY sensistive to tire pressure.
Waste is very accurate. Given how they were USED, again, their vast majority was used as stupid commuting cars or stupid minivans, they were WASTED Designs. IF the owners had an ounce of brains, they would KNOW that they could do what they wanted with a vehicle that weighed 1,000s of lbs LESS, and burned two-thirds or even HALF the fuel the stupid Explorers burned. AND for many, many years, FOrd Cheapskate planners sold NARROW Explorers that were VERY rollover-prone, to save a few measly bucks per vehicle, and only much later did they finally correct this glaring design fault.
And yet Ford sold 400k+ of them a year. For every rollover of an Explorer driven by an idiot who doesn’t know the vehicle’s limitations, we apparently have other idiots who don’t know enough to shift the floormat over from affecting the gas pedal.
Meanwhile, my vote is for a 2000+ Trooper. With TOD, a V-6 pulling 215 hp and a ton of torque, plus a very comfortable seating position and great sight lines, you couldn’t do better.
Sure you need to add a quart of oil every 2000 miles (since new! Where the hell does it go??). Gas mileage (16) could be better. Interior plastics, while hard and cheap, are extremely durable.
Mine has been highly reliable (150k+ miles), needing only a transmission (replaced early under warranty, no issues since) and regular maintenance. Climbs like a mountain goat.
AND DIRT CHEAP. Orphan brand, SUV, mediocre gas mileage – you’d have a lot of your $7k left over.
As much as I hate SUVs, I wouldn’t rule out a late 90’s Tahoe. It’s bigger, gets about the same gas mileage, and that 5.7 V8 & 4 speed auto are rock solid. And in the unlikely event something does break, parts are a heck of a lot cheaper than the same model year Toyota.
I have no problems with just about any of the SUVs discussed as its use is described occasional. Why not stick with the F 150? I maintain an 88 Grand Wagoneer as a 3rd vehicle. I dont think it has left its spot in over a month. When it is running it delivers low teens MPG. Doesnt use a drop waiting in the wings though.
How about a 12 y.o. Suburban for $3K, a 15 y.o. Miata for $3K, and $1K left over for repairs?