Learn me: First gen Dodge Dakotas

My dad had a 89 4wd with the 3.9 that he put 250k miles on. The transmission went at just a hair over 100k. I bought it from him and drove it until 290k. The fuel pump went at 285k. I sold it to my brother and he drove it until 310k when he decided the mileage sucked. It sat for 3 years and then someone else bought it and changed the battery and it fired up and off it went. There's not a whole hell of a lot that I ever liked about that truck, but we got our money's worth out of it. If you have one then they're fine, but I'm not sure why you'd ever choose to buy one except for a 2wd 5.9. That particular truck makes sense.

chandlerGTi wrote: I bought my 93 club cab 5.2 with 53k on it, never did much to it except a fuel pump and crank position sensor a couple of times. I ended up swapping a mopar performance 340 horse 360 crate in. It was a lot of fun with belltech 2" lowering all around. I towed some with it but really used it my dd for about four years. Excellent little trucks.

I bet that motor woke that truck right up!

I actually autocrossed it once in Joliet at the community college. It was a blast! Should have never traded it.

I always wanted one of these. Test drove a few but the ergonomics is terrible with the short "cab" and bench seat without tilt column. I couldn't fit leg wise. I shouldn't have listened to common sense and bought them all.

daytonaer wrote: I always wanted one of these. Test drove a few but the ergonomics is terrible with the short "cab" and bench seat without tilt column. I couldn't fit leg wise. I shouldn't have listened to common sense and bought them all.

I actually saw one yesterday! it was even red

daytonaer wrote: I always wanted one of these. Test drove a few but the ergonomics is terrible with the short "cab" and bench seat without tilt column. I couldn't fit leg wise. I shouldn't have listened to common sense and bought them all.

What in the wild world of sports is that?

In my collection of Dak stuff, some shared with an equally enabling friend, we have a '90 convertible cab. All the convertible parts are there and in good shape. The truck was wrecked back in '92. All that was saved was the cab and bed. The other enabler wants to put the cab on a 4x4 like the one in the pic. I was leaning toward a 2WD.

Either one will be cool.

I stopped wanting a convertible Dakota when I saw the rolled one in the back of my great uncles junkyard.

2g dakotas (92-96) are built way better than a ranger or s10. Based on my experience id also be happy to compare their reliability to import trucks of the time.

Vigo wrote: 2g dakotas (92-96) are built way better than a ranger or s10. Based on my experience id also be happy to compare their reliability to import trucks of the time.

S10? Build quality is about as good as if it were thrown together by blind mice without their canes and powered nearly as good.

Ranger? Much better egro's and build quality. 2.3's are slow turds even with a 5 spd. Even the 4.0's are fairly lackluster.

Dakota? Good build quality, but suffers greatly with interior styling stuck in the early K-car era. Electronics can get sketchy if you look at them wrong. Unless it is a V8, nothing to really write home about in the power dept.

Imports? Never found them appealing to even think of going to drive one.

I just bought a '97 Sport 2wd with the 3.9 about a month ago to do dump runs, home improvement stuff, etc. I picked it up for $500. It needs work, but so far, we have been driving it all over the place. It needs the heater core done (have it), the bumpers replaced (already did the rear) and the Y-pipe bolted back to the manifold on one side (have the bolts too). Oh, and the passenger side inside door handle broke on Sunday, so that needs to be fixed. It's a little crusty, but overall, not bad for a $500 truck. It even came with a cap that I have removed and will be selling.

Overall, not a bad truck. Things seem easy to work on, and it rides nice.

My dad had a 1987 back when I was a kid, and that also had the 3.9, but it was the carbed one. That wasn't such a great truck. the engine went through 3 or 4 oil pumps in the 4 years we had it among other things. I have read that the Magnum engines don't have this issue.

Also, if you can find a 2.5L/5-speed early Dakota, you can swap a turbo 2.2/2.5 in there.

Ranger? Much better egro's and build quality. 2.3's are slow turds even with a 5 spd. Even the 4.0's are fairly lackluster.

I agree with you there, but i still think a 2g dakota is better.

Oh i forgot to mention, i did the timing chain on my dad's truck. Installed the factory-recommended tensioner thing. Cheap and fixed forever.

The 3.9 is fairly quick with a 5spd. low 16s truck stock. Not bad for 1992. Or get a v8 single cab and do low 15s. Or get a 3.9, drive it for 200+k and then put a 5.9 in it which is what happened with my dad. I dont actually recommend putting 200k on one at this point. With rising energy costs, putting real miles on a truck makes less and less sense every year.

Vigo wrote: I agree with you there, but i still think a 2g dakota is better.

If I could still drive my 96 Ranger, I think I would be driving my Ranger vs the Dakota. Even with manual steering, I would take the Ranger. Even with a slow and anemic 112hp 2.3 and Mazda M5OD-1, I would take the Ranger. It was just more "pleasureable" to drive and even 5 yrs after purchasing it, it still felt "new".

Vigo wrote: The 3.9 is fairly quick with a 5spd. low 16s truck stock. Not bad for 1992. Or get a v8 single cab and do low 15s. Or get a 3.9, drive it for 200+k and then put a 5.9 in it which is what happened with my dad. I dont actually recommend putting 200k on one at this point. With rising energy costs, putting real miles on a truck makes less and less sense every year.

The auto 3.9 version barely can pull the greasy string out of a cat's butt with the cat running the other way. If I had another truck, I definitely wouldn't be driving my Dakota. I can V8 a Ranger with a carb and get better mileage.

Yes yes, your disdain for your Dakota is well known and noted.

Personally, my recommendation is to make it work right, or sell it to someone who can.

A 3.9 2wd 2g is not that slow. It'll spin all the way through first if the motor is in good condition and nothing else is wrong. I had my dad's up around 120 completely stock. I currently drive a car that can barely break 90. There are plenty of 3.9 dakotas out there that dont work right, and plenty of 3rd gens wearing too much weight, but that doesn't change the fact that a 2g 3.9 in proper condition is neither particularly slow nor particularly inefficient. Ours got 20-22 highway regularly which for the time period (and even compared to similar vehicles much newer like a 4.0 tacoma or 3.7 colorado) is on par or better. You even admitted to getting 26 once.

In reply to Vigo:

I wouldn't call it disdain. Underwhelming is closer to the point.

If you expect excitment you should not buy a 3.9, so i will agree with you there. And like i said, i would never DD one because it doesnt get good enough gas mileage unless your commutes are REALLY short (i have 40-50mpg DDs and use the old dakota for truck things).

So if you're not going to drive it much, you might as well buy the v8, right?