Options
Dodge Dakota: Problems & Solutions
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Glad to hear the Magnaflow system works for your needs. However, I'm quite surprised that the customer went back to the factory exhaust due to higher resonance levels of the Gibson. Gibson's single side outlet cat-back is said to be the quietest on the market due to thicker 14 gauge thickness of the muffler and pipes providing very little resonance back into the cab. Perhaps that customer had a dual system which would be a much louder over stock? Actually, I believe the stock factory exhaust is pretty decent as is. But, I guess a certain amount of improvements can be had by relieving more backpressure.
Wish you smooth sailing with the rest of the performance mods.
dataguru
Thanks for your feedback re another alternative for an air intake system. There are some many vendor products available these days one needs to do an evaluation to compare actual gains. Thanks.
dataguru
Ron
For the 4.7, the model number for the Denso Iridium plugs is IK16. They are engine specific and come from the factory pre-gapped.
I bought mine from "www.ltbmotorsports.com" for $10.99 ea. That was the best price I found on the internet. I had them in less than a week with UPS ground shipping.
Glad to help out!
P.S.: Anyone know where I can find a 180-degree t-stat for the 4.7? I'm still searching for one (unless they're not engine specific and I've just been wasting my time).
Unlike previous Dodge engines, this type of cooling system maintains constant coolant flow thru the engine and the thermostat perfoms "double duty".
You may have noticed that the thermostat is mounted LOW on the engine. This is because the thermostat is actually controlling the temperture of the coolant ENTERING the engine. (not leaving the engine as in other designs)
The thermostat has a "2 stage' action. The first 'stage' of the thermostat controls how much coolant is 'bled' thru the bypass. Under extreme conditions, the thermostat BLOCKS OFF the flow thru the bypass and forces ALL flow thru the radiator.
BOTTOM LINE: Use only a thermostat designed for the 4.7L V8 lest you will have serious problems.
Check out the DML website (DakotaMailingList) for the approprate 180degree replacement for the 4.7L V8 engine. The folks over there have what you are looking for. Just search for "thermostat" on the DML website.
Autolite
Double Platinum APP5224 .040
Platinum AP5224 .040
Resistor 5224 .040
Bosch
Platinum +4 4418 Do not Gap
Platinum Part 4230 Gap=.040
Super Plug FR8LCX Gap=.040
Platinum Plug R8LPX Gap=.040
Platinum 2 4301 Do Not Gap
Super Part 756 2 Gap=.040
Champion
Double Platinum RC12PYP #7071 .040
Truck Plug #4071 .040
Platinum Power #3071 .040
Copper+ RC12MCC4 #439 .040
Denso
Iriduim IK16 .044
Double Platinum PKJ16CR-L11 .044
U-groove KJ16CR-L11 .044
NGK
IX Iridium ZFR6FIX-11 (6441) .040
Double Platinum PZFR6F-11 (3271) .040
GP Platinum ZFR6FGP (7100) .040
V-Power ZFR6F-11G (6987) .040
Platinum Laser PZFR5F-11 (4363) .040
Best regards,
Dusty
Did I understand you correctly that you've just started to hear a noise since you changed to synthetic differential lubricant?
Regards,
Dusty
As Bpeebles pointed out, this one is unique among American gas engines.
The thermostat will look very similar to the one's you're use to seeing, except that the body is deeper and the valve pintle extends a long distance from the bottom. As the valve opens, the pintle shaft covers the bypass port that's directly behind the thermostat body.
This design is quite effective. This past winter, my Dakota got warm heat almost instantly. Faster than my Nissan or our Toyota, which are much faster than any other "American" cars I've ever owned.
Regards,
Dusty
According to my 2003 Dakota service manual, the 9.25 limited slip axle fluid capacity is 4.9 PINTS of gear oil, plus 4 oz. of Mopar Limited Slip Additive.
Two and-a-half quarts is way over capacity.
Regards,
Dusty
Yes, two-and-a-half quarts is about right.
Bests,
Dusty
Ride is much better now. Not harsh yet firm. It was interesting getting the fronts in. They can only slide into place one way between the sway bars and axle and steering ect... The tabs on the rear bolts were interesting too. Glad they are there though.
So far I like them a lot. But I was rideing on shot shocks before so...
My originals were shot after about 2 frost-heave seasons.... you have been thru more than that with your original shock absorbers.
Have you tried a dirt road to see how your new absorbers handle up the bumps? It will still ride like a TRUCK, but the handling / braking is better when the tires are ON THE ROAD.
I picked up a set of Bosch 4418's this week. Hopefully it will cool off some so I can put them in this weekend. Just gotta pick up some silly grease. I got every other type, waterproof, general purpose, waterpump, hydrolic.. ect... no silicone.
With new plugs and my just installing a K&N replacement air filter (figure Dodge knew enough when they designed the air box, so left it). I am hopeing to maybe see better MPG but am not too hopeful.
I'm wondering if anyone else has had these pins work loose? Would anyone recommend using the blue Loc-tite to lessen the chances of this happening again? My concern is that the combination of PowerSlots and ceramics might be more than the original "dry" connection was designed for. I "know" that I tightened everything originally, why else would there be about 2 weeks of noise-free operation. Also, during those 2 weeks / 500 miles, I followed their recommended break-in procedures - no power stops. Not that I do those anyway, because it usually denotes poor planning.
Those pins DO NOT have any "loading" on them. They only guide the caliper and allow it to float over the brakepads. All of the loading from using the brakes is directed thru those stainless-steel shims that came with the brake-pads directly into the brake-pad guides.
This 'seperation of duities' for the guide-pins and the brakepad-guides part of the
Full Floating" design of the brakes. The caliper just floats over the pads and apply squeezing pressure. The pads just rub the rotors and put the weight of the vehicle into the pad-guides.
Some thoughts:
*) Make sure that those pins are 'lubricated' with the approprate rubber-grease to allow the caliper to slide back and forth easilly
*) Make sure that each pad can slide easilly on its guides. (Those SS shims have various thickness imprinted on them... use the approprate ones)
PERSONALLY: I use a hand-file to remove rust and smooth the pad-guides. The special hi-temp grease that came with the pads is to be used on these pad-guides.
Why all the above attention to the caliper and pad sliding free?..... Any sticking of the caliper or the pads will result it BRAKE DRAGGING and reduced MPG.
Any 'normal' mechanic does not take the time to scrutinize and verify all of the these deatils. The brakes will stop the vehicle either way..... but may not fully RELEASE if there is binding or sticking in the moving parts.
Bookitty
And more expensive repairs, less payload capability, more preventative maintenance, lower fuel mileage... and on and on. LOL
Here in Vermont, a 2WD pickup truck is worthless. The light weight rear end has virtually no traction in the snow. The resale value is so low that most folks will turn their noses up at a 2WD pickup truck if you try to sell one.
How do I know all this? I purchased a 2WD pickup some years ago. The price was really really low. I thought it was great deal. In the first snow storm, I could not even back out of my driveway. I had to purchase expensive studded snow tires just so it would move in the snow. When I put a sign on it and tried to sell it... folks would stop to look at it and when they realized it was a 2WD they just left.
BOTTOM LINE: Here in vermont. If a truck has 4WD and it runs... it is sellable. THE 4WD SYSTEM DOES NOT DEVALUATE IN VALUE. If it cost an xtra $1000 to purchase 4WD new... then that $1000 stays with the vehicle as long as it runs. (The 4WD system is still worth $1000 after 100K miles)
I liken this to the value of A/C in the southern states. Try to sell a vehicle without A/C in the southern USA... Ill bet that most folks will just turn their noses up at it and leave.
I have news for you...aluminum is here to stay and you'll see more and more of it as automakers search for ways to lower weight in order to meet EPA mileage requirements.
Push rods are fine....many millions of big ole v-8s came from detroit with that very design. Its proven reliable but not so good for high revving.
When the competition is offering up smoother, more responsive, more refined engines, detroit has but one choice.....ante up or get left behind.
Pushrods will be around. Harley has used them in their v twins since day one. But with car makers wanting to get more ooopmf from a given displacement, they will turn to whatever helps them meet that goal...incl. OHC and aluminum!
I went back through many of the posts here and the common thread seems to be complaints about the hi-tech engines rough idle and check engine light problems. I'll keep my lotech motor and spend less time at the shop.
The Dak is a TRUCK, ya don't need hi-reving motors. Give me low end grunt any day of the week. If they ever put a diesel in it people will find out what they've been missing.
I have news for you...aluminum is here to stay and you'll see more and more of it as automakers search for ways to lower weight in order to meet EPA mileage requirements.
Push rods are fine....many millions of big ole v-8s came from detroit with that very design. Its proven reliable but not so good for high revving.
When the competition is offering up smoother, more responsive, more refined engines, detroit has but one choice.....ante up or get left behind.
Pushrods will be around. Harley has used them in their v twins since day one. But with car makers wanting to get more ooopmf from a given displacement, they will turn to whatever helps them meet that goal...incl. OHC and aluminum!
Push rod valve train designs are not necessarily more durable, either. Depending on the design, a push rod system almost always introduces more friction losses, can increase power and flex losses as well as offer other valve train stability problems.
Regards,
Dusty
In the case of the Dakota, the 4x4 option is just over $3000, the RAM over $4200. Looking at used local prices the depreciation factor appears to be slightly more than two-wheel drive versions of the same make and model.
My Dakota with the limited slip differential and the Goodyear Wrangler SR-A on/off road tires has done remarkably well this past winter. In fact, I bought four 70 pound sand bags and only used them for a short time. The added weight did help, I will say. With the ATV loaded in the back my 2-wheel drive Dakota climbed every icy hill in the Southerntier last deer season without a hint of a problem.
Now, I would not want to try to convince anybody that this means that a 2-wheel drive pickup is the equal to a 4x4 in terms of traction. All other things being equal, it is indisputable that any 4x4 will offer a traction advantage, especially when the conditions are at the extreme. The tire & axle combination probably makes my experience above the average for a 2-wheel drive PU.
But neither do I think that a 4x4 is an absolute neccesity for wintery conditions. In fact, I watched a 4x4 pickup truck with all season radials that could not climb the same icy hill that I had traversed all day.
There are few absolutes.
Best regards,
Dusty
I was referring to basic, run of the mill engines.
However, it's enormous weight and descrete push rods is not what made the 426 the greatest engine of all time.
Bests,
Dusty
Bookitty
How I fondly remember dads 66 sports fury, with maroon red paint, black interior, fender skirts, the 383 with a fat and sassy Carter 4 bbl sitting up top, the RV-2 compressor that introduced me to hypothermia in summer! I gazed at his wrecked 66 Barracuda (courtesy of a drunk driver in Indiana circa 1968) it was torquioise blue and it looked magnificient.
I recall Dan Crawleys 10, factory new, still in crate 426 hemis, my first eyeball of that creation, with valve covers as wide as an Indiana cornfield. No amount of money would be able to change from your hands to his and one of those engines from his garage to your car! Might need em someday he'd say! My uncle's 71 Newport, 383 equipped and how it sailed down the highway and yet would simply bury the speedo anytime you wanted to.....the trips to the dog n suds drive in with its am/fm 8 track playing moody blues or Janis Joplin......oh the stories I could tell you about that car!
No, pushrods do not a great engine make, but they're still used with modest success. Yet, we all know that OHC is the way to go in the long run...just look at the 4.7 v-8, truly a marvel of Mopar engineering (too bad Chrysler dropped the ball on the rest of my truck). Its smooth powerful and a gem of a motor. And in beating the 318, it had a tough act to follow.
BTW....I alone make the best meatloaf! Mom is english and just does not make a good one but her beef roasts are to die for!
Actually, Mopar67 and I are far from miles apart. I think that Chrysler deserves far more credit than they ever got. During the 1930s it was Chrysler who advanced the state of American engineering technology, not GM or Ford.
Unfortunately, good engineering by itself does not guarantee success in the market place, especially to a culture that values form over function.
Just think if the 426 was ressurrected today using modern design applications, materials and casting techniques. Reduced weight, overhead cams, and new cylinder head geometery. Well, actually, except for the overhead cam, the new 5.7 IS a modern example of a very efficient cylinder head configuration.
I guess I part with Mopar67 in feeling that negative about the quality of Chrysler-built products today. My 2003 Dakota so far appears to be the best assembled vehicle I've ever owned, even better than our Sentra and Avalon. Long term? We'll see.
Everything I read and know lately seems to indicate that Chrysler is actually doing a pretty good job. Have they made mistakes in the past. Most certainly, yes. But that could be said for just about all auto manufacturers. I worked for GM a number of years ago. I know.
Bests,
Dusty
....first production, road worthy hemi powered v-8
....first alternator
....first electronic voltage regulator
.....first to use full flow spin on oil filters (developed with Purolator)
...first electronic ignition
...first lockup torque converter for automatic trans.
...first use of microfinish process in engine machining...later used by P&W, Curtiss Wright, and ALlison in WW 2 piston aircraft engines.
....Not the first, but biggest user of torsion bar suspension...then and still the finest, lowest weight suspension
....first to include safety rim wheels in standard design, not an option like with other makes.
....don't forget the decades long foray into gas turbine design....came very close to making it to production were it not for emissions.
...speaking of emissions, Chrylser had a system that would have met the first round of EPA regs in the 1970's that did NOT need a catalytic converter
....gave us the torqueflight......the finest automatic made.
...gave us the RV-2 cast iron v-twin A/C compressor, the most solid, durable, and easy to service compressor provided on an automobile.
Even Lee Iacocca admitted that Chrysler had the best engineers around. Usualy, though, they were never given the proper resources to build good products.
Can anyone else add to this? Most of this comes from memory and I am sure Mopar is credited with far more than I can provide here.
I think my bias is fairly obvious; I admit it and am not ashamed to do so. Now perhaps some of you can see how it truly pained me, shook me to the core to go thru two years of headaches with the Dakota. Chrylser vehicles are more than steel stampings and glass and rubber, they embody the essence of automotive design. They have soul.
Ford by contrast has always been 3 or 4 steps behind. Old Henry felt the simpler the better. And it showed.
GM was dominated by non risk takes and bean counters. Harley Earl and Billy Mitchell would not have had a snowball's chance in hell at GM in the 70's and 80's.
Notice how it took a former Chrysler man, bob lutz, to shake GM out of its doldrums. They may once again be a force to be reckoned with.
Where oh where is there a modern day Walter P Chrysler when we need him?
First to isolate the engine from the frame by using rubber motor mounts.
They also were the first to use all steel bodies.
First US manufacturer to use quad headlights
First to use 12 volt electrical systems.
First with power steering.
I seem to recall a Chrysler in the early sixties with a automatic braking system called "SureBrake" Whether that qualifies as a first in ABS, I don't know.
Chrysler did find their turbine research valuable when it came time to developing the M1A1 Abrams tank, which techically qualifies as the first use of a turbine engine in a production vehicle.
What I always like about Chrysler engines were the little things, like the only V8 engine line in America that did not require the removal of the intake manifold to replace a valve lifter.
Regards,
Dusty
Air conditioning and brake components were probably the most troublesome, followed by intake manifold gasket failures, plus a plethera of various little problems mostly caused by marginal supplier quality issues.
You don't say whether this is a V8 or 4-wheel drive. '97 was before the major automatic transmission upgrade, although if your particular specimen has been treated reasonably and the fluid changes were done regularly, it shouldn't be a problem.
The Dakota of any year is actually a sturdy truck, and you'll find that they'll be the last to disintegrate from rust. From a problem standpoint they're much better than an S10, but likely not as good as a Ranger.
Best regards,
Dusty
From 1998 onward, Chrysler began resolving the Dakota component quality issues and by 2001 I'd say that they were equal to or better than the Ford Ranger. In 2002 and 2003 the Dakota received a quality award for best in class.
My 2003 Dakota has, so far, demonstrated impeccable assembly and component quality.
Regards,
Dusty
The 3.9 is a very sturdy motor. It's just 2 cylinders removed from a 318. My son has a '91 with 270,000+ miles and it still runs pretty well.
Best of luck,
Dusty
I wonder what the difference really is when you take into consideration the fact that the OHC 3.7 V6 & 4.7 V8 have 2 camshafts and all that extra timing chain to deal with. More parts to wear out.
The problem appears to be mostly poor quality rotors in those years. Although, I've heard people say that some replacement rotors did no better, there are others that report having better service out of different ones.
They did upgrade the brake system in 2000 or 2001.
Regards,
Dusty
The one area that would be reduced is loaded weight since in a overhead cam system the lobe is working directly upon the valve stem, obviously through some type of follower.
There should be a reduction of casting and component complexity, and any flexing attributed to a push rod as well as instabilities in a rocker arm mounting system would be eliminated.
Bests,
Dusty
You suggest that the rotating mass may not be that much less with the 4.7L V8 due to all of the xtra moving parts (Idler sprocket, 2 more chains, additional cam...etc)
Do not forget that it is the RECIPROCATING MASS that is the killer. Anything that has to come to a stop then accelerate in the opposite direction is FARRR more of a load than any xtra spinning parts.
When we consider the RECIPROCATING mass... the Pushrod engine has a lot more weight to throw around.
Think about this:
Pull all of the RECIPROCATING parts from the valvetrain of the ol 318CI engine that the 4.7L replaces and weigh them on scales. (16 lifters,16 Pushrods, 16 rollerrockers, 16 valves with springs...etc)
Now weigh the RECIPROCATING mass from the 4.7L V8
(16 fulcrums, 16valves with springs) The hydrolic valve lash compensation is NOT part of the RECIPROCATING mass and only part of the fulcrums are reciprocating.
Now take the difference in weight, throw in some physics, and mathematics and you will find that the OHC engine is FAR ahead of the pushrods when it comes to parasitic horsepower losses to run the valvetrain.
Check out this comparison between these 2 engines:
http://www.imajeep.com/2001%20Grand/Engine/4.7%20Write%20Up.htm