1997-2004 Dodge Dakota

[280Z Turbo]

Today as I washing my dad's Dakota and noticed that the brand new Yokohama Geolandars are starting to wear quite badly on the outside. So, I got on the internet and starting digging around and reading reviews. This lead to me the conclusion that the 2nd generation Dodge Dakota is a piece of shit.

I was reading some of the reviews here http://www.carreview.com/cat/automobiles/t...rx.aspx#reviews and these guys have all the same problems we do with the Dakota.

We (and many others) have the following problems:

-Balljoints need to replaced frequently
-3.9L Magnum is a coarse, gutless, gas whore
-Brakes are as mushy as a dog turd (don't feel safe, IMO)
-Peeling clearcoat
-Fisher Price interior
-long, clunky shifter
-transmission repairs: synchros and shift fork ($500, so far)
-A/C stopped working
-2nd gear is utterly useless when cold
-Manifold Bolts Replaced ($300, so far)
-Wallowy suspension
-Excessive wind noise
-Terrible gearing (3.21 rear teamed with wheezy V6 = slow)
-Poorly designed, sagging seats
-Bad Vibration around 55+ mph
-So-so Infinity sound system
-Slow to heat up heater
-Excessive exhaust rattles
-Small rust spot under window trim
-Small leaks in roof
-Huge blind spots

Now I realize that all vehicles have flaws and it is a '98, but after reading some reviews and I keep seeing the same problems over and over again. It also didn't fair too well in Consumer Reports owner surveys. The only good things about this truck are steering, ride comfort, size and styling. The engineering and build quality is absolutely apauling, IMO.

[giant_mtb]

My condolences.

[thewizard16]

If you think that's bad, try a first gen. I despise the 94 that I occasionally have to use.

[280Z Turbo]

That must be horrible if this truck is a big improvement!

Like I said, the second gen looks cool (a mini semi truck!) but don't be fooled...it's a bad truck.

[ifcar]

The 2nd-gen Dakota was the first comfort/refinement-oriented compact pickup, but the original truck was pretty much a failed attempt to make a Ranger or S-10, with the main selling point being a good-sized bed.  

[Tom]

Some of those complaints are legitimate, but others are common to many other trucks or are small things.  Like, ball joints, mushy brakes, cheap interior, shifter, soft ride, wind noise, and crappy stereo.

But otherwise, I'm sorry you have a crappy truck.  Should have gotten a F-150 imo.

[280Z Turbo]

Some of those complaints are legitimate, but others are common to many other trucks or are small things.  Like, ball joints, mushy brakes, cheap interior, shifter, soft ride, wind noise, and crappy stereo.

But otherwise, I'm sorry you have a crappy truck.  Should have gotten a F-150 imo.

Ball joint failure is common? I don't think so, but if it is, Chrysler was pretty stupid to RIVET the balljoints on rather than bolt them.

These brakes are so mushy, it's rediculous. They don't feel safe.

The wind noise is extreme because the weatherstripping doesn't seal correctly.

The cheap interior is worse than any other truck I've seen. The Ranger, S10, Frontier, and Tacoma are quite a bit better than this truck.

To be fair, the shifter, soft ride, and crappy stereo is to be expected, I suppose. My 1986 Ranger has none of the aforementioned things, however.

I don't know if I would ever buy another Chrysler product after this truck. I know they've gotten better in recent years, but buyers won't soon forget frequent transmission failures, A/C failure, head gasket issues, and the infamous 2.7L V6.

Do you guys feel that Chrysler has moved beyond the POS cars and trucks of the 80s and 90s?

[93JC]

My dad has a '90, and it's okay for what it is. One of my aunts has a '98, and it's a step down in interior, that's for sure. I've found the '90 is much better: more solidly built, more room, more comfortable.

The '90 has a much softer suspension, and is much, much less powerful (125 vs. ~180 hp). Frankly I'm surprised you feel the 3.9L isn't very powerful: the MPI "Magnum" 3.9 felt pretty good as far as power goes in my opinion. Certainly a hell of a lot better than a Ford Vulcan, a VG30E Hardbody or a 3VZ-E Toyota that's for damn sure. TBI and carb equipped 3.9s are very underpowered though.

Don't know what would compel you to dislike a Dakota more than a Sonoma/S-10 or Ranger. Every single GM and Ford compact pickup I've ever been in has been as bad or worse.

I take offense to the question "Do you guys feel that Chrysler has moved beyond the POS cars and trucks of the 80s and 90s?" My '90 Spirit is a very good car. Great steering and braking feel: far better than any GM car I've ever driven. And it hasn't fallen apart like every Ford and Honda car family and acquaintances have owned.

[Raza]

Honda's don't fall apart!  Take that back!  They EVOLVE!  

[Tom]

Some of those complaints are legitimate, but others are common to many other trucks or are small things.  Like, ball joints, mushy brakes, cheap interior, shifter, soft ride, wind noise, and crappy stereo.

But otherwise, I'm sorry you have a crappy truck.  Should have gotten a F-150 imo.

Ball joint failure is common? I don't think so, but if it is, Chrysler was pretty stupid to RIVET the balljoints on rather than bolt them.

These brakes are so mushy, it's rediculous. They don't feel safe.

The wind noise is extreme because the weatherstripping doesn't seal correctly.

The cheap interior is worse than any other truck I've seen. The Ranger, S10, Frontier, and Tacoma are quite a bit better than this truck.

To be fair, the shifter, soft ride, and crappy stereo is to be expected, I suppose. My 1986 Ranger has none of the aforementioned things, however.

I don't know if I would ever buy another Chrysler product after this truck. I know they've gotten better in recent years, but buyers won't soon forget frequent transmission failures, A/C failure, head gasket issues, and the infamous 2.7L V6.

Do you guys feel that Chrysler has moved beyond the POS cars and trucks of the 80s and 90s?

Ford ball joints, and really every front end component, sucks, do your Dakota is not alone.  They are handling a lot of weight and torque.  I haven't seen the same for Chevy and Toyota however.

I have a hard time believing the brakes feel ridiculously mushy.  I know I've driven my share of mushy brakes and I can deal with it, but I'll take your word for it.

Didn't realize the interior is that bad.  Have you taken a look at S-10s though?  Absolute crap.

[280Z Turbo]

Some of those complaints are legitimate, but others are common to many other trucks or are small things.? Like, ball joints, mushy brakes, cheap interior, shifter, soft ride, wind noise, and crappy stereo.

But otherwise, I'm sorry you have a crappy truck.? Should have gotten a F-150 imo.

Ball joint failure is common? I don't think so, but if it is, Chrysler was pretty stupid to RIVET the balljoints on rather than bolt them.

These brakes are so mushy, it's rediculous. They don't feel safe.

The wind noise is extreme because the weatherstripping doesn't seal correctly.

The cheap interior is worse than any other truck I've seen. The Ranger, S10, Frontier, and Tacoma are quite a bit better than this truck.

To be fair, the shifter, soft ride, and crappy stereo is to be expected, I suppose. My 1986 Ranger has none of the aforementioned things, however.

I don't know if I would ever buy another Chrysler product after this truck. I know they've gotten better in recent years, but buyers won't soon forget frequent transmission failures, A/C failure, head gasket issues, and the infamous 2.7L V6.

Do you guys feel that Chrysler has moved beyond the POS cars and trucks of the 80s and 90s?

Ford ball joints, and really every front end component, sucks, do your Dakota is not alone.  They are handling a lot of weight and torque.  I haven't seen the same for Chevy and Toyota however.

I have a hard time believing the brakes feel ridiculously mushy.  I know I've driven my share of mushy brakes and I can deal with it, but I'll take your word for it.

Didn't realize the interior is that bad.  Have you taken a look at S-10s though?  Absolute crap.

Yes my friend has a Jimmy, and I feel that the interior in that is a notch or two above the Dakota.

I guess the Dakota isn't as bad as I thought, but it's still a dissapointment. I feel that my dad should have gotten another Ranger or a Japanese truck.

Reading all those angry reviews pushed me to write my review and perhaps exagerate the shortcomings of the truck. I guess it's not bad compared to its competitors.

Even though our Ranger is 20 years old, I feel that it's a better truck. It never needs repairs and takes abuse from me with no complaints. Even the interior quality puts the Dakota to shame!

[SargeMonkey]

Today as I washing my dad's Dakota and noticed that the brand new Yokohama Geolandars are starting to wear quite badly on the outside. So, I got on the internet and starting digging around and reading reviews. This lead to me the conclusion that the 2nd generation Dodge Dakota is a piece of shit.

I was reading some of the reviews here http://www.carreview.com/cat/automobiles/t...rx.aspx#reviews and these guys have all the same problems we do with the Dakota.

We (and many others) have the following problems:

-Balljoints need to replaced frequently
-3.9L Magnum is a coarse, gutless, gas whore
-Brakes are as mushy as a dog turd (don't feel safe, IMO)
-Peeling clearcoat
-Fisher Price interior
-long, clunky shifter
-transmission repairs: synchros and shift fork ($500, so far)
-A/C stopped working
-2nd gear is utterly useless when cold
-Manifold Bolts Replaced ($300, so far)
-Wallowy suspension
-Excessive wind noise
-Terrible gearing (3.21 rear teamed with wheezy V6 = slow)
-Poorly designed, sagging seats
-Bad Vibration around 55+ mph
-So-so Infinity sound system
-Slow to heat up heater
-Excessive exhaust rattles
-Small rust spot under window trim
-Small leaks in roof
-Huge blind spots

Now I realize that all vehicles have flaws and it is a '98, but after reading some reviews and I keep seeing the same problems over and over again. It also didn't fair too well in Consumer Reports owner surveys. The only good things about this truck are steering, ride comfort, size and styling. The engineering and build quality is absolutely apauling, IMO.

..... Its a dodge, of corse its a peice of shit. Get a Toyota, things run forever.

[TBR]

Our Durango has been very reliable, and I find the ride fine (it is a big heavy vehicle after all, some float is to be expected) and the brakes are also fine. I also take offense when you basically said that Chrysler made nothing but crap during the '80s and '90s. Well, that couldn't be less true (at least during the '90s). The Neon, Concord/Intrepid/LHS, Ram, Dakota, Caravan/Voyager/Town And Country, and Cirrus/Stratus were all at the top of their classes sometime during the '90s.  

[thewizard16]

Our Durango has been very reliable, and I find the ride fine (it is a big heavy vehicle after all, some float is to be expected) and the brakes are also fine. I also take offense when you basically said that Chrysler made nothing but crap during the '80s and '90s. Well, that couldn't be less true (at least during the '90s). The Neon, Concord/Intrepid/LHS, Ram, Dakota, Caravan/Voyager/Town And Country, and Cirrus/Stratus were all at the top of their classes sometime during the '90s.

The only reason the Dakota was ever really top of it's class is because it was pretty much a class of it's own. It was midsize when everyone else was compact, basically, and had a V8 engine option. I can't imagine how the Stratus/Cirrus were ever top of their class, the Accord, Camry, Malibu, etc. were all better cars regardless of the model year comparisons throughout the 90s. The vans probably were up there, mainly because they did what a minivan was supposed to do better than the others, even if quality was often questionable. The Neon I don't know about, that's hard to say, you're probably closest to being right with that one (other than the vans) but I'm not the most kind person when judging compact cars anyway. Ram? I really don't think it's ever been much better than Ford or Chevy, and the only 90s models Rams (late 90s) I've dealt with have been full of problems. I do feel that the LHS or Concorde may have had an edge in their segments (CERTAINLY not the Intrepid. Cheapened down version of the Chryslers to the extreme. Biggest shitbox on wheels (car wise, SUVs excluded) I've ever had to deal with, (two of them) I have very adimant feelings against those cars.) in the 90s because they looked much better and were different from most other large cars at the time.

[TBR]

The Stratus/Cirrus was on C/D's 10-best list for at least one year, the mid-1990s Rams were larger and more refined than the competition (the first personal use full size trucks really), and the LH cars were widely acclaimed as revolutionary when they came out (not sure about any awards).

[thewizard16]

The Stratus/Cirrus was on C/D's 10-best list for at least one year, the mid-1990s Rams were larger and more refined than the competition (the first personal use full size trucks really), and the LH cars were widely acclaimed as revolutionary when they came out (not sure about any awards).

The only car I argued of the LH was the Intrepid. They were different for their time (for a year or two) but I honestly can't find a thing to like about the Intrepid other than it was at least cheap.  The Stratus and Cirrus have always been mediocre, and when introduced (95) were certainly no better than a Camry or Accord or I'd say, Taurus. They were less powerful (except for the Taurus, but it did have the SHO), less refined, and less reliable, regardless of C/D's list. The Ram was probably the first so-named full size truck, but I'll question refinement. None of those trucks during that time period were refined, but if using curvier plastics means refinement, then Dodge won. Otherwise, I don't think refinement was a big selling point among any of those.

[TBR]

The Stratus/Cirrus were on the 10 best list not just once, but 3 times and somehow I trust C/D's opinion more.

Additionally, this is Consumer Guide's write up for the Cirrus:
"Cirrus offers a lot to like, starting with spaciousness. Shorter than some compacts, its long wheelbase and roomy five-passenger interior move it into the mid-size class. Front passengers have generous space, and ample rear leg room allows some people to ride with legs crossed--though the seat isn't wide enough for three adults to fit comfortably. The modern, thoughtfully arranged dashboard has clear gauges, smooth-working wiper/light stalks, and simple climate controls. However, rearward visibility is severely restricted by a narrow back window and high rear ledge. Six-cylinder acceleration is fairly brisk, but the engine does not generate much torque below 3000 rpm or so. For that reason, the engine initially feels flat in highway passing, or whenever you need a quick burst of power. The automatic transmission shifts smoothly and downshifts quickly for passing, though it occasionally lags just a bit, as if waiting for permission. Acceleration in the 4-cylinder Cirrus ranks as adequate, and that engine delivers better gas mileage. You're likely to notice a lot of road noise on most surfaces. Both engines are loud under hard throttle, too. The nimble Cirrus maneuvers easily and corners with athletic agility, good grip, and little body lean--less than a Honda Accord, for instance. Power steering is quick and precise, centering well after turns. Tires on the softer-suspended LX model can squeal a little in tight corners. Suspensions produce a stable, comfortable ride on most surfaces, rebounding instantly to most bumps and holes, though they don't absorb pock-marked surfaces well. The sporty LXi has a well-controlled but firm ride, while the softer-sprung LX allows more bouncing."

[thewizard16]

The Stratus/Cirrus were on the 10 best list not just once, but 3 times and somehow I trust C/D's opinion more.

Additionally, this is Consumer Guide's write up for the Cirrus:
"Cirrus offers a lot to like, starting with spaciousness. Shorter than some compacts, its long wheelbase and roomy five-passenger interior move it into the mid-size class. Front passengers have generous space, and ample rear leg room allows some people to ride with legs crossed--though the seat isn't wide enough for three adults to fit comfortably. The modern, thoughtfully arranged dashboard has clear gauges, smooth-working wiper/light stalks, and simple climate controls. However, rearward visibility is severely restricted by a narrow back window and high rear ledge. Six-cylinder acceleration is fairly brisk, but the engine does not generate much torque below 3000 rpm or so. For that reason, the engine initially feels flat in highway passing, or whenever you need a quick burst of power. The automatic transmission shifts smoothly and downshifts quickly for passing, though it occasionally lags just a bit, as if waiting for permission. Acceleration in the 4-cylinder Cirrus ranks as adequate, and that engine delivers better gas mileage. You're likely to notice a lot of road noise on most surfaces. Both engines are loud under hard throttle, too. The nimble Cirrus maneuvers easily and corners with athletic agility, good grip, and little body lean--less than a Honda Accord, for instance. Power steering is quick and precise, centering well after turns. Tires on the softer-suspended LX model can squeal a little in tight corners. Suspensions produce a stable, comfortable ride on most surfaces, rebounding instantly to most bumps and holes, though they don't absorb pock-marked surfaces well. The sporty LXi has a well-controlled but firm ride, while the softer-sprung LX allows more bouncing."

Regardless of your feelings of my opinion, drive it, drive the Camry of the same year, drive the Accord, drive the Taurus, and tell me they're right.  <_<  The only thing that those cars had going for them (in my opinion) were good looks, and price.

[ifcar]

Chrysler's cars from the 1990s were, in general, capable, inexpensive, and unreliable.  

[TBR]

I will agree that reliability was hardly their strong suit.

[ifcar]

On a related note, the Caravan is poised to consume chunks of my cash for a stalling problem. The diagnosis is a bad computer, $300-$500.  

[TBR]

So then you are car shopping now?  

[ifcar]

That's a gentle enough repair cost. If it asks for another transmission, or anything else over about $1k, it's gone. But if I were about to unload the Caravan, I wouldn't be getting it fixed first.