Comments on ~2000 Dakotas?

Hmmmm, any input? I'm leery of that era Chrysler products but I see reviews from owners trend largely toward very positive.

I've had a soft spot for the quad cabs with a Magnum V8.

Not a bad overall product from the Pentastar group despite what others say. Transmissions are "weak" from lack of maintenance, 10 out of 10 times.

They get the same terrible gas mileage as a full-size, but with much less capacity. That is the main reason they aren't terribly popular. Like any ChryCo product, watch out for exploding transmissions. They rust pretty badly, and the interiors are plastic fantastic crap too.

Get the 4.7L, it's got the best 'feel' to it, and the best mpg of the v8s. It also got what i consider to be a better auto transmission (for stock-power durability, anyway) than the other v8s.

Other than the 4.7 powetrain, which i would consider 'normal' on the complexity scale (certainly not a strike against it), the rust of the truck is actually REALLY simple to work on. Easier than most vehicles.

The other powertrains tend toward the really simple side as well, but they underperform in other ways. The 4 cyl is, imo, a GREAT (!!) motor for simplicity, reliability, ease of service/repair, and pretty good on the mpg front (i just drove a 2.5/5spd ext cab dakota of that gen 400 and something miles and averaged 24mpg), BUT you cant get it with the true quad cab, and it IS weak on the power front. It didnt bother me, but i have low standards for power and im usually more concerned with how easy it is to add power, than how much something comes with.

The 3.9 is just mediocre to drive, and ive put a LOT of miles on a 3.9 truck with that being the worst thing i can say about it. It's a simple, reliable, easy to work on engine that just does nothing particularly well on a power/noises/mpg scale.

The 5.2 and 5.9 are entertaining to drive but get crappy gas mileage unless you're doing straight highway.

So the 4.7 is really the way to go for a quab cab, imo. Single cab or ext cab, i would always prefer the 2.5!

One thing is don't EVER expect "good" MPG, ever. I believe next to the term late model gas hog, you would find Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth products next to it.

I was slightly disappointed with the 24mpg i got out of that 2.5 dakota, but i chocked a good bit of it up to the extra weight of the ext cab, and the too-big/heavy 235/75/15 wheel/tire combo.

If i were to buy a 97-04 dakota today, i would buy a single cab 2.5/5spd and im pretty sure i would get 26-28mpg on the highway. And it would be turbo'd.

In reply to Vigo:

I always thought a nice turbo'd 2.4/MA5/R154 would be a potent combo in the AN chassis.....

That would be amazing. I actually think the stock ax15 can probably take it just fine, but i dont know if it would be easy to hook it up to a 2.4. I would venture to say 'yes' because i think the ax-15 was stock behind the 2.5L dodge in the 93-94 dakotas and the 2.4 shares that bellhousing.

So it might be as easy as buying a 93-94 bellhousing, and making some motor mounts. Then you get to work on installed megasquirt so you can run launch control and flat shift and e-85 fuel mix sensor, etc!

I cannot afford a four door full size pickup. Not that interested in the Suburban or Expedition over all size.

I could really use a pickup but definitely need the quad cab vs the extended cab.

I had a 2001 4x4 with the 4.7 and an automatic. The size was perfect, I loved the engine, the seats sucked and the transmission was E36 M3 from day one. The fuel gauge only worked intermittently and the dealer couldn't fix it, exactly like the 1991 Dakota that it replaced. I got rid of it at 36,000 miles, as soon as the warranty was up. I was afraid of the transmission grenading.

I had a 2000 3.9 Sport with a 5spd. It was a fun little truck, but it felt very underpowered. I had it for 11 years and it only gave me trouble once. Fried ecu at 80k. I did "mod" it with a CAI, catback, chip, and a couple other small things. It actually responded pretty good to the upgrades, but still wasn't fast by any stretch of the imagination.

My brother-in-law has a 4X4 quad cab with the 3.7. It's a great size, and I've been impressed at the loads he's been able to haul with it over the years. His transmission went about a year ago, but I don't know if it ever saw a fluid change, and I'm not sure he ever used the tow mode on the transmission when hauling stuff. If we didn't have to fit 3 children in car/booster seats across the back, I would probably consider one. They have a ton of utility for their size, and can fit in a modern parking lot.

I have an '01 quad cab, 2wd, 4.7/auto and I freaking love it. It has 87k on it now and has given me no issues other than eating front rotors fairly often. Is got enough power to be amusing, tows my turbo Dodges all over the country without issue and as mentioned before, is the perfect size if you live in a metropolitan area. I live just outside of DC and regularly park it in various parking garages without much drama. Gas mileage isnt great, but I didnt buy it to be a fuel miser. I wanted a truck that I could load my kids into, tow my car around, throw filthy junk in the bed and still be able to park in my office parking garage.

If well maintained, these can be very reliable trucks.

I have a 1997 Dakota "Sport" 2WD with the extended cab and the 3.9/auto. I've had it for just over a year and it has been a good truck. I bought it cheap with a few of the typical issues:

-Rust in various places

-Rotted bumpers front and rear

-Y-Pipe exhaust leak

So far, I've run into little trouble with it and have fixed all the little things. It is super easy to work on too. It hasn't left me stranded yet. It has 167,000 miles and still running well. Only issues I've had so far were the following:

-Stalling issue. It was the Idle Speed Motor on the throttle body. I removed it, cleaned it, and reinstalled it. Problem solved.

-I have the tow package and that includes a power steering fluid cooler. It rotted apart and spilled fluid everywhere. I just bypassed it.

• I had a stuck thermostat. Replaced it in about 15 minutes.

I love the size. It's just right.

Seems the older ones take to our favorite LS Swap rather well.

If you can find one that hasn't turned into metallic fertilizer by now, they're okay trucks. But they DO have some pretty bad rust issues, and not in any one specific spot. One day you go out to the thing and realize that the paint and chrome are now structural.

Ignore above advice and avoid the 4.7 engine like the plague. It's a serious turd that, again, has no real defining weak spot because the whole engine is a weak spot. Weak bottom ends, troublesome valvetrain, AND timing chain issues. It's normal for them to rattle horribly for up to a minute after startup, too, but only because it's not normal for them to be in good condition.

Also the upper ball joints go out every 20k or so, so keep an eye on 'em. They're sized appropriately for a Polaris utility vehicle, not really a midsize truck. (You'll coo and say "Aw, how cute" when you see them. They're like ball joints but smaller)

I still like the idea of a 3.9 Dakota as a tow rig/haul-around vehicle, but the rust. The rust. Makes me not feel too bad about not getting that V8 in 1997.

Having had two Dakotas in the family, I like them quite a bit. Sure they aren't perfect but I find them good drivers that aren't too big. My dad has a 92 5.2L, drives fine and has been trouble free, Hwy mpgs are about 15 though. I had a 2000 Dakota R/T 5.9L, now that was a fun truck to drive. Even with the 3.92 gears it had, I was able to get 17 mpg on the hwy and 16 mpg in combined driving (no city driving so I can't comment on that). It had a couple issues, but nothing major. I would like to find one again down the road, as a fun truck to run around in. Driving the Dually is just not the same.

Never seen a rusted dakota. I think locations are more prone to rust than vehicles are. But it's easier to treat the symptoms than the cause of living in a E36 M3ty place.

So this thread seems to more or less mirror OP's previous findings: Some amount of horrible reviews, but a majority of people who have owned them, really like them. It also seems that a majority of people who have owned one, have owned MORE than one (myself included). That may be telling in and of itself.

Had an '03 RCSB 3.9 5-speed SXT. Really enjoyed that truck. Would've been stupid fun with the 4.7 in there, though. I would never suggest the 3.9 to ANYONE concerned with doing anything other than swapping it out for something else. Absolutely the right size for a truck. If the 4.7's been taken care of(most of them that have issues are from neglectful owners), it's a good engine. If the trans has been taken care of(same as engine), it's a good trans. The 4.7 is a pretty mpg friendly engine, and LOVES to breathe. I can almost guarantee there's at least 40whp/tq wrapped up in the garbage exhaust/manifolds on 4.7's. H.O. parts will go right on the regular 4.7's for a decent power boost.

Best thing about 4.7 Dakotas? Hemi's bolt right in.

For all extensive purposes though, this is the droid you're looking for:

Vigo wrote: It also seems that a majority of people who have owned one, have owned MORE than one (myself included). That may be telling in and of itself.

I'll second that...as I'm on my second Dakota also. :-)

I've seen one 4.7 in my shop with a drooling head gasket, but that turned out to be the previous hack flat rate dealership tech that didn't put all the bolts back in, and I've got one at the shop right now with duct tape on the upper rad hose and a milkshake in the pan...I'm gonna go ahead and imagine the scenario on that one.

I've not seen any particular reason to avoid the 4.7. I had one for a while, and it got pretty much the same mileage as my 4.8 Silverado. If I had been able to find the Dakota I wanted at salvage when I was looking for a newer truck I would have replaced my 350,000 km 91 with a 4.7 in a heartbeat. I prefer Dakota sized.

SlickDizzy wrote: Like any ChryCo product, watch out for exploding transmissions.

They have that reputation due to poor maintenance and people putting the wrong fluid in.

I love my Dakota Sport (4.7L + manual).

The only issues I have with it is replacing the heater core and chasing high idle issues.

Other than that, it has served me well as a DD and normal truck functions. The size is perfect for my uses.

Ah, the heater core. I swear that is the first part they start with when building the Dakota, cause you darn near have to take everything off to get to it. Everything else is reasonable easy to work on compared to it.

Vigo wrote: Never seen a rusted dakota. I think locations are more prone to rust than vehicles are.

I've worked on 8 year old Daks where I accidentally punched my knee through the front bumper.

S-10s and Rangers are crappy, but at least they aren't THAT bad.