|
Post by Cole D on Dec 27, 2017 14:29:13 GMT -5
I've wondered about the Dodge Dakota pickups. I used to see a lot of the older 90s/early 2000s ones but the ones that are 2005 and newer I rarely see. And the last version from 2008-11 even rarer. I mean, I only see one every few weeks if any. Are they good trucks? I know the later crewcabs could be had fairly loaded, I know leather seats, navigation and uConnect were options on some but I rarely see any with those features online.
|
|
|
Post by Parkman on Dec 27, 2017 16:22:46 GMT -5
I am by NO means a Chrysler Corp/FCA guy... I will say this, my wife bought a 2004 Dakota from my Great Uncle. I hated it, it drove like crap and was very uncomfortable. However I sold it to my cousin and he loves it and has had no problems with it.
My Dad had a Dakota as a company vehicle it was a 2005 Crew Cab and it had a lot of problems. Its still in use since he retired but is in the shop it seems every other month.
|
|
|
Post by becausecanadia on Dec 27, 2017 16:51:43 GMT -5
They're crap. The v6s are gutless, the V8s are decently fast but get the gas mileage of a 4x4 1/2 ton, I find the seats super uncomfortable too.
|
|
|
Post by fancollector12 on Dec 28, 2017 3:11:46 GMT -5
Older ones are good (1st and 2nd-gen, 1987-1996 and 1997-2004, respectively). You'll want to cut off the 2nd gen at 2002 because thats the last year of the "good" (5.2L and 5.9L) Magnum engines. The 3rd-gens are junk, and so are the 3.9L Magnum V6 and 3.7L V6 and 4.7L V8 Power-Tech engines. The 4.7 we had in my dad's old 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee, and it was a gas guzzler, and had misfire issues. In 2005 when Chrysler introduced the 3rd-gen Dakota, they had to cut costs and material quality to be profitable (like the 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee), and while they sold a lot of Dakotas in that time, they aren't too desirable, even in high (SLT Laramie) trim. If they'd have put in the 5.7L HEMI V8 (they could've done that since it's basically the same truck as a Durango, which itself offered the 5.7L HEMI V8), it might've been more desirable. My dad almost bought a 1st-gen, 1-year-old '96 Dodge Dakota Club Cab SLT 4X4 with the 5.2L V8 in it in '97, but ended up with a '93 Jeep Cherokee XJ Country 4DR instead with the 4.0L I6. I know people who've had 1st and 2nd-gen Dakotas, and they seemed to like them.
|
|
|
Post by Cole D on Dec 28, 2017 10:48:07 GMT -5
A relative had a 1st gen, I think a 1994. I don't recall if they had any issues with it, they replaced it with a 1997 Ford F-150 XL around 96 or so. Before the Dakota they had a 1993 Nissan Extended Cab truck, which as far as I know were good trucks, another relative had a 1995 Nissan.
Like I said I rarely see the Dakotas from the mid-late 2000s here, the last one I saw was an extended cab model that was a Comcast work truck. The 2nd gen ones are still pretty common around here, and I see a few first gens sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by fancollector12 on Dec 29, 2017 3:06:34 GMT -5
I rarely see the 1st-gen Dakotas, but a lot of the 2nd-gen. At the time that the 1st-gen Dakota was introduced, it was the only mid-size truck to have a full-size rear seat (not "jump" seats... I hate "jump" seats)... the Chevy S-10 and GMC Sonoma didn't offer that option until the late 1990s, and the Ford Ranger never offered it at all. Also, it was the only mid-size pickup of the time to offer a V8 engine option, as the Ranger and S-10 didn't. The 1st-gen Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon DID offer a 5.3L V8 late in their run. So that exclusivity was gone after that happened. BTW, I just read that Dodge's/RAM's parent company, Fiat-Chrysler (FCA) just recalled all 3rd-gen (2005-2012) Dodge/RAM Dakotas with heated front seats, not like a whole lot of them existed with that option.
|
|
|
Post by Parkman on Dec 29, 2017 9:06:22 GMT -5
My opinion: Stay away from the Dakota if you want reliability.
Get an S-10 if it has the 4.3L V6 that thing is super reliable although you might have to get the Head gaskets replaced due to the whole Dex-Cool antifreeze mess.
The Rangers seem to be hit or miss. I know guys who have had them from the beginning and love them and are super loyal. Then I know other guys who get one and its either mechanically horrendous or they really wanted a full size and find every little thing wrong with the Ranger to justify that they don't have the full size.
The Colorado/Canyon are decent trucks they are known to be underpowered with the 4cyl and the 5cyl seem to be average but from what I've heard get newer than a 2006 for re-liabilities sake.
The Frontiers fall apart quicker than other trucks. Nissan's in general from a few mechanic friends have told me they have 100,000 mile problems at 50,000 miles and 200,000 mile problems at 100,000 miles. I personally think Nissan's are junk after my parents experience and a few other people I know. The engines are good but everything else on them was problem after problem.
The Tacoma is bulletproof but you WILL pay a lot for one but you will get your monies worth out of it.
|
|
|
Post by fancollector12 on Dec 30, 2017 3:51:55 GMT -5
Actually the 5.2 and 5.9 V8 engines in the 1st ('90ish-'96) and 2nd gen ('97-'04, with those engines running from '97-'02) Dakotas are pretty reliable engines. I had a '94 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 5.2 V8 and not only was it an absolute BLAST to drive, but it was also VERY reliable while I had it... never shoulda sold it.
On the other hand, the 4.7 V8 engines are complete junk, as we had multiple misfire issues with my dad's old '05 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 4.7 V8. So is the 3.7 V6. When the Jeep Liberty came out in 2002 and introduced that engine, it sucked. And DEFINITELY stay away from the 3rd-gen ('05-'12) models. Those are NOT reliable. AT ALL.
|
|
|
Post by Max C. on Jan 24, 2018 4:14:05 GMT -5
Any thoughts on the Mazda B-series?
|
|
|
Post by Cole D on Jan 24, 2018 19:08:47 GMT -5
I think they were pretty good, just like the Ranger. They're nice trucks, but I think they should have updated them more, especially toward the later years. Even if the 2005+ Dakotas weren't very good, they did try to offer more options and safety features than a lot of compact trucks did.
|
|
|
Post by becausecanadia on Jan 25, 2018 0:22:45 GMT -5
Same thing as the Ranger. I had a 2011 Ranger 4.0L. if you can get past how small it is and the crap gas mileage of the 4.0, they're pretty good. I took mine to Fanimation, an 8 hour drive..it was pretty cramped with two 6ft dudes in it. Its small enough that I used to take my Ranger down ATV trails
|
|
|
Post by fancollector12 on Jan 25, 2018 1:53:21 GMT -5
The Mazda B Series is the same as the Ford Ranger... I like the Ranger but the only thing I don't like is that there's no full rear bench seat option, which virtually all of its competitors offered... it had only jump seats... engines and trannys are fairly reliable, 4WD system is great. I'm excited to see how the new one sells (for those who haven't seen or heard, it's coming in the Fall and looks awesome). If I had a Ranger or B Series, I'd take out the rear seats and put a toolbox behind the front seats... I wouldn't force my friends to sit back there.
|
|
|
Post by Cole D on Jan 25, 2018 22:53:12 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember riding in the back seat in my relative's Ranger. The seats folded down from the back wall, then the seatback unfolded toward the side wall. The Nissan's seats faced sideways also, just vinyl seats that pulled down out of the sidewalls and lap belts that hung on hooks under the back window.
|
|
|
Post by fancollector12 on Jan 26, 2018 1:53:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember riding in the back seat in my relative's Ranger. The seats folded down from the back wall, then the seatback unfolded toward the side wall. The Nissan's seats faced sideways also, just vinyl seats that pulled down out of the sidewalls and lap belts that hung on hooks under the back window. Yup the Nissans did that as well, but I sat in a King Cab (Extended Cab) a few months back (brand new 2018 Frontier base model with manual windows) and it had a full bench seat, but there was literally NO room back there. I HATE jump seats. Have to have a full seat.
|
|
|
Post by becausecanadia on Jan 26, 2018 13:36:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember riding in the back seat in my relative's Ranger. The seats folded down from the back wall, then the seatback unfolded toward the side wall. The Nissan's seats faced sideways also, just vinyl seats that pulled down out of the sidewalls and lap belts that hung on hooks under the back window. Yup the Nissans did that as well, but I sat in a King Cab (Extended Cab) a few months back (brand new 2018 Frontier base model with manual windows) and it had a full bench seat, but there was literally NO room back there. I HATE jump seats. Have to have a full seat. They're too small to put a full rear bench seat in, you'd literally have no leg room at all.
|
|