I have a 97 Dakota with 45,000 miles on it and I have had no major problems out of
it whatsoever. Had to replace the fuel filter and the front shocks. That's it.
If there is anybody in this world that is hard on a Dakota it's me. I go 4
wheelin' in this thing constantly. Which involves driving over huge rocks,
dropping as much as 3 feet offa ledges (hmm..... think that had anything to do
with needing new shocks) keeping the tach pegged for 4-5 minutes at a time going
thru deep, nasty, sloppy mud. Then I get it back out on the street, clean it up,
and race my buddies.
Ed and Kristi Townsend wrote:
> I would hardly call 14 years lasting a month....I owned my prior Toyota for
> 5 years, put 50,000 miles on it (bought it with 90,000 on the odometer), and
> beat the hell out of that truck. Now tell me, why am I having all these
> problems on a truck that I baby? As far as the new Toyotas, I will do a bit
> more research, but from all the info that I can find in print and on the
> web, the Dakota series of trucks have a much higher failure rate than the
> Toyotas..........real world experience says it all in my eyes. I know 3 ppl
> personally that have Daks, and all of them have had problems that I would
> put in the major category. I know many many ppl with 93 and newer Toyotas,
> and not one major problem. As far as what Steve says, I am going to research
> the info and DEFINETLY take that into consideration. But I feel that I would
> be stupid to give DC one more dime of my money. Even Ford is looking good to
> me now.
>
> on 7/9/00 8:37 AM, MrDakota95@aol.com at MrDakota95@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Maybe (Toy's) is the right name for them after all because any one with kids
> > knows you pay through the nose for some popular piece of sh%t and it lasts a
> > month. LOL
> >
> > Shawn
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:52:34 EDT