Engine Performance

• The Dodge Dakota V6 engine produces 175 horsepower at 4,800 revolutions per minute (rpm) with a 3.9-liter engine. Other specs include 130 kilowatt power production and 225 foot-pounds of torque at 3,200 rpm. Although the V6 engine option is lower in price than its V8 counterpart, the V6 is slightly more fuel-efficient, whereas the V8 has much more power and torque. Earlier models utilized a 3.7-liter V6 engine which was more powerful than the 2002 3.9-liter engine. Depending on the model and trim, gas mileage ranges between 13-18 miles per gallon in the city and 16-22 miles per gallon on the highway.
  
  

Professional Reviews

• According to Edmnuds, the Dakota road tests revealed comfortable seating, simplified control panels and more-than-adequate storage space. Cons for the truck included lower-quality materials for the interior makeup, "spotty" mechanical reliability and a "harsh ride quality." According to Cars.com, the J.D. Power Rating for overall mechanical quality measured in at 2.5 out of 5, making it slightly below average. Other J.D. Power highlights include body and interior design and quality, and the quality of the mechanical features and accessories.
  
  

Other Specifications and Options

• Other specifications include ventilated disc brakes, a wishbone front suspension with an independent stabilizer bar, and a beam rear suspension. Standard equipment also included rear anti-lock brakes, cruise control, power outlet and child safety seat anchors. The 2002 Dodge Dakota V6 comes in a wide variety of trims and packages including sport models, four-wheel drive, club cabs and quad cabs. The Dakota also came in either a five-speed manual and four-speed automatic transmission, each with overdrive.
  
  

Crash Tests

• Crash tests by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) offer mixed results for the 2002 Dodge Dakota. The truck received four out of five stars from frontal crash tests and five stars for the side crash test. However, the frontal offset crash test revealed poor overall performance, including marginal protection by the safety cage and poor head/ neck protection.