For our fourth and final two-car Showdown for the week, we’re headed to colorful Colorado to look at a pair of two-wheel-drive Dodge trucks. Yes, before there was Ram (sorry, RAM), there was just Dodge, and before every truck had to have four doors and blind spots big enough to hide a Town Car in, trucks had single cabs and bench seats.
The results from yesterday’s matchup are no surprise, and I think I can guess that the Seville would have lost to the Ford Tempo it was going to go up against, and the pink Honda would have won, so it all worked out all right in the end. I counted at least one hate-vote for the Seville among the eighty-six brave souls who chose it; I don’t know what everyone else’s motivation was, but hey, more power to you.
Like everyone else, I’ll take the pink Accord. That color is obnoxious, but at least you’d be able to find it in a parking lot. The clear lights have got to go, though; I can’t stand those things.
More than any other type of vehicle that has been lost to time, people seem to pine for simple, honest pickup trucks. Modern trucks are marvels, with comfort and convenience that surpasses even luxury cars back in the day, and horsepower that buyers in decades past could only have dreamed of, but they’ve lost something along the way. It’s all posturing and bluster now, like they’re bragging about the awesome jobs they can do instead of just shutting up and getting to work. Old trucks are tools, not status symbols, and there’s a lot to be said for that. Let’s check out a couple of them.
1990 Dodge Dakota – $2,100
Engine/drivetrain: 3.9-liter OHV V6, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Odometer reading: 284,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
In the 1970s, all of the Big Three auto manufacturers imported their small trucks from Japan. In the early ’80s, GM and Ford both started making their own small trucks, but Chrysler stuck with its Mitsubishi-built Dodge Ram 50. It wasn’t until 1987 that Dodge brought out its own smaller truck, the Dakota. But the Dakota wasn’t nearly as small as the S-10 or Ranger, or the imports; Dodge called it a mid-sized truck. It was smaller and more maneuverable than the full-sized trucks, but still available with a full eight-foot bed for carrying sheet goods.
The early Dakota was available with either the K-car’s 2.2 or 2.5 liter four-cylinder, or a new 3.9 liter V6, which was Chrysler’s 318 V8 with two cylinders lopped off. This one has the V6, equipped with throttle-body fuel injection, and a five-speed manual. Four-wheel-drive was available, but this truck is only 2WD. It has a ton of miles on it, but the seller says it still runs and drives just fine. High miles on an old simple truck like this aren’t necessarily a big deal; everything is rebuildable as long as parts are available.
The miles show on the interior; the seat is ripped, and I don’t know what the hell happened to the dashboard top. The glovebox is open, and I bet it doesn’t latch; I’ve seen other Dakotas with that problem. But hey, it’s an old truck, not a Lexus. You don’t buy it for the interior appointments.
It’s a little banged-up outside, but it doesn’t look rusty. I have never been much of a fan of truck toppers, and this one, with no side windows, looks like a real pain in the ass to live with. Unfortunately, long-bed Dakotas aren’t all that common, and this topper won’t fit anything else, so the market, if you tried to sell it, is pretty small. I guess you could stick it behind the garage in case you need it for some reason later?
2001 Dodge Ram 1500 – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 3.9-liter OHV V6, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Denver, CO
Odometer reading: 230,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Pickup truck designs used to stay the same for a long time. Dodge’s trucks kept the same basic bodystyle for more than twenty years before this design appeared in 1994. It was a risky move for Dodge, but customers loved it, and it sold like hotcakes. But this design only lasted until 2002. Trucks were moving off the farm and into the city, and city folks expect more frequent new models.
This is a simple, plain-jane Ram 1500, with a short six-and-a-half foot bed and a single cab. Trucks like this often have the smallest engine available, and that is the case here. It’s powered by the same 3.9 liter V6 as the Dakota, backed by a four-speed automatic. It’s probably not what you’d call quick, but you can do a lot with torque and gearing. It runs and drives well, and it just passed an emissions test, which is a good sign.
It’s a good basic truck inside: bench seat, rubber floors, crank windows, the whole nine yards. The seat is worn, but everything else looks all right. It does have a cover on the dash, which is weird for a truck. Why cover the dash, but not the ripped-up seat?
Outside, it’s a great color, but unfortunately, rust has started to set in. It’s not terrible yet, but it’s not going to get any better. There are worse sins for a truck than a little rust, of course. I like the fact that it’s stock, with good, honest, plain steel wheels and normal-sized tires. It’s a friendly, approachable truck, not like the imposing behemoths for sale today.
You don’t need four hundred horsepower or a five-foot-high grille to do truck things. A basic single-cab truck with a V6 engine can accomplish a lot. Sure, 4WD is a nice thing to have, but you don’t really need that either, most of the time. I’ve owned my truck for seven years now, and used 4WD maybe a dozen times. These would do just fine for most people, for most truck tasks. You’ve got two different variations on the same theme to choose from. Which one suits you better?
I voted for the Dakota. Looks a bit cleaner and would much rather have the stock shift then the crap automatics Chrysler had from this era. I had a 97 (or was it a 98?) Dakota with a 5.2 Magnum and the automatic and that trans was not the greatest.
Just the less gross one, so blue.
Red one is more my style but… I’m not getting in there
I see Dakota, I choose Dakota. It’s a problem.
But if I’m objective, I would avoid the ’90s era Chrysler automatic in favor of the 5-speed, so I’d still pick Dakota. The small cab could be an issue for long drives, but as a weekend errand runner, it would be fine.
It was the first gen Dakota that got me interested in owning a pickup, and my first new car purchase was a 99 extended cab Dakota, back when I thought my future was going to be me traipsing across the country on contracted computer jobs for a few years. That never happened, but I sure liked that truck and this red one will scratch that itch nicely.
As far as post purchase builds go, I’d get a nice blanket to cover the seats, find a dash topper to cover the ick, and fix that glove box, I have a 3D printer that can come in handy if the latch needs re-creating/replacement. The topper’s last ride would be the to metal recycling center down the street, and I’d just keep it running for occasional truck stuff, like hauling plywood and drywall for my garage reno project that I’ll one day get around to doing. Plus it can haul K-Swap parts for my 03 Civic, which my 13 Si can’t do.
I choose the Ram. You can get a sheet of plywood between the wheel wels and parts are easier to find.
Thanks for linking the article about your cross-country trip with your old Chevy pulling the MGB. Great read, and a reminder that with old trucks (or anything else) you can accomplish anything if you’re willing to go slowly enough.
We have a 1929 Ford AA lumber truck that my grandfather bought new. Same 40hp four-banger as the other 5 million Model A’s, but with a two-speed auxiliary transmission (low and super low), frame rails like bridge beams, and a rear axle with a pumpkin the size of, er, a prize-winning pumpkin. Rated for a ton and a half, but probably loaded to two or three tons many times in its life. Top speed of 25-30mph, but capable of shoving a 40-foot railroad boxcar along a siding in low-low. Four generations of the Martin family have learned to drive an unsynchronized stick shift on this truck. You literally can’t kill it no matter how bad your clutch technique – it just coughs, lunges, and sputters away.
https://itisgood.org/auto-biography/#29FordAA
Get the Ram: install balding mud-tires, cheap lift kit, and cheap-Amazon-LED-burn-your-retina-bulbs, add sticker of calvin-pissing on something and/or flags and/or political statement(s). Drive like you hate everyone.
The Dakota 5-speed. I’m even leaving the topper on, as they’re incredibly practical to keep stuff dry.
Pretty sure I can smell the inside of that Dakota, not a huge fan of that. Since they’re so close on price I’ll take the Ram. Sure the rust will eat it but at that price whatever, it’ll still last a few years. Probably.
I’ll take the Ram, hands down. Yes, the Dakota is in impressive shape for its age, but it’s still a decade older and falls in exactly the wrong age range for electronics: it has them, and they’re going to fail, and good luck finding replacements.
Anyway, I’ve always had a soft spot for that generation of Ram, and the full-size is going to have way better legroom and probably marginally nicer ride quality, if only thanks to the sidewall height.
Oh, and the extra bed width of a full-size is probably useful more often than the extra length. I had a long-bed Ranger for years and ran into problems fitting things between the wheel wells more often than you’d expect. But if something is too long, you just prop it on the tailgate or open the gate and let it lay flat – infinite length bed.
I had a ’97 Dakota. Put 182,000 miles on it before I traded it in. I had to put a new water pump in it every 40,000 miles after the factory one went at ~80,000. I’ll take the RAM because there’s probably a little more room under the hood to change the water pump…again.
These are both great trucks. I’ll have the Ram. Everything old is rusty around here, so that doesn’t scare me. That generation Ram is just so good looking. There’s an elderly couple around here who drive a super base model Ram like this, and it is clean as a whistle. I practically snap my neck turning to look at it, every time I see it.
The Ram pickups dashboards of this period would eventually disintegrate in the sun. Hence the dashboard carpet.
Yep, one of these with an intact dashboard is way rarer than one with no rust.
Why does the Dakota interior look so wet? It looks like it smells like an old gym sock.
Also, using that blank gauge face for the seatbelt warning is pure American half-assedness.
It’s a horse apiece, so I’ll take the rust-free Dakota.
Tough call. Used to have a Ranger long bed and then the Dakota’s big brother, 87 Dodge D200 2WD with the 318 and 3 speed Torqueflite. Once you go full size it’s hard to go back. That said, I like the 5 speed and don’t like short bed trucks so the Dakota wins it today.
PS – my Ranger had a cap just like that (looks to be the same mfgr) except with side fold out windows which made it very handy. Beats crawling in the bed for everything.
Dakota. I had a 97 Dodge 1500, 318 with a manual and an 8 foot bed. Wonderful truck. After it passed 250,000 I sold it to my friend, who’s still driving it. It’s got just over 15,000 to go before turning over the 3, it still has the original clutch. I fully expect to buy it back from his estate.
I know a lot of people who’ve had trouble with modern Chrysler automatics, especially in trucks. I also don’t think a pickup without an 8 foot bed are worth the compromises that pickups naturally have. (see PJ O’Rourke’s “High Speed Performance Characteristics of Pickup Trucks”) This is an easy one for me.
Add me to the list. My ’92 Dakota ate two automatics in its lifetime.
I’ll take the manual, otherwise not much to split between the two.
Dakota has a 5 speed but the Ram’s column shifter sells it for me.
Also the Ram has aribags.
Pfft. We die like men!!
Everything I drive has two airbags: my lungs.
Flip a coin. I guess I could tow with the bigger truck?
I want a Dodge with a short cab and a long truck bed, ba dum dum dum.
Dakota all the way; manual truck with a longer bed seems like it can do more truck things and still be interesting when it’s doing car things.
Love that song, reminds me of my first office job in the mid 1990’s where the ladies wore long jackets, short skirts, and high heels, and had the legs for it. But were still professionals and classy, not slutty. Working on construction sites were never like that! Yeah, glory days.
Sort of like having your Cake and eating it too?
You’ll need those calories to go the distance.
They have the same engine and, being narrow/long vs. wide/short, I reckon the bedspace is approximately equal between the two, though the length has greater utility at the lumberyard with the Dakota.
But the Dakota has the manual, and that’s the money right there. Dakota for me.