Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/11/2004 12:16:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 12:17:16 PM EDT by bilster]
Available for sale, are two vehicles.

The first is a 1997 Ford Thunderbird with 142,000 miles. It has a 3.8 ltr engine, automatic transmission. It has damage from sideswiping a guard rail on the passenger side. The door does not open except from the inside, and there is damage to both front and rear quarter panels. Other than that it is in good working order.
The asking price, $800.

The second is a 1990 Ford Ranger 2WD with a four banger.(not sure of the size) 75,000 miles, standard shift, some rust, and a faulty windshield cleaner pump. In good working order
Asking price, $700, will go as low as $500.

$500 to $800 is the only price range I can afford right now.

Which one would you get?


Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:17:52 PM EDT
Ford Ranger, the t-birds have had a million recalls.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:18:37 PM EDT
Bowf a dem.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:18:49 PM EDT

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:20:14 PM EDT
The Ranger.
Everybody can use a pickup truck, even a small one.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:20:41 PM EDT



got the same model (w/ a V6)

thats got loads of miles and has been a great truck.

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:21:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:
Bowf a dem.


Sounds like you'll need a backup plan for either of those babies
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:24:55 PM EDT
Ranger. It will be a lot more durable than a car (especially a Thunderturd), the 2.3L/stick is about as reliable as you can get, good on gas, and parts are dirt cheap if it does break. 250,000 miles on a 2.3L is not uncommon.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:25:08 PM EDT
Da ranger.

Will run much longer dan da t-bird.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:25:26 PM EDT
How about a pogo stick and a helmet? Probably more reliable & safe.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:29:51 PM EDT
Ranger. The other one may have some damage that can't be seen on the surface. Driveline,frame that kind of stuff.The ranger would also be cheaper to work on. Get the truck they are cooler anyway.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:38:28 PM EDT
Both are Ford so you can't go wrong.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:39:53 PM EDT
Ranger...cheaper, more reliable, and more useful...there are many times a pickup truck can come in handy...
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:40:28 PM EDT
Always buy a truck.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:44:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MyLittleFriend:
Both are Ford so everything will go wrong.

Fixed it for you!

I'd go with the truck, there are tons of them out there. Knowing what breaks on them should be common knowledge for sure. Also parts would have to be cheap. Good little trucks.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:45:28 PM EDT
ranger good little trucks.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:47:31 PM EDT
the ranger, for all the reasons stated.

however, are you at all mechanically inclined? i went through a period like that. my solution was to buy sound 70's and 80's vehicles...anything before fuel injection really. you can find parts every where for a ford 302 or chevy 350. they dont have to be pretty, just a staight body and no major oil leaks, smooth tranny ect.

you can repair things in your driveway with a chiltons manual.

i still wont buy new trucks...my current choice is a 97 5.9 lt dodge ram 4x4. solid drive train, throttle body. i'll keep it a long time, and it's made two trips to texas from NC since i've had it.

good luck
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:56:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 12:56:59 PM EDT by Da_Bunny]
truck, keeping up a t-bird is spendy, I had two.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 4:03:47 PM EDT
+1 on the Ranger. I've got an 87 ranger 4x4. The original 4 cyl had over 300,000 miles on it when I decided to do an upgrade. It ran, but was definately on it's last legs, so... I transplanted a 1991 5.0 Mustang engine, 1979 Bronco transfer case and a '77 C4 tranny. This thing is really too torque-y for driving on the street now...I gotta keep it in 4wd to keep from smoking the tires. Yes, it's a bit of an eyesore with all the rust, but it gets me where I need to go!
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 4:05:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 4:08:14 PM EDT by mtechgunman]
get both, of course!!!

ETA: the ranger
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 4:07:52 PM EDT
Definately the Ranger. Good on gas, reliable and a pickup as well.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 4:08:18 PM EDT
Get the Ranger, then spend waht you saved on a Yugo SKS and 1000 rounds of ammo!!!
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 4:08:40 PM EDT
1990 with 75,000 is always better than a 1997 with 125,000.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 4:10:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:41:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By migradog:
Get the Ranger, then spend waht you saved on a Yugo SKS and 1000 rounds of ammo!!!

Someone is thinking!

I have already decided on the Ranger.
Yes, I do plan on spending what I save on a firearm.
Then I will no longer be gunless.

I am sorta carless right now. I currently own a 300 year old 1990 Ford Tortise with 262,000 miles on it. Its power stearing unit leaks bad now, the starter is going, the swaybar has disconnected from the arm, it overheats, it needs a new thermostat, the windshield wiper motor shitted the bed, it has rust, the locks don't work, the rear passenger doors can only be opened from the inside, the heater works only when I go fast, or accelerate, and it has a flat tire.
It also needs rear shocks, wheel bearings, and an oxygen detector.

The only good thing about it is, it is paid for.

Top Top