What's new

Early Dakota Quadcab trucks any good?

Ghetto Fab.

No idea what I'm doing
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
208
Messages
552
Like the title says, are the early dakota quadcab trucks (2000-2006 I think) any good or are they basically garbage? I kinda like the styling and it seems to be the right size, v8 auto that I'm looking for, but pretty sure these weren't Dodges best years. I keep trying to find something that is a v8 auto, 4dr, that has more interior space than my 4runner, but isn't a fullsize whale on the trail. Gladiators and tacomas are too expensive for a trail beater.

Thanks!
Kevin
 
IIRC there were a couple people here who built them recently and both seemed happy with it but they weren't mild "mostly bolt-on" builds.
 
 
Personally, if you can find one, I'd get an early one with the 5.9L. I know some don't think the 360 is that great, but it is certainly a more durable engine than the 4.7L. The biggest issue with the high-miled 360s is you should roll bearings in it and put in a new oil pump. Much easier than the host of issues that the 4.7L will have if not treated properly (meaning, meticulous on maintenance and never got hot). IF you do get a 4.7L, the bellhousing bolt pattern will accept either an OG Magnum or a 5.7L hemi if you are so inclined, though the transmission will probably need an upgrade if you go Hemi.

If I were going to do this I'd get a 3.9L version with a manual (which are rare but I've seen 1 IRL) and either keep the V6 or swap to a Magnum 318 (not as hard as you'd think according to others who've done it). You can do the same with an auto if you have to have a slushbox.
 
Personally, if you can find one, I'd get an early one with the 5.9L. I know some don't think the 360 is that great, but it is certainly a more durable engine than the 4.7L. The biggest issue with the high-miled 360s is you should roll bearings in it and put in a new oil pump. Much easier than the host of issues that the 4.7L will have if not treated properly (meaning, meticulous on maintenance and never got hot). IF you do get a 4.7L, the bellhousing bolt pattern will accept either an OG Magnum or a 5.7L hemi if you are so inclined, though the transmission will probably need an upgrade if you go Hemi.

If I were going to do this I'd get a 3.9L version with a manual (which are rare but I've seen 1 IRL) and either keep the V6 or swap to a Magnum 318 (not as hard as you'd think according to others who've done it). You can do the same with an auto if you have to have a slushbox.
I didn't think the quadcabs came with the earlier 5.2-5.9 motors. It seems all the ones I'm finding are 4.7 motors. If I was looking to swap, I'd love to do a hemi 8hp swap, but I'm in california so motor swaps are a no go. One of the reasons for considering a dakota was the availability of having a V8 auto drivetrain stock and not having to swap anything in.

I'm not looking to do a cookie cutter build. I build all my own stuff anyways. However I'm more interested to know how the bodies and interior hold up? How are all the silly electrical bits like window regulators and door locks. I already have an old toyota, I don't really want to trade it for a POS though. I do see a lot of these still on the road. I'm just not sure if its worth making a change and having to start back from scratch.

Kevin
 
I had an 02 quad cab 4x4 4.7 with the 45rfe. It was a good truck. Overheated it pretty bad once and had to have the heads rebuilt, they like to warp when they get hot. The heads will also drop valve seats.

The 4.7 has plenty of power for a quad cab dakota. 14-15 MPG daily driving.

Never had any issues with the trans. Mine was geared with 3.55s in the axles which was too high, I had to pull hills at 80mph or it would drop a gear and scream.

Frames are pretty stout for a mid size truck, single shear lower shock mounts on the front are dumb. The 9-1/4" is a pretty stout axle for a midsize truck as well.

The PCM went out in mine which turned out to be a pain in the ass to diagnose and then get fixed correctly. I had to replace various little things while I had it. It was getting old even back then so I imagine today one would be well on it's way to breaking down.

It might still be around if I had not run into some poor lady on the freeway.
 
I didn't think the quadcabs came with the earlier 5.2-5.9 motors. It seems all the ones I'm finding are 4.7 motors. If I was looking to swap, I'd love to do a hemi 8hp swap, but I'm in california so motor swaps are a no go. One of the reasons for considering a dakota was the availability of having a V8 auto drivetrain stock and not having to swap anything in.

I'm not looking to do a cookie cutter build. I build all my own stuff anyways. However I'm more interested to know how the bodies and interior hold up? How are all the silly electrical bits like window regulators and door locks. I already have an old toyota, I don't really want to trade it for a POS though. I do see a lot of these still on the road. I'm just not sure if its worth making a change and having to start back from scratch.

Kevin
You could get a quad with the 5.9 as I’ve seen one total. Sure it’s rare as shit though. 5.2 was done before the quad was offered, but that would be my favorite engine if you were going to swap. 3.9 was available in several years of them, just missed buying a 2wd 3.9l 5 speed quad a few years back.
If you are going to build the drivetrain you want none of this applies.
Several of the people I know who owned them drove them many years with no complaints about interior and such. They may look like a 2nd gen full size but the interiors seemed to hold up way better.
 
My dad gifted my son one for his bday last year. Believe it has the 4.7. Decent truck. We’d like to SAS it on 35s with a tube bed down the line. It’ll be his high school truck.
 
We had a '04 quad-cab with the 4.7L back in the day. We liked the truck. We never had any major problems or repairs. However, that was a long time ago.
 
First gen Tundra would top my small V8 pickup list.
So much of this. I had a 06 tundra double cab and loved it, basically same dimensions outside as a 2nd gen tacoma but more room inside with the full power rear window and got 1mpg better than my moms 06 taco 4.0v6 both empty and towing same trailer.

On the dakota thing I think the 5.9 was more expensive than what most buyers wanted to add when you could get the 4.7V8 for less and it got better mpg but it was still an option till like 02-03. I actually had a 04 Dakota quad cab as a loaner while my POS 06 wrangler was in shop (all the time) and tried to trade the wrangler in on it but they wouldn't sell it since it was a dedicated loaner with over 100k on it, nice truck but not to level I liked the tundra. I will say that 4.7 V8 vs 4.7 V8 I liked the tundra better also, my wife has a ram 1500 4.7 and its a nice truck with 14-14.5mpg regularly but just not as good on the trans tuning and power delivery I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMG
Quick answer to the original question is yes - the 3rd Gen 97-04 Daks and Durango's are actually pretty good machines, and the quad cabs came in in '00. Are they ideally built for real off-roading? - no, of course not - nothing is off-the-shelf except maybe for a $70,000 Power Wagon or Jeep. So, like always, we blow a quarter to half that much and build our own :flipoff2: .

As referenced above, I'm building an '02 QC Dakota - was a 360/auto with 3.92 gears - had a 2-5" lift and I added armor, winch, and rear locker, and I wheeled it for a couple years and loved it. The 360 was good - had good power but not great power, but better than a 318 and never get a 4.7-powered anything unless you plan to replace the engine with either another fresh 4.7 or swap to a 318/360/Hemi or big block or diesel. Front ends aren't the strongest but will hold up to pretty decent rock crawling on 33's.

I've since put an abnormally large amount of time and $ into it by doing a SAS/upgrade to tons and dropping in a 440 and 46rh, on 40's. A link to it was listed above. My build is not 'normal' (none of mine are) - I built it to be our primary 'everything' wheeling machine including overlanding. It got a ridonculous amount of extra fabrication in it, but it's what I wanted and I could do the work so I did.

Things to know about the 3rd Gen (97-04) Dakotas and Durango's.
  • Wiring. If I were to do it all over again I'd have started with a 2000 because the wiring is much 'simpler'. Getting 'around' the computers and OBD2 tech is borderline nightmarish. The earlier trucks are much simpler with less computers controlling stuff.
  • Transmission. The re series trannys require a computer to control all of it, with the sole exception being a full manual valve body and toggle switches for the OD and LU - not a bad option if you don't mind rowing through each and every gear change every single time. Swapping in an rh-series 2 or 3-pin trans (46rh from a ~90-95 Ram or Dakota) is a good way to go to avoid computers, tho the OD and LU still need to be on toggles. Mine is a 46rh from a 94 Dakota that had a 318, and I'm using an SMR adapter to bolt up to the big block.
  • Front end. The smallish 8" front axles will be 'ok' for mild wheeling, but I wouldn't put much power to them. Also no lockers are available for the front 8" axle. I ran mine open with 33's and a rear locker and never had a problem, but I am pretty conservative on the throttle.
  • Body's last nicely if not subject to coastal climates. Our 02 was literally 'rust free' - and being a Colorado vehicle all it's life is why.

My recommendation. Find a 00 (maybe 01) V8 (not 4.7) Dakota QC, and have at it. If you want to run bigger than 33" tires then do a SAS with 1-ton axles (recommend just going big and getting a D60 front and 14b or Sterling rear). If you want tires bigger than 35's you'll likely want more power, and if I were to do it all over again I'd either have put a 408 stroker kit in my 360 or dropped in a Cummins R2.8 and been done...but since I had the 440...

Here is my Dakota how I first found it, with the lift and 32's -

Untitled.jpg


first glimpse 2.jpg


...aaaaand here it is mostly done on 40's next to its big brother 'Bud', a '74 Cummins Power Wagon M950 on rockwells and 46s -

IMG_1470.jpg


my wife getting a bit of air time -

863_zpsdjl2i8kt.jpg

high-centered on Grizzly Pass

21317566_10212876569964764_2378644641882022346_nv_zpspa6xa8sm.jpg


...and a glimpse of what it's likely gonna look like when all done and painted -

red stretch on 40s.jpg


- Sam
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Engineers build fancy engine designed to live all day at 3k+

EPA tells bean counters to fuckin lug that thing down the highway for the MPGs.

This shit has been happening for 40yr now.
 
oh shoot - my bad, yes you are absolutely right. I had '3rd Gens' on the brain and those came in 97...thanks for the correction 👍 . I went back and edited my info...

- Sam
 
Last edited:
I thought the quad cab's didn't start till 00?
Thats the info I have as well. I think the 5.9s were all in the RT trucks and I think those were 2wd sporty style trucks?

I get what people are saying about going with an early tundra, and I've considered toyota sequia's before also. Unfortunately they seem too wide for me, but not a bad choice really.

Some vehicle width dimensions from the internets for those that don't care:
1994 4runner 66.5"
2002 Dodge Dakota 71.6"
2012 Toyota Tacoma 74.5"
2002 Toyota Sequia/Tundra 78/75" Not sure what the difference here is. The front sheetmetal should all be the same.
2002 Chevy Tahoe 79"
2002 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 series 76.5"
1997 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 series 76" Pretty sure you can delete 4-5" of this if you remove the fender flares.
2021 Jeep Gladiator 74" Pretty sure this is also measured with the fender flares on. The ones I've measured have been closer to 66"

I live in california for the foreseeable future so motor swaps are not going to happen. I've done one of those and its just easier to find something with the motor combo you want and modify everything else. No one cares what you do to the front suspension or even how safe it is, just don't touch that motor! The whole key for me is to find something that seats 4 comfortably, 4 doors, with enough power to drive on the highway fully loaded, carry all of our camping gear for 4nights, and can fit on tight Sierra trails. Bonus points if it could tow a smaller travel trailer. So far the Gladiator is the closest thing I can find to meeting my criteria although the 140" wheelbase is concerning, I don't care for a removable top, and they are super expensive. Tacomas wouldn't be a bad choice as they have a decent wheelbase (127"), but they typically go for top dollar amounts and the drivetrains haven't been anything exciting for that high dollar pricetag.

Dakotas seem to be the opposite in a way. While a bit wider than I'd like, its still one of the narrower options. The wheelbase isn't too bad at 131". A non-removable top and better aerodynamics than a jeep. Once again that V8 auto drivetrain(although I'm surprised it doesn't make more power). A small but decent tow rating. On top of that they seem relatively cheap to buy. Cheap for a reason though? I still see a bunch of them running around out there and my guess is these trucks just never had any real following like the jeeps or tacomas had.

More than likely I'll just stay with what I have unless I come across something so cheap I can't say no. It is very easy for someone to think that a particular vehicle is the "best", but I find it interesting to explore other options and look at the numbers to see how things compare. Thanks for humoring my mental ramblings, this is how I stay out of trouble.

Kevin
 
Once again that V8 auto drivetrain(although I'm surprised it doesn't make more power)
These earlier 4.7L made a decent amount of torque but never really put down large HP numbers compared to OHC engines of the same era. They were built to power trucks. I always thought they would have made a decent wrangler engine.

They later put them into Ram trucks which was not a good fit. They redesigned the heads and added another spark plug per cylinder and got close to 300HP but everybody I know that had one wished they had just got the hemi.
 
if you don't want/need to go bigger than 33" tires then a stock Dakota is a great choice - find one with a 360 and 3.92 gears, throw a simple auto locker in the back and it'll go a great many places - I had mine through some pretty healthy Colorado trails and it did extremely well. If you're conservative on the throttle in the tight wheeling situations the front axle should last a good long while too, and there's plenty replacements out there. My 02 is an SLT and came with a 5.9 and it wasn't anything super rare - maybe the SLTs all came with 360's - I don't know, but I have seen a few of them out here. There's a lot that can be done to up the power of the 360 as well - just a simple rebuild with more cam and heads will open it up nicely while retaining the factory injection.

Since you're posting in the Dodge section I can only assume you're a 'Dodge' fan, and that era of Dodge is a pretty decent truck. There's plenty of parts out in case things need repaired and they're old enough to be easy to work on. Personally, IMPO the Dakota quad cabs 'are' Gladiators, just build by Dodge. But I'll say this again - electronics - if I were to do it again I'd shy away from the 02-up models because of the electronics. Now...in my case with an 02 Dak...I surgically 'deleted' most of the electronics and computers and associated wiring. Everything 'controlling' the engine, trans, dash, and such are all gone, and in their places are Holley Sniper EFI and HyperSpark ignition systems, a no-computer-required 46rh, and a completely home-made dash. I repurposed nearly the entire under hood fuse block to now power all of the 'new' hardware, and it works great.

What I have yet to determine is whether or not my wipers, headlights, and other similar items will remain 'on' after 5 minutes or however long before the cab computer wants to turn stuff off because of 'no crank signal'. The computer next to yer left foot is one of the remaining OE electrical components in the truck...and there are a lot of wires going into it that may now have no purpose in life, but also there are some that 'do'...and that's what I'm going to discover when I finish the truck and connect all of the lights, doors, etc. The electrical nannies may prove to be a nightmare, and I have NO problem digging deeper into the remaining computers and wiring and replacing all of it with simpler and much more primitive old-school stuff.

- Sam
 
Last edited:
Thats the info I have as well. I think the 5.9s were all in the RT trucks and I think those were 2wd sporty style trucks?

I get what people are saying about going with an early tundra, and I've considered toyota sequia's before also. Unfortunately they seem too wide for me, but not a bad choice really.

Some vehicle width dimensions from the internets for those that don't care:
1994 4runner 66.5"
2002 Dodge Dakota 71.6"
2012 Toyota Tacoma 74.5"
2002 Toyota Sequia/Tundra 78/75" Not sure what the difference here is. The front sheetmetal should all be the same.
2002 Chevy Tahoe 79"
2002 Toyota Land Cruiser 100 series 76.5"
1997 Toyota Land Cruiser 80 series 76" Pretty sure you can delete 4-5" of this if you remove the fender flares.
2021 Jeep Gladiator 74" Pretty sure this is also measured with the fender flares on. The ones I've measured have been closer to 66"



Dakotas seem to be the opposite in a way. While a bit wider than I'd like, its still one of the narrower options. The wheelbase isn't too bad at 131". A non-removable top and better aerodynamics than a jeep. Once again that V8 auto drivetrain(although I'm surprised it doesn't make more power). A small but decent tow rating. On top of that they seem relatively cheap to buy. Cheap for a reason though? I still see a bunch of them running around out there and my guess is these trucks just never had any real following like the jeeps or tacomas had.


Kevin
They were around before overlanding was a thing. I’d bet if they were still in production theyd be popular. i always though that their size and 4doors was a good option, the only mid-size with a V8. I liked their styling.

My brother had one for a long time, it was roomy inside. It was long ago, I don’t recall why he got rid of it.
 
Had an 02 QC back in the day with the 5.9. Truck was pretty stout for what time was. It had random electrical gremlins like most Chrysler products of that Gen did. The 5.9 was good for 9-10 mpg with the truck on 33s. The rack and pinion unit didn’t really like the bigger tires. Seems like it made it to 170K before the transmission finally died.
 
Always thought they were one of the best looking trucks.
 
If I remember correctly, coil sprung Dana 44s out of 70s era fords were a good option for SAS on these trucks. Seems like that was a popular option circa 2004/5.
 
Ill chime in on this, since i seem to be the only guy running a 4.7 still. I have an 03 on superduty 60/10.5. Manual transmission, and doubler transfercase setup. I run 40's on it, and am geared to 5:38. Drives great, i love driving this truck. Interior is pretty good, not as super cheap as the rams were of that era. My body was pretty straight when i got it, and it had 107k miles on it. paid $2000. then fully built it to what i wanted in a family wheeling rig. There are a few compromises you will have to work around to get the most out of it, or build from scratch. (Front frame rails). Here is my build thread, feel free to ask any questions.

 
Top Back Refresh