Good morning! I’m writing this from a motel in Springfield, Ohio, after a grueling day including 100 miles through the worst rainstorm I’ve seen in years. I’m beat, but the show must go on, as they say, so here are a couple more vehicles chosen by my better half.
Yesterday, we looked at a couple of cheap reliable beaters from Iowa. I figured the Honda minivan would win; J-bodies are a hard sell with you lot. Personally, I’d take the Sunfire, if I was just looking for a cheap way to get around; it’s not a very nice car, but it’s reliable, efficient, and cheap and easy to fix if something does go wrong.
But if you need more space than a small two-door coupe affords, the Odyssey would be a good choice as well. You should be able to get $2,000 worth of use out of it before the transmission shits the bed again.
Today, Erika has found a couple of cosmetically-challenged SUVs for you to consider. One is ugly on the inside, the other on the outside, but both at least will get you home. Let’s check them out.
2003 Honda Pilot EX – $1,999
Engine/drivetrain: 3.5 liter overhead cam V6, five-speed automatic, part-time 4WD
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Odometer reading: 160,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Oddly enough, this Honda Pilot is pretty similar mechanically to yesterday’s winning Odyssey. It has the same 3.5 liter V6, and the same fragile automatic transmission, but the Pilot adds four-wheel-drive. The front wheels are driven normally, but the rears kick in if the fronts start to slip. You can also lock it in 4WD with a button on the dash. It’s not what you want for off-roading, but for snow, it’s just the ticket.
This Pilot runs and drives well, according to the seller, but it has led a hard life. The interior is ripped and stained, most of the power locks don’t work, and the whole car just has an overall feeling of tiredness. There’s no mention of the transmission’s condition one way or another, but it’s a question worth asking.
One of the Pilot’s claims to fame is that it came with three rows of seats. This is great if you need the seating, but a waste of valuable cargo space if you don’t. It looks like the seller of this one left the rear seats folded down most of the time, and transported something messy back there.
It’s hard for me to find much to say about this car, actually. It’s a completely nondescript family car, an NPC vehicle if there ever was one. But I suppose that has its advantages: Such an invisible vehicle would make a great getaway car. And it’s got room for the whole crew!
1986 Ford Bronco II – $1,900
Engine/drivetrain: 2.9 liter overhead valve V6, five-speed manual, part-time 4WD
Location: New Albany, OH
Odometer reading: 51,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
The Bronco II was Ford’s answer to the Chevy S-10 Blazer and GMC S-15 Jimmy, which debuted the same year. It’s based on the Ford Ranger pickup, and powered by Ford’s “Cologne” V6. Earlier models made do with a carbureted 2.8 liter engine, but in 1986 the Bronco II received the updated 2.9 liter version, with electronic fuel injection.
It’s equipped with a five-speed manual and four-wheel-drive, as they all should have been. Yes, you could get a 2WD Bronco II for a while. Weirdly, the 2WD ones still have a transfer case housing like the 4WD ones; it’s just empty. This one, however, has fully functional 4WD, and the seller says it works just fine.
In fact, mechanically, this thing seems to be in tip-top condition, and the seller offers photographic proof in the ad. Here we see this Bronco II rolling down the freeway, admittedly only at 55 MPH, but the steering wheel is straight, and the gauges all appear to work. I’m not sure how prudent or safe it was for the seller to snap a photo like this while driving, but it does get the point across.
However, not all is well in Bronco-land. This truck was used as a snowplow, and as such, it bears the scars of a lot of Ohio winters. The frame is solid, according to the seller, but there’s a lot of rust in the sheetmetal. The latches on the driver’s door and the tailgate also need some work. But if you want a perfect Bronco II, you’re going to pay a lot more for it.
Beauty is only skin-deep, they say; it’s what’s on the inside that counts. Well, one of these has some pretty rough skin, but is actually nice on the inside. The other is uglier inside, but has a nice inoffensive incognito exterior. Which one is more important to you?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
I wanted the Bronco. A friend of mine in high school (in the 90s) had one and drove me for my 1st real off road experience. It was pretty sweet and I really dug it (probably one of the reasons why I have a 4Runner now). Sadly, as an Arizonan, all that rust makes this a no-go. There are so few rusty cars here that I maybe see one a few times per year. I begrudgingly choose the “Pilo” (the T is missing).
I’ll take the plow truck, and plow with it. I’m not DDing either of these
Looks like somebody really leaned into the first syllable of the title today.
I was set to choose the Bronco II – my cousin’s husband had one, and he never rolled it – until I reached the words “used as a snowplow.” The pictures were taken in what looks like a New Albany garage mahal, so I’m guessing it was used for parking lots and not by a municipal agency, but still.
The Pilo’s (check the tailgate badge) interior could be worse for the money and could clean up well enough, with maybe a cargo tray over the stains that don’t clean out and a junkyard driver’s seat, but the fact is that both would probably be easy to find on the salvage market because of that transmission.
As Calvin Coolidge would most likely say faced with these if he wasn’t dead, and probably Martha Coolidge and Jennifer Coolidge (maybe they’re members) would as well, “I choose not to play.”
I wanted to like the Bronco, but there’s a lot going against it that may not meet the eye – beyond the frame. Plowing snow is no joke – it’s hard on any vehicle. Frankly, I’m surprised that this one was ever used to do it, as a Bronco II is pretty light for such a task. Appearances of mechanical soundness aside, there are other factors…the V6 in these things was pretty weak to begin with, I don’t imagine that’s improved over time, gorilla tape does not imply a long lasting windshield seal, and I’m not convinced that the doors will stay closed on their own.
The Honda might last a year without incident. I can’t say that I’m confident that the Bronco would do the same.
The Bronco is the easy choice here. Sure it’s rusty but it runs, drives, and is old enough to be interesting. The Pilot is just “an car” and I’m sure it’s fine if that’s what you’re looking for but it’s not something I’d really want to own unless I was in some sort of situation where I desperately needed any car right now for cheap to hold me over for a bit.
I have 2 Pilots and a Odyssey. My 2003 Pilot is for camping and utility, hauling a trailer with hay and such. The 2006 Pilot is for daily driving, and 2006 Odyssey is my wife’s daily. All 3 are on their original transmissions at 265k+. The 2003 is starting to fail and I won’t replace it, off to the junk yard for way too little unfortunately because I could replace the vehicle for less than the repair. I will soon be selling the other 2 and buying something newer so as to avoid the transmission issue, but come one, these things have been awesome and lasted way beyond 160k. That Pilot is a good detail away from a nice daily.
51,000 miles over only 40 years? That Bronco II’s odo has rolled over a few times or the speedo has been broken for a few decades, methinks.
I honestly don’t like either of these cars. Had a buddy with a Pilot who traded in an Explorer with it. First week he takes the Pilot out to go fishing and he managed to rip an A-arm off the rear axle, an expensive outcome for dealing with an obstacle that the Explorer would not have noticed.
The Bronco II, on the other hand, is a mechanically unreliable sweatbox. Every one I’ve ever been in has been frigid in the winter and roasting in the summer. Despite it having a lot of advantages for desert southwest – narrow track, proper 4×4 system, light weight (3400 pounds curb weight) – they’re not all that comfortable on pavement, and their handling is genuinely awful enough that had the Firestone tire controversy not overshadowed it, more people would likely be aware of the lawsuits that plagued both the Bronco II and Isuzu Trooper in the mid-90’s (Bronco II settlements run 9 to 10 figures in toto, depending on who you ask).
I’d take the Pilot and keep it on pavement for this money.
Bronco II settlements? I don’t remember hearing about those in the 90s, when I was in High School and owned it’s better brother a Ranger… sure you are not getting confused with the Explorer issues?
I am 100% sure.
Some quick links here and here and here.
Ahhhh – I misread your Firestone comment and thought you connected Firestone to Bronco IIs. Which means I fully proved your point.
The 2wd Bronco IIs were the handling nightmares. The 4wd version was much more stable.
My 2004 Acura MDX is pretty much identical to that pilot and at 160,000 miles the transmission started doing that shudder at 40MPH which is the warning sign of failure. It was at the height of used-car scarcity so I ended up replacing the transmission for far more than the car was worth, but the devil you know and all that. However, I’m betting this Pilot has started that faint shudder and the seller is hoping the buyer won’t notice until money changes hands. I’ll choose Ford for today.
I am strongly biased against the Honda Pilot. I know several Pilot owners, all of whom bought the Pilot because they needed a vehicle to haul their kids around but thought they were too cool to drive a minivan. I get not wanting a minivan, but I don’t understand why they think the Pilot is any cooler. It is an Odyssey with an SUV-like snout. It may not be a minivan in form, but it is a minivan in spirit and function.
While I hate the Pilot, I still voted for it. Of the two vehicles, it is the better transportation appliance. The Bronco II is cool, but this one is beat up (is that duct tape holding the windshield in place???) and is presumably crusty underneath, even if the seller claims otherwise. It is best used as a snow plow, and I haven’t seen snow in years.
Pilots are almost minivans, but as with most crossovers, they lose most of the rear cargo space that the minivan offers. I do not understand this class of vehicle. You lose half of the practicality just because your pride won’t let you drive a minivan. I do concede that the AWD offered by all the crossovers and very few minivans do shift the equation some though.
Minivans are fucking great, but I guess we all know that already.
An Odessey is FWD only and tows 3000lbs compared to an awd pilot that can tow 5000lbs. I’m not chaining up in the winter, tow a small camp trailer and can get down more shitty roads with the extra clearance. If the third row was a daily need you are right but the use case pencils out pretty easily.
Well, dirty pool. I don’t love the Bronco Ii, certainly not as much as the original but I was starting to think that was my choice until the twist at the end. “was used as a snowplow, and as such, it bears the scars of a lot of Ohio winters. The frame is solid, according to the seller, but there’s a lot of rust in the sheetmetal.” Not to mention the latches which have probably rusted through. Trucks used as plows have been used really really hard. Transmissions and engine are constantly under heavy load. This could explain only 51k miles for a 1986 used a plow in Ohio.
So I’m circling back to the Pilot. First stop, the best detailing shop in town to clean that interior. Today’s picks were wicked good.
Can I just walk?
If you buy one of these, sooner or later you will get your wish.
ROTD
Bronco sounds like fun. But the interior styling and era makes me think it’s ashtray was well used through it’s life.
But if I wanted something to drive daily, it’s the Honda.
It was used as a plow truck. Ripping buts and plowing go together like milk and cookies. I have yet to get in a plow truck that didn’t stink like an ashtray and often beer. Oh yeah, those private lot contractors? Good chance some of them are loaded while plowing.
That goes without saying that being a plow truck, I’m sure it’s got some underlying damage from the many things that it’s driven over or into.
The Bronco II has always been maligned by the enthusiast masses and I never understood why. It’s an SUV version of the square body ranger, I’ve always found them endearing. Add in the choose-your-own-adventure transmission and we’re cruising.
I’ll take the 80s warhorse today and leave the Pilot for someone else to hate every day.
Yes, I am aware the Pilot is the better choice for a daily. But we’re buying off EMOTIONS, dammit!
The Bronco II was seriously prone to rollover. Partially due to the higher center of gravity than the Ranger, and probably partially due to a lot of new SUV buyers unaccustomed to the driving characteristics of these vehicles. It’s a reputation that stuck.
Let’s not talk about 80s rollovers. I’m STILL bitter Consumer Reports railroaded the Samurai to advance their own publication.
Is it though? That transmission in the Pilot is like having an Achilles’ Heel that is actually both of your legs. There are very few cars that I will immediately refuse to even consider, but anything with that Honda trans is definitely top of that list!
I drove a Bronco II to NYC and back (Syracuse), 5speed it was red, the transmission went out near scranton, still I’d take it over the Honda, I hate those transmissions! Look at it funny and it won’t shift anymore!
Plus you can toss a newer Ranger M5OD in it cheaply and easily to solve the issues of the crummy stock trans.
I always thought the 2.9 Cologne V6 came standard with the M5OD
It should be a Mitsubishi trans behind the 2.9
My first SUV was an ’88 Bronco II XLT (two-tone gold and brown, manual, 4×4) that I had from ’94-00. The Bronco II was fun on the trails in the mountains of Colorado but felt underpowered on I-70 at altitude. Replaced by a Jeep Grand Cherokee WJ, had a series of GCs since then.
Yesterday, I said “no” to another encounter with turn-of-the-century Honda automatic transmissions. But yesterday, the alternative was a red Pontiac.
Today, the alternative is a plow truck that I’d venture to say is in even worse shape than appears in the pictures, with a mismatched interior and unseen other horrors.
Take me to the Pilot, and then we’ll head straight for the local detailing shop.
This is the answer. The Pilot can be cleaned reasonably well in an afternoon(ish). I grew up in Ohio working on rusty cars with my Dad. Happy to still work with the old man, but I’ll pass on the rust.
I’d wager, even with the potential transmission issue looming overhead, that Pilot would clean up better than most would think, and would get to a point of a reasonable cheap family car, or a good little flip with some elbow grease and minor work. That Bronco just looks tired, and the rust bubbles scare me away.
As with yesterday, I will not vote for that Honda transmission, so Bronco for me. It will run longer, even if it does promptly rust away.
I wanted to go for the Bronco but then I saw it had been used as a plow. Solid frame or not, absolutely everything under it is going to be covered with rust. Which means that every simple repair job will become a miserable affair as you fight every single rusty nut, bolt, and screw. So I guess the Pilot it is for me. In my car detailing side business days, I detailed a couple of those and one actually looked much worse than the one shown here. It should clean up just fine.
I really wanted to vote for the Bronco II, but sweet fancy Moses is that tape holding the A-pillar together? That is a level of rust that even our own beloved David Tracy would say “Eh, maybe let it go…”
Or break out the Sawzall and make your own roadster!
Honda for me, tho…
Was looking to see if anyone else saw that the windshield appears to be “sealed” with tape.
The Bronco is a POS. The Honda is far from a cherry, but better than the Bronc. If the transmission seems to be working well, then give it a cleaning and new fresh ATF and it is probably good for another 20k miles.
Sawzall idea works for me.
Going Pilot, it’s actually an exterior upgrade over my current ’05 MDX and I bet my seat covers will fit. Timing belt is $1000. I sue mine for big vacations, hauling and horrendous weather.
Love the Bronco II as a toy.
There’s a rollover safety switch on the firewall in the passenger footwell which disables the fuel pump if you turn turtle. I’ve known 2 to get crusty and cause people to replace fuel pump, relay, wiring, etc. Just something to keep in mind if you buy one.
While I like the Bronco II, sourcing replacement body panels that aren’t shared with the Ranger is a bit harder these days than they used to be. Still, not too shabby, though I can also say that about the abused Pilot at this price point. A similar condition Pilot in my area would be at least four times this price.
$1900 low mileage beater 4×4 with a plow? Sign me up.
I don’t understand the hate for taking a picture of the dash as you drive in 2024. My phones have long had functions to go to camera mode just for shaking it in a certain way. Snap a few pictures without looking at the screen and you’re good to go, just pick the best one out later.
It’s no more of an intrusion into my driving than taking a sip of coffee.