Early Dakota Quadcab trucks any good?

[IowaOffRoad]

How bad are the autos? A quick search was saying you sniffed at one with a V8 and it littered the freeway. Is it 700r4 legendary status?

My friend had a 5.2L quad cab and liked it. But that sucker was super long in the middle and would hang up on shit my 99 xtra cab Tacoma walked through.

I'm doing a little research on an extra cab 4wd of that era but I'm not sure on 4.7L, 5.2L, or 5.9L.

Chrysler OD autos get a (somewhat justifiable) bad rap. Honestly, get past the first 5 years of the ultra shift FWD or the A500/518/RH//RE4 whatever AND keep the temps down and change the oil periodically they have never done me dirty. Of course, many of the typical first and subsequent owners of said Chrysler products were cheap fucks so the damage is typically already done. *previous statement applies to stock gas applications, none of this applies to stock HO or hopped up Cummins owners, you’re fucked

 

[MigGunslinger]

How bad are the autos? A quick search was saying you sniffed at one with a V8 and it littered the freeway. Is it 700r4 legendary status?

My friend had a 5.2L quad cab and liked it. But that sucker was super long in the middle and would hang up on shit my 99 xtra cab Tacoma walked through.

I'm doing a little research on an extra cab 4wd of that era but I'm not sure on 4.7L, 5.2L, or 5.9L.

I had the 45RFE behind the 4.7 never had any issues with the trans and I totaled it at 250K. It had some weird deal where it would choose the better of two second gears but I never really noticed it doing anything fucky.

As the owner of a truly shitty auto trans (the 42RLE in my TJ) the dakota trans drove pretty good, seemed to upshift and downshift at the right times.

 

[Winchested]

Friends family had a couple. A 98 and an 02 crew cab.

They didn't survive salt areas very well and looked like every other sun 2010 dodge on the road, doors rotten and all fenders quarters rotten.

But in Cali you should be good to go!

 

[Mad Max]

I have had nothing but good utility from my Chrysler autos (518's 618's, etc) - the bad rap comes from the crappy 'high-stall' converters making too much heat, especially in the early non-lockup diesels. All of my 518's have help up good to my use including a 518 behind my 300 horse 1st Gen Cummins tow rig. I ran a 91% DTT converter in it and a B&M deep pan and it never got hot or faltered.

That said, what I do dislike about those transmissions is the nanny electronics of the RE series. While those can be bypassed with a full manual VB and toggles for the OD and LU, the fact that the OE computer is required to make them run has always kept me from using them - I've always swapped for the earlier RH series and have had great results. Plus I think the RH series shift better than the REs.

 

[u2slow]

Imho, the pushrod magnums are better suited to the dodge trans programming; that tries to keep the engine in the rpm basement.

 

[Lil'John]

So the trans issues are basically as "simple" as replace the torque converter and drop a secondary aftermarket cooler? Or are there "HD" kits a competent trans shop could install while rebuilding the trans?

Similar to OP, I'm in Calif where drivetrain adjustments are problematic at best so whatever trans is there is what I'd be stuck with.

Is it better to search for 5.2 or 5.9 version or is 4.7 reasonable enough?

 

[Mad Max]

So the trans issues are basically as "simple" as replace the torque converter and drop a secondary aftermarket cooler? Or are there "HD" kits a competent trans shop could install while rebuilding the trans?

...essentially, yep. And presuming it's a good shop doing the work a quality rebuild is never a bad idea

Similar to OP, I'm in Calif where drivetrain adjustments are problematic at best so whatever trans is there is what I'd be stuck with.

Is it better to search for 5.2 or 5.9 version or is 4.7 reasonable enough?

not sure about the 4.7's, but any 5.2 or 5.9 trans would be equally good...tho different converters of course

 

[Lil'John]

not sure about the 4.7's, but any 5.2 or 5.9 trans would be equally good...tho different converters of course

I was actually talking about the engines themselves and not the variation of the transmission behind each. I guess I should have been a little more explicit

If I had three Dakotas pop up that were roughly the same price(not a steal) and basically similarly equipped with the only difference being 4.7L, 5.2L, and 5.9L engine, which should I run away from or which one is the best bet? MPGs not a consideration.

 

[IowaOffRoad]

I was actually talking about the engines themselves and not the variation of the transmission behind each. I guess I should have been a little more explicit

If I had three Dakotas pop up that were roughly the same price(not a steal) and basically similarly equipped with the only difference being 4.7L, 5.2L, and 5.9L engine, which should I run away from or which one is the best bet? MPGs not a consideration.

I’d go 5.9 for power since you are building an off-road rig. If DEEP gears and/or under 38’s a 318 would be fine and reliability twisted tighter. IMHO

 

[u2slow]

If I had three Dakotas pop up that were roughly the same price(not a steal) and basically similarly equipped with the only difference being 4.7L, 5.2L, and 5.9L engine, which should I run away from or which one is the best bet? MPGs not a consideration.

I would avoid the 4.7/auto combo. Prefer the pushrod magnums.

 

[350TacoZilla]

5.2 is a good engine that would probably be easier to find than the 5.9 truck in good shape for good deal. The 4.7 will probably be what you are flooded with and i don't think it is a run away screaming type of thing. I think if you had all 3 trucks in front of you to build and you put say 4.56 in the 5.2 & 5.9 trucks you would put 4.88-5.12's in the 4.7 truck. The engine likes a bit more RPM but trans tuning wants to keep it bogged down lower, Manual trans would solve that part. Only other problem I have seen so far is annoying lifter tick sound when first starting the truck up so I might look into a pre-oiler setup if I can find something cheap that works.

 

[Mad Max]

yep in general most shy away from the 4.7 engines, mostly due to their lack of longevity. That said, a new 4.7 in place of a busted one will likely last longer than you'll own the truck. That said, bigger is better, so if you find a 360 truck that's the one I'd grab...but the 318's don't suck none neither.

- Sam

 

[JohnnyJ]

4.7 really suffers from oil sludge if POs didn't keep up with oil changes. It's a shame because I like the motor, but that's definitely it's glass jaw. Tons of 3.7 and 4.7 jeep engines in scrap yards due to lack of maintenance.

 

[Squamch]

I'm convinced the powertech engines (3.7/4.7) fare better with a manual trans. No transmission heat, and 'normal' driving with a stick happens at higher rpm - where cooling and oiling are optimal. The autos really lug these OHC engines.

So yeah, the pushrod magnum, or the 4.7 with a stick would be my choice.

Friend had a slammed one with the 4.7, pedal was an on/off switch, and tires were for making smoke...never had an issue with it. Evidence supports your theory.

 

[JohnnyJ]

I'm convinced the powertech engines (3.7/4.7) fare better with a manual trans. No transmission heat, and 'normal' driving with a stick happens at higher rpm - where cooling and oiling are optimal. The autos really lug these OHC engines.

The 4.7 I had in my TJ was in front the stock TJ NV3550. It did come alive with revs. It was a fun project.

 

[Lil'John]

yep in general most shy away from the 4.7 engines, mostly due to their lack of longevity. That said, a new 4.7 in place of a busted one will likely last longer than you'll own the truck. That said, bigger is better, so if you find a 360 truck that's the one I'd grab...but the 318's don't suck none neither.

- Sam

4.7 really suffers from oil sludge if POs didn't keep up with oil changes. It's a shame because I like the motor, but that's definitely it's glass jaw. Tons of 3.7 and 4.7 jeep engines in scrap yards due to lack of maintenance.

5.2 is a good engine that would probably be easier to find than the 5.9 truck in good shape for good deal. The 4.7 will probably be what you are flooded with and i don't think it is a run away screaming type of thing. I think if you had all 3 trucks in front of you to build and you put say 4.56 in the 5.2 & 5.9 trucks you would put 4.88-5.12's in the 4.7 truck. The engine likes a bit more RPM but trans tuning wants to keep it bogged down lower, Manual trans would solve that part. Only other problem I have seen so far is annoying lifter tick sound when first starting the truck up so I might look into a pre-oiler setup if I can find something cheap that works.

So from an engine standpoint it is 5.9L > 5.2L > 4.7L but 4.7L isn't a complete POS. Is the solution for the 4.7L just frequent/quality oil changes? Would adding an engine oil cooler help it?

For the auto and 4.7L, is it possible to adjust the tune for later shifting? I know HPTuner will adjust 4l60e for later/harder shifts.

 

[Ghetto Fab.]

I was going to ask, what are the common issues with the 4.7? I had thought from my WJ research that the later 4.7 were supposed to have some of the issues fixed. Didn't they come out with upgraded lifters to help the lifter issues they had? What is the achilles heal of the engines?

 

[TRINDU]

IMHO, 5.2 > 5.9 magnums given the choice for longevity. I've witnessed a lot more 360 crack heads than 318. A 318 will move a Dakota down the road just fine.

4.7s get a bad rap due to poor maintenance. I've also seen silly things like a freeze plug leaking -> overheat -> trash.

I'd find the cleanest, well taken care of, example and not mind the v8 flavor. To hell with the v6.

 

[MigGunslinger]

I was going to ask, what are the common issues with the 4.7? I had thought from my WJ research that the later 4.7 were supposed to have some of the issues fixed. Didn't they come out with upgraded lifters to help the lifter issues they had? What is the achilles heal of the engines?

the valve seats drop out of the aluminum heads. The heads turn into a banana at the first whiff of overheating. The oiling system is susceptible to clogging up with sludge if not maintained which is a problem because the overhead cams deliver the oil to the top end through little tiny holes.

It’s not a pushrod V8 designed in the 60s with fuel injection slapped on it. That has it’s pros and cons. But for something the size of a Dakota or grand Cherokee it is a strong engine with a lot of torque high in the rpm range.

 

[Ghetto Fab.]

I get that this is a question about a dakota in a dodge forum, but humor me and compare this to a 2010-2012 Chevy colorado with the V8 option (looks like 300hp, 320tqs)? It looks like the colorado is slightly smaller, but if you can find the V8 version it offers substantially more power in an engine that should be superior to any of the dodge motors. Build quality it probably suspect on both. The colorado is newer and I think still pre can-buss stuff? The dakota is older and probably less expensive, especially when trying to find a V8.

I should probably start a thread in the general sections chronicling some of my thoughts and observations on vehicle designs and a spot to get more info on a broader range of vehicles.

 

[IowaOffRoad]

I get that this is a question about a dakota in a dodge forum, but humor me and compare this to a 2010-2012 Chevy colorado with the V8 option (looks like 300hp, 320tqs)? It looks like the colorado is slightly smaller, but if you can find the V8 version it offers substantially more power in an engine that should be superior to any of the dodge motors. Build quality it probably suspect on both. The colorado is newer and I think still pre can-buss stuff? The dakota is older and probably less expensive, especially when trying to find a V8.

I should probably start a thread in the general sections chronicling some of my thoughts and observations on vehicle designs and a spot to get more info on a broader range of vehicles.

All vehicles by 2008 were required to have CANbus so the Colorado had it. Depending on options the weight was the same and exterior dimensions were basically the same, Colorado was a couple of inches narrower.
I like the idea of V8 Colorado/Canyon, but packaging was TIGHT for the engine (which sucks) and they are rare compared to V8 Dakota. Someone should build one though.

 

[Lil'John]

I like the idea of V8 Colorado/Canyon, but packaging was TIGHT for the engine (which sucks) and they are rare compared to V8 Dakota. Someone should build one though.

How tight is it? And how rare is the v8?

I've never looked but the Colorado was part of the reason I asked my Dakota questions... I was considering both.

 

[Mad Max]

one thing to consider is the newer the vehicle the harder it will be to 'mod'. I consider just about anything north of 2002 'too new' to major voodoo simply because if the nanny sensors and computers to make things run. Start messing with stuff and strange electrical gremlins may make you want to set the project on fire. If it were me...and it is me with my 02 Dak...I'd go with a 00 or 01 QC Dak and fab away. Solid trucks to begin with, plenty of room without being a full-size, inexpensive to begin with, and worthy of whatever you set your mind to 👍.

Now...that all presumes you are wanting to do real off-roading requiring bigger than 33" tires. I don't recall from the original post, but if you're not wanting/needing bigger than 33s then a Colorado (or any 'newer' truck) will likely be just fine with OTC bolt on lift kits and such. But if a SAS is in the plans then starting with an older truck will likely lead to less headaches.

To give you a mind's eye of a big Dak, this is what our 02 looks like now with a SAS, tons, and 40's -

...here's one of another Dak that has been my inspiration all along, on 38's or 40's I don't remember, and I photoshopped the rear axle back a couple inches from the original pic...

...and for fun here's one of our Dak next to his big brother Bud, a 74 Cummins Power Wagon on rockwells and 46s

- Sam

 

[IowaOffRoad]

How tight is it? And how rare is the v8?

I've never looked but the Colorado was part of the reason I asked my Dakota questions... I was considering both.

I’ve never turned a wrench on one, but the one V8 Colorado I’ve had the hood up on looked like a PITA to change a belt or a starter on. May be one of those situations where it’s better than it looks. Sure hope so.
As far as rare, I can’t imagine GM sold more than 10k total over those years. Can’t seem to find exact info online to verify that.

 

[Ghetto Fab.]

The V8 colorados were only made from 2010-2012, and the V8 was probably the highest end option you could get so they aren't too common.

Yes, earlier vehicles are easier to mod no doubt, but I'm pretty handy with computer shit on these newer vehicles. I'm also in california, so engine swaps are a pain in the ass! Been there and done that. Its easier to find a powertrain that you want and modify everything else around it. Literally starting with a tahoe and dropping a jeep body on it would be easier than just building a jeep and swaping a V8 into it. My idea is to try to find a powertrain and body combination that works for my needs, then gut the front and rear suspensions and make it work offroad. I could just be a toyota or jeep fanboy, but I like to consider everything thats out there just in case something else works out better or is cheaper.

My use case for this idea would be to go crawling. It doesn't need to be a comp buggy, but it does need to do the rubicon and moab style trails so whatever I build will most likely get sas'd and at least 37s.

My other use that is somewhat contradictory to crawling is using it for overlanding and exploring. I want a vehicle I don't have to tow. Something I can just get in with the family and drive a 1000miles out to colorado and go exploring in the mountains, and maybe hit up moab on the way back. Its a pain to tow and deal with parking tow rigs on top of having to base camp and not be more maneuverable. This is where having something with some power would be nice. Being completly overloaded and climbing highway grades gets old. Also needs to be reliable to do this.

Yes, I'm a retard and want it all.

 

[Thornbird1]

I like my dakota. It’s a v6 but really isn’t slow until you add a bunch of weight for a camping trip or something. Most people I wheel with assume it’s a v8 because of the way it scoots around. I swapped my auto for a ax15 once it started slipping. I think there are an underrated and over looked platform. That being said there’s not much under mine that’s original and probably the reason most people shy away due to the extensive work needed to make them stout and capable. I have a build thread on pirate4x4 that I’ve been meaning to bring over here called “Dak attack” , also July 2020 issue of four wheeler if you want some inspiration.

 

[IowaOffRoad]

…Yes, I'm a retard and want it all.

So, when you picking up your new Bronco or Lesbaru

I get what you are doing. I think I a lot of cases we’d all be better off starting with a platform that has as much of the drivetrain we want to start with and cutting off wha we don’t need vs. starting with the brand/body we want and installing the drivetrain.

 

[Ghetto Fab.]

So, when you picking up your new Bronco or Lesbaru

I get what you are doing. I think I a lot of cases we’d all be better off starting with a platform that has as much of the drivetrain we want to start with and cutting off wha we don’t need vs. starting with the brand/body we want and installing the drivetrain.

Already have a Lesbaru. It might have enough space for two lesbians camping, but not a family of 4. Ha ha!

 

[Mad Max]

...what about finding a clean 5.7 or 6.4 8-lug Hemi Power Wagon or 3/4-ton 4-door or similar Ram and doing your own upgrades with gears, lockers, tires, lift, etc.? You'd already have big axles, lift kits off-the-shelf, etc. Could even drop a Dakota body on the PW frame and have a full-width Dakota (lotlotlot of work tho). My Dak has full-width tons under it (89 Ford D60 and a 02 GM 14b).

Might even be better off starting with a regular 4x4 Ram (non-Power Wagon) so you can put in whatever traction aids and winch, etc. you'd want, and you can avoid the initial "Power Wagon" mark up.

If I were wanting to 'have' a truck for overlanding and moderate rock-crawling I'd absolutely start with a 3/4-ton Hemi Ram 4-door and just build it 'big', 40's minimum. Lots of interior room, lots of capability, maybe the only drawback is it being a 'full-size', but my truck is living proof that full-sizes can go just about anywhere, albeit pin stripes and body damage are a bit more 'likely' but often avoidable with careful driving, and armor 😉.

Honestly, based on what you're intended use(s) above, I'd say Ram 2500 Hemi upgraded to 40's and you are 'there'. If full-width axles on a Jeep will fit the trails you want to do then having a full-width body over top of them will fit too 👍. My giant PW is 8 feet at the tires - I've had it all over Moab, and a lot of places in Colorado that folks said it wouldn't fit, and what I discovered after doing the trails is that most folks don't really know how big their stuff really is.

- Sam

 

[Ghetto Fab.]

Funny thing is I have a 14 Ram 2500 tradesman cummins quad cab truck right now. Its bitchin. Hauls the family and the 4runner on a trailer really well. Plenty of room and comfort for all our crap. I actually started building a popup camper for it and really need to get it finished. It is amazing how capable the ram chassis and the power wagons are, and the desert is pretty wide open for them.

Having said that though, I'd really rather not wheel my ram. It is the nicest thing I own vehicle wise and its actually worth something. I'd like to keep it that way. I've also wheeled a similar 14 ram on fins and things in moab, a beginner trail, and it was nerve racking. Visibility out the pass side is the worst of any vehicle I've ever driven and wheeling on top of the sand stone out there at times, it just looks like your in low flying plane since you can't see any of the ground on the right.

I think of trips we've done in the past and think about what we could have done different and how that applies to what I'm looking to do vehicle wise. We went to death valley two year ago and it was great. We towed my 4runner out there and drove around offroad in that. The 4runner is small and light and will go anywhere out there. We covered a lot of ground and it was hot. On the third day the AC quit and the truck wasn't the most comfortable to drive all those miles on the highway or offroad. I think about where we went and there was only one day going up to the salt tram where I wouldn't have wanted to drive the ram. We could have done most of that trip in the ram with no issues and been totally comfortable. Except we wouldn't have gotten to see the salt tram. Sure we could have found something else to do, but it sucks being limited on where you can go. I'd like to go back out and hit lippincot road too, and thats another place I'm not sure I'd take the ram.

Have you ever wheeled in the sierras? If not you should make it a point to sometime. Good times! Its tight though in spots. Rubicon is actually pretty open to fullsizes now I feel like. Other spots like dusy will just crumple all your door panels. The trees are barely wide enough for my 4runner in spots. Jeeps work because while the axles are essentially full width, the body is not and that tends to save them. The tires sticking out tends to help save the body. A fullsize doesn't really have that option. I'm going wheeling this weekend on a trail we try to hit every year for the boys. Its got a few tight spots and I'm going to try to photo a few spots with my 4runner in them so people can get an idea of how tight it is. I've long contemplated building a chevy tahoe, but its body width keeps me from doing that. Otherwise they have the power, wheelbase, comfy seating and cargo space I'm looking for. The dakota is appealing since its in between my 4runner size and a tahoe size, plus V8, and cheapish. A set of fullwidth tons, coilovers in the front, something in the back, 37"+ tires and I'm sure it would be plenty capable for my needs offroad. I'm not sure it has the reliability I want though, and it could use more power. Ideally 300hp-300tq I think would be ideal, and that lead into my questions comparing it to a chevy colorado, which makes those power numbers.

I like the idea of a jeep body on a ram chassis. I thought of that before and things actually line up really well. I have cad models of a JK frame and 4th gen ram chassis to compare too. Problem is though, in cali you wind up registering it as a ram 2500 and get hit with the registration weight penalties on top of a wrangler having less cargo space than my 4runner and I'm trying to move away from a cludged together vehicle. I'm trying to find something with a motor-drivetrain combo in a descent sized body that has a factory integrated wiring harness and AC system. That way its all factory and works seamlessly together, at least in theory. Keep in mind my 4runner has a swapped in engine and trans and while I did the best I can, its not perfect and the systems don't all integrate happily. I really like my 4runner on the trail, but the not seamlessly integrated stuff, lack of highway power for distance driving, and the want for more space for family and all our crap has me looking at alternatives.

Most of this has become a mental exercise for me. I will probably never part with my 4runner, but its fun to think about what fits. I know if I changed my use case, split them up, or just gave up on part of it, I'd have no problem finding many vehicles that fit the bill, but what fun is that? My kids are 8 right now, and I expect in 10yrs this won't be an issue anymore anyways.

Sorry for the wall of text.
Kevin