| From | Message |
Paul
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/18/2004
18:48:03
|
 Subject: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok, I'm looking for a used smaller truck, about 01 and newer, trying to narrow it down. Toyota Tacoma is too pricey, I like the superchared Nissan Frontier but gas mileage isnt great,its a small cabin, resale value is strong though. The V8 Dakota caught my eye, roomy, powerful, but the reliability problems worry me. Is this a concern or myth for a domestic truck? Resales values on Toyota and Nissan are higher for a reason right? Are they reliable? I have a pos 94 ford ranger at the moment, never again.
Anyway, I want a quad cab, 4x4 isnt important as its just for the road, or is the 4x4 still important for the V8?
Did they make a R/T quad cab v8?
The 4.7 V8 as good as the 5.9 V8?
What model Dakota is the top of the range that is loaded and I should be looking out for if I go for the Dakota. Any help is appreciated.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
 
2/18/2004
19:06:41
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
My friend has a 2000 Frontier Desert Runner (They are 2WD) and he loves the thing.
To me. It's way to small. But I have a wife and kids while he is single so I have a QC (4 door).
Also his is pretty basic. I got my 2003 Dakota with pretty much all of the extras including the tow package and 4WD not too mention the V8 has way more power than his.
Towing my entire family with a trailer full of Quads my little 4.7 V8 kicks butt. Not too mention the 4WD came in handy pulling the trailer in the sand this last weekend.
I guess each one of them have strong points and weak points. Nissan's and Toyota's never had much power at all in the past. That could be why they lasted so long. Especially the old Toyota 22R. It lasted a few hundred thousand miles but would only go fast if it was dropped from a plane or going down a very steep hill :-P
|
00R/T CC
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/18/2004
19:57:26
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
No R/T QC made. R/T only made until/avail. (as is 5.9L) up to 2003. 4.7 vs 5.9 is close call, if you plan on mods then 5.9L is def. better, and more torque to begin with. Frankly the Nissan is a bit homely, as is the Tacoma, but that's just me...
|
eddy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/18/2004
20:05:18
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
If you dont like the mileage the frontier gets you DEFINITELY dont need to be in a Dakota.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/18/2004
20:18:06
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't want to sound like I'm promoting RICERS, but the Toyota has the best reliability. Also, while the Tacoma is tight, you can get a 4dr in the thing. Also, If you get the V6 Tacoma, you can opt for the dealer installed TRD S/C. Get the 5spd V6 with the TRD Super Charger and you have the SLEEPER from hell. Best of all, it all comes with a factory waranty. If anything goes wrong with the S/C or anything related to it, you can take it back under warranty and they will fix it. Put a S/C on a Dodge and they will still warranty the engine/drive-train as long as they can't prove that your modifications didn't cause the problem.
Don't get me wrong, I am loyal to AMERICAN brand names. I did however try to talk my mother into the Toyota with the TRD SC package. She got the damn Nissan instead.
|
Owain
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/18/2004
20:29:39
|  RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
My friend bought a Nissan Frontier.He has the regular V6 After driving it I realized that it is way underpowered. He actually wanted a quab cab Dak bought it was out of his $ range. My 97 x-cab 4wd Dak with the 5.2 is twice the truck. I don't believe that the Nissan is truly comparable with the Tacoma for resale. Toyota is a step above. If I was buying new.. I would go with the Tacoma. I love the Dak
(except the ball joints, front brakes and 12 mpg)
It is like loving your drunk uncle, you know that he will only cause disappointment but you love him anyways.
|
GreenGoblin
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/19/2004
20:13:00
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
It is no myth. The last long-term reliability study of manufacturers in general shows that, out of the trucks you mentioned, the Toyota is the best. Nissan is the next, and the Dakota's reliability is the lowest.
What whiplash said about the Tacoma with a supercharger is true. Toyota will completely warranty any TRD products that they install and will in no way void your factory warranty. The downside is, you're right, they are pricey. The positive side of that is, the resale value is much higher.
The Nissan gives you the second best reliability out of the 3. The problem is that the Frontier isn't very powerful. Even the supercharged Frontier is only 210 hp. My next truck will be a Nissan Titan, but it sounds like that is bigger than what you want, probably more expensive too. Nissan will be releasing a new Frontier for 2005 that has a more powerful v-6 (somewhere around 250 hp).
The Dakota is the least reliable, but is the best looking and the most powerful of the 3. The biggest problems are the ball joints and brakes. Personally, I had to have the transfer case rebuilt at 56k miles. It sounds like they have made progress in the last 2 or 3 years in terms of reliability. If you decide on a Dakota, I wouldn't look for one any older than an '02. In addition, you may be able to get a real good deal on a brand new one, since 2005 brings a major redesign.
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
2/20/2004
00:02:36
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeah. You better go buy one now before you get stuck with a UGLY 2005 LOL!!!!
I think I'll keep my 2003 for a long time unless it gets destroyed somehow.
I too love the power. I couldn't stand a V6 Toyota or Nissan. I gotta have balls and the 4.7 gives Chevy and Forf a good run for their money, if not better. I haven't been losing to them.
|
WipLash
R/T
2/20/2004
00:47:30
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
Well the Tacoma Xcab with a V6 5spd weighs 3300lbs. It has 190hp. That's 17.3lb/hp. The 3.4L V6 can have the factory TRD SC installed for $2,900.00 and it adds 50hp for a total of 240hp. That's 13.75lb/hp. The Lightning is 12lb/hp. They also offer an upgrade for the SC that includes a 7th fuel injector upstream in the incoming air. It acts as an intercooler. It comes with a new PCM for another $1,100.00. Its supposed to add another 25hp if I'm not mistaken for a total of 265hp in a 3300lb truck. That's 12.45 lb/hp. WHY DOESN'T DODGE OFFER ANYTHING LIKE THIS? That's aproaching Lightning territory. The 4dr only weighs 300lbs more. A 4wd 4dr V6 Tacoma weighs 200 lbs less than a Club Cab R/T. So, you not only get a truck that's more reliable, more fuel efficient and faster than the Dakota, but it is as capable off road as it is on road. Of course, if you plan to do a lot of towing the Dodge would be the better choice. By 2005, the Toyota will look better than a 2005 Dakota. Even the Tundra looks better than the 2005 Dakota.
|
No
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/20/2004
02:13:18
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
Me personally...I think the Frontier is a VERY ugly looking truck. It looks as though it's made of plastic. I would be afraid to drive it.
As for the reliabilty of Dodge. I can say That I've owned 3 Chryslers: Chrysler Laser, Eagle Vision, and Dodge Dakota and Have over 350K miles on these cars. (I still own the Eagle and the Dak which are both going strong) And have had no Major issues that caused money out of my pocket. The Laser and The Vision had major recalls (which I never experienced)...but it was fixed at no cost to me so I don't count it. So I would say go with the Dodge!
|
Hammerdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/20/2004
11:54:48
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
I was in the same boat you are .
The back seat of the Frontier is just not suited for passangers over 5'9" or as comfortable over a long trip.
I had a 1993 King Cab and loved it's reliability .
I too was worried about the Dodge QA but fell in love with the looks of the Dakota and the awesome 4.7 V8.
I've got a 2001 quadcab ,4x4,3.55 rearend,automatic with 40,000km and except for the weak/warped brake rotors that got replaced I have not had any problems.
I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
|
deerridge
GenIII
2/20/2004
12:41:23
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
I've got a 2003 4.7 AWL with the 4 wheel disc brakes and they are holding up real well after 32000 miles. I believe the 2003 has better brakes than the previous models. The Dakota is alot more truck than the Tacoma or Frontier. They just want cut it for real work. Not nearly enough tow capacity. The V-8 Dakota should really be compared to the 1500 trucks and the V-6 to the the little guys. For versitility the Dakota beats both.
Real Horsepower
|
oyotaco
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/20/2004
16:03:10
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
i used to have an 01 tacoma and i got rid of it because it was very homely and it was too small. i didnt want a double cab tacoma cause it still looks cheap inside. the Dakota has the largest cab by far, i love my 02 QC. the Nissan is in the same boat as the toyota, its definitely a "mini" truck. also, have you opened the tailgate on a Nissan? i dont know what is in them but they weigh a ton ! go dakota, and beat it till it dies.
|
adam
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/22/2004
11:45:38
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
buy american i would rather see u drive a ford than a ricer
|
eddy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/22/2004
11:59:28
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
For me: Nissan was never an option. EVer sat in one of those? That's not a real crew cab back seat. That's a slightly enlargened extended cab. Not comfy at all on long trips.
The bed on the Tacoma looks like an afterthought. Seems like the engineers had the thing all finished and then only remembered afterward that pickups are supposed to have beds. Then to make matters worse, they gave it that tiny sliding rear window, which I think is supposed to provide the illusion of a bigger bed when you look back from inside. But from the outside it makes the bed look even shallower.
I actually considered the Colorado or CAnyon before they hit the showroom floors because I was thinkin maybe Chevy would drop in the 4800 or 5300 V8 or at minimum the In-Line 6 from the Trailblazer. When I found out what the biggest engine would be it was disqualified.
The Dakota provided the best compromise of all compact pickups between a back seat that could hold people comfortably for long trips and a bed that was still useful. Not to mention what is still to this day class leading power. All for about the same as what I would have paid for V6 or 'In-line 5' competitors.
|
eddy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/22/2004
12:01:13
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
And I forgot... also disliked the Frontier because Nissan because it took supercharging the V6 just to get to the point where it was ALMOST competetive to the bigger V6s from competitors.
|
TECH
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/22/2004
12:20:20
| RE: Dakota v Frontier
IP: Logged
Message:
I work at a BMW dealer, and we share a lot with Nissan. I was interested in buying a new/used truck about a year ago, and test drove what Nissan had to offer. Frankly, I wanted something with some power, so I drove a regular v6 nissan, and a supercharged one as well. Both were dogs, imo. The truck was nice enough, with 4 doors, but not as big as a Dak.
Nissan truck engines, up to now I believe, still use distributors, plug wires, old technology. That equals more maintenance in that respect.
I went with the 4.7 V8 QC DAK, and am happy with it. Coil over plug, no distributor, no plug wires, and way more power. It gets decent highway mileage as well, I've gotten a bit over 20 on the highway. My in-town, stop, wait, then go commute to work in the mornings only nets me about 13mpg though-but that is only a 4 mile trip, sitting at lights most of the time.
Unless you want to hop up a Dak engine, I'd get the 4.7 over the 5.9 anyday. It's a more modern, efficient engine. Better on gas too.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
