Went and test drove an 03 Quad Cab, 4.7l auto. While that one was overpriced imo (7800 with a new engine supposedly) the wife was very intrigued. So what should I watch out for? I know mpg is.....not great but that's not a huge problem here, the usage fir it is primarily a winter rig for the wife and light amounts of towing.
Kinda shopping it against the f150 double cab but it's not exactly afair comparison
Ball joints were failure prone in certain years.
Brakes (97-99 were all mine) sucked and warped easily.
Dashes cracked.
I did 300k in those trucks. 97 was a 6 that i cot with 210k. The 98 was 100k purchase 5.2
The 99 was 4wd and a piece of E36 M3 that i sold after 40k.
In reply to Antihero :
The 4.7 had an issue with getting a white frothy buildup under the oil cap, but I’m not sure it actually caused problems. My ex & I got a 2000 in April of ‘00 which she kept until her 2bd divorce, and her 2nd ex ended up with. It was pretty beat, but still running driving with well over 200k on it.
We did have the trans replaced under warranty not too long after we got it. It had been a rental truck though, so who knows what kind of abuse it received.
The only other thing all add is that despite its 1/2-ton rating, it had nowhere near the capacity of my mom’s 88 Chevy 1/2-ton. I hauled the same coin-op bar pool table in both trucks. Disregarding the fact it needed to be loaded on its side to fit the Dakota’s bed, it had the truck almost on its bump stops, while in the Chevy you couldn’t even tell it was back there. It drove way better than the Chevy though.
Agree with Dusterbd13-Michael. The brakes suuuuuuck. Mine has hauled cars on tow dollies and trailers with surge or electric brakes; that made it suck less. The 4.7 is extra thirsty.
My biggest pain point is the heater core. Dodge hung the heater core in the air and built the truck around it.
I’m a dodge guy and would get a f150 between the two. I owned dakotas until I actually cross shopped it and realized there was 0 point.
Ive had two dakotas and had friends and customers with others. I think they've underappreciated, for the most part. The 3.9/5.2/5.9 are super reliable other than a gasket on the bottom of the intake manifold. The 3.7 I find completely mediocre considering it's less reliable than the engine it replaced, and while the 4.7 makes enough torque and power to justify its own existence it also shares the valvetrain problems of its little brother, which is to say valve seats can drop out of the head if its ever been overheated. Transmissions are so-so. Handling is unusually good for the type of vehicle, with upgrades available. Brakes aren't great but can be upgraded.
As far as it being a fair comparison to a Ford f150, you have to be more specific. It's not going to be as roomy, but depending on which engine/trans it also doesnt have some very expensive gotchas that can occur on certain F150s.
Don’t own a Dakota but have a Durango. Brakes do suck from factory but power stop makes a good kit for the trucks.
Skip the 4.7 if you can. Gas mileage isn’t significantly better than the 2 bigger motors (5.2 and 5.7) but power is a lot worse.
Transmissions burn up.... from what I understand it’s mostly a heat issue. Only trans cooling is in radiator and motors thermostat is significantly higher than transmissions optimal running temp. Get a secondary cooler and your trans will do better. Mine is original at 150k+ with heavy towing duty.
Stay away from the 4.7.
I spent far too much time fixing valvetrain/timing chain problems on my bother's Durango.
Vigo said:Ive had two dakotas and had friends and customers with others. I think they've underappreciated, for the most part. The 3.9/5.2/5.9 are super reliable other than a gasket on the bottom of the intake manifold. The 3.7 I find completely mediocre considering it's less reliable than the engine it replaced, and while the 4.7 makes enough torque and power to justify its own existence it also shares the valvetrain problems of its little brother, which is to say valve seats can drop out of the head if its ever been overheated. Transmissions are so-so. Handling is unusually good for the type of vehicle, with upgrades available. Brakes aren't great but can be upgraded.
As far as it being a fair comparison to a Ford f150, you have to be more specific. It's not going to be as roomy, but depending on which engine/trans it also doesnt have some very expensive gotchas that can occur on certain F150s.
About the same vintage as the Dakota listed, so 4.6 and 5.4 are I believe the only options for the f150
chandler said:I’m a dodge guy and would get a f150 between the two. I owned dakotas until I actually cross shopped it and realized there was 0 point.
The only real plus is the size and the wife thinks the f150 might be too big for her. I'm still gonna find her one to test drive though too
Yes the Dakota is a good bit of truck for the size and cost. I always thought they were the best size and capability for a light use truck.
Given how small Chrysler/FCA is the primary concern I would have is general maintenance and replacement parts availability.
You could also look at the mythical Mitsubishi Raider version.
I daily a 08 Mitsubishi Raider with the 3.7 v6, it’s a rebadge Dakota. It goes through front brakes pretty quick and warps the rotors. About one a year I do them and I don’t tow but do truck things with it. The transmission went out at 150k but I never felt like it shift right from day one and the used trans I put in shifts just as crappy. Guessing ecu programming. Rust is just starting to show its face but I live Pa so it sees lots of salt and snow.
Only complaint I really have with it is the bed is like 44” wide and something like 6’ long so hauling dry wall or plywood sucks.
Cooter said:Stay away from the 4.7.
I spent far too much time fixing valvetrain/timing chain problems on my bother's Durango.
That's good to know, thank you!
Dusterbd13-michael said:Ball joints were failure prone in certain years.
Brakes (97-99 were all mine) sucked and warped easily.
Dashes cracked.
I did 300k in those trucks. 97 was a 6 that i cot with 210k. The 98 was 100k purchase 5.2
The 99 was 4wd and a piece of E36 M3 that i sold after 40k.
Wonder why the rotors are warpong so easily? Seems an odd problem
In reply to Antihero :
Undersized calipers and disc size. The 2 piston calipers are better but still not great. Dcx just carried over the previous gen brakes and added lots of weight. My 2wd 95 when I bought it had warped brakes. Replaced the rotors and pads then again in the near 90k miles I got out of it....
I have a NIB set of Wagner brake pads for a Durango that I have no use for. I'd be willing to trade for something interesting. That is all I can contribute to this discussion.
A neighbor friend in college had a 2001ish Durango with a V8. I borrowed it a few times to do un-Miata-like things and really, really liked how it drove. Great size, too. His was getting pretty rusty (and this was 7-8 years ago) but I think it came from PA or nearby. I could see it being a great option if your wife thinks the F150s are a bit big.
A buddy of mine has a '99 5sp V6. I like the size. I find full size trucks hateful to drive. I don't really have much bad to say about it despite it being a rusty paintless worn out turd. It has been pretty reliable.
That said, it doesn't really have any economy advantage over a full size. I feel like a shortcab, short bed half ton from that era probably doesn't feel that much bigger.
ProDarwin said:A buddy of mine has a '99 5sp V6. I like the size. I find full size trucks hateful to drive. I don't really have much bad to say about it despite it being a rusty paintless worn out turd. It has been pretty reliable.
That said, it doesn't really have any economy advantage over a full size. I feel like a shortcab, short bed half ton from that era probably doesn't feel that much bigger.
It actually somehow gets worse mileage than the f150 supercrew according to the EPA....which is bigger, heavier, tows more and has more power on paper.
She really likes the idea of the double cab, and so do i for this purpose, although you aren't wrong about a standard cab/short bed being comparable in size and feel
About the same vintage as the Dakota listed, so 4.6 and 5.4 are I believe the only options for the f150
which is bigger, heavier, tows more and has more power on paper.
Well, as far as the same vintage, if you're talking 97-03 F150 it's quite a bit different than 04-up. The 97-03 I like quite a bit. They have reliable engines and good transmissions, good interiors in my opinion, and look good. They tend to have a short lifespan on front end parts, and about the power... forget whatever's on paper, there is no 'strong' engine in those trucks. The 5.4 is blah, the 4.6 is worse. A 4.7 Dakota will run circles around a 5.4 F150. Same for a 5.9 which most people don't realize was available outside of an R/T, but it was available in the quad cabs you'd be looking at. If you go up to 04 you can get a 3-valve 5.4 with 300hp but then you get into all the really fun stuff like the fact that any engine over 150k miles is really suspect because the variable cam timing system requires an unjustifiably high amount of oil pressure to function and when those trucks get to high miles the cam timing system sends them to an early death. Spark plugs can also be bitchy to get out without breaking, although i think at this point most of them have updated plugs in them that aren't as susceptible to this. Also with an 04-up your window is a lot more likely to roll itself down suddenly with a loud thunk and never come up again until you get out the tools. I'm nowhere near as big a fan of the 04-up in spite of nice looks and interior in some trims.
Vigo said:About the same vintage as the Dakota listed, so 4.6 and 5.4 are I believe the only options for the f150
which is bigger, heavier, tows more and has more power on paper.
Well, as far as the same vintage, if you're talking 97-03 F150 it's quite a bit different than 04-up. The 97-03 I like quite a bit. They have reliable engines and good transmissions, good interiors in my opinion, and look good. They tend to have a short lifespan on front end parts, and about the power... forget whatever's on paper, there is no 'strong' engine in those trucks. The 5.4 is blah, the 4.6 is worse. A 4.7 Dakota will run circles around a 5.4 F150. Same for a 5.9 which most people don't realize was available outside of an R/T, but it was available in the quad cabs you'd be looking at. If you go up to 04 you can get a 3-valve 5.4 with 300hp but then you get into all the really fun stuff like the fact that any engine over 150k miles is really suspect because the variable cam timing system requires an unjustifiably high amount of oil pressure to function and when those trucks get to high miles the cam timing system sends them to an early death. Spark plugs can also be bitchy to get out without breaking, although i think at this point most of them have updated plugs in them that aren't as susceptible to this. Also with an 04-up your window is a lot more likely to roll itself down suddenly with a loud thunk and never come up again until you get out the tools. I'm nowhere near as big a fan of the 04-up in spite of nice looks and interior in some trims.
97-03 is what i was going for. Ive had a few friends with 5.4s from that generation that rave about them.
I wouldnt mind a 5.9 dakota either, im a fan of an engine that has been around for a long time. We did test drive an extended cab 5.2 and was less than impressed by it.
Also huge plus for the Dakota is the possibility of a manual tranny....although im not sure the quad cab got sticks too
IIRC, sticks + quad cabs are out there . . . in VERY few numbers.
Yes, 5.9 manual quad cab dakotas exist, but they are rare!
As far as the 5.2/5.9 engines being uninspiring, look up 'death tune'. It was factory stock on some later magnum engines. On the other hand if you talk to people who have driven an obd1 magnum or a one-year-only 2002 5.9 ram 1500, the impression is different. Basically, tune matters a lot on the magnum v8s. As far as torque, what you imagine a ~6L engine should feel like in a Dakota size vehicle is what it should feel like. If it doesn't it's either broken, or it WILL feel like that after you remove the death tune.
Found an 02 quadcab with AWD.......they made one with AWD?!?
Also has 4hi and low , seems interesting.....any problems with that transfer case?
It looks like that transfer case has an open center differential. So, as long as you have traction at both ends you have AWD. Once you lose traction at one end it becomes like a 2wd, spinning one tire at one end. I think that type has more downsides than a viscous coupling type of awd tcase but it still gives you twice as much tire traction as normal right up until the first tire spins. Good for street, useless for offroading. Once you put it in 4hi or lo it locks up the center diff and becomes 'normal' 4wd. So, it has more parts to wear out and break than a normal transfer case, but it will also allow you to launch with full v8 power and hook it up any time you want on dry and maybe even wet streets.
You'll need to log in to post.
