2nd Gen Dakota V8s - please school me - 4.7 or 5.2

Looking for a second vehicle truck to replace my recently departed 1500 Ram 5.7. Have been scouring the local ads for a decent condition 2nd generation Dakota 4x4.

All other things being equal...condition, miles, appearance...which V8 should I try to find..the 4.7 or the 5.2? Either one would be paired to an automatic. The vehicle would be occasionally used by my son in college or the wife and neither can nor want to drive a stick.

The truck won't tow much, maybe a couple harleys once in a while or a project car but nothing heavy duty. Mainly just to have for the son to drive on breaks and for me to use for home projects and drive during bad weather.

Not looking to spend a lot of time increasing the engine performance, more interested in durability and reasonable maintenance.

Thanks in advance!

The 4.7 doesn't have a very good track record, they self destructs if they have not seen very regular oil changes, and then they still has issues. I think MB decided the 4.7 only needed to survive to 150K miles, sure some go longer, but they are the exception rather then the rule.

I'm looking for a drive train for my next hot rod, and will probably get a Dakota as a donor. If it has a 4.7, I won't even look at it. 5.2 or 5.9, or even the 3.9 would be the better choices, in my opinion. Gene

My 97 5.2 is pushing 300K. Great little motor.

the 5.2 and 5.9 engines are great but the trans in stock form kinda sucks. The 4.7 engine kinda sucks but the trans is awesome.

Thanks guys, 5.2 it is. Hard to beat an old 318.

on a brighter note the 4.7 runs circles around the old magnum... but as noted, when things go wrong, it can get expensive.

I've had alot of experience with the 4.7L's and they have been bulletproof for me for many many many miles. With that said, I bought all of them new and maintained them properly from the start. Without maintenance they seem to fall apart quickly.

I'd take a 4.7L stock for stock over a 318 anyday if I had really good documentation of its maintenance history. Without that I'd probably go 318 unless the 4.7L was very low miles.

-Jon

93-96 5.2 magnum with the 518 overdrive auto

I have an 01 Durango with the 4.7, 191k miles. Runs great, but uses a fair amount of oil.

You will find, most guys that like the 4.7 bought them new, and took really good care of them. You will be buying a used truck, who knows how well it was cared for? Someone can tell you they took "really good care" of something they drove, but all you would have would be their word. "Really good care" means different things to different people.

Do you feel lucky? Gene

I've never owned a 4.7, but have driven a friend's 2007 Ram 1500 4X4 that has one, and am impressed with the performance compared to my same truck of the 2001 model year with a 5.2. HOWEVER, when, not if, but when it's time to replace that 4.7 (they all fail eventually) you'll spend twice the money of a 5.2/5.9 ... IF you're lucky enough to find one.

my sis in law has a 01 dakota with a 4.7 she bought new,changed oil on time every time,its now somewhere north of 200000 without a problem,she drove it back and forth to work about 50 miles one way 5 days a week
i changed out one in a durango and wasnt to impressed with all the plumbing ,chains,etc,and it was kinda a dog in the durango,and piggy on fuel

I have an 01 dakota 4.7 5 speed and a 99 dakota 318 5 speed, both 3.55 gears both ex cab 4X4 both pretty much bone stock and the 318 will out pull the 4.7 by a lot any day of the week no questions asked and spank it in a race, the 4.7 will get about 1 more MPG empty about the same full. My 07 4.7 HO auto will pull with the 318 and might even beat it in an empty race but it would be close and would come down to the NV3500 not being able to shift fast enough.

Check your local for sale ads long enough and you'll see a trend. Plenty of Dodges for sale with blown 4.7's, none or very few with pooched 5.2 or 5.9's.



I think you mean 92-95. 96+ was the electronic transmission.



Sounds like the best reason to hunt one down with a stick! If they don't want to learn they don't have to drive it. Sounds like a win-win to me.

I had a 92 Dakota with the 5.2 in it. I beat that truck hard and it took it. Had 450,000 miles on it when it was sold and was still running.

I had two Durangos an 00 and a n 02 . The 02 I bought new with 4.7 ,, 3.91 rear and trailer tow pkg and it was great it towed my 20 ft enclosed with race car etc all over the place with no problems I did have to have the ball joints done for a recall and the rear started acting up at 80,000 mikes so I traded it on my 08 H.Q.C. . I have the 5.2 Magnum in my 92 D150 I bought new in 92 and still have the motors been great with 0 problems even after tears of bracket racing it on occasion. I always liked the Dakotas , all years. My friend has an 02 R/ T with a 408 that runs mid 12s for sale, cool truck.

I'm the kind of guy who can't ever leave anything stock, so my opinion will be somewhat biased.

I've owned both 5.2/5.9 and 4.7 dakotas.

I've heard horror stories of catostraphoc failures of 4.7s. Lots of them. Most of the time these get chalked up to poor maintenance. I also know of a few 5.2/5.9 horror stories--also from poor maintenance.

The 4.7 truck I had, was bought used with 35k miles on it. I changed the oil every 4-5k miles. At 100k miles it developed a tick that sounded like a valve noise, but drove it another 20k miles with no oil pressure issues, no loss of power, and no misfires or engine codes.

I don't like the 4.7 because there's virtually no aftermarket support for it. As for daily driving, it was ok. Got around 17 mpg in a 4700 lb truck. (Quad cab dakota). For towing, it was weak. Required lots of RPM and downshifting. I couldn't imagine this same engine in a full size truck trying to pull 7k lbs like they were rated for.

I like the 5.2/5.9 because there's a ton of aftermarket for them, and they respond well to mods. I've never towed with a 5.2 or 5.9 though. They can be fairly bulletproof though and when maintained will easily go 250k+ miles with minimal wear because of the efi. I've opened up 100k plus motors and found original cross hatching still in the bores.

I'm assuming the 3.7 V6 has the same issues as 4.7 since as I understand it's the 4.7 with two fewer cylinders?
Having trouble locating a decent 5.2 that's not badly rusted. Especially above the rear wheels.

Came across a nice condition '04 with the 3.7 and according to the carfax it's dealer maintained since new with regular oil changes and all the recommended service intervals. I know it won't have the grunt of a V8 and the mileage won't be much better if at all. But again, I'm not going to do much towing with it. Mainly home depot runs, towing bikes, and 4x4 for winter.

3.7 in a 2wd dakota is a dog, down shifting needed unless your going down hill, especially in an automatic. Have all the same issues as a 4.7 with no up side. It feels like driving one of those old dump trucks with a slant six when you try to pull ANYTHING and the MPG sucks.

Don't be afraid to look out of your area, they salt the roads in OH to ruin all the cars and support sales of new ones, even a trip down to nashville could net a great deal on a no rust dakota. I lived in TN for a long time and was appalled at the young rust bucket cars that would show up ocasionally from OH.

Ok, how many miles are too much on a 5.9L truck and what are some of the things I should look for?
I'm planning to look at an 03 Quad Cab SLT 4x4 with a 5.9L but it has 161k miles. The body and interior are in good shape based on the pics but I don't have documentation on how well it was maintained. It's being sold by a one-man dealer who buys at auction and then flips on craigslist.

I like that the truck has the 5.9L, tow package, skid plate, 3.92 rear, anti-spin rear.

I know ball joints are an issue on these things along with the plenum gasket. Anything else to look for?

As with any motor, the answer, in part, is obviously "it depends on how well it was cared for." I have a friend that totaled a 99' Ram 1500, 4X4, 5.9 with 330,000+ miles on it. It smoked a little at start up, but ran very good. I'd speculate that it would have easily gone to 400,000.
EDIT: Look around ebay, craigslist etc at older Dodges. There are countless out there with 250,000 miles on them, still running strong. If the transmission on that '03 hasn't been rebuilt, it's probably due.

Probably same issues as the Chicago area. Rust. I have still, an 03 durango 4x4 that looks and runs great at 175k mi. The eng is a 4.7, but I could take either eng as I can rebuild if needed. The 4x4's usually have the wide wheel opening flares that can hide the wheel opening rust in any of the 4 wheel openings of fenders. If you see rust-paint bubbling creeping out from under those body colored flares, the rust is probably real bad under there. One of the first rust areas is at the front fenders right above the bumper wraparound area. They rott there quick. Only real annoying failure is the flimsy easy break window track cable pivots whatever, that like to break mostly in winter when window is froze. Not sure if the 03 plenum gaskets were better than older either.

Im on my 5th "Square body" Dakota. 1st was a 90 2wd longbed w/a 3.9 then a 94 shortbed reg cab w/a 3.9. then a 93 CC with a 318 that I converted to a stick. I miss that one every day but it was wrecked. Only had 202K on it, had no intention of getting rid of it. I replaced that with a 92 CC w/a 318, still driving the snot out of it, not as good on gas as the stick one was (same gear ratio too) but no worse than the 94 with the 3.9.
A week and a 1/2 ago I found a very clean (especially for IL/NW Ind.) 96 4X4 club cab on CL in Dyer Ind. and brought it home. cab and bed like brand new. doors juuust starting to bubble at very bottom. Only rust hole is bottom of dogleg on pass. fender. I got it cheap because the trans was laying in the bed. Now that trans is apart on the bench. I can rebuild it and replace the converter for less than most junkyard trannys. I plan to keep both the 92 and the 96 til I run them into the ground.
You could not give me a 4.7 or a Quad cab, with its worthlessly short bed.
At nearly 6' tall I could never climb in the bed when I am on a campout and get rained out of the tent, has happened more than once. and then lumberyard runs with a just-over-5' long bed, just do not work.
Another reason to stay with an older truck; I have absolutely no desire for a 4 door truck, but that's all that can be found these days. and you want a stick? FORGET ABOUT THAT!
as a rule, it seems that of the square body ones still on the road (that I see, anyways), they are still in better shape body wise than the next gen 97-04s.