My 96 Standard cab daily beater Dakota with 3.9 is on it's last legs, so I'm looking to ugrade to a 99-04 4 door Dakota. I've found some nice examples in my price range, all with around 100-120K miles.
My question is, which is better, the old 3.9, or the 4.7?

I figure the weight of that truck has to have the 3.9 right on the edge of what it can handle and still get decent mileage.

Which one is more reliable, fuel efficient, and more likely to get to 250K without a bunch of problems?

I have a 93 350 CTD to do all the heavy lifting, so other than the occasional engine block or 4 adults, the Dakota won't have to haul much.

3.9 all day long.

Look at how long they kept the 4.7, vs the 3.9. Google "4.7 Problems" for more insight.

I was told to avoid a 4.7 like the plague .

The 4.7 was a good engine that was too picky about maintenance. Since the general public never reads their owner's manual, most 4.7's were junk just too early. I personally would never own one used, as I'd have no idea about it's care. I'd own one from new, though.

The Dakota in all trim levels is well mated to the 3.9, although it's no rocket (was never intended to be). Look at all of the SUV's of the same era, they all have roughly 4 liter V6's of similar power and economy.

It's tough to compare performance from 15 years ago to today, it's a different world now.

When they came out with the 4.7 chrysler said they expected them to last 150,000 miles on average, I have replaced tons of them and maybe 2 v6 magnums.

Around Atlanta, craigslist is full of Dakotas and Durangos for cheap with a.... you guessed it.... bad engine (4.7).



Tim

You can't kill a 3.9

miss one oil change and you've killed the 4.7

I will be that one guy who chimes in with a good luck story on a 4.7.
196,000 and engine has never been opened. Timing chain guides are making noise now but I can turn up the stereo to mask them. Yeah, its going to grind to a halt pretty soon but this Durango has had a sum total of $1200 in repairs, all of it to the front end and transfer case, since it was bought used 11 years ago (12,000 fleet miles in Utah).
YMMV, sum does not include brakes, oil changes, anti freeze flushes, etc.
It gets 15.5MPG everyday. It has been in every state west of the Mississipi.

4.7 Have their problems.
Exhaust manifold bolts,front end, head gaskets. Have an 03 with 185000 km and had an head gasket problem that seems to have gone away.
If you get an 03 or 04 with the NGC ECM then a hemi swap is in order. Lol
Matt

As much as I'm against the 3.9's, I'd still take one over a 4.7. As said, a lot for sale around here with "bad" engines.

3.9 is a gas hog and weak! I would go 4.7 and do my best at maintaining it. My quad cab 4x4 gets 20-21 mpg on the highway with a drop in K&N, super chips programmer and a 02 Jeep Grand Cherokee TCM so I have the 5th gear in the transmission. I have seen a pile of 3.9's with turned rod bearings so they aren't very tough either. The main thing is how it was treated!

3.9L are gas hogs, weak and get as bad of gas mileage as the v8...
everyone told me to stay away from the 4.7L also.. I have 2 4.7L a Jeep and a Dakota... both are well over 150,000. can not say I have had one problem with either one of them.. The Dakota is at 198,000 and has some timing noise, so plans are to put timing set and oil pump into it, later this summer.. If you hear something like timing chain noise, replacing it fixes it before it wipes out the motor...

I'm surprised people forgot about the valve seat issues the 4.7L has. Normally not a big deal but if you get one of these 4.7Ls hot ONCE you WILL drop valve seats out of the head. I have seen so many of them do this. Even the Gen 3 Hemis do this but not nearly as bad. The 4.7L has problems with bad exhaust studs breaking in the head. You can help fix that by putting on a flex joint in the exhaust. They typically sludge up easily because people don't do regular and meticulous maintenance that they require. Other than that they aren't bad engines and are more fuel efficient then their other V8 counterparts 5.2/5.9.

The 3.9 is a bullet proof engine for the most part, but it lacking in power and eats almost as much gas as a 5.2L. Great motor but no guts IMO. You might have to replace a belly pan gasket and that's it. I would suggest getting a 5.2/5.9 if you can.

Might look for a 97-8 with the 5.2. My 97 5.2 has 270000 miles on the original motor. I had a 93 with the 3.9 and was not impressed and the 97-04's are much heavier.

Thought I came across a low mile 03 1500 with the 4.7, dealer said 50k , turns out to be 150k , truck looks clean and well maintained , but the 4.7 stories are scaring me .

We had a guy with a Dodge van that was regularly filled and brought back from the mountains of New York.The thing had 500K on it and only the trans was rebuilt.He did maintain it great.It was still going strong when the shop closed.Ive seen others with 200K plus and going strong.Rocky

If it made it to 150K and still sound good, it was probably well cared for. Its the ones with 75-100K I'd be concerned about.
I'd still go for a 5.2 or 5.9 were it me. A 3.9 would be working too hard to drag around those newer heavy pigs. Gene

"Newer" Dakotas used the 3.7 engine.

3.7 has all the same issues a 4.7 has, it is the same thing with 2 less cylinders.

Your choice, go with the engine 75% of people have horrid experience with or the %25 who like them.