Does anyone know anything about early 2000s Dakotas? How reliable

>>13903791
Look for rust in the rockers, rear quarters, and rear schackle mounts. Get under it and make sure the torsion bars are not adjusted all the way up (the adjuster bolt will be all the way in) if they are, make sure the truck is sitting nose up or the T bars are bad. True 4x4 uses an NV transfer case and Dana/Spicer derived axles which are solid and reliable. I'd personally hold off for a 4.7 or optimally a 318/360 R/T but the V6s from that era are solid. Expect to get high teens at best on mileage. They are quite reliable, have 2 friends with Dakotas (one 2000 the other 2001. Both have over 200k miles and only the 2001 has had major work (4.7 in it spun a bearing at 180k and that's when my buddy bought it and rebuilt it.

>>13903823
And the price they are asking is about right even here in the Midwest. Dakotas command a premium because they used 1/2 ton powertrains on a '1/4 ton' truck. Hell, you can throw 1500 leafs on the back and nearly have its payload and only 1000 shy of its tow rating for the year.

>>13903823
>>13903832
I think I can walk him down to 3.5k, if not more.
That being said, anything I can drop or tune up for better EMPEGEES

Does anyone on /o/ own/has owned a Dakota?

>>13903832
they have a shit interior that takes up most available space. even the s10 has a better interior

File: 1997-dodge-dakota_100026663_m.jpg (14KB, 400x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x200px

>>13903791
I've got a 97. like pic related.
the engines great. 4x4 is fine. brakes/body/frame/running gear all fine.
tranny needed rebuilt at 120k miles.
Overall pretty dependable and not too difficult or expensive to maintain.everything just works. Not alot I've had to fix on it. Its a midsized truck. It has its limits.
No real issues. except ball joints. the Dodge front end design on these things seems to eat up ball joints. But again, not terribly difficult or expensive to replace.
check out http://www.dakotaforumz.com/
good forum. lots of useful info. users quick to respond with helpful answers.

>>13904275
>opinions
>shit interior that takes up most available space
that's just retarded and basically wrong

it's a mid size truck. it has its limits

>>13903791
>hold off for a 4.7
sort of maybe this.

my dakota is v6. it's underpowered and gets worse gas mileage than a V8

>>13904317
not at all true. ride in one with the same basic cab (not ex cab) and compare directly. its simple fact the layout is very inferior inside. the s10 or ranger or whatever having more space inside because of it

>>13904328
But OP is looking at the club (crew) cab so your point is moot. My 1999 S10 ext cab had less space than a Dakota ext cab.

>>13903791
have fun rebuilding the entire front end

>>13904942
Por que

>>13904942
>Have fund doing service required of any vehicle.

FTFY

>>13903823
note that RT's are rwd only