2000 Dodge Dakota Sport review from North America
"Awesome quality, looks and value"
What things have gone wrong with the car?
In 5 years of rough service I did not have one single problem with this truck.
General comments?
Even with the fuel-efficient 4 the truck had plenty of power for passing, merging onto freeways and hauling my camping gear.
The Fuel mileage was a consistent 22mpg, which was worse than my Ford Ranger 4 (it got 28), but still far better than most trucks.
The interior was plush and comfortable, and very high quality for a base model truck.
The 5-speed shifted effortlessly and the gear ratios were spaced well to provide a good power range for all situations. I never encountered a hint of clutch slippage under even the harshest conditions.
No truck ever built has ever had the beautiful stying of the '97 thru '03 Dakotas. The styling was what sold me on the truck, and the fact that Dodge changed the Dakota to a bloated, ugly monstrosity with no fuel efficient engine option is why I went back to Ranger in 2006.
No vehicle I have ever owned has ever held its value like this Dakota. I sold it in January of 2006 for $1000 less than I bought it for brand new in October of 2000.
Recommended reviews
| 2000 - Dakota SLT 4X4 4.7 litre So far so good, lets hope the dealer fixes up my little problems..... keep on trucking |
|
| 1999 - Dakota Ext. Cab Sport 5.2L V8 No other truck like it. I will forever miss him |
| Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? | Yes |
| Year of manufacture | 2000 |
| First year of ownership | 2000 |
| Most recent year of ownership | 2006 |
| Engine and transmission | 2.6 litre 4 Semi-Automatic |
| Performance marks | 7 / 10 |
| Reliability marks | 10 / 10 |
| Comfort marks | 10 / 10 |
| Dealer Service marks | 1 / 10 |
| Running Costs (higher is cheaper) | 8 / 10 |
| Overall marks (average of all marks) | |
| Distance when acquired | 15 miles |
| Most recent distance | 50000 miles |
| Previous car | Ford Ranger |
| Date of Entry | 7th July, 2006 |