[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/diy/ - Do It Yourself

View post   
File: 11 KB, 300x168, download (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1518006 No.1518006 [Reply] [Original]

1997 4.3 Sonoma vs 1999 3.9 Dakota

I am on the fence between these two. The Dakota is in better condition but the price reflects that. I just need something as a beater truck but it needs to run reliably. Sway me /o/.

>> No.1518023

Toyota will probably last twice as long as a dodge. Dodge kinda sucks. Have you ever seen one without rust?

>> No.1518027

>>1518006
Are you willing to replace the transmission?
Because thats whats gonna happen the second you buy the Dakota

>> No.1518029

>>1518023
Sonoma is a GMC, aka its an S10

>> No.1518030

>>1518006
Now I'm hungry for tacos.
I really don't have an opinion one way or the other. Got a 93 Jeep and a newer yota. So based on experience.

Go search out the basic replacement part costs.

Lights, alternator, coil, A/C compressor, etc.
also "better condition" needs to be thought of as in stuff that breaks, not surface damage. I've seen real nice looking vehicles that were totally worn out pieces of junk.

>> No.1518031
File: 232 KB, 386x457, 48e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1518031

Whoops.

Wrong board.

Mods pls

>> No.1518035

>>1518006
I go Sonoma based on the better survival rate I see in my area. More parts availability. Also 93 is pre OBDII. No disrespect to dodge but the Sonoma is a better choice here. Ps. Dakota is Mitsubishi and Sonoma is Isuzu.

>> No.1518041
File: 571 KB, 1186x1600, s-l1600[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1518041

>>1518023
This.

>>1518029
Dakota is a Dodge. Sanoma is a rebadged Isuzu.

>>1518006
The automatic Sanoma's are terrible. No guts at all. The manuals are a bit better but still not good. They are not comfortable trucks to ride in and are not durable. I would take a Nissan or Toyota with 50k more miles on it over a Sanoma at the same price.

The Dakota is better but it is also a bigger truck. It would be a midsize, not a compact. I've only driven the newer ones, not one from the era you are looking at, and they are okay. If it was an either or situation I would go with the Dakota but really, you are picking the lesser of two evils.

What is your budget, requirements, and local CL? Also, can you drive a manual transmission or do you need a vehicle with tampon storage? I can have a look at what is in your area and try to get you something better than these two choices.

>> No.1518044

>>1518035
The newer Dakotas are from Mitsubishi. The 1999 model was still designed in-house.

>> No.1518048

>>1518044
93 is similar to late 80s and they used Mitsubishi 2.2 engines. I don't mind being a little wrong but I was there. Everything I said is still valid

>> No.1518071

>>1518048
I gotta call you out again, sorry. It is not a 1993, it is a 1997. The 3.9 was a Chrysler V6 in 1997.

>> No.1518085

>>1518071
Now I have to correct myself. It's a 1999. lol

>> No.1518141

>>1518071
Muh bad I guess we assume what we read sometimes. I lack vision and one eye but I can't convince my brain to understand. I must have seen the 3.9 and made a 93 out of it. Its a harder choice now. But those little GMs is good. I'm mopar faithful but I know that's just politics.

>> No.1518143
File: 89 KB, 640x388, mustang_II_74_beast.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1518143

why is this stupid assed /o/ thread still up.

not /diy/. go shit on your own board. we have enough 14 year old children here already.

>> No.1518157

>>1518143
/o/ is dangerously stupid. Better they come here.

>> No.1518318

This thread was moved to >>>/o/20131546