Dakotas: 1st Gen vs. 2nd Gen?

[BKCowGod]

Okay, let's say just for the sake of argument that I will be gaining a family member in the near future and will therefore need a truck that can carry three people and a dog comfortably. I have narrowed it down to a Dakota with the 3.9l V6, 5 speed, and part time 4wd. I want the MPFI, so 1992 or later. Don't really care about the looks between the two, and ergonomics aren't a huge deal for me, nor will I be wheeling Moab, but seat comfort and quality are important. I just need a truck that will get okay mileage and be reliable and comfortable for the aforementioned passengers and have a 6' bed or thereabouts. No quad cabs, no longbeds. This truck will see double duty - sharing daily driver status, towing a 14' sailboat, and camping/roadtrips. It will have a cab-height camper shell on it.

That said, why would I want to spend the extra $1500-$2000 on the next-gen Dakota? Is it a lot quieter? More refined? Better turning radius? Does it smell better or perhaps sing sweet songs when you're going to sleep?

Also, how common is the "optional" 22gal tank in the first gen?

I am aware that the Toyota Tundra is in most peoples' opinions vastly superior, but I just hate Toyotas. Always have.

 

[Mr02kota]

I have an 02 Dakota Quad cab with the 4.7 V8 and i would highly recommend it. I dont have a kid but i do have a dog and transport a lot of $hit everywhere. I wouldnt trade my truck for anything (except maybe a brand new Taco (but i dont have money coming out my 1$$)) I has more than enough power, sufficient room for anything you might need, a bed that is big enough for anything a normal person might need, and it is quite a bit more refined than people give it credit for. I mean yeah they have their problems, but what vehicle doesnt. Every vehicle has its strong points and every vehicle has its weak ones. If you have the money to spend, invest it in a newer gen dak. I dont think you will be disappointed

 

[ExpoMike]

I owned a 2002 quad cab with the 4.7 V8 and my dad has a '97 club cab with 5.9 V8. If you have 3 people, you will want the quad cab as it has real back seats and having full size doors is great. I have ridden in the back of my dad's club cab and let me tell you, there is no real room for an adult. He can't ride back there as he gets closterphobic (sp?).

I don't know about the older models but the 2nd gen (97+) one are heavy and the 3.9 ends up getting about the same mileage at the 4.7 V8. In turn I was getting about 3-6 MPG better than my dad's 5.9 V8 (which his is typically 13-14). If you are going to do a fair amount of towing, the V8 is the way to go as the V6 is already a slug and in real life, don't save that much on gas. Again this is all related to the 2nd gen models.

Good luck.

 

[BKCowGod]

I owned a 2002 quad cab with the 4.7 V8 and my dad has a '97 club cab with 5.9 V8. If you have 3 people, you will want the quad cab as it has real back seats and having full size doors is great. I have ridden in the back of my dad's club cab and let me tell you, there is no real room for an adult. He can't ride back there as he gets closterphobic (sp?).

I don't know about the older models but the 2nd gen (97+) one are heavy and the 3.9 ends up getting about the same mileage at the 4.7 V8. In turn I was getting about 3-6 MPG better than my dad's 5.9 V8 (which his is typically 13-14). If you are going to do a fair amount of towing, the V8 is the way to go as the V6 is already a slug and in real life, don't save that much on gas. Again this is all related to the 2nd gen models.

Good luck.

Thanks guys... I can't do a quad cab because the bed is too short. Call me a glamper, but I use a twin size mattress when I camp... The backseat is for a 9 year old and since I don't have to sit back there I am not too concerned about comfort :sombrero:

I would be moving up from a 100hp truck, so I suspect one person's tortoise is another person's hare. If I want to go faster than 190hp will get me, then the Audi has nearly 300hp. Unfortunately, the years with the small V8 mentioned above are out of my price range.

Anybody know if the several different transmissions used over the years really make that much of a difference?

 

[CJW]

It doesn't sound like you really have that many requirements besides seat comfort and construction. So on that, put your max spending price and other wants into the autotrader search page and find the one with the best price to mileage ratio and the bed size you want. I've known plenty of people who have owned both generations and I don't think you're gaining much in reliability from one to the other. I actually like the older dakota's better. They seem alot lighter and better looking IMO. One of my friends had one and he beat on that thing pretty good and it took the abuse.

 

[jim65wagon]

Okay, let's say just for the sake of argument that I will be gaining a family member in the near future and will therefore need a truck that can carry three people and a dog comfortably. I have narrowed it down to a Dakota with the 3.9l V6, 5 speed, and part time 4wd. I want the MPFI, so 1992 or later. Don't really care about the looks between the two, and ergonomics aren't a huge deal for me, nor will I be wheeling Moab, but seat comfort and quality are important. I just need a truck that will get okay mileage and be reliable and comfortable for the aforementioned passengers and have a 6' bed or thereabouts. No quad cabs, no longbeds. This truck will see double duty - sharing daily driver status, towing a 14' sailboat, and camping/roadtrips. It will have a cab-height camper shell on it.

That said, why would I want to spend the extra $1500-$2000 on the next-gen Dakota? Is it a lot quieter? More refined? Better turning radius? Does it smell better or perhaps sing sweet songs when you're going to sleep?

If you've got your heart set on a Dakota, I would suggest you get the next gen, thinking it would be more refined, quieter, hopefully better brakes and maybe even more refined engines with better mileage. We had a 95 with a V6 automatic and it was comfortable enough, our kids fit in the backseat, and the mileage was OK. With that said:

I am aware that the Toyota Tundra is in most peoples' opinions vastly superior, but I just hate Toyotas. Always have.

Sorry you hate Toyotas, but I have to say it really is vastly superior. I was never a Toy fan until we bought this truck. The Tundra rides better, stops better, and the V8 gets better mileage than the V6 in the Dakota.

The electronics in our Dakota (engine management wise) decided to get funky, the transfer case liked to slip out of 4wd a lot, it ate tie rod ends like mad, and I replaced brake rotors about every 12000 miles. I know that particular truck was a lemon, but it has left a sour taste for Dakotas.

We bought it with 30,000 miles on the clock and were so fed up at 88,000 we decided to drink the koolaid.....it tasted good. That little black Tundra you see in our pictures has been our best truck, and the most reliable, easy to maintain vehicle I've ever owned.

PS: you need another FSJ:elkgrin:

 

[BKCowGod]

PS: you need another FSJ:elkgrin:

Well DUH... If I could get 18mpg out of a Chief without resorting to an engine swap, I'd be there.

 

[jim65wagon]

Well DUH... If I could get 18mpg out of a Chief without resorting to an engine swap, I'd be there.

Not to derail your thread further, but what if you swapped in an overdrive auto or stick transmission out of a newer Dodge into an FSJ? Wouldn't qualify as an engine swap and I bet it would get 18mpg, just from the lower RPMs at highway speed....

 

[007]

Well DUH... If I could get 18mpg out of a Chief without resorting to an engine swap, I'd be there.

How about a newer Nissan?

Oh and, You might hate my Toyota, but you have to like 25 mpg :victory:

 

[cowboy63645]

I have a 03' quad cab, and with 3 kids, it was an absolute must for me. I have the 3.9/auto combo with 4wd and love it. No, it isnt a power house, but I didnt buy it to be one. I average 15-16 mpg on the highway on long trips, and the ride is pretty comftorable. I am in the same boat as you though, the bed is just to short! I have thought about buying a 6' bed and adding onto the frame and adding that bed to mine. I have had to change out upper and lower ball joints, inner and outer tie rod ends, and rebuild the transmission in the last 8 months, but my truck has 181,000 miles on it now, and the motor is still running like a top!