Automotive Forums

I am 55 years old and have always had a pickup just to have the ability to haul things and to drive to the farm when my brother needs help. I'm semi-retired but I do read country water meters. I have a 1988 Ranger XLT Extended cab so you can tell I tend to keep my pickups a long time thus they need to last.

I want a 4x4 this time so I have been looking at 2001-2003 XLT or FX4 Rangers, GMC Sonomas and Dodge Dakotas (comparable packages). Also needs to be an automatic and Extended or Supercab. I want to stay with the bigger V6 each brand offers. I realize pickups don't get the best gas mileage but it is a concern with me since gas prices are high. My old Ranger used to get around 16-18 so hopefully my new one will get at least as good.

Somonas are hard to find so I've mainly been looking at Rangers and Dakotas but can't decide. The Dakotas seem to be a bigger pickup than the Ranger and I also slightly prefer their looks but I have heard several times how they tend to have two problems:

1. The transmissions don't seem to last much more than 80,000-90,000 on the older models.

2. They don't seem to get as good as gas milege as Rangers or GMC products.

My local mechanic said that while they have had transmission problems on the older Dodges the newer ones seemed to have less trouble. He couldn't remember for sure but thought anything 2003 and newer might be okay, but how about the 2002 models?

How about the Dakotas gas mileage verses the Rangers? Any general comparisons between the two for the years I'm looking at? Whether it's a Ranger or Dakota I want to buy the pickup that's going to last the longest with the least maintenance.  

Hi:

You might find these links helpful

Dodge Dakota  vs. Ford Ranger Review
http://www.newcars.com/review_model/Dodge_Dakota_Ford_Ranger.html

American vs Japanese - Truck/SUV Gas Mileage
http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/?p=299

Colorado VS Ranger, Tacoma, Dakota
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-9931.html  

Dakotas are not particularly fuel-efficient. And Chrysler products in general seem to have problems with automatic transmissions. The Dakota is a bigger truck than the Ranger. I don't know how much of a consideration that is for you. 4.0L Rangers have decent power, especially the SOHC versions. The V-8 Dakotas have good power, but are kind of gas hogs. Would you even consider an import truck? If so, I'd recommend a Toyota Tacoma or Nissan Frontier.  

I don't have much first hand experience with pickups of any kind, but as an avid car nut, I try to keep abreast of all things automotive.  

Honestly, no car, pickup or otherwise, should have real problems with major components such as transmissions at 80-90K miles.  If this is the case with Dakotas, then by all means, avoid them.  Actaully, Chrysler has a history of short-lived transmissions, from their minivans, to sedans, and apparently, to trucks.  

I highly recommend something with an exemplary reliability record, like a Tacoma.  2001-2003 versions didn't offer the power that 2007s do, but they're not weak either.  I'd bet real money that you could run a Tacoma for longer than you could a Ranger, Dakota, or Colorado based on my experience with other cars from all of those makers.  

BTW, how wedded are you to the idea of a traditional pickup?  Here's a crazy wildcard: the Subaru Baja.  Yes, it's wildly different in concept than a traditional pickup, but unless you need the size of a regular pikcup bed, or the towing/hauling tonnage, consider that the Baja, as funky looking as it is, has a real bed (small), space for 5 like a sedan, and gets vastly superior gas mileage.  Also consdier that while not fast, it's much lighter than a truck, so it's 165 HP 2.5liter four is about as effective as a 200 HP 6 in a 4000lb+pickup.  

Subarus have a reputation for outstanding reliability, and surprisingly enough, for durability in light-duty off road conditions.  

Anyway, it's worth looking in to if you're interesting in finding a compromise between the efficiency of a car and the utility of a truck.  

Well I want to stay with a regular pickup because I need at least a 6' bed like my '88 Ranger. Yes I have tried to find used Tacomas but they are hard to come by and when I do priced out of my range, they are probably the best of the small pickups.

The thing I like about the Dakotas is that they are more of a mid-sized pickup with more room and negatively with not great fuel economy and price to match. After doing alot of looking around I guess I've come to the conclusion that a 2003-2004 Dakota would cost me between $14,000-$15,000 (probably closer to the latter) with everything I'm wanting it to have Auto,4x4,V6 3.7L,extended cab, step bars, etc. so that's more than I want to spend. Also my brother has two Dodges (one a 1999 Dakota, V8 though)and has repeatedly expressed his concern that I wouldn't like the gas mileage he gets.

I found (locally from a dealer) a 2003 Ranger FX4 4x4 with a V6 4.0L SOHC with 86,000 miles for $11,250 that I'm going to buy today. It's got a few miles on it but it's a one-owner and looks exceptional inside and out. Supposedly the owner drove it 50 miles roundtrip to work everyday. It's maybe got a few more miles than was ideal but it won't like I will be driving it everyday putting alot more miles on it. I've heard vehicles should be get for 200,000 miles anymore with the right care. Anyway my brother's happy I didn't buy a dodge so he didn't have to listen to me *** about the gas mileage,(lol).