Any experience with Dodge Dakotas?

I'm thinking about another pickup, there are just some things that can't be done with a car or SUV.  I like a standard cab but driving around car lots, I only see crew cab short boxes.  No Bueno.  I don't need a full sized truck, would like 4WD if available, but don't require it.

I know Dodges get crappier gas mileage that any other brand, I'm OK with that.

RWD Dakota fwith 53k miles for $7k. Thoughts?  (the cap would have to go)

I had a 90 with a 318.  It was tired and beat when I got it, I put a transmission in it so it would move, tires and steering parts, and drove it for six or eight years, including towing my Neon to Calgary and Gimli a dozen times.

Loved it.  I'd buy another, if I found a Grampa fresh unit.

My co-worker had one of those body style Dakotas. He liked it, but it ended up with terminal Swiss cheese rust in the frame (he lives in CT). He offered it to me for a $15 lunch, but once I saw the frame I told him to trade it in, and avoid any big bumps on the way there!

This one look to be >5 years from folding in half.

I had a V8 5.2 4x4 for a number of years. Overall a good small truck. If you have any questions just ask.

I've owned two Dodge trucks.  One was a 98 1500 that I hated.  The other was an 02 Dakota V6 that I hated even more.

Mechanically, they're as good as any of the big three with the exception of automatic transmissions.  That one, being the V6, would have an 42LE, which is more or less a light-duty 904 with an overdrive on the back.  In my time running transmission repair shops, Mopar transmissions really kept us in business.  They fail frequently, and are by far the most expensive to rebuild of the big three.  I could do a 4L60E for $1400 easy.  4R70W was usually around $1800 to start.  45/46RE?  Try $2600 minimum.  Dodge finally barely started to get things right with the 48 series, but it was still just a glorified A518... which was a glorified 727 with an overdrive stuffed on the tail.

As long as you can go into this knowing the following shortcomings (the reasons I don't like Dodge trucks), you shouldn't be disappointed:

- The ergonomics are beyond awful.  Expect to listen to songs you hate.  Why?  Because reaching for the radio almost always pulls the seat belt out so far that it ratchets and you can't get to the radio button.  You'll eventually give up and succumb to the fact that it's easier to just suffer through this Taylor Swift song and maybe the next one will be better
- The dashboard and all the trim is plastic, it is assembled by morons, and it has more rattles than the infant section at Toys R Us.  I wanted to rip the entire dashboard out of both trucks and burn them.  It wouldn't have made a difference in ergonomics because I couldn't reach it anyway, and it would have gotten rid of the risk of suffering through a Taylor Swift song.
- The transmission will fail (on the average) much sooner than a comparable Ford, GM, or Toyota, and it will be much more expensive to rebuild (if you do that instead of getting a used one).  Something you can do to help extend the life of your transmission is to pull the lower trans cooling line off the radiator and find a way to bypass the little check valve.  Why on earth Dodge decided to put a one-way check valve in a closed cooling loop is unexplainable.  It gets gunked up and restricts flow.  By the time you realize that your transmission doesn't hook up 2nd gear, you've fried it hardcore.  If you're lucky, it just needs clutches and steels.  If you got it hot enough, you'll also need an input drum which adds $300 to the bill.

I realize I'm being apocalyptic and flippant.  They really aren't that bad.  I just choose to not knowingly enter into purchasing a vehicle that has more known failures (and expensive ones) than something else.

One more thing I will say... Not trying to be a dick, but that $7000 pricetag is ridiculously high.  That is a $3000 truck that I would expect to pay $3500 at a dealer.  I can almost guarantee they snagged that from the auction for $1500.  That isn't a trade-in unless the person trading it was really not wise to the world of car dealers.  I realize that truck markets are different everywhere, but if someone had that in PA in their front yard with a for sale sign, they would advertise it at $3000 and take the first $2500 that showed up.

As a comparison, I bought a 94 Mazda B4000 (ford ranger) two years ago.  4wd, manual, zero rust florida truck, every option including sport seats with power lumbar, and 80k miles.  I paid $4000 at a used car lot and I feel like I got hosed on that price.  They were asking $6000 and I offered $3500 and walked away.  I let them sit on it for a couple weeks until they finally got to $4000 and I bit.

One listed is way overpriced imo.

That being said, my 95 Dak with the 3.9 needed only a water pump, radiator, broken exhaust studs at the head replaced, a set of ujoints, and probably some other regular maintenance stuff.

I picked up mine with 72 or 82k on it back in 08. I drove it until 14 and 165k miles. Along the way I lowered it with bell tech spindles and 2" blocks. Changed the overall diameter because it rubbed on small bumps on the inner fenders. Never any transmission issues, I did a fluid and filter change when I bought it.

Overall, if it wasn't for unfortunate body damage and no parts, I would have kept it. I had no problems driving it anywhere.

2 things I said I'd never do was to order a new vehicle or buy a Chrysler product.

Ordered a 2wd regular cab Dakota in late 90.

Wanted the v6 and manual, so had to order one.

Great truck. Drove it 15 years and 250k miles.

The only thing I did, besides regular maintenance, was a front cover gasket, so I did the timing chain and water pump, belts and hoses at the same time.

Still had the original clutch. I pulled a 19' boat, small camper and a jet ski as well.

Body finally was getting rough so I parked it and bought an 05 1500 Ram.

Drive an 08 Ram now.

OK, I prefer Chevy to Dodge, but Colorados are now as big as my C-1500.  Maybe a full sized truck is better. 

I dont know why you would buy anything but a Ford F150.  Best selling truck in America for a reason.  And I am a die hard Chevy guy and havent had a Ford that wasnt a 3/4 ton since 2006. 

I had two of that style.  First was a 92 standard cab Sport 2WD V6 / automatic.   For the day, the 180 HP V6 was pretty decent in a light 2WD truck.  Tiny gas tank, I think it was 15 gallons or less so even with 25 something MPG on the highway it didn’t have a lot of range.  Traded it on a 95 extended cap 4x4 SLT version after my daughter arrived.  

The same V6 was just adequate with the added weight of the 4 wheel drive system, it shifted in and out of OD climbing grades at highway speeds. I had good luck with it, sold it to my dad when my son arrived a couple of years later.  Other than having to replace the evap blower a couple of times he had good luck with it and traded it on a 2003 V8 version that he still has.  (It’s like a time capsule, a pristine 03 with maybe 50K on it.  He’s enjoyed his winters in Florida for the past 10 plus years so it sits in the garage during salt season.)

I’ve driven quite a few 4x4 trucks in crappy winter conditions, that 95 was the best by far.  I’m sure the tires played a part but that thing was unstoppable in snow.  Maybe being underpowered helped. We don’t see them up here anymore, too much road salt. 

My best friend had a 92 318/auto shirt bed. He couldn't keep a rack under it that didn't leak. Got about 14mpg and my 2.2/5-spd Sonoma would outrun it past the 1/8. No lie. 
 

Dad had a 96 3.9 that we drove from ~30k-250k.  It was a fantastic vehicle. Other than damage i caused (i was 14 when he got it and went through some of my formative mechanickin' tribulations on it) the only 'major' repair it ever needed was that i rebuilt the trans at around 200k because it had old seals ("morning sickness", still worked fine when warm).  I guess a heater core could be considered a major repair? I dunno, it was fantastic. The only things i really disliked about it was the brake balance (felt like the rears did nothing) and the turning radius. 

I've had Fords.  Thinking about a square body. 318 auto, price doesn't scare me if the story's true.  I had the same thing in 225 stick long box.  I liked it.

My buddy had a 4 cylinder stick and a 318/auto in that body style and he abused his. From pulling car trailers to just random burnouts it survived aside from 2 transmissions. He now drives a newer body style 360 powered Dakota that's on its third engine. If I was buying one I'd buy the square style but not at that price. 
 

I owned a 95 4cyl manual trans Dakota for about 3 weeks before I realized it was too big to be a fun mini truck and too small to do full-size truck things unless I abused it like my buddy 

Opinions about these engines are kinda all over the place. I dont know how one would ruin three, i've never ruined ONE and i've done some bad stuff to em! My dad's 3.9 ext cab auto 2wd felt quick for the time (likely ~16.7 1/4) and I remember hitting 115 in it. I currently have a 94 3.9L B250 conversion van and literally every time i drive it i think to myself 'how is this NOT slow?!'. It'll do a bit over 100, being a brick and all. It's hilariously much faster than my 1980 318 Town and Country wagon!  Early Magnums (pre-'death tune') tend to exceed expecations while the later ones underwhelm due to tuning changes and vehicle weight gain.  Somebody must've had a pretty fast 2.2L Sonoma back when because i had a student with a 95 5.2/auto ext cab 2wd dakota that ran 14.7 stock. I was shocked too. My 3.9 is sitting at like 176k, dad now has an 01 ram with a 5.9 with 193k. They are extremely reliable engines in my opinion and as long as they have a non-E36 M3ty tune on them and aren't excessively weighed down or geared high they are peppy.

I took that 3.9 Dakota to Ohio with a truck bed full of body panels sticking up past the roof. Got 18mpg on the way there (lot of extra drag, you could feel it) and 22 on the way back. The truck averaged about 20 over the 200+k we drove it. My conversion van with a 3spd and a 3.50 rear gear (take a dakota, break 4th gear, and tie a barn door to it) gets about 15-17 empty running 3300 rpm down the highway. 

Wow. I'm in love. 

I've had a 94 in my fleet for a few years that at least started its life pretty similar to this one (Regular cab/short bed/3.9/Auto). From the get go, it's duties have basically been to haul crap and be a 2nd vehicle for my now fiancee from sometime in April/May to October/November, then sit while salt is on the roads. I eventually swapped it to a 5.2 V8. After that, burnouts were added to it list of responsibilities.

Aside from maybe a Geo Prizm I had a long time ago, my Dakota has been the cheapest and most reliable vehicle I've ever owned.

I LOVE these trucks.

Here's my thoughts (and this would mostly be for 92-96 examples)...

The good:

-Aside from fuel, cost of ownership is hilariously low. Plates, insurance and most replacement parts are super cheap.

-Super easy to work on

-With the V6, I didn't think the fuel economy was that awful given what it was... I got around 17 in what was nearly 100% city driving, and managed to creep over 22 on a road trip with a much larger than average passenger and a bed full of car parts. In comparison, I had a 2.3/5speed single cab RWD '92 Ranger that barely got 20 while being painfully slow. I also had a 2011 Ranger RWD/Single Cab 2.3/Auto that got 24 in about 95% highway driving, albeit with a cap and a decent load in the bed.

-It really isn't much worse with a V8. before I added some bolt ons it did about 14/15 on 87 in almost all city driving. Now it's like 13/14, but on 93 required by the Mopar PCM.

-RWD V8 examples are more fun to drive than you'd expect... or at least that's what people tell me when I let them borrow mine and insist they beat the snot out of it.

-What the 3.9 lacks in power, efficiency and smoothness, it makes up for in reliability. The radiator on mine split on one of the hottest days of the summer a few years ago. It wouldn't hold anything and I was kind of looking for an excuse to add two more cylinders, so I just drive it home running like crap with the temp gauge pegged. I put a new radiator in it just so I could move it around my property and it ran excellent. It continued to do so for another 2-3 years before I pulled it at 197k to swap in a 5.2 V8. Just about anyone I've ever known that had a 3.9 Dakota abused the E36 M3 out of them, had well over 200k and never complained. I actually felt bad pulling it out and only got $20 from some guy who finally hauled it out of my garage.

-The A/C was probably the best out of all my vehicles up until around 198k, when it started to lose and no longer hold a charge

-I find the interior to be a good bit roomier than the Rangers I had

-While the interior is pretty craptastically plastic and cheap.... FWIW, other than the headliner, mine's held up far better and is a lot more rattle free than a lot of the same era and even newer Big 3 vehicles that I've owned

-If you get bored with the V6, swapping to a V8 is a breeze. It's also pretty much guaranteed you'll find every part you need in one trip to the "You Pull" junkyard which are always littered with various Dakotas, Durangos, Rams and Ram Vans.

The Bad:

-They love to rust. Mines been in the salt belt it's whole life and while the frame and floors on mine are fine, the fenders, rockers, cab corners and bed sides went to E36 M3 probably sometime during W Bush's 2nd term. The PO filled each with bondo and gave it a Maaco job that made it just passable for the well under $2k I paid for it. I've also got a cab mount perch that rotted through, but I just spray it with WD40 every once in a while to shut it up.

-The auto transmissions are a known weak spot. That said, I've never really worried about it because they're all over the place in the junkyard and you can get ugly running and driving examples for a fraction of what a rebuild or a new trans would cost. FWIW, the 197k mile old trans behind my 3.9 started popping into neutral from drive. Instead of looking into it, I just bought a cosmetically challenged running and driving V8/Auto example (with the same electronics/fuel setup - IE 92/93, 94/95, 96) for $400, swapped the engine/trans/ECU/harness into mine and scrapped the rest. Adding an auxiliary trans cooler is usually a good idea.

-While it's passable for part time use, short trips to the JY or store, or my 20-30 minute commute to work every once in a while. I'd trade the single cab for an extended cab if I had to live with it on a regular basis. My engine/trans donor was an extended cab and the liveability was night and day.

-I've run into a few parts that are NLA and had to be sourced from the JY: Control Arms, Wiper and shifter linkage parts, body bushings and a few others I've forgotten.

-While it was a V6, I think I had to drive it in light snow once and with an empty bed it was pretty frightening. Now with the V8, it's scary in the rain. I don't even want to know what it would be like in snow...

-I've always hated the O/D with both transmissions and both engines that have been in the truck. Makes the truck drive like crap unless I'm going over 55MPH. I usually click the button to shut it off unless I'm getting to ready to go on the highway.

-If you look at 2000 or newer examples, steer clear of that disaster 4.7 V8. While it's more efficient and fun to drive (especially with a manual and RWD) than the ancient 5.2, it's the complete opposite in terms of simplicity and reliability.

All that said, and with as much as I love Dakota's, $7k is WAY more than I'd ever pay for one. For me to even spend $3k on one it would have to be:

-A clean Shelby
-A clean R/T
-A SUPER clean 92-96 that checks a lot of boxes in terms of engine/trans/options/etc.
-Have a clean title

Here's mine with a couple of my other E36 M3 boxes:

My son had and broke two, one from neglect and one wreck.  I thought they were a lot of truck for the money.  Both had 3.9 V6s one auto one manual and I wish he hadn't wrecked the 3.9 manual.  

When did the “death tune” start? Can it be fixed?

does all this engine/trans info apply to Ram vans?

In reply to shelbyz :

I never knew about the Shelby Dakota....  now I want one.

Death tune doesn't apply to this body style of truck which ended in 96.  I think it started in 97 or 98.

I don't disagree with those who like them.  Some of us like Rovers and VWs despite some of them being time bombs.

My opinion is that (of the possible trucks out there), the Dakota is on the very bottom of my list.  Mechanically, it's not FAR down from any of the others, I think it just doesn't make sense to me to purchase a truck with known weak transmissions, typically faster rusting, and will all the rattles and buzzes of the poor assembly.  Yes, they will run for 6 million miles, but they'll do it with twice as many transmission repairs, rust repairs, and all while driving (at least me) a person crazy with noise.  But, if you're a person who doesn't mind rattles and buzzes, and likes doing transmission work, go for it.  I still want a 2001 750iL sport because (despite the fact that they fail daily) I just love the style that much and I'm willing to tolerate the crap that is associated with owning it.  

I would rather have a Taco with a wasted frame or a Colorado with electrical gremlins than a pristine Dakota, simply because I know the Dakota will cost more in the long run to keep on the road.

Personal preference, but honestly, if I were GIVEN that Dakota listed above, I would sell it for $2000 just to get it out of my driveway and make space and money available for a better truck.

If you want to make a smart purchase of a TRUCK and don't care what brand it is, a Dakota is the very bottom of my list.  If you are familiar with, and personally like, Dodge trucks, then get a Dakota.  But I still contend that the one listed above is overpriced by at least 100%.

Can't agree Curtis, I owned a brand new 2001 Ford Ranger Edge and a 94 Dakota I bought with 40,000 miles at the same time and the dang ranger was at the dealer ALL the time, my Dakota was bulletproof for 80,000 miles. I got rid of the Ranger at 22,000 miles. Ive has three dakotas, two "first gens" and a 97 RT I ordered new. The rt was a pile but the older dakotas were strong wearing. I lived in Davenport and Chicago for a good portion of that time and they really didn't rust worse than anything else either. Not like full size dodges....

I had a buddy back in my navy days who had two of that generation, he "hot rodded" them with built 360's, lowered, and such. I remember them being pretty cool and quick but he was plagued by transmission issues with the overdrive and the torque converter lock up. I believe he had them rebuilt as well as rebuilding them himself a few times. 
 

I have a 4th gen(2008) with the 3.7 and auto trans. Only issue I've had is the trans crapping out at 150k but the junkyard trans I put in with 80k is still going strong 15k later. I'll say that the transmission has always shifted funny. 
 

I prefer full size truck just because they can actually fit a full size of plywood or drywall in the bed unlike these midsize trucks. 

I’d forgotten one issue with the 95 4x4 I had.  The turning circle is absurdly big with 4 wheel drive.  I think a crew cab super duty with an 8 foot bed would be easier to turn around in a tight spot. Maybe something to do with the torsion bar front suspension but it was just ridiculous.