Hello-

I am thinking of buying a 1999 Dakota extended cab. 5.2 engine, automatic transmission, 4wd, ~128,000 mi. As far as I can tell this truck has a 44RE transmission, is this a reliable transmission? A little concerned given I have had a problem with a persistent P0740 fault in my 97 Ram 1500. Aware of the plenum issue on the 5.2 do not know of any other known issue with this engine. Any advice on potential problems is appreciated. Any opinions on the 5.2 in this truck vs. the 4.7 in newer trucks?

Jeff

 

318 (5.2, I hate "liter" designations) is a much better engine than a 4.7, and simpler, when it does need attention. the 4.7 is prone to things that you will never see with a 318.... Id rather deal with a plenum gasket than some of the 4.7's issues any day of the week. (I'm 53, got my 1st vehicle at 18, have owned lots of them and have NEVER owned anything BUT a Dodge product. Ever. ) and I'm a fleet mechanic for a state that has a hard-on with Fords.... I certainly wouldn't buy a Ford, that is too new to get a 300 inline 6 or 302,351W in.
there was a known issue in the trans around then for a couple years, I had this in my own 99 with a 3.9 and 42 RE trans (not much difference between a 42 and a 44.) Found out about the "known issue" part of it, when I went to a trans shop for a bit of tech assistance, when I had mine split apart, was also confirmed by a buddy who has been a Chrysler dealer mechanic since the late 80s. something to do with how the clutch piston and seals were made in the rear clutch drum. Heard it was a "supplier issue" back when these trucks were built. ("forward clutch" as in active in all forward gears, not position within trans) Mine showed up as a "flare" or a quick "neutral-out" upon shift from 2 to 3. My 99 had 105k miles on it, I got it from an 86 year old man. I thought I noticed "something" with the trans right away' but couldn't quite "put my finger on it"
It gradually got worse/more noticeable as time went by and I pulled it at 120k to go inside and fix it. I took it apart with intent to replace the front band, and to dismantle its servo for inspection, (where I thought the issue would have been found) I replaced all of the rubber lip seals within the front half of trans, while I was in there. In the trans rebuild kit there was a memo about an "upgraded seal" because of this and that the new seal fit all earlier years, that any kit made after some certain date had the updated seals. I did as I intended to do and replaced that front band, but I went thru the rest of it too, while I had it apart. the clutch discs themselves looked brand spanking new when I was in there, so I put those same ones back in. absolutely no burn marks, still had the original "waffle" pattern ingrained in them. probably not a "have to", but I put a heavy duty billet servo in for the front band and a billet accumulator while I was in there as "cheap insurance" that I would not have that problem with it, again. I also added an additional external trans cooler in addition to the factory one built into the radiator.
though it actually takes the same part number heater core as the 91-96 square bodies (and possibly earlier) "if" you have to go in and replace, the 97+ trucks suck more to do a heater core on, than the earlier 90s ones did. you may never have to "go there" during your ownership. Some do, some don't.
To me, the seats in my '96 even with 100K more miles of wear and tear, are still more comfortable than the ones in my 99.
and 1 more thing to watch for; the 97+ frames are made different than 96-down; watch for rust jacking and rot out where the sections of frame overlap around the front leaf spring hanger. get underneath and look from inside of frame as well as thru the wheel well at the outside of this junction. My 99 ain't terrible "yet" but it ain't as "good as new" anymore in that spot, either. I've seen the frames badly rotted out on others of these trucks around here (Chicago-ish) You're in Minnesota? I'd be even more critical of that area, your winters are even worse than here.
Im gonna run the wheels off of both, the 96/ because it just don't seem to wanna die (and it's 4wd too) the 99, because I paid too much for it, only way I'm gonna get my moneys worth out of it.... 3.9 vs V8? Both are good engines that will give you over 200k miles with reasonable maintenance.... but if you are thinking that the 6 cylinder is bound to be better on MPG? WRONG! or if so, definitely not by enough to make a difference.... but the difference in "*****" when you hit the gas, is huge. Don't get me wrong... the 3.9 will run... and run... and run.... but to me, is underpowered for what it is.
the only "bad" thing I can really say about the 3.9 is that even though it actually shares alot of parts with the v8, including the timing chain/ and even though it is only driving 12 valves vs the V8's 16.... the V6 is a little harder on timing chains because it is what they call an "odd fire" V6. It aint terribly expensive, and once you are down to replacing the water pump you are a mere 4 bolts away from accessing the timing chain... there is a reason they started putting tensioners on the V6 and not the V8s.....

 

Thanks for the tips especially on the frame rusting out.
For what it's worth I am 57 and was a Ford man up until I purchased the 94 GMC Safari I presently drive 20+ years ago. It's been a great vehicle nearly 355K miles on it, 250k are mine, have not had to do major repairs on the engine or transmission. The main thing wrong with it now is it is rotting away.
I bought the 97 Ram regular cab short box 4wd (my first Chrysler product)a year ago with the intention of using it to replace the van but the Ram is in very nice shape and hated to drive it on salty roads so I parked it for the winter and am looking for a different vehicle to replace the van.
Full size regular cab short box trucks are a little scarce and tend to be higher priced (GM 88-98 command a high price) than a Dakota and a Dakota will fit my garage better than a full size truck. If I could find an S10 with a throttle body injected 4.3 I would consider that. Ford Ranger, if I found one with a 4.0 for the right price maybe, heard bad things about the 3.0 used in the Ranger.
My concern with the 44RE other than previously stated is I found other sites especially Jeep sites where people complain bitterly about that transmission. Maybe it has to do with how they are used.

 

Watch out for worn ball joints and sticking brake calipers. Bring along a code reader and scan for any codes the owner may have just cleared for the sale. Glazed dipstick is a sign of neglect.

The 5.2 is a reliable engine. I haven't heard great things about the tranny. For the dramatic improvement in brake design alone, I'd look for an 03' to 04' Dak. You'll long for rear discs and double piston front calipers sliding on replaceable hardware.

You'll hear folks who've never owned a 4.7 bash it, but with basic maintenance, they are actually solid engines. The 545RFE on the later trucks has been a rock solid transmission. You'll get a bit more horsepower, torque and fuel efficiency with a 4.7L. It was actually the replacement for the 5.2 and 5.9L. I don't like fussing with wires, caps & rotors. COP design is more reliable IMHO. I'm currently at 320K mi on the original drive-train with no rebuilds, original timing chains etc. Biggest thing I ever did to the engine was pull off the valve covers and replace the lifters last year. I could step into my truck right now and drive a thousand miles and back without batting an eye or adding a drop of oil.

 

Thanks for the input. Appreciate your opinions on the 4.7. I'm curious what was the symptom that led you to replace the lifters?

Wasn't aware of the brake improvement for '03 and '04 so thanks for that. Price and condition will be the basis on what I purchase.

Good for you at reaching 320K without major issues. I think we would both agree that maintenance is at least as important as design. My Safari with almost 355K uses 1 qt of oil between changes (5000mi). Also changed that transmission oil every 40K and used Mobil 1 for it. Engine and transmission are fine, its the body that is falling apart.

 

They are hydraulic lifters and one eventually froze up, which kicked out the rocker. The symptom is the diesel-like clatter upon cold start, which quiets down when the lifter primes with oil. I ran it that way for many years, finally bought the parts, then it happened before I did the job. LOL. Yes, with decent maintenance you can get anything to last. I run full syn and change the oil every 7.5K. Some people think that's too much but full syn goes that distance easily and it's a dark honey by the time I drain. I installed an aftermarket drain plug and perform a single drain and fill of the tranny every 25K.

 

Looked at the truck, price fine for what it was ($5500) but decided not to buy. Not as good in person as it looked in pictures, rust bubbles in rockers, damaged paint etc. Oddly it felt doggy compared to my 1500. Maybe it felt slower because the exhaust is loud on the 1500. The truck has been sold so it was worth the asking price to someone else.
Thanks for the input. Going to keep looking, My van still runs!!

 

FWIW, I just bought a 2004 quad cab AWD 4.7L with 210k, original drivetrain, runs great with plenty of power.