My only limited experience with it was when I had a loaner rental from the dealer. It was a 2004 Quad Cab, and I drove it about 225 miles over 3 days, all highway. I got 17 mpg, not impressive. Power didn't seem much different from my 3.9L V-6, but that may be because the vehicle was heavier than my 92. It ran well. I can't speak to its long-term attributes.

Compared to my 92, the 2004 felt like I was driving a sofa down the road. No road feel. Just transported.

 

This would be my first venture into the third gen Dakota.
I've had several first gen (and 1.5 gen) and second gen Dakotas.
I either need to go with a 3rd gen Dakota or an old enough Dodge Ram or Ford F150 to get away from giant truck syndrome.

 

I owned a 2006 Mitsubishi Raider with 4.7 and it was reliable, but MPG was not impressive and HP was a bit lacking in the truck, but TQ was good and towed well.

I would go for the 2008 and newer 4.7, as the MPG will be about the same and you will have much more power.

 

My Dad has an 01 Dakota 4.7, bought new and still has it today. Has 110K miles on it. Not an issue with the engine ( really the whole truck has been very reliable) . Always used and uses Mobil 1. No leaks. Gas mileage is poor, at best 20mpg on a really good day. Otherwise 13 in town and 17 on highway just as the EPA says is about right. I have heard about the 4.7 reliability issues but this one has not had any issues what-so-ever. Its been treated well and it has treated him well. Simple as that

 

The only experience I had with a 4.7L was a loaner when our 2010 Journey SXT was in the shop for a recall (airbag module). It was a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 with the 4.7L (330 hp). Decent hp and fuel mileage about the same as my Hemi. Even though the 4.7L was only 15 hp less than my Hemi (rated 345 hp), I still preferred the pull of the Hemi. From what I've read the 4.7L is slightly thirstier than the Hemi. Later versions have two spark plugs per cylinder.

 

We have a Commander with a 4.7. It now has 186000 miles on it. I'm in the process of replacing the injectors. We have nothing to complain about with this engine. Keep your eye focused on the water pump. Certain years this seems to be an issue. Got a feeling it might be a vendor thing.

 

I've known several people who've had sludge issues with the 4.7. I personally won't touch one.

 

I did some research and found a Y T video which shows in detail the problem with sludge accumulation in the 3.7 V6 and 4.7 V8 engines. In part ONE the technician diagnoses a misfire in cylinder #4 and #6 on this 3.7 V6. In the first 7 minutes of the part TWO video he explains the sludge and its effect on the liters and cam rocker followers. Also at the 6:30 interval he mentions that carbon buildup on the exhaust valve stem can cause the cam rocker followers to become dislodged.

Indication is that Chrysler is aware of the problems with these engines and there are several TSBs issued related to sludge accumulation and top end cleaning of the engine. If you can keep the oil spotlessly clean it seems you should be able to avoid these problems and have a reliable engine.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLQtf1xbVaw

 

I went to school for the 3.7L/4.7L. The later ones had a horsepower bump and other improvements. There was also a 4.7L H.O. before the bump, then they all eventually became H.O.
The PCV valve in the oil filler tube had a TSB for a kit to reduce cold weather freezing (condensation) and sludge formation.
They were a pretty good engine and I would have no problem owning one.
The 5.7L Hemi had the MDS and actually got slightly better highway mileage than the 4.7L. The 4.7L was thirsty in comparison, no doubt.
The 3.7L did seem to have occasional valve keeper issues. There was a TSB on that as well.

 

Had a '95 Avalon with the 3 liter, a supposed sludger; used synthetic at 5k mi OCI. At around 160k miles mechanic who changed the valve cover gasket said the valves and rockers were very clean. My thought is that a well cared for 3.7/4.7 would have no sludging problems.

Tom

 

With the hot oil slinging around under the valve cover from the spinning cam of an OHC or the windage inside a crankcase, any sludge is pretty much washed away.
It is in the cooler, less-turbulent areas inside the engine that you may find sludge formations.
The yellow/tan 'mayonnaise' inside the plastic oil filler neck on the 3.7L/4.7L was considered normal during the cold winter months. Especially if the owner did short trips and didn't allow the engine to warm.
Some were alarmed by the sight of it, especially if someone suggested that it might be a bad head gasket. There was a baffle in the filler neck on the early ones to help try to reduce the sludge formation, or hide the sight of it.

 

My 2009 Ram 1500 has the 4.7. I have about 92,000 on the truck and the engine has been excellent; no issues whatsoever. I've towed my camper around the country with it (from Florida to as Arizona and Utah). I wouldn't hesitate to get another one.

I was talking to someone who was a retired Chrysler tech (now an RV tech). He told me he thought the 4.7L was a great engine. He said the biggest issue was the fact that people would go to a higher weight oil (5W30 instead of 5W20) and that would cause issues. Mileage is too bad, getting about 21MPG on the highway.

 

I'm not doing too well in my search. I know the 2005+ (and even more so the 2008+) Dakotas never sold that well. And sadly, rust is a common issue with a lot of them. I may have to expand my search to include full size quad cabs, and if I get desperate F150s and the older Colorado 4 doors. I looked at a really nice 4x4 Ranger, but there just isn't enough rear seat room for the big dog and another dog to sit there. I'd even take a nice 2008 AWD Magnum - but those are hard to find too.

 

I'm looking for a truck too, and I'm having the same problem. 2nd gen Dakotas around here are destroyed with rust, and 3rd gen Dakotas are non-existent.

 

This is why I'm trying to keep my 92 Dakota going. Can't find anything as useful to me in the more recent models. Either they are rusted out, or the bulk is an issue.

 

I have worked on these engines with up to 300,000 miles.the only problems I have seen were owner neglect,extending oil changes ,not watching coolant.i just put chains in a 4.7 with 162,000 on it and wonder if they would have not been needed with proper maintenance.if the owner had maintenance records I would not be afraid of these engines

 

Ended up putting a deposit on a 2008 Dakota Laramie Quad Cab 4x4. Really clean underneath, but has the typical (for a northern truck) rear wheel arch rust and rust on the back of both doors. Maybe some day when I'm down visiting in Georgia or Florida I'll find a nicer bed and doors for it.

 

I guess if the 4.7 ends up sucking, I'll Hemi swap it.

 

Good luck with that. From what I read the Hemi won't "fit" in a Dakota though I guess if one really wants to, it can be done.

As to the rust, I know one guy who worked for Linex, that put a Linex border (about 4") around the bottom of the body of his Ram. I believe he had the same rust issue on his Ram (2005). He had the rust spot fixed and then had a Linex border applied. It actually looked pretty good.

 

The Hemi fits quite easily. There are many swapped Dakotas around, both second and third gen ones. I think the whole “Hemi didn’t fit” was more about marketing than physical space.

 

I went from new to 130k miles in a dozen years with my '05 4.7L Dakota and it wasn't too problematic in that timespan. I had to have a fuel injector replaced, the EGR valve, one injector, the oil pressure sensor and at least one cam position sensor. Outside the engine the one repair I wouldn't have expected was a transmission cooler line that leaked where the rubber hose was crimped onto the steel tube, everything else was either pretty normal (shocks, tie rod ends, a lower ball joint, front brakes, rear U-joints, etc.) or cheap & easy to fix (front swaybar endlinks.) I think I would have liked the '08 with the extra horsepower, the '05 was just OK and I regretted staying with the 3.55 axles instead of opting for the 3.92s I could have ordered it with. (Not bad enough of a regret to do something about it, just badly enough that I nagged myself the few times when it might have made a meaningful difference.)

It seems like there were more '05-'07s than '08-'11's sold, at least where I live.