Any experience with Dodge Dakotas?

I see a Shelby Dakota in MD.... now if Dean really wants my 944S2 maybe we could meet there and I could use that cash towards the Dak.... that might be the most GRM thing ever.

chandler said:

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....

While I completely appreciate your perspective (and I'm not arguing), your experience is with a few trucks.  My personal experience is from 13 years of running auto repair shops and 4 years as the manager of fleet maintenance for a utility company.  I'm not talking about a few, or even hundreds of trucks in my experience, I'm talking about thousands of trucks and cold, unbiased facts.  

I'll reiterate... nothing wrong with choosing a Dodge, a Ford, or a Chevy, or any other brand that wets your whistle, but on the average (I'll say it again... on the average) the costs to maintain and repair a Dodge truck are higher than the others.  In the fleet of utility trucks I kept in Los Angeles, the difference in repair costs for our Dodge trucks so far outweighed our costs on the other brands (we had Ford, Chevy, and Nissan as well) that we stopped buying Dodge altogether, even though they were thousands of dollars cheaper to purchase with the volume pricing we were offered.  Compare that to the fleet I maintained in WV where the difference was even greater.  Working in the natural gas field meant lots of clay mud... which meant lots of rust.  Dodge trucks eroded much faster than the Fords we had in the fleet despite our best efforts to prevent it.  Don't get me wrong... those good ol boys loved their Dodges, and they didn't like that we stopped buying them, but the bottom line is that they cost us FAR more to maintain... like 20% or more after 100k miles.  The fact that they were about 4-5% cheaper to buy was not a viable trade off, so we quit buying them.

Again... I'm no arguing, just presenting facts based on the thousands of trucks for which it was my actual job to account for cost/benefit of a fleet (in the case of fleet maintenance) or for reporting profits and losses (in the case of repair shops).  When the owner of the repair shop asks "how can we make more money," and the answer is "put a Dodge 2500 in the TV commercial spot because Dodge trucks account for our highest percentage of our revenue," it's not something you forget.  When the bigwigs at the utility company say "where can we cut costs," and my answer was to stop buying Dodges and our fleet repair costs dropped 11.5% over 2 years, it's worthy of note.

By all means, buy a Dodge if you like them.  I have a 67 LeMans and a 66 Bonneville that are absolute money pits because I chose to love them.  I just dropped $500 in fun parts on a 94 Mazda because I love it.  I'm not saying anyone should avoid buying a vehicle they love.  My point is simply to 914Driver that, if there is no brand-driven quest for a Dodge in specific, I wouldn't advise them to dive in expecting the pinnacle of engineering and reliability, just as many of you have advised against me getting a Jaguar or an S-class.  This isn't hating on Mopar.  Simply that someone asked for our advice and I'm offering some fact-based research to the pile.

The problem with "I had an [insert example]" is that your advice (just like mine with anything I've owned) is tainted by your experience. I would shout about the wonders of Pontiacs from the 60s all day.  It doesn't mean they are a smart purchase unless you are passionate about 60s Pontiacs.  In truth, my particular Fordzda Branger hasn't been remarkably reliable, but I like it, and I can maintain an objective view of it.  I know it's not Ford's fault that some idiot put the friction disc in backwards causing my clutch headaches.  I DO however know that it IS mopar's fault that their transmissions are more failure-prone.

Put it this way... If I were to buy a used Ford and the auto transmission failed I would say, "darn it, the previous owner must have abused it or deferred maintenance, or maybe it was a bad coincidence."  If I bought a used Dodge and the auto transmission failed I would say "darn it, no surprise there, why did I buy a Dodge?"

My perspective comes from some really objective views.  In the fleet of trucks I maintained, I had a passion for zero of them.  I didn't own them, I didn't drive them, I just looked at numbers.  At the time, I drove an E30 and a 73 Impala Station Wagon.

Not  being argumentative, just presenting some things that I've picked up.... from maintaining and repairing multiple thousands of them.  The only reason I have a Ford right now is because it was the right truck at the right time, but I was cross-shopping Colorados, Tacomas, Nissans, and even some vans.  But not Dodge.  I just knew that the likelihood of it costing me more was greater than the other trucks.

My experience working in a transmission shop for only two years was that the Dodge 500 and 518 were better than the average 4l60 of the day by a fair margin, but they were also more likely to be broken by silly issues like a clogged cooler line. They weren't better than a 4r70 but a 4r70 also didn't have the option of being upgraded with truly silly parts designed for modified diesels putting out 1000 lb ft of torque (unlike a 518 which you could if it actually broke).  In the time i worked at that transmission shop i rebuilt the transmissions in both my parents' vehicles, an a500 and an a604, at over 200k miles, and ONLY because the old seals were not working well until warm. They had very little need for hard parts. Compare that to the 4l60s which would get upgraded parts even if they weren't broke because we were so certain that they WOULD break if we didn't.  Everything is a mixed bag but my experience with 90s dodge trucks and vans with the magnum engines and 500/518 transmissions has been that they are absolutely on par mechanically, probably more so than they are aesthetically or ergonomically. My dad's 5.9 Ram has a stock unopened engine and trans at 193k, but if I'd billed full price for the replacement dashboard, heater core, and evaporator core i put in it last year, that would have cost as much as a typical trans rebuild or used engine install.  Parts cost was ~700-800. If you don't want to spend or fix anything I would definitely strongly caution against buying anything but a new Toyota. Except of course for that 2015 Tacoma i just did headgaskets on at 58k miles. Hmmmm. Turns out the internet cries wolf and reality gores sacred cows. What a world to try and be a perfectionist in!!

Before I got the Power Wagon, I had a 1997 Dakota 2WD Sport with the 3.9L V6.



I picked it up dirt cheap from an old coworker. It was rusty in some places, but overall solid for the age. He got it from his dad, the original owner who ordered it without A/C on purpose. I had it from 2011-2019. Over that time, I had to do a lot of stuff to keep it running. Nearly every brake line popped on it (one of them was a replacement that rotted again!), did all of the ball joints and front end stuff a couple of times, replaced the exhaust, did the steering shaft, and more.

As far as the earlier trucks go, as long as you stay away from the real early carbed V6 ones, they seem to be decent trucks. My dad had a 1987 2wd V6 one that he traded in a sweet 1983 F150 XLT Flareside on, and he almost instantly regretted that decision. It was a gutless turd that broke down all the time, and it was only a year old when he got it! Anything that could go wrong on that one did. The V8 ones from the early-mid 90's are good trucks, and you could get a shortbed 2wd with the 318 and a manual for a time, which made for a pretty quick sleeper!

Reliability issues notwithstanding, weren't the first gen Dakotas able to fit 4'x8' lumber between the wheel wells? 

eastsideTim said:

Reliability issues notwithstanding, weren't the first gen Dakotas able to fit 4'x8' lumber between the wheel wells? 

Just in the bed. You can easily place the sheet on top of the tubs.

eastsideTim said:

Reliability issues notwithstanding, weren't the first gen Dakotas able to fit 4'x8' lumber between the wheel wells? 

Not between the wheel wells, but with a long bed, it'll at least fit in the box with the tailgate shut.

IIRC, Chrysler initially tried to position the Dakota in its own class as a "mid-size" pickup, somewhere between a conventional full size or compact. This was why they continued to offer a badge engineered Mitsubishi pick up for another 7 years after the Dakota was introduced.

To better fit that designation, the Dakota's box lengths matched the 6.5' and 8' found on full size trucks, while compacts from Ford, GM, Jeep and imports were around 6' and 7' or smaller.

In reply to shelbyz :

It was such a weird time for that segment.  They had the Dodge Rampage from 82-84 along with the D-50/Ram 50 (starting in 79) then the Dakota (starting in 86) and the Ram 50 (which ran to 1993).

Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to shelbyz :

It was such a weird time for that segment.  They had the Dodge Rampage from 82-84 along with the D-50/Ram 50 (starting in 79) then the Dakota (starting in 86) and the Ram 50 (which ran to 1993).

They even had Plymouth selling the Rampage and D50 as the Scamp and Arrow, respectively.

On top of that, shortly after the Dakota was released, they inherited a direct and arguably superior competitor in the Comanche...

I owned an 87 Dakota for a while. It was nowhere close to as good as a 92-96, although i still think it was competitive with a lot of the plain jane stuff from other manufacturers.  I do have a Rampage, and a Plymouth Arrow.. both are tiny compared to the Dakota. We pulled 10k lbs with that Dakota. I'm not saying it was a good idea! In fact, one time i wrecked the Dakota because i was driving a big tractor up onto the trailer hooked to the Dakota and the tractor was so heavy it tipped the trailer up, picked up the back of the Dakota (park only stops the rear wheels, unfortunately), and shot it forward into a tree. Whoops! 

I had a '94 SWB single  cab Dakota at the same time my dad an '87 SWB D150.  They were the same length.  Dakota was ~8-10" narrower and a lot less tall.

The Dakota was a 2.5 (Mopar) 5-speed.  It would lose a drag race with continental drift, but it was super reliable and got ~23 mpg beating around town.  In '95 or '96 they went to the AMC 2.5, which was quite a bit spunkier and got similar mileage.

I think the sweet spot for the daily beater would be the 3.9 Magnum.  Enough power, decent mileage, reliable and easy to work on.  I've never heard much good about the later trucks with the 3.7 or 4.7 v8.

It's no Dakota, but I just bought this Frontier with a V-6, 6 spd stick & 4WD;  I don't care for the running boards. 

The Cadimino and Jetta are going down the road and I'm done with juggling cars for a while.

The Frontier is a great option.  They had some front-end rust issues if you didn't keep up with them, but at least they were bolt-on things like the PS lines and suspension bits that are easier to replace than a frame like the Taco.

They also sell cheaper than Tacos but have proven to be very reliable.