Yeah, that's also a concern. I've heard that Toyota was the name to beat around the time of those models. That they put a tonne of money into design, but that they've eased up on on their design budget and that their products in general aren't as drastically better than their competitors.

 

Thanks. I'd be buying used and I've heard that if resale value isn't an issue then a used Dakota may be the best idea. I may bite the bullet and pay to have my broken 2004 fixed. I bought it in 2009 for 8k and now it needs like 6-7k of work. My plan is to hit the oil rigs again until I am debt free and have 10k of savings for a used truck. I don't know if I'll be able to find a Tacoma for less than 10k.

I don't know anything about suspensions but I know that my 04 looks to be the same height and tire size as yours. Did you have your suspension raised? Was it expensive?

 

They also "torture" tested the 2006 Toyota Hilux double cab 3.0l diesel in 2007. Drove the thing to the north pole. Sure they slightly modified it, but one hell of a truck. The new version will set you back $84,000 plus cost to have it shipped from the UK.

 

I'll have to check between the couch cushions for that kind of cash.

 

I torture test my dak everyday, granted I turned my 4x4 into a racing payment pounder but the abuse I put it through, that taco would have blown up by now, These are rugged *** trucks and granted have ****ty frt end parts, but easly can be switched out, as for both trucks, the only big concern is the cancer to the body, as usual the body falls apart and starts to look ****ty, If it came down to getting rid of my dak, I would buy the same truck and do what to it I did my first dak, and if there was one I couldn't find, I would go after a 5.3 chevy coloarado and never an import

 

The reality is just get what works best for you. I don't think you can necessarily go wrong with either if you treat them right. With that out of the way here is my history.

I've been through five Dakota's since 1992. All V8 models, 2wd. A 92RC, 2000CC, 2003RC, 2005QC and now a 2011QC. 318 in the 92 model, all others had the 4.7.

My brother on the other hand has been through a similar number of Tacoma or Tundra models in the past 10+ years. Our experiences vary.

With the exception of the transmission solenoid pack on my 2011 that went out around Christmas I've had *******ly no failures on any of them. The 2000 model had 240k on in and I recall only changing a radiator at 220k and an alternator at 230k. Otherwise they've all had normal maintenance. Brakes, tires, oil changes, washes and alignments.

Now on to my brothers trucks (Taco/Tundra). We've discussed this and he'll agree that his trucks are in the shop more often than he would expect and for items we would think should last longer. O2 sensors in his current Tacoma at 44k miles, major trans failure in the Tundra at 90k miles, axle bearing in Tundra at 120k miles, power steering pump in Tacoma at 65k miles and other bits. About every six months something trivial breaks on one of them. Even his brakes last about 1/2 as long as mine.

Now we both tow quite a bit and use the trucks for actual work. Not soccer mom practice or as a daily commuter. It just seems they don't hold up as well when actually loaded up and used on a daily basis.

 

The old Toyotas were the thing to beat, I agree. The newer ones (not just trucks, but Toyotas in general) seem to have more recalls than any other brand now-a-days, and they still expect you to pay for their "high quality" and supposed brand reliability. I don't think they are any better than any of the other top brands.

Go with what you like. I like the little larger Dakota, and I am 6'3", so I am in the same boat as you. The Dakota is almost too short for me, the Toyotas are worse. I recently had an uncle that went through the "rust hole in the frame" deal with slightly older Toyota Tacomas, where they offered you 150% trade-in value if they found the problem. He test drove the new Tacoma and the Nissan Frontier (he wanted to buy new), and said the Frontier is an overall better truck. He's had it for a while now and loves it still.

Towing/hauling will be much better served with the 4.7L V8 in a Dakota.

On a side note... have you seen the 2015 Colorado? I am not a Chevrolet fan, and not sure I like the new interior, but I really like what they did with the exterior.

 

If you need a truck, don't get a jeep. The jeep will do better than most anything off road, though. The Tacoma is little better quality, better aftermarket, better off road than dakota. Dakota is a better work/tow truck, the stuff that matters is bullet proof, and its cheap. I personally would consider a 5.3 Colorado also: 300hp and affordable lift options, but pretty small. For me, I like the dak because it is a great starting point. Just the right size and a solid frame and drivetrain (if equipped correctly: 9" corporate rear + LSD and a 6mt with 4wd) I will not let go of the dak because of the hemi option. I think I could make a long arm hemi dak on 34s that would out perform most anything for the money and still be a civil four dour. (with 350hp and a 6mt!)

 

I've never owned a Tacoma, but I owned a Jeep TJ for a few years and loved almost everything about it, except for the loud, rough ride, and the fact that there was no room to put anything in it.

The drivetrain (4.0, AX-15, Dana 44) was 100% trouble-free and mine had no rust (because I live in California).

Driving around in the summer with the top and doors off was the best part about having a Jeep. Now, I have a Blazer with no top or doors, but it's just not the same.

 

I've owned a 98 Dakota Club Cab 4x4, owned a 2000 Quad Cab Ram 4x4, owned a 2002 Durango, leased a 2001 Quad Cab Ram, leased 2004 Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 and currently own a 2006 Dakota Quad Cab. I've also leased a 2007 Tundra Quad Cab too.

What specifically makes you want a Dakota or a Tacoma over a Ram or Tundra? I ask because brand new the Dakota and Ram are at almost identical price points and the same for the Tacoma and Tundra. I'll bet that the Ram and Dakota are still at nearly the same price point in the used market and the same with a Tundra or Tacoma.

I'd say one of the biggest reasons for a new(er) truck is that the fuel economy has shot up but you're not in the market for a new truck so that point aside, the trucks are all fairly equal.

I considered a Tacoma before I bought my latest Dakota but I didn't "fit" the Tacoma well at all. I'm 6ft and things were a cramped for me, both for me and my passengers. I love the look of the Tacoma but I bought a Dakota because of my past experience with them.

The full size trucks can easily take size out of the picture if that is a concern for you but the Dakota is plenty big inside to fit four adults comfortably. I do frequently haul a 5th adult in a car pool which I couldn't dream of doing in a Tacoma.

Looking back I could have just as easily bought a Ram or Tundra instead but at the time I had it in my mind that I wanted a mid-sized truck and the Dakota was pretty much the only thing that fit what I was looking for.

Being that you're shopping the used market, the unknown is what is really going to bite you more than anything. If the previous owner(s) of the vehicle you end up buying didn't maintain it well OR were hard on it will make all of the difference. I'm sure you already know that and it isn't meant to persuade you from buying a used vehicle.

Overall, the two trucks are fairly comparable, in the end how much truck you need or how much truck you get for the money will probably end up making the decision for you.