Early 90's Dakota

I bought and sold some toys earlier this year and drug my low mile, always garage kept 97 Cobra out of the garage and turned it into my daily driver.

I had all intentions of driving it this Winter in the snow but, with Winter not that far away, I've been thinking about getting a beater to drive.

I've been looking at early 90's 4X4 318 or V6 Dakotas but haven't been able to find a whole lot of info regarding their reliability. I have noticed that the transmissions seem to be an issue; a 91 is up for sale locally with 94k on it with a slipping trans.

Are these things pretty good rides? Are there any known issues with them that I should look for?

We have a 2000 Durango 4X4 4.7 that we got with 123k on it and other than normal maintenance, it has been great. It would probably be a better idea to buy one a little newer like the Durango we have but, I like the square body style of the older ones.

Any insight would be appreciated.

The 91 will have the TBI engine. I'd steer clear. 1992+ will have the magnum port injected engines. Big upgrade over the old tbi engine. Don't bother with the 3.9 V6 trucks, they get the same mpg as the 5.2 trucks and obviously a very notable power difference. The only way I would consider a V6 dakota is if it was a stick shift.

All the dakotas and rams of the 90's have crap auto transmissions. Best thing you can do is get one with a stick, next best thing is to buy a cheap one with a shot trans so when you're done you know you've got a fresh rebuild.

I had a 95 2wd, 5.2 Magnum I bought new. It had two issues in the 72k miles I put on it. The CPS crapped out at around 60k and the typical intake gasket issue causing it to inhale oil that was fixed. Besides that, it was a great truck.

Agree with Daytona on 1992 forward. I can't speak to the 4X4's but I've had two 5.2, auto RWD's.

First a '92 bought in Jan of 95 with 50K on the clock. Drove it until 2002 putting 265K on it. Very dependable! Engine and trans never touched. Replaced coil and water pump a couple of times, plus consumables including rotors and calipers around 190K. Starter at 230K. Mostly highway miles. Undoubtedly one of the best vehicles I've ever owned.

Second was a '93 bought in Aug 2008 with 145K on the clock. Previous owner said the transmission had recently been rebuilt. Drove it until October 2014, when I got my SRT at which time I handed it off to my daughter. We retired it last year when it began to miss and plugs and wires didn't fix it. I suspect the intake gasket issue, but just didn't see putting money into it. Coincidently, It had 265k on it too.

I bought 92 V6 5-speed new and still miss that truck. Never an issues in 90K miles except for a trans output shaft seal while towing a 68 Dart 300 miles at 85 MPH. 92 was the best year as they downgraded the camshaft in 93.

I just got this 96 sport V6 5 spd from friends of ours. He had owned it since almost new and never any problems just normal maintenance. 105k miles on it now, a/c still blows cold. My daughter will be turning 16 soon and I'm hoping to teach her to drive a stick and the Dakota is hers.

Biggest bummer on pre 97 daks, as far as 4x4's, is the poor turning radius I have found. Had a couple of 93 4x4 clubs w/5.2 and found open car trailer towing quite a breeze compared to the ramchargers I had for years.

Swept under the carpet by as many of the car mags as possible, the Dodge Dakota is one of the most reliable trucks made alongside the Ford Ranger. It pains them greatly to admit this since the POS Tacomas are apparently the greatest truck ever built.

Transmission is your only worry, look for a 5 speed and the real deal 318 Magnum. The tbi anythings and v6's are all crap. The 46re's are okay, but look for a low-mile one or something without a trailer hitch and abusive owner. Faithful trans oil changes at 60 thou or less is a plus.

The IFS, transfer case, rear-end, and V8's are all trouble-free. So much is written about the Magnums that issues are usually cap, rotor, plugs, throttle-position sensor, intake air temp sensor, water pump and sometimes the intake plenum.

That's it. You have no worries, it's a Dodge truck: that's why they are still on the road today.

How about a pic of your Cobra?

People seem to like them in general. Never heard any venom. Not sure about this hate for the v6. Had early daks for work trucks, a stick and auto. Werent bad. Not hot rods, but no reason not to love.

Ya let's see that cobra, I have a 97 gt. 32 mpg makes it a great work car slash daily driver.

Not that the V6 is unreliable, however the V6 when installed in these trucks yeilds the same mpg and significantly less power than the 5.2 magnum.

Not sure about all the hate for the TBI engines? I bought a '91 Dak 4x4 brand new.....probably the best truck I've ever had. Put well over 100k on it without any major issue. Tune-up,battery, brakes etc. Traded it for a '00 Dak 4x4 with a 4.7. Put 60k on that one with oil changes only. I "had" to have a full size so in '04 I bought a Ram QC Hemi. It wasn't long before I wanted a Dakota back...that Ram was a pos. It's a shame they had to make the Dakotas butt ugly before dropping them entirely. I personally know a dozen guys that would buy them if they would produce them again(in a not so ugly form).

The TBI was a solid engine but absolutely gutless when doing work. My bro-in-law had a D150 that struggled to pull a lightweight sprint car on an open trailer.

I just got a '91 318 TBI with 250k. The R12 a/c still blows cold. It was garaged when not in motion, so it's in really good shape for the miles. I'm actually thinking about selling my '01 R/T. I put colder plugs in the '91 and turned the timing up some. It actually seems to have some decent midrange power. The main thing I'd change about it at the moment is the rear end. It needs a sure grip, so it'll actually move on wet grass and such. Once I find a couple more R/T wheels and caps, I'm going to put them on it.

Like any old ride, if you get one that has been abused, it will be junk. If you get one that has been well taken care of, it will likely be a great truck.

I've had a few different Dakotas. The 90 V6, TBI, 5 speed, with a 3:55 limited slip was a fun truck (and was a grate donor for hot rod chassis). Not a race car by any means, but it is fun. I blew up the V6 at around 165K.
The 91, V6, TBI, auto was a great work truck, until a patch of ice did it in. That motor went into the 90 chassis. It got 21.8 mpg on a recent 3402 mile trip.
The 93 Magnum V6, auto, 4x4, currently has around 160K miles. It gets 13 mpg in town, and around 17 on the highway. The 93 spent a lot of its time over the past 4 years just sitting (only driven about 3,000-4,000 miles per year), and as you can imagine, its getting pretty rough. I will replace it with another Dakota, maybe I look for a V8 this time, but the V6s are a lot easier to find. At least the early Dakota were great trucks, some of the newer ones seem to have issues. Gene

While not a 4X4, I picked up my '93 Dakota last year. It currently has 166K on it. It has the V6 and auto.

I don't think it spent its entire life used and abused, but, I know the last owner wasn't too 'kind' to it.

I did the usual maintenance to it when I got it, updated the plenum gasket, and repaired a few things outside 'normal' wear.

It still has a couple of quirks that I haven't been able to figure out if they are electrical or fuel related, but, it has never left me stranded.

Biggest issue until recently was the AC not working. Now I may have to redo the intake gasket

BUT, despite its quirks, and its scars, I love this thing. It rides decent, its comfortable (to me anyway) and its not 'stupid big' like anything new.

The V6 is no powerhouse for sure, but has no issues keeping up with or passing traffic. I admittedly drive with a heavy foot and it gives me consistent 14MPG in almost 100% in town driving.

The Brazilian factory built diesel Dakota always interested me.

I would think that someone could have a nice side business converting the light weight early pre 1995 OBD-I USA supply of V6 gasoline auto trans Dakotas that no longer get emissions tested in most states to "nearly new" manual trans diesels using the Brazilian OEM parts.

A bit more "out there" would be building
Deutz air cooled diesel Dakotas using the one tractor manual trans that bolts up.
I was always impressed with the 1980s Deutz air cooled diesels on the big portable trash pumps.

40+ MPG diesel Dakotas are possible.

Another possibility a Dakota rebuilder could offer would be to take the factory OEM natural gas parts off early 1990s Magnum 5.2 V8 Ram 15 passenger vans and transplant them plus a new certified large capacity high pressure natural gas cylinder onto early 1990s Dakotas with Magnum 408 ci V8s with MPI intake manifolds.

Natural gas 408 ci V8 Dakotas would have a low cost per mile driven,
even lower $ per per mile than a 40 MPG diesel Dakota.

Ive had several Dakotas all being daily drivers.

The best one was a 92 Regular Cab Long bed with 5.2 and auto. Fun to drive and powerful!

1993 Sport,5.2,518 RH,3.55 sure grip and two wheel drive,131 K miles runs like a clock,best truck I've ever owned.

Had an 87 3.9L auto with 400,000 kms and it was still going strong when I got rid of it. Miss that truck!

yep, that's where I came up with my "V6, all the power of a 4 cylinder and the mileage of an 8" saying. Back then the only two justifications for buying a V6 was no V8 option, or you were a pennywise, pound foolish skinflint.

But today's V6's are changing my mind.

just in case anyone is interested there is a dakota on the kansas city craigslist that has a 5 cylinder BMW diesel engine

My one and only Dakota I had was a new 89, V6, auto, shortbox, 4X4, I owned that damned thing 12 months, 12K and was happy to trade it for a new 91 Ranger.
I got very tiered of walking the three blocks between the dealer and my shop.

A buddy of mine has a 94 Dakota quad cab body sitting on a 98 standard cab, short bed, 4x4 Cummins frame.

Prior to 92 the o/d Trans had the small 5/16 cooler lines. This was not enough volume to lube the o/d properly. 92 up is better with 3/8 lines. I bought a 92, cc, 2wd, 5.2 in 93 with 9k miles on it as a lemon buy back. Truck had 450k on it when we sold it, beat to crap thanks to my youngest son but it still ran strong.

Why the hate on the auto transmissions?

They were the a500 (aka a904 with overdrive)in the 4 and 6 cylinder.

And the very popular a518 (aka a 727 with overdrive) in the V8 trucks.

Same autos used in the 1/2 ton series, and now a popular trans to swap into the older muscle cars to make them nice highway cruisers, but keep their stoplight to stoplight intimidation.

I happen to own a 92. Club cab, shorty, 2wd with the 5.2, a few mild hop ups, including MP computer, rebuilt 518 with good internals. A stage II valve body, 2500 RPM stall, and a 67 B body 8-3/4 rear diff. Dutchman 6 on 4.5 axles, and a tight suregrip with 4.30 gears.

I can cruise the interstate at 70mph at 2600 RPM, and have all kinds of fun in town surprising the heck out of the younger fast n furious crowd.

Thanks for all of the info guys!

I intended on making some calls today and maybe taking a look at a few trucks but, I ended up doing yard work all weekend and just felt like relaxing when I got in this afternoon.

Took a look around Craigslist this afternoon and found a few more that I'm interested in.

Hopefully I can buy something in the new month or so.

Someone asked for a picture of the Cobra; here it is. Not the best pic but, all that I have on my computer right now. The Red one was sold earlier this year, the yellow one is my Fiance's and the 92 is what I bought earlier this year.

They turn reasonable trucks into dogs. They don't seem to last all that long in stock form before puking and don't seem to be all that efficient in spite of the OD gearing. I wouldn't buy another automatic dodge truck.

I wouldnt buy another automatic dodge truck either. Have two 5 speeds that are too nice to run thru the winter. Looking for an already maybe rusty one with a stick that I won't want to fix up and just get thru winter with.

Nice sn95 mustangs ! Mine looks like the red one.

My 93 Dakota 4x4 has an automatic trans, and when it gets replaced, there will be another truck with an automatic trans. Sometimes my wife has to drive the truck, and she can't/won't drive a stick (and I wouldn't want to have to keep replacing clutches if she did). Some people have no business driving a stick, and my wife is one of them. She has been around for 40 years, so I'm keeping her, even if it means there will be an automatic trans truck around here. Its a small price to pay for a happy home.

My coupe does have a 5 speed, and I enjoy driving it very much, but there are days when my old left knee doesn't like the clutch pedal either. Those days, I'm pretty thankful for that automatic in the 93 4x4, if I need to go someplace. Hopefully not, but some day you youngsters may understand the need for an auto trans. Gene

Last year i read that the new 8 Speed Chrysler Torqflite
Was 98% efficient in EVERY GEAR.

I found that hard to believe,
But it made me wonder how efficient
a 1993-1995
A 518/46RH
automatic trans is in each gear?

Locked up one to one ratio 3rd should be highest,
And 0.69 ratio OD 4th gear should a a couple percent less.

Anyone know of a high end transmission shop that can run just the trans on a special dyno that records efficiency in each gear?

The 93-96 Dakota's with the V8 5.2 Magnum and A518 overdrive 727 Trans are my favorite.

2WD have a rock solid D150 frontend, 8 1/4" rear

To my eyes, the early Dakota trucks were the best looking. The early standard cab Dakota trucks have fairly small cabs. I can't get to comfortable in one of those. Does anyone know if the extended cabs have more leg room?

I agree leg room is a bit of an issue,not sure about the extended cab models. My 93 Dakota got a few upgrades this summer and is a fun driver. I built a 408(pump gas build with fast efi),904, and Dana 60 to make sure I get to the lumber yard before closing time.

With the extended cab Dakota, at least you can back the seat up without coming in contact with the back of the cab. Probably won't leave much room for anyone with legs or feet to sit in the back seat, but the driver will have more leg and belly room. Gene

I've never driven a standard cab Dakota, so, I can't offer an A - B comparison, BUT, I find my extended cab comfortable for my 5'-10" frame.

I find it more comfortable than the '02 1500 (full size) I had for a few yrs. Seriously.

However, the thing that makes it comfortable for me, might make it uncomfortable for someone with a large gut, the steering wheel is pretty close even with the seat back.

Too many cars/trucks I've driven seemed like they were set up to be driven with your arms straight out. If my arms were comfortable, my legs were scrunched up. With my Dak, I can have my legs out, and the steering wheel at a comfortable reach. In this position too, the armrests fall at a usable location. On my Wife's Kia for example, I end up about 6" behind the (door) armrest, and the armrest on the console is too low.

I have had 6 dakotas from 1990 to 2002 couple extended cabs and one quad cab the most uncomfartable one was a standard cab 02 R/T I'm 6.1 300 lbs . The other 2 standard cabs were a 94 and a 96 which i just got rid of it was a shorbed 5.2 5 speed I'm regretting get of that one i was comfortable in both of them .

You described my problem exactly! Long legs do NOT comfortably fit in many, many vehicles!! I'll try sitting in an extended cab Dakoka. Based on what you guys are saying, it will probably fit just fine!

One more question on this point, does the passenger side have as much leg room as the driver's side?

I actually went out and measured! Both trucks I have here are sticks, one a 95 extended cab, and the other a 01 standard cab. Both measure the same in the front floor pans.

The shape of the trans tunnel is the biggest thing determining the leg space. On the driver side, the tunnel is basically straight from the firewall and drops off nearly straight down from the shiter base, the passenger side has a wide slow curve (towards the center of the cab) from the firewall to the seat, but the biggest issue is the tunnel also curves to the floor pan along the entire tunnel, that curve extends the tunnel about 4" into the passenger floor pan. At the shifter location, the width of the driver side between the tunnel bottom and the door is 18" At the same location on the passenger side, again, at the bottom of the tunnel curve to the door is about 15".

Pictures: Hopefully they help. The tap measure is sitting at the beginning of the flat floor area, and the tape itself is 3" long. Excuse the mess, its a soon to be frame donor. The first 3 pictures are the passenger side. Gene

Next pictures are the driver side. This is the standard cab, but the extended cab looks the same.
Again, the tape is at the beginning of the flat floor, and the tape is 3" long. Gene

One more question on this point, does the passenger side have as much leg room as the driver's side?

On mine, the passenger seat doesn't go back quite as far as the drivers side, less than 2" difference? I never measured it (I can this weekend if you'd like).

I just assumed it was a little further forward to allow access to the back.

All the extended cabs I've seen have bucket seats, maybe the seats are not bolted to the floor in the same location, most of the early standard cad trucks I've noticed have bench seats, but that one of those things I seldom would take notice of.
I'll have to check that out on my extended cab, it looks like it goes back the same, but I didn't really pay much attention. Gene

There's not as much difference as I thought (both seats all the way back).