Hey guys,

I'm new here. I'm cross-shopping the first gen Dakota and Ranger. For the record, I know absolutely nothing about either of these trucks other than I really like the aesthetics and size of both trucks.

This would be a 2nd vehicle, (the first being a 16 Challenger R/T), used for occasional Ikea runs, camping trips and hauling tubes and people from one end of a river to another.

My budget for the truck is $2500 max. What do I need to know about the first gen Dakota? Trouble spots? Best configurations? Please flood me with your knowledge.

 

The Dakota is a slightly bigger truck, kind of between a Ranger and an F-150 size. For your practical purposes that probably doesn't really matter. The 1st gen extended cab Daks have three seat belts in the back, and if you have a bench seat in the front, that also has three belts. So you can legally cram 6 people in a Dakota but it is in no way comfortable; nonetheless, if you need passenger space for these river transports then the Dakota has the edge over the Ranger.

First of all, do you need 4 wheel drive? 2wd is less things to break, so if you don't need 4wd, don't get it.

Second, I believe no matter what motor you get, a manual transmission is your best bet in a Dakota. The automatics are not really known for longevity.

Third, I don't know anything about the 2.5 liter, but that's only available in a 2wd to my knowledge. The 3.9 and 5.2 are both good motors, but the 3.9 is probably more reliable because it is essentially a 5.2 with two cylinders lopped off. Therefore a lot of the components in the 3.9 are meant to handle 5.2 power, so a 3.9 is less apt to wreck things. Also the 3.9s do not have the plenum gasket problems that the 5.2s very commonly have.

Finally, do you live where it snows and they salt the roads? If so, you have to be extremely diligent in inspecting the frames on any truck. Can't tell you anything about Rangers, but on Dakotas, common rust spots include the frame at the front-most leaf spring hanger and the upper control arm frame mounts. I live in the Northeast, and most rotted Daks I see on Craigslist have either had the frame break at the front leaf spring mount or had the upper control arm rip out of the frame.

I love my Dakota but I don't think I'm too biased. For $2500 I'm sure you know you're taking somewhat of a gamble no matter what vehicle you buy. If I were looking for an automatic transmission, though, I may be looking for a Ranger (I'm assuming they're not known for tranny issues but I could be wrong) instead of a Dakota.

Good luck in your search.

 

Interior space doesn't matter TOO much, although I am interested in some sort of back seat. by hauling people I meant in the bed of the truck mostly.

I don't need for 4 wheel drive for any practical purpose.

Looks like I'm going to be looking for the 5 speed. I prefer to drive stick anyways. Sounds like the 3.9 is the way to go.

Thankfully I live in south Florida so rust isn't an issue, although I will pay attention to the trouble spots you referenced.

Lastly, $2500 is the budget for the truck before repairs, i'm expecting at least another $500-$1000 to get it running right.

Thanks for the advice!

 

That's a good perspective to have. I do have the suspicion that Dakotas are also easier to work on than Rangers. The engine bay is very open and easy to reach stuff even with the V8. Also one thing that I recall about a friend who used to own an older Ranger is that the clutch slave cylinder is inside the bellhousing, so removal of the engine or transmission is required to replace a leaking slave. That's only one part, sure, but it cost him the truck because he couldn't do the work himself. Dakota has the slave cylinder bolted to the outside of the bell housing.


One more thing, find one with a Magnum engine. I believe '91 and earlier have the LA motor. The Magnum, '92+ makes significantly more power. '92 to '96 with a 3.9/5 speed would be my choice for the most reliable Dakota.

 

I respectfully disagree with Tbugden. V8 Magnum with an automatic CAN be almost as economical as the V6. The old saying about the V6 is that it has the power of the I4 and the mileage of the V8.

And as for the automatic, yeah, my 96 4x4 has only 249k on the engine and trannie. No longevity there. I live in a fairly sprawling city with lots of stop lights, all of them always seem to be red. I wouldn't have a standard transmission here.

Here's what I think. I wouldn't buy anything less than a Club Cab in a pickup. I would be biased towards 96 or later, it has OBD2, here the smog inspection is just plug it in and see if it has codes. Smog here is good for two years, too.

Engine, transmission, running gear configuration: get the best truck you can find. If it's a V6 automatic, so be it. Shiny paint and almost no rust are important, they give an indication of how the truck was kept up. Figure on tires, maybe a windshield, and some normal lube and tuneup maintenance.

Rangers are okay, my brother's had a 5 speed V6. Underpowered and very tall gearing. But otherwise pretty nice. You might also be open to a Durango. Or even a Ram 1500. My 98 Ram 1500 club cab has much more useable space inside, and has doors for the back seats. V8, automatic, gets comparable fuel mileage to the Dakota.

 

I was talking about reliability. I believe that the V6 is more reliable than the V8 because the V6 is essentially built just as strong as the V8 but makes less power...haha, and also they don't have the plenum gasket issues as bad. I wasn't talking about MPGs and I don't think he asked about it, but I completely agree with you there. As far as the V6 having the power of the I4.. edit: looked up the actual figures. 175hp/230ftlbs for the Magnum V6 3.9, 100hp/135ftlbs for the 4 cylinder, so nowhere close.

Perhaps I shouldn't have worded my post so strongly, though. He's looking at older trucks and though I believe the autos are not very reliable, the fact is that he might end up with a bad clutch or synchros (though those should be observable on a test drive, you don't often get to beat on a vehicle you're test driving to really test its condition) or throwout bearing, or some other problem if he gets a standard...it's just somewhat of a gamble all around.

I also didn't think about '96 OBD2 or 2nd gen, and I'm kinda on board with you there. The 2nd gen Dakotas around here anyways do not command a much higher price, so that might be a good way to go.

Thanks for disagreeing with me Brian, you have good points for him to consider.

 

Im going to take Brian and Tbudgen's advice, and add to it, and maybe even step on a few toes here, but, i also have real world experience, long term, since i will ONLY own Dakota's, but deal with a LOT of rangers that i repair, so, here goes. Upside to a ranger, there are only really 2 from a reliability standpoint. The earlier ones are easier, somewhat, to repair, and, as long as they are maintained, will last a long time. The downsides are numerous though, with trans issues, more cost to repair, harder to repair, and, due to their popularity, also more expensive to buy, even older ones in rough shape, as well as being much smaller interior wise. Dakota's on the other hand, i have owned 5 first gen's (1995 5 speed 5.2 2WD, 1995 originally 5.2 auto, with a 5.9 swap 4X4, 1994 3.9 5 speed 4X4, 1991 3.9 auto 4X4, and 1993 5.2 auto 4X4), as well as 3 second gen's (1998 5.2 auto 4X4, 2001 3.9 5 speed 4X4, and 2002 3.9 auto 4X4), and, if you are looking for an auto trans, both generations have good and bad points, but, overall, the second gen's seem to be a bit weaker. Dont ask me why, but, i burnt up 2 trans in my 1995 in 4 years, and 3 in my 1998 in 5 years, but, for a manual, look for 1995 and up V-8 trucks, since the earlier ones had the AX-15 5 speed, which, while not being a bad trans, cant handle a lot of even mild abuse, but, the NV3500 in the V-8 trucks can handle quite a bit more wear and tear. From a repair standpoint, first gen's are much easier to work on, and a bit less expensive, although the cost is negligible, but, second gen's, unless its the 3.7 and 4.7, a'rent hard enough to repair to make it a no brainer decision. The only repair that comes to mind where there is a significant difference is heater cores. The first gen in that case is a much easier repair. As i am also looking at Dakota's to buy, price between the two generations isnt that much of a difference typically either, as i can find, at least from NC into the northeast, first and second gen's in the $1500 to $2500 price range, with the same mileage and wear no matter the generation.

The biggest difference between the ranger and Dakota though, is longevity. A dakota will outlast a ranger hands down with even minor maintenance, and, for the first gen dakota's at least, can even be considered to go into the abused category, with long term use without maintenance, and still keep going. I have a habit of not doing maintenance, and have went more than a year of daily driving in a few first gens, without so much as an oil change, and they still keep going, at least, until the body falls off (i live in northen, salted by the ton, NY). My 1994, for example, has 261,000 miles on it, is driven every day, is my work vehicle, as well as routine 200 or more mile round trips to tow cars, and, i really honestly dont remember the last time i did an oil change on it, and havent done a tune up in at least 3 years, and it still runs every day. A ranger would have died at least once a year, and needed major repairs every year, with the way i am about my vehicles, but, my dakotas just keep going and going.

 

You really should do the maintenance. If only to take it to Jiffy Lube for a filter and an oil chang, air filter, etc.

My old '96 works so well that I wouldn't even hesitate to take it on a trip to Maine or Alaska. Or even Vegas. A three row radiator and an new thermostat once in a while keeps it cool in Tucson's occasional 112 degree heat and stop & go traffic.

I live out of the snow belt, but if I were looking, I'd definitely buy a 4wd. My old 96 is equipped with the factory trailer package, 4wd and heavy duty everything. It's built for the road!

Hoo boy, this is an old thread!

 

I do maintenance when i get to it, and yet, i still drive it on many out of town, long range trips (typical round trip is 300 miles minimum), usually to tow a car back from somewhere (typically Subaru Legacy's), and it is extremely reliable. My truck has been rebuilt from the frame up though (6 years ago-long block from a 98, rebuilt AX-15, rebuilt front and rear diffs, and so on), so i think that helps a lot with how it just runs and runs, like the energizer bunny.