Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Dodge Dakota Auto Tranny Problems

12346

Comments

  • newquadnewquad Posts: 33
    I got an extended warranty 72 mo/100,000 for $575 through my credit union when I financed it. Has a $100 deductible and covers most everything. I've had great success with this warranty when I had my other vehicles, and it's at a price that can't be beat.
  • carls5carls5 Posts: 62
    Susan, Thanks for the post. I never even thought of getting an extended warranty through the CU. After seen your post I called mine and found out I can get 72 mo/100K for $655. A little more than yours but everything is expensive in Calif.

    Carl
  • Those rates sound good and might be better in the long run than my $1,300 Warranty Gold one, but mine is zero deductible. I think I'd take your lower rate and chance it, but the only car I've ever used it on was that Sterling and I would have been miles ahead with zero, had a $50 deductible then.
    I wish you could have heard the klunk (clunk?) today when it downshifted from 3rd to 2nd after slowing to about 20, then accelerating when light changed before I got there. I've had this several times, but today's was a beauty. The Dodge Boys just say it will happen on occasion. Couple weeks ago it did it with one of my friends with me, he was ready to dive out of the explosion he was sure was coming!!
    Extended warranty anyone??
    By the way, got 17.8 on 150 mile trip today, 4.7, auto, 4x4, tonneau, etc. That was super, it only gets 15 with 1/2 & 1/2.
    Be careful out there
  • stvdmanstvdman Posts: 62
    The $825 warranty 6yr/100k miles, i bought has a Zero $ deductible, It would have a $50 one if It was a used car when I bought it. I will post the name of the company when I dig out the paperwork. Doing some remodeling around here so its a bit of a mess.
  • grokggrokg Posts: 9
    Here is a site worth checking out. The rates may not be as good as a CU but I think it's worth looking into.

    www.geautowarranty.com/autowarranty/
  • newquadnewquad Posts: 33
    Carl,
    Glad to help on the CU extended warranty. BTW, I'm in CA too!!!!
    Susan
  • cmickcmick Posts: 4
    Tuck,
    I've had my '00 dakota about a month and I have the same problem you do. 3rd to 2nd is the worst but I also have a less noticable klunk going 2nd to 3rd. I noticed it right away but was also assured that it was normal. Now I have an April 4 appointment to get it checked. Just thought I'd let you know that your truck isn't the only one with this problem. Let me know how yours works out.
  • towcrazy2towcrazy2 Posts: 337
    Just ordered a Dakota Quad with the 5.9 and standard rear axle... Stepping down to a more "garagable" pickup than my current '95 Ram 1500. The Ram handled a 14-ft. enclosed trailer with payload (approx. 5,500 lbs) through the mountains with a bit of effort on the long climbs. I balked at the 4.7L and went with what I trusted in the Dakota (300 lbs lighter than the Ram). Am I looking at tranny problems, or will I experience the same good luck I had with the Ram under such conditions?
  • rwellbaum2rwellbaum2 Posts: 1,006
    Buy a Toyota Tundra. Stop rewarding companies who build crappy trucks with your money! Does anyone care about quality anymore, or are they just interested in the most cupholders?
  • themacguythemacguy Posts: 417
    But it's so nice of you to drop by. Wondered when the 'Tundraheads' would stop in to gloat. Only thing your truck has that ours doesn't is an award for 'Truck of the Year' - from an 'auto' magazine (and a boat load of attitudes like yours). Gee, I guess (at least) TWO 'Truck of the Year' awards for the Dakota Quad from TRUCK magazines just doesn't count... Oh well, most of us here aren't Dodge people anyway - they just won us over with a bunch of 'cupholders.' So I guess you guys have finally realized that the Tundra isn't a full size truck anyway, and now you've decided to 'compete' on the net against the midsized Dakotas. Well, bully for you, but I can pretty much guarantee your sales figures won't equal the Dakota's. Ever.

    More than a few of us looked hard at - and nearly bought - the Tundra. I just figured I'd save the $5k difference and get a REAL backseat with four REAL doors, and not have to use a step ladder to reach over the side every time I wanted something from the bed. And I just couldn't figure out whether I was seeing a Tundra or an F-150 when either one drives by (yawn). Yeah, you've got some braggin rights, and that attitude - and that my friend SPECIFICALLY turns me off cold. So how about you go just go back and play with your 'Toys.' And we'll just work our Dakotas for two or three hundred thousand miles - just like my other 'crappy truck': 1985 D-150 with it's little dinky 318 cid engine. Which pulled a 10,000# bulldozer for about half of those miles - try that with your 'fullsize Permafrost.' Oh, my extra expenses: it needed one wheel and an electric window regulator replaced as its TOTAL non-normal maintenance. So you better believe I damn well 'reward' quality.

    I like the Tundra - and have said so on many occasions. And I don't go off-topic knocking it. In fact I've talked a couple of people INTO buying one. I VERY nearly bought one myself. But didn't for the above reasons - doesn't mean the Tundra's anything but a great product. For sure it's not quite a fullsize truck in the same vane as the big three's products - almost but not quite. Like the fact that it has four doors - but not 'quite.' --So the Tundra's real and it's quiet; it's just not quite (a four door) real (full-sized).-- Sooo, what is it? Besides its being another great truck, which it is; just exactly why didn't they give it four REAL doors? It had as much lead time as the Dakota and the little Nissan - and both of the new Fords (SuperCrew & Sport-trac). Then why? And why didn't they give it an optional engine with some REAL hp & torque for doing full-sized truck WORK. Answer? I guess Toyota, in its infinite wisdom, decided to 'reward' (us) buyers with what it felt we needed. Maybe a little bit at a time. :-O

    Pretty much as a rule, in the Dakota Quad topics we engage our brains before we type our words. I believe that there is a much more significant difference here than in the trucks. So go back to Toyland, we're just fine over here... but thanks.

    As for rewarding Dodge, or whoever: I'm the one that smiles every time I pass a Tundra, and get my 'rewards' from the $5k I saved and invested in a few oil & gas wells - which will fully pay for the Dakota. Oh, and about the quality issue, the Dakota won't ever 'bite me' - but you can. :-P
  • andy_jordanandy_jordan Posts: 765
    rwellbaum2 - it can't be him, because I distinctly remember him telling me (on many occasions) how he avoided any non-Toyota topics.
  • jimbuckjimbuck Posts: 16
    got the truck back on Friday. Seems that they had to call Chrysler and get the answer. Some trucks have a pinched trans vent toube that causes fluid to pool on the intake and onto the exhaust. Chrysler knew right away about the problem. Went on a trip this weekend and will check tonight to see if there is more fluid.

    Getting the bed aligned on Thursday - have to got to a body shop for the work.

    Jim Buckingham
  • sadie2sadie2 Posts: 3
    I have been experiencing a "bucking" in my '99
    Dakota V8 especially between 55-60 mph and when
    going up any type of incline at any speed. Seems
    like the truck doesn't know what gear it is
    supposed to be in or the timing is off. I took it
    to the Dealer, they said there is TSB 18-48-98 out
    on this. They rerouted the Spark plug wires per the bulletin to eliminate drivability concerns
    including surge in 4th gear and torque converter
    engagement. I cannot seem to get a copy of this
    TSB. It seems to have corrected the problem but once and awhile I still feel the jerking of the transmission.
    Anybody else have similar problems?
  • towcrazy2towcrazy2 Posts: 337
    Regarding the posts on Tundra vs. the domestics... I had occasion to do some service training on Tundra last summer in Torrence, CA. It's a very nice truck, and I would have selcted one had it not been for the fact that it simply didn't have the towing capacity I needed in a mid-size truck. For work applications, the Tundra is passable as a "mid-size" for most owners, but woefully lacking as a "full-size" for most as well. Look at the GCWR numbers, and you'll probably see that Tundra is still a "wanna-be" as a full-size, though it's a wonderful vehicle for most recreational purposes!
  • andy_jordanandy_jordan Posts: 765
    It is unfortunate, but had to happen.

    Despite the fact that we have all been minding our own business we have become the victims of some of the very defensive Tundra owners who take a lot of abuse from owners of full size trucks from the 'big three'.

    Personally I cannot understand the attention as Tundra owners maintain that their truck is full size - so why would they care about the less than full size Dakota?

    I agree that Tundra is a nice truck, the problem it has, if any, is establishing its place in the market - it really fits between Dakota and full-size but has not been packaged and promoted that way.
  • themacguythemacguy Posts: 417
    If it turns out that someone 'stepped on' rwellbaum2, I'll certainly be the first to apologize to him (& scribble my post / response). I got hammered a while back (as you know since YOU defended me - I never did see any of the 'flame' posts though). I guess we all get tired of people dumping in our cornflakes, and since I've been 'defending' the oil business lately (a LOT more than usual), my fuse has been pretty much burned down to the nub.

    But I know these things happen (in rwellbaum2's defense); a couple of months ago someone used my office machine after I left it on - it didn't auto log-off (cleaning crew or?) - and wrote some nasty e:mail to everyone on my mail list. I got some pretty graphic responses from people I've known a long time. :'-( I had to explain, but got a break since I'm known as a 'prettee fare spellur.' Whoever wrote the e:mail was really terrible with their spelling. It probably saved a few hassles - & bunch of relationships. :-)
  • bkoz2000bkoz2000 Posts: 2
    I have a 99 Dakota (4.7 v8)with 15k miles. the major problem is after driving for about an hour the transmission kicks out of overdrive and starts heating up and sucking up gas. Has anyone else had this problem. Have taken it to three different dealers and no one finds anything wrong with it. the transfer case had to be replaced after only two months and other miscellaneous items. Tried of problems. Please respond if you have had a similar problem
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Posts: 4,085
    (bkoz2000) The xmission with the 4.7Lv8 is a new design for DC. I believe one of the 'features' of this xmission is that it is DESIGNED to kick out of OD if it gets too hot. People that tow with it recommend to 'lock out' OD while towing to reduce overheating. I assume you are NOT towing when you experience the unexpected kickdown.

    There has been some complaints about this xmission both on the 2000 Dak as well as in the 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee where this engine/transmission was first available.

    On the bright side... the 4.7L OHV semi-hemi V8 has seen nothing but praise and awards! (That's is one reason I bought the 5SP manual xmission 8-)
  • hennehenne Posts: 407
    the 4.7 wasnt available in 1999 in anything exept the jeep grand cherokee, i think you actually have the 5.2 or 5.9 and they have the same tranny, and they do have problems like you have stated, look in http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/
    and look under TSB for your problem.

    good luck,

    robert
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Posts: 4,085
    GOOD CATCH.... I did not see the unprobable match-up. I must be loosing my eye...
    (1999 4.7L Dakota... was NEVER available!)

    (bkoz2000) Which is it? ...is you Dak a 1999 -or- do you have a 2000 with the optional 4.7L V8?

    If you do NOT have the 4.7L, then you have the (old-style) xmission. (Which has a history of problems too.) One repeated 'fix' on these xmissions is to make SURE that ONLY CHRYSLER automatic xmission fluid is used. Any others, such as DEXTRON or ATF, will cause problems. (Somthing to do with physical properties of the fluid.)

    BTW...
    The BEST automatic xmissin in the world is the ALLISON AUTOMATIC as used in tractor-trailers. ALLISON is a division of General Motors and that is why their pickup trucks have the ALLISION AUTOMATIC available.
  • bkoz2000bkoz2000 Posts: 2
    You guys were right. its a 5.2 v8 with a 336 rear
    I looked in nhtsa.dot.gov but did not find any reported problems like i am having. Things that have already been fixed were out there, but not the overdrive problem.
  • pomycpomyc Posts: 28
    My Dakota is the first Chrysler product that I have owned. I read in your post above (#173) that the "other" transmissions required use of Chrysler tranny fluid when servicing. Have you heard if the new multispeed is more compatible with after-market fluids? Upon servicing, I would like to use a synthetic in my multispeed.
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Posts: 4,085
    (pomyc)
    Just to clarify... the 'old' style of Dodge automatics have been known to encounter clutch chatter when DEXTRON was used. Changing back to the Mopar ATF Plus 3 (type 7176) corrected the problems. I assume the 'chatter' could cause heat-buildup.

    The 45RFE that you inquire about is too new to have been 'experimented with' to any great degree.
    What results are you expecting to obtain by using an unspecified fluid? Keep in mind that ATF is used for friction enhancment, hydrolic fluid, cooling and torque transfer as well as lubrication. Many of the tolerances and pressures that the xmission operates at are DESIGNED around specific fluid characteristics.
  • themacguythemacguy Posts: 417
    And these trannies are tested for 100's of 1000's of miles (or more) at places such as test tracks (proving grounds), US 'travel 'loops' and other various 'torture benches.' These characteristics need matching fluids - just like most motorcycles with oil that also lubes the driveshaft or the wet clutch fluids in racing karts. My choice is to STRICTLY use the manufacturer's tranny fluid recommendations until (way) down the road a group of D/C type engineers tell me it's better (not just safe) to use synthetics or competing fluids. This is a NEW tranny - let's keep em running better than the older designs that (not my 1985 Prospector - it's perfect) have proved somewhat problematic for Chrysler.

    The 4.7 and other newer design engines are a somewhat different issue - synthetics are fine (even been told that by Chrysler) as long as you match the API codes on the bottle labels for warranty stuff.

    But trannies are still 'fluid specific.'
  • andy_jordanandy_jordan Posts: 765
    Got to agree - tranny fluid isn't quite like using one engine oil over another - the different fluids really can have a significant impact.

    Generally speaking the higher the fluids ability to lubricate the smoother shifting the transmission will be, but this will shorten the life of the transmission if the manufacturer didn't design it that way - compare it to what happens if you take 5 seconds to lift the clutch all the way in a standard as opposed to 1 second - smoother shift, greater clutch wear.
  • cyberdad2cyberdad2 Posts: 13
    Hi everyone -

    I never thought that I would join an online discussion group, but after hanging around you guys the last few weeks (you didn't know I was watching, did you?) I'm really impressed with everyones enthusiasm for trucks and ability to articulate opinions in such constructive ways!

    Does it appear to anyone that there are carryover problems in the 4.7 V8 engine/transmission from the Jeep Grand Cherokee, or are the problems that people have been describing unique to the Y2K Quad Dakota? If so, is this carryover of problems the reason that Consumer Reports rated the Dakota so low for predicted reliability (even though the last three years of reliability data was above average)?

    Thanks for letting me participate! I hope that my newbie questions won't bore the truck savvy crowd.

    New Dad, First Truck Hopefull
  • hennehenne Posts: 407
    dad, the jeeps probs are with the rear end and select/quadtrac drivetrain portion, the 4.7 and multispeed tranny and not the problem area, although alot of people think it is, it in fact is not. as far as consumer reports goes, i dont take what they say 99% of the time, i have owned lots of autos they say are dogs, and in fact they were great, ive owned autos that they said were great and they were dogs. find what you want, and do what your doing now, talk with the people that use it. i have the 4.7 and multispeed and its the greatest. i have had multiple dodges and all great experiences.

    good luck dad,

    robert
  • andy_jordanandy_jordan Posts: 765
    I will try and answer your questions - and I'll be gentle with you, I promise.

    Now - Consumer Reports, what can I say - I know - have a look at various topics that mention consumer reports in their titles - basically people have varied opinions on the worth of that particular publication. You can make your mind up - to be perfectly honest I don't want to deal with posts from people like those in the topics I refer to - read them and you will see what I mean.

    Now 4.7 engine - well there are very few problems with the engine, I am not sure whether the transmission is the same in Dakota as Grand Cherokee, someone else can assist.

    I would caution anyone to take with a pinch of salt reports of transmission problems in SUVs or trucks - of any brand. Often automatic trannys are damaged by improper towing practices, particularly towing in O/D. Dodge has had bad trannys in the past, there are always bad examples of anything, but I believe that people are looking for problems in Dodge trannys because they had a bad reputation in the past - the same kind of logic that would be the kiss of death to any car with the word Yugo on it, even if it was made by Honda.
  • stvdmanstvdman Posts: 62
    Like previously stated the Jeep problems werent centered around the 4.7 and new multispeed tranny. Their problem with the Dakota probably stems from the fact that they look at the whole line of the Dakota, the v-6, the 360 V-8 and the 4.7. The other two engines also come with different trannies, and thats what the problem seems to be. I go on but lunch is calling.
  • pomycpomyc Posts: 28
    It looks like I will use the OEM transmission fluid for my multispeed. I was trying to extend my maintenance intervals out a bit from the 12K miles suggested in the owners manual. Living in a condo it's not easy finding the proper facilities to do my own MX so the longer between intervals the better for me thus the reason I was asking about synthetic. I guess I could take my truck to the dealership but I do enjoy working on my vehicle plus I know the job will get done right and at a much lower cost!!! Your points are well taken about the properties of the various ATF fluids. I used synthetic in my GMC auto (4L60E) tranny without any problem and didn't give it a second thought on my Dakota. Looks like I will need to.
Sign In or Register to comment.