Dodge Dakota 3.9l engine

sksbjj

Any of you folks have 3.9l engine in the 2000
Dakota? I just drove one and was very disappointed
in the pickup to pass going about 50mph

moparmad

Thats because there is no such thing as a 3.91 engine.

bookitty

Details, details, details. Keelan you remind me a bit of a friend of my two sons, whose name is Stan Young. He is very well know in the fields of car restoration and moparland. One year my wife and I bought "the definitive encyclopedia for Mopar automobiles" (forget the actual name). Stan came to the house for dinner, we gave him the book, and within two minutes he discovered two errors. We were rolling around on the floor laughing, but Stan was dead serious. That made it even more bizarre. I finally said, "Shut up Stan, and eat your dinner."

Bookitty

moparmad

Excuse me if I notice a blatant mistake and point it out.I assume he drove a 3.9 liter V6.Then he gets in here and says he wasn't impressed with the accleration.Well,no kidding,a 4200 pound truck ain't going to be fast with a 180 horsepower V6,it isn't a compact afterall.This is not a detail,details are minor,this is major,Norman.
As far as pointing out mistakes,I guess I can't see your point there.Maybe the world would be better if all mistakes were totally ignored,and anything anyone said was taken as fact.
So in order to make the peace I will comply with the wishes of Norman.The Dakota is a dog and is very slow,especially that 3.91 engine.I don't know why anyone would want to be seen in one they are ugly and outdated.Maybe if Dodge would develop a 3.23 or a 3.55 engine for them they would be good.Or maybe someone should just stick to thier Honda's.
Finally,Norman,my friends call me by my name,and you could too,if you weren't so quick to throw the personal insults,so you may call me Mr. Croston;or Moparmad if you prefer.

bookitty

If I insulted you, believe me it was unintentional. There is a great and admirable talent exhibited in knowing a great deal about any particular subject. It was intended to be a humorous response. Sorry if you thought I was insulting you.

Bookitty

knkresort

Gentlemen,

This forum is for those who are interested information about Dodge Dakotas. Insults are best left for the Ford or Chevy forums. Read some of their posts for what an insult is really suppose to be. I interpreted Bookitty's response to be something along the line of "lighten up, this isn't suppose to be school." By the way, if we want to through insults around, moparmad, we could start with your grammar and punctuation. :-)

mictro

knkresort-

Or we could comment on your spelling...

sksbjj

For nothin'. By the way, my 2.5 liter 4 cyl (is this correct?) Honda can out perform any 6 cyl. Dodge, car or truck, even with the 155 thousand miles it has on it. Unfortunately,the one and letter L (lowercase) look the same with the font this site uses. So MOPARMAD, you anal retentiveness could have been put to better use elsewhere.

knkresort

See what I mean. No one is perfect and we should all have fun. sksbjj needs to relax, moparmad should take a prozac (sp) and we all could use a beer!.

KnK

themacguy

I'll drink to that!

In fact I'll buy!

;-)```

moparmad

I apologize,I was out of line.Everyone here jumped on me like a rat on a Chee-toh.I guess I just get a little annoyed at times with people who post only to try and cut a vehicle down and really have little information about that vehicle.
As far as the ridiculous claims of 2.5L Honda outporforming any V6 Mopar I won't even bother replying,because I would be wrong no matter what I said,that Honda must be really fast to outperform a 300M.
I have driven 3.9L Dakota's none were terribly quick,but then they aren't meant to be,and saying you were disappointed in there performance would be akin to saying I bought a Dodge Viper and I was disappointed with it's performance in three feet of snow.
I originally thought he drove a V8 with 3.91 gears and thought it was a 3.91 engine,an honest mistake on both our parts and I will apologize.

chadc777

If one looks at the original post, SKSBJJ did specify 3.9l and not 3.91 as moparmad replied in the second post. Yes, a lowercase L (l) does look a little like a one (1) but there is a difference, at least in the font on my PC. It would be more readable, though, if people use an uppercase L to represent Liter, rather than a lowercase l. But then again, since so many people do it, we should be used to seeing it lowercase.

A little annoying, but no big deal.
Not nearly as annoying as people posting the EXACT same post in 4 different Dakota threads. Guys/gals, those interested in Dakotas read all the Dakota threads. We will see your post. No need to repeat it in all of the Dakota threads so we have to re-read it several times. Thanks, Chad

themacguy

cc- What was that? what was that? what .....
just kidding. ;-P

sksbjj - Somewhere in the Dakota threads of about a month or so ago I noticed a Post from someone - seemed 'youthful' to me - expressing his exuberance over the 3.9(l)'s engine power. I believe he mentioned passing, mountain driving, etc. --Anyone catch that Post?-- You might try to find it and ask him directly. Here in W. Texas the sales leader for the Quad IS the V-6 model.

moparmad - I'm also 'impressed' by that 2.5 4 cyl Honda hotrod. I DO have a 2.5 6 cyl (Legend) that I would put up against a 300M though... come to think of it I've got a 1.0 4 cyl Honda that might work - it's in a 79 Gold Wing out in the barn. %-))

bullfrog41434

For all you unfaithfull Dodge 3.9Ltr engine fans, I have a bit of info for you...
The 3.9ltr engine in a 2wd Ext. Cab W/ Auto 4 speed will Walk the dog on a 4cyl Honda Civic & Accord, While burning the pants off a Chevy Z-71 at top-end. For better terms the Z-71 cuts off at 100 While the 3.9 is governed at 3000rpms in 4th gear which on a auto rounds to about 110-115mph, and if you have a manual tranny to top out at about 120-125mph so regardless of what you nonbeleivers think the 3.9 is one compact truck tostin', compact car rostin piece of mopar power!!!!!!!

sksbjj

My problem with the 3.9 6 cyl was that on a highway doing about 55 I had the pedal to the floor to see what it had. I would be using it to commute about 45 miles one way 5 days a week so this is important. I'm not looking for a corvette, just reasonable performance. I know, it's a truck not a Lincoln Town car, but I was amazed at the fact that the engine did not respond at all. Nothing, no acceleration at all. I was really surprised and disappointed because I love the truck, inside and out, and the lack of performance would cause me to consider the Nissan Frontier instead. Those new 4 door jobs would fit my needs perfectly. I have 4 kids so I need a back seat but I want a truck to haul my own fire wood among other things. Plus, having a truck would make up for the embaressment of owning a mini van (tee hee hee).

themacguy

Test drive the Nissan CC as much as possible - I did (about 250 miles for 3 days & it was 'broken in' already) and was pleased with the power & ride (I drove a Nissan Ext. cab for awhile), until my kids had to have some help getting 'up' into the truck. My 10 year old felt a little cramped in the back. The 4 year old loved it (after I 'placed' her in the seat). Just enough real room for two (friendly) kids back there -- And you have TWO more - and I assume a wife?!-- Anyway, I wondered about highway stuff like rpm's, head & side winds, noise, passing power etc. Then I found out one windy day... That pretty much did it for me. Test drove the Dakota Quad Cab (DQC). Bought the first one I could find in my color that became available. Drove 300 miles to get it & got a much 'better' deal than my local Nissan (family friend) would touch on his beloved Crew Cab ("these are gonna be the end of the Silverado Ext. Cabs!"). Didn't even question ordering the DQC, I knew they would not be as available (they're not) as the - NOW - slightly less expensive (but OK) Nissans (they're everywhere & discounted heavily where I live in W. TX.

I was right. There are several good reasons why. Ask anyone who's driven both. If you want power, AMPLE room for 4 (6 OK if a couple are smaller) smooth ride, quiet cabin - did I mention power? - heavy duty (for a compact) towing, much lower step up in the 2wd, and smiles per miles, the DQC wins by any standard I can think of. Remember, I drove both... the Nissan is nice for a (younger) couple + a kid or two; the DQC is more - I don't know - refined / adult / mature come to mind. But if I was 17, didn't care about 'much' performance (towing, hauling, acceleration, etc), believed their commercials and lived near a beach - the little Nissan would be very tempting. Just a thought, but please try both (& others like the SUPER DUPER Ford SuperCrew = fabulous truck! I test drove 2 of these also). Just make sure you test the DQC with the 4.7 liter engine w/ ANY trans. & rear end ratio - & tow your 'duc' (& wife and --all-- your kids and lots of stuff) in style! ;->

extreme

I just bought a 1996 Dodge Dakota (Club Cab - 4 Speed Automatic 3.9L V6) and I love everything about it except:
1) The 3.9L V-6 does not seem to have enough power to handle the overdrive properly...I need to be going 75 to 80 mph before it can properly switch into overdrive or I get valve clatter.

2) The oil is black after about 2000 miles (probably due to the constant valve clatter)

3) When I am driving normally, the valves clatter a little immediately upon switching into 3rd gear.

Has anyone else experienced any of these problems with the V6? I found someone else that was having a dirty oil problem (he said his oil was black after 1000 miles...Ouch). From what I can tell, the engine simply does not have enough power for the weight of the truck...Typical American engineering (they ate lead paint as children)...Please reply if you have had a similar situation or if you have any tips on how I might fix this problem. Thanks, Scott

P.S. - The truck only has 19,000 miles on it and the engine runs perfect at idle or out of gear (no valve taps or any other noises until changing into 3rd or OD).

mikeydeddens

I own a 97 Dakota with the 3.9. I have 80,000 miles on it with no problems, except the tranny blew at 16,000 miles, until now. The engine makes a clacking racket whenever it is running. It sounds like a flat lifter but it is awefully loud for that. Seems to be worse at idle. Has anybody else had a similar experience

bpeebles

(extreme)
I have no specific experience with the 3.9 V6 but these symptoms point to a deeper problem with the engine. An underpowered engine may WORK harder but should not ping as badly as you suggest yours does.

Here are a few quick thoughts off the top of my head...

Constant pinging during accelleration points towards several possible problems.
**ignition timing too advanced
**poor quality fuel (Octane too low)
**excessive carbon build-up within cumbustion chambers. (Engine has been left to idle excessivly?)
**Overheating (cooling system weak, exhaust system plugged?)

Suggestions:
**Change oil more often until problem is located/fixed. ($4 for 5qt jug at Wallmart)
** try a tank of HI TEST fuel. Does pinging subside?
**Verify Ignition timing PROPERLY.
**A good mechanic has a special 'scope' to see into the sparkplug holes for check for carbon buildup.(Special fuel-treatments are available to clean out carbon.)
**Check AIR and FUEL filters.
**Check PCV filter and valve.
**Consider having COMPRESSION CHECK and BLEED DOWN TEST performed to evaluate condition of head gasket.

themacguy

from Chevron. If the noise doesn't go away by the end of that tank of fuel go to post #18 above...

Often.

spike50

Just offering info. The Nov '99 issue of SPORT TRUCK had an article titled "MO' GO FOR MOPARS". In it, they talked about a conflict between the 'engine controller' and the temperature setting of the thermostat. Suggested changing the thermostat from 195 degrees F down to a 182 degrees F. Said even with 94 Octane it would still ping if thermostat was too hot.

Again, without being there to involve all of the senses in diagnosing the problem, I can only offer a remote possibility.

meredith

The PICKUPS Conference has gotten WAY too big....

it is unwieldy to manage, and difficult to use for "newbies". There is entirely TOO much topic duplication, so I will be doing some SERIOUS topic consolidation in the next few weeks, getting us down to not more than 2-3 topics per vehicle type, and ultimately down to 200 topics or less.

THIS weeks consolidation candidates are: F-150's, Silverado's, Dakota's, and Dakota Crew/Quad cabs.

In that vein, please consolidate this Dakota topic to Dodge Dakota - III and continue these discussions there.

Thanks!

Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host