I'm thinking of buying a Dodge Dakota?

I had a 2000 4x4 dakota with the 4.7. It was a great truck and mpg was about 14-19. The 4.7's also had an upgraded transmission that was not on the 5.2 and 5.9. I'm in Chicago area and the rocker panels were rotting away at 10 years old. Bummer.

The Dakotas with a 5.2 or 5.9 engines had ball joint problems because of the weight of the engine. The smaller engines are lighter so it isn't a problem. I drove a 1989 Dakota 240,000 miles before it got too rust to be safe. It never had transmission trouble and the front suspension components were replaced once in its life. The fuel mileage was worse than my 1996 Ram with a 5.9 engine and the Dakota was underpowered for my purposes but it didn't die. The newer trucks have more power and burn less fuel so don't use my numbers from a truck built 24 years ago. I don't know Dakota owners who don't like their truck.

They're a nice sized truck but they don't really have any great advantages over the full size ones, they get about the same mileage, at least the later ones do. Quality and reliability are kind of all over the place, one guy will have one that works great for years, the next one is one thing after another. Ball joints can be an issue sometimes, don't use cheap Chinese parts to replace them. 4x4 parts are not all that reliable, and PCMs are sometimes a problem. Parts can be a pain, Dodge isn't that great about keeping parts in stock.

...