Moparts

1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .

Posted By: Pale_Roader

1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/19/14 12:52 PM


The girlfriend is looking for a new truck and i've been sifting through the Craigslist morass to see what she can afford and was pretty surprised to find a couple ov these pretty close to her ceiling. I've always thought they were really cool looking lil trucks, but i dont know much about them... so a few questions i'm sure can be quickly answered.


Do i see long and short boxes? I'd be FAR more interested in a short-cab short box if there was a choice. I want the smallest/lightest version possible. If there are shortcab/box versions, are they rarer? All i see where i live, actually driving around are extended cab or crew cab versions... NOT interested.

Say i found either a 5.2L or a 5.9L 5-speed version ov the above... What kind ov mileage (upper estimates) could i expect? Any chance it might be close to our factory lifted 4L 5-speed 94 Cherokee?

How fast were they? Again, i can ask many people here this, but every one i see is a long-cab (and i think) long box version, and most automatics.

How much would such a truck weigh?



Hell... if they actually move and get decent MPG i might even consider trading in the Mustang for one for myself. I see an all-black short-cab (i think) short box 5.9L R/T driving around here sometimes... DAMN cool looking rig. Found an identical one locally for sale ($3300), both automatics though.
Posted By: mopar346

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/19/14 02:49 PM

I can answer a few of the questions but not all.

Yes, short cab, short box is available but I think maybe only the early years like 97-99 maybe.

I think they are only 360, never seen a 318 R/T that I can remember.

Mileage is gonna be between 11-14 almost regardless how you drive it with 14 being optimistic.

5 speeds are pretty rare and I think I once heard they weren't available on the early ones, find a 5 speec short cab, short box might be next to impossible if they even exist and pray the owner don't know that.

As far as fast, in stock form not really I think they suffer the most down low, but like most things they can be tweaked to be respectable.

As for weight, I would guess 4500-5000 lbs but that is simply a guess, something in my memory is telling me 5500 lbs but I cant say why.

One question you didn't ask was reliability, I have had 3 of the same vintage trucks and Durangos none were R/Ts and all were 318s 4WD, they have been very reliable and get 14 regardless. 1 of them lost the tranny around 215k another at 285k, other than that pretty much untouched other than maintenance with Icant say I was overly religious about. Cant see why an R/T would be any different and I think they are really cool and have kinda wanted one since they came out.

Good luck
Posted By: BMChrysler68

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/19/14 05:14 PM

As far as I know, they never made a 5-speed R/T. I'm not saying there aren't conversions, but they didn't come that way. The original R/T was a performance package so no-go on the 318s. There was a later version with a 4.7, but it was just a trim package.

I had one (the first automobile that was ever mine) and it was fast, but it wouldn't hook worth a damn. Even driving conservatively, I remember breaking loose if the tires and pavement were cold. It was definitely a fun truck and I'd like to own another one. I've heard those 46REs can be problematic, but I've not experienced that myself. I really don't think you'd regret it at all. I don't know that I'd give up a 5-speed Mustang for an automatic Dakota (unless I needed a truck), but you'd still have tons of fun if you did. Plus, they look better. I dunno, maybe I would.
Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/19/14 07:07 PM

No 5 speed in an R/T dakota from the factory.
No 5 speed behind a 5.9 from the factory.
No 4X4 dakota R/T
No long bed R/T ex cab and regular cab, no quad cab R/T
11-16 mpg in my experience
The R/T has 3.92 gears, no 3.55 bad for mpg, good for off the line
The 46 RE has a few issues that can easily be fixed

I run a 44RE in mine for more TQ off the line HP and mpg. All R/Ts had the bigger one but we have to re-build them a lot more.

A 92-95 5 speed 318 will spank a stock R/T. There is a lot of weight difference, probably 1000 lbs hard to make up for that with 42 CID and a heavy inefficient auto.
Posted By: slantzilla

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/19/14 07:54 PM

I had a '00 Club Cab R/T. It averaged 15 driving back and forth to work, and 18 on the highway. In 8 years I put 160K miles on it on top of the 40 K that were on it when I got it. I had very little trouble with it. The only issue I ever had with the trans was a broken boost valve retainer at around 150K. Fixed it myself after the dealer wanted to bang me $3500 for a complete rebuild.

I used the truck for everything. We hauled tons of parts around, towed my race car, pulled a full size Chevy van home, my buddy pulled his '68 Satellite home from Detroit with it, and we even hauled 2 tractors.

I raced it quite a bit the first couple years I had it. When it had the MP PCM in it it would run 14:70's around 92 mph. W/O the PCM it normally ran 15:20's at 90.

The one thing I will tell you, they are worthless in snow unless you put snow tires on them and about 500# of weight in the bed. You also have to be careful in the rain, they will downshift all the way into low at 45 mph and instantly spin the tires and go sideways. I learned that on an entrance ramp onto the expressway one day.

All in all, I loved that truck. I wish I still had it.

It got replaced with an '06 4.7 HO R/T AWD. It was a nice truck, but nowhere near the truck the '00 was.
Posted By: Blues_Cuda

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 02:14 AM

Quote:



A 92-95 5 speed 318 will spank a stock R/T. There is a lot of weight difference, probably 1000 lbs hard to make up for that with 42 CID and a heavy inefficient auto.



The early trucks ran very well. My '94 318 being stock would totally embarrass my '99.

Attached picture 8367605-94Dakota-3.jpg
Posted By: stumpy

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 03:30 AM

My 1998 extended cab with all the extras 318 Dakota will scoot no problem. 3.55 suregrip, auto trans. dual catback with SS shorty headers. Runs a high 15 second 1/4mile. Gets around 14mpg in town and 17 on the highway using cruise.
Posted By: Larry_Dart_360

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 03:33 AM

I had a 92 short box 5.2cid A518 with 3.55. Use to get 14.63@94-95MPh Truck was able to outrun a R/T...Truck was a hoot to drive...I still have the Mopar performance computer and a intake improver from RC performance..If anyone here wanted the parts for there truck they could have them...Just pay the shipping ...
Posted By: moparmarks

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 04:26 AM

I love my 97 5.2 E-cab 2wd but it is a heavy 4400lbs.
I do get 20mpg at 65 mph. Have 260,000 miles on original motor and tranny. Been a great truck.
A 72-80 D100 standard cab long bed 318 auto only weighs 3400lbs. Don't know why the 97-up Dakotas weigh so much.
Posted By: 70Cuda383

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 06:10 AM

There are 5.2L 5-spds. I have one-- a reg cab short bed 2wd version. A few bolt ons and it was running mid 14s at a curb weight if 4,000 lbs.

It now has a mild 5.9 and a viper T56. Runs low 14s and gets 16 mpg.
Posted By: Pale_Roader

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 11:18 AM

Quote:

There are 5.2L 5-spds. I have one-- a reg cab short bed 2wd version. A few bolt ons and it was running mid 14s at a curb weight if 4,000 lbs.

It now has a mild 5.9 and a viper T56. Runs low 14s and gets 16 mpg.



I was hoping you'd chime in here. You're probably the closest thing to what i was picturing when i posted this. I wouldn't be looking for a hotrod, or a project truck though... i've got a car for that. More or less a new vehicle that is fun and i can stand to look at. Dodge didn't start building cars again till 2005, and i dont want a 4dr. Hell... dont even want a truck really, i just thought these might be fun. I think they look good... especially the short R/T's.

Would the R/T sit any different or have any different suspension or brakes than the same thing in a non-R/T 5.2L 5-speed? or was yours just a 5.9L swap and some decals away from being an R/T?



Found this lil sexy locally... pretty much perfect... except for the automatic.

Attached picture 8367993-00m0m_4AfugjamMlx_600x450.jpg
Posted By: Pale_Roader

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 11:25 AM

As for the rest, i guess i'm either looking for a non-R/T 5.2L with a 5-speed i could clone into what i want (i dont even really need a 360 to be honest... the 318's weren't much slower, and i'm interested in MPG too). Or get an R/T and go through the BS ov swapping in a stick.

I'm guessing the bad MPG has a lot to do with the heavy gearing?

Maybe buy a 5.2L w 5-speed, stick some highway gears in the diff and clone it up?

Its hard to get my head around that weight though. Whatever happened to "mini-truck"...??? Hell... even my 72 Newport weighed less... 4300lbs. Why are they so heavy? Can they be lightened to any serious degree or is it all structure?
Posted By: 70Cuda383

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 02:04 PM

Yea, they are fat pigs! my truck is "light" at 4,000 because it left the factory with NO options other than the V8 and the Premium audio package. it's got manual windows, mirrors, locks, seats, transmission, no A/C, and No cruise control. I'm impressed the factory even made such a combo!

as for brakes, all the Dakota's got the same brakes (for the same model year) 97-99 have the worst brakes--11" rotors up front and drum rears. 00-02 they went to larger pistons in the front calipers, but kept the same size rotor and same rear drums. 03-04 is the only year of the gen 3 trucks that had 4 wheel disc brakes, and they went to a 12" rotor, along with a dual piston front caliper.

after just 10 minutes of spirited driving on rural country roads, my factory brakes were soft and fading rapidly.

As far as suspension goes, there were a bunch of different combos. 4x4 trucks had front torsion bars and sat higher than stock/sport trucks. some trucks got rear sway bars, others did not. there are multitude of different size sway bars based on V8, 4x4/2wd, cab/bed combo, etc, and as always, no real rhyme or reason for why certain trucks got what they did. I've even seen trucks with rear axles that had the mounting pads for rear sway bars, but no rear sway bar installed.

the R/T trucks came with a 1" lower suspension than the 2wd sport trucks, and were the only trucks to receive the 17x9 aluminum alloy rims (until Dodge used up remaining inventory in late 03/04 on some of the 4x4 trucks)

If you ever want to modify and tweak your truck's performance, my personal opinion is that the 97-99 trucks are the easiest to modify. in 2000 they went to a one size fits all "california emissions" tune that included additional emissions junk that is difficult to remove without triggering check engine lights. the earlier trucks left the factory with either a california emissions package, or a federal emissions package, and on the federal, its much easier to delete the evap system and get rid of the solenoid and about 15 lbs of vacuum tubing between the manifold and fuel tank.

any other questions, let me know. I've learned a lot about these Gen III trucks over the years!

Posted By: Pale_Roader

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 03:09 PM

Quote:

Yea, they are fat pigs! my truck is "light" at 4,000 because it left the factory with NO options other than the V8 and the Premium audio package. it's got manual windows, mirrors, locks, seats, transmission, no A/C, and No cruise control. I'm impressed the factory even made such a combo!



Thats just bloody depressing... One, that a factory built sleeper is still two full tons, and two, that such a combo would be so exceedingly rare to find (ie: i probably wont).

Quote:

as for brakes, all the Dakota's got the same brakes (for the same model year) 97-99 have the worst brakes--11" rotors up front and drum rears. 00-02 they went to larger pistons in the front calipers, but kept the same size rotor and same rear drums. 03-04 is the only year of the gen 3 trucks that had 4 wheel disc brakes, and they went to a 12" rotor, along with a dual piston front caliper.

after just 10 minutes of spirited driving on rural country roads, my factory brakes were soft and fading rapidly.

As far as suspension goes, there were a bunch of different combos. 4x4 trucks had front torsion bars and sat higher than stock/sport trucks. some trucks got rear sway bars, others did not. there are multitude of different size sway bars based on V8, 4x4/2wd, cab/bed combo, etc, and as always, no real rhyme or reason for why certain trucks got what they did. I've even seen trucks with rear axles that had the mounting pads for rear sway bars, but no rear sway bar installed.

the R/T trucks came with a 1" lower suspension than the 2wd sport trucks, and were the only trucks to receive the 17x9 aluminum alloy rims (until Dodge used up remaining inventory in late 03/04 on some of the 4x4 trucks)



So... might as well just find a sport model then... and upgrade what i need. Sounds like a lot ov this stuff could just be found in yards too.

At some point they went to the 4.7L did they not? Did that engine replace the 5.9L too? or just the 5.2L? Wiki was not terribly detailed on this. If the R/T went to a 4.7L, i wonder if you could also get the stick with it too...

Might be better yet... a 2003-4 R/T (or not) with the smaller more efficient engine, stick and better brakes...

Quote:

If you ever want to modify and tweak your truck's performance, my personal opinion is that the 97-99 trucks are the easiest to modify. in 2000 they went to a one size fits all "california emissions" tune that included additional emissions junk that is difficult to remove without triggering check engine lights. the earlier trucks left the factory with either a california emissions package, or a federal emissions package, and on the federal, its much easier to delete the evap system and get rid of the solenoid and about 15 lbs of vacuum tubing between the manifold and fuel tank.

any other questions, let me know. I've learned a lot about these Gen III trucks over the years!




Hmmm... wonder if that emissions stuff would apply in Canada...
Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 05:23 PM

Make sure you are distinguishing between the R/T and Sport models. See if you can find one with the 5.2 and the stick. IMO would be more fun for you than a 5.9 with the auto. When the 4.7 came out it replaced the 5.2, the 5.9 carried on and I believed this stayed the same in the sport and rt trucks.

I have been told that the 4.7/stick trucks were quick as or quicker than the 5.9/auto trucks.
Posted By: 70Cuda383

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 06:09 PM

Yes a 4.7 stick would beat an RT stock for stock, same bed/cab configuration. I say that because they're so close that a stock reg cab RT might beat a stock club cab 4.7 stick

Rt was available until 03 and was always 5.9/auto.

In 2000 or 2001 whatever year the 4.7 came in, it replaced the 5.2. I would avoid the 4.7. Not as many mods available, and you can't swap a 5.2 or 5.9 into a 4.7 truck without a total wiring and computer overhaul.
Posted By: gtsdude

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/20/14 09:19 PM

I had a purple 98 short box reg cab rt, bought off a used car lot with 3k on it. I was the first registered owner and ended up selling it back to Chrysler after driving it for a summer and part of a winter after a buy back for towing capacity. They offered $500 in accessories, an extended warranty or buy back at your purchase price and any receipts you had for additional things you may have put on the truck. The towing capacity was listed the same as a regular Dakota and with the lowering of the rear axle you could bottom out the rear suspension if loaded to the max. It ran well for a heavy truck, 15.10 @ 93 with 160 stat at the track, not very good on fuel, 14 or 15 tops, but fun to drive.
Posted By: D-50

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/21/14 12:08 AM

My buddy has a 2000 R/T with a PowerDyne super charger on it. It is pretty quick for a Dakota. I think it has run a 8.24 @ 86 mph in the 1/8 so far. He was having trouble with how the trans was shifting at full throttle and it is being fixed right now. I think with more control of the shift points it will run faster.
He put Bogart wheels and drag radials on it and I think it is down to low 3900 lbs.
Posted By: Pale_Roader

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/21/14 12:54 PM

Quote:

Make sure you are distinguishing between the R/T and Sport models. See if you can find one with the 5.2 and the stick. IMO would be more fun for you than a 5.9 with the auto. When the 4.7 came out it replaced the 5.2, the 5.9 carried on and I believed this stayed the same in the sport and rt trucks.

I have been told that the 4.7/stick trucks were quick as or quicker than the 5.9/auto trucks.



I could see that. A friend had an early 2000's ram club cab. If these Dakota's weigh 4000+lbs then that Ram must be over 9000. It was surprisingly quick for a 4.7L auto. Wasn't geared all that well either.

Yeah... i like the R/T looks... but i'll never drive an automatic again. Hell... someday i'm gonna convert my 68 Cadillac to a stick...
Posted By: Pale_Roader

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/21/14 12:58 PM

Quote:

Yes a 4.7 stick would beat an RT stock for stock, same bed/cab configuration. I say that because they're so close that a stock reg cab RT might beat a stock club cab 4.7 stick

Rt was available until 03 and was always 5.9/auto.

In 2000 or 2001 whatever year the 4.7 came in, it replaced the 5.2. I would avoid the 4.7. Not as many mods available, and you can't swap a 5.2 or 5.9 into a 4.7 truck without a total wiring and computer overhaul.




Again, i'm really not looking to build a race truck or hotrod. If i could get some longtubes and a true dual exhaust on there, maybe fix that awful factory tune, i'd be more than happy. I'd prefer the MPG ov a 4.7L over the torque ov the 5.9L any day. After driving a much-lightened big block muscle car, its not like either would be fast to me anyways...

Cool looking, cool sounding, V8 + stick (both mandatory), light as possible, simple as possible, best MPG possible. Thats the target.

Hmmm... sounds like i should just keep the Mustang...
Posted By: DaytonaTurbo

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/22/14 04:17 PM

Quote:


Hmmm... sounds like i should just keep the Mustang...



After reading so many of your posts where you praise your mustang, I think you would be better off keeping it, unless you have some reason to want a 2wd dakota for light hauling/towing.
Posted By: slammedR/T

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/23/14 02:45 AM

2000 model year dakotas still had the old style evap emissions stuff that is easy to by pass with a 1/4 watt 400ohm resistor. In 01-03 they went to the pump and canister style evap that is hrd to get rid of. Also the trans went to a different style range sensor that is different from 00 and older 46RE's. Lucky though sonnax makes a kit to adapt the older neutral safety switch to a 01-04 46RE case and eleminate the range sensor.
Posted By: HotRodDave

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/23/14 04:36 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Yes a 4.7 stick would beat an RT stock for stock, same bed/cab configuration. I say that because they're so close that a stock reg cab RT might beat a stock club cab 4.7 stick

Rt was available until 03 and was always 5.9/auto.

In 2000 or 2001 whatever year the 4.7 came in, it replaced the 5.2. I would avoid the 4.7. Not as many mods available, and you can't swap a 5.2 or 5.9 into a 4.7 truck without a total wiring and computer overhaul.




Again, i'm really not looking to build a race truck or hotrod. If i could get some longtubes and a true dual exhaust on there, maybe fix that awful factory tune, i'd be more than happy. I'd prefer the MPG ov a 4.7L over the torque ov the 5.9L any day. After driving a much-lightened big block muscle car, its not like either would be fast to me anyways...

Cool looking, cool sounding, V8 + stick (both mandatory), light as possible, simple as possible, best MPG possible. Thats the target.

Hmmm... sounds like i should just keep the Mustang...



A 4.7 is not a simple engine and not cheap/easy to fix. You can replace the complete 5.9 for the price of doing timing chains on the 4.7. A 4.7 5 speed will still need at least 3.92 gear to keep up with the 5.9 auto, 83 cubes is real hard to make up for. MPG is not really much better with the 4.7 when equiped with the same gears. No good reasons to use a 4.7 except I hear the 5.7 hemi is a bolt in replacement
Posted By: Pale_Roader

Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . . - 12/23/14 11:48 AM

Quote:

Quote:


Hmmm... sounds like i should just keep the Mustang...



After reading so many of your posts where you praise your mustang, I think you would be better off keeping it, unless you have some reason to want a 2wd dakota for light hauling/towing.



Yeah... but then, that was the point point ov making the thread. I learned quite a bit. Thought it might be closer to what i need in a vehicle... but i guess not. Trucks, even lil mini-trucks are handy, but to be honest... i get by pretty well even with the generally useless (for hauling) Mustang. Hell... even a Fox-body hatch would be better than mine for carrying stuff. Almost bought one too (when i was shopping for this one) but a LOT ov Fox Mustangs get ripped around here... I'd never sleep.
© 2024 Moparts Forums