Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
DODGE DAKOTA QUAD CAB
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The Nissan was EXTREMELY reliable but it always felt like a tin can to me. It also rusted badly.
It then spent about a year beating around the family farm. (again very reliably) and the joke was that the big rust holes in the bed made it self-cleaning. (all crud would fall thru the rust holes.) When it started to lose bales of hay thru the holes... it was traded in for a s10 chebby. The last I heard, my ol' Nissan now has a homemade pressure-treated bed on it and it is STILL RUNNING on the road. (at least 190,000 miles on it now)
My Dakota is a far more refined vehicle than the Nissan ever dreamed of being. It drives like a car, is as quiet as many luxury cars and has loads of power with the V8 with 5SP tranny. Also the bodys on Dakotas stand up to the harsh winter roadsalt much better than Nissan. Only time will tell if it is a RELIABLE as the Nissan was.... (only 43,000 miles at this point... just a baby)
In my book, the Dakota is in a different league than the Nissan when it comes to creature comforts and refinements.
I personally need more power for all my goodies so I needed a V8.
If I had to choose between the 2 again, I would get the Dakota especially with the warranty.
Robert
A good friend of mine still drives a 1990 Nissan pickup that's got well over 270,000K on it. It's starting to show its age now, but as far as rust goes it outlasted his son's '92 S10, which rusted so bad the windshields would keep cracking and the doors would'nt close. I think the newer Nissan vehicles are much more rust resistive. The '93 Sentra that i just sold was nearly rust free.
Regards,
Dusty
If its the rearend, that is not normal. They bought mine back because of it.
If its the tranny, I dont know. I have never had a standard whine except in reverse.
Robert
Thank you,
RavenOne
Thanks in advance.
I do not recommend it. You will get VERY LITTLE improvement and they may burn out faster. (Higher wattage = faster burnout)
The so-called 'blue' bulbs are actually WORSE for visability. The human eye does not see blue as well.
I am speaking from experience and research about this subject. I actually installed ONE of the 'fancy' bulbs and was hard-pressed to see any real difference in visiability as compared to the original bulb. The fancy bulb burned out on a VERRY cold evening... I renstalled the original bulb.
If you still want to do it... here are several links to help you out.
http://www.topbulb.com/
http://www.autooptiks.com/
http://www.autobulbdepot.com/
sorry for the delay in answer.
Lee
(iowabigguy) Thanks for your feedback and experiences as well. One of my buds here locally is also happy with the set of PIAA bulbs he installed on his 2001 QC. They are really expensive here in Canada at $117 for 2 bulbs. The Xtreme White bulbs PN is #19617 for the 9007(HB5)type. Are these the same ones you installed? Thanks, Rick.
Yes, these are the same bulbs, The $117 you are quoting is Canadian Dollar?? Rick
Bookitty
(bookitty) "This factors to about $4.11 US". Norm, I don't quite understand this factor number. Do you mean a factor of 4.11 times that of 1 US$. Sure is pricey, huh?
BTW, I'm thinking of trading in my '01 QC 3.9L for a '03 QC 4.7L. I'm still struggling with a decision on 3.92 vs 3.55 for the LSD 5-45RFE auto trans and whether to include the 4-wheel ABS or not. Thanks again.
Bill
Remember that whatever axle ratio you have will be the ratio you'll drive all of the time. This may seem like a silly point, but often people make a decision on engine power, axle ratio, or some other equipment based on the desire to fullfill a parameter that may be intermittent.
A colleague of mine bought a truck some time ago with a larger displacement, higher horsepower engine because he would be towing on occasion. He thought that he needed the extra power. Unfortunately, after two years of ownership he acquired buyers remorse. His high horsepower truck only delivered about 15 mpg tops, 10-11 around town. He was happly with it when he was towing, but greatly displeased most of the time. After all this time he's ready to trade for a milder power plant based on the theory that the 2% of the time he tows whatever inconvenience is borne from not having the power he'd like will be more than made up in increased gas mileage.
Just one person's opinion, but my Club Cab 4.7 with the 3.55 still delivers more than enough power for me when I'm hauling 1000 pounds. I think the 3.92 axle would've been completely unnecessary. For that matter, I think that a 3.9 engine would've probably been fine for my needs since I've only towed (so far) about 6% of the time. There's no doubt about it, I like the power of the 4.7, but it supplies more than I ever need most of the time but I still have to feed it.
I'd drive both versions before you buy. I think the difference in axle ration will cost you about 1 mpg. But there's also the increase in engine noise.
Just something to think about.
Best of luck which ever way you decide.
Dusty
I'm going through that very same "post-buy remorse" syndrome now(2yrs later) as "I could have had a V8". There's lots of hills and mountain sides on the westcoast where I live and may tow 5% of the time and carry medium loads 10% of the time. So, I definite can use the upgrade to the 4.7L but, the jury is still out on the 3.55 ratio. However, I understand from a few owners and other sources that the 4.7L with 3.92s gets better or similar mileage to the 3.9L with 3.92s. Do you agree, generally? I know there are many many factors involved to getting good mileage such as driving habits being the main one.
Bill
I'm afraid that I don't have enough information from people that I've talked with to help you with that exact comparison. However, just from the physics of the comparison, I would say that is not a likely scenario. Assumming all other things being equal, a V8 running through a 3.92 axle ratio will fire (approximately) two more cylinders than a V6 coupled to it, per tire revolution. That means burning more fuel regardless of other factors, such as load.
The only other recent Dakota that I've driven to compare with my 2003 4.7 Club Cab Sport Plus with the 3.55 axle, was a 2003 3.9 Club Cab SLT. Now I am uncertain which axle ratio that particular vehicle had. Since it was an SLT I suspect it had a 3.21 ratio, which I believe is standard, but I am unsure. But it also had much smaller tires, too. That vehicle was noticeably tamer than my 4.7. I know and have talked with a number of people who have Dakota 3.9s and they are generally reflecting a 2-3 mpg better gas mileage than I. One person I know quite well gets 18 local and has recorded a high of 24 highway. I don't think you'd get those numbers with a 4.7 and a 3.55 axle. A 3.92 is going to be worse.
I've towed my ATV (650 lbs) around now for almost a 1000 miles. I own hunting property in the southern part of the state and the trip has a fair amount of hills, including a few "killer" grades. My Club Cab with the 4.7 and 3.55 gears has handled the job admirably. It's got more than enough power, even in those situations. Compared to a F150 Supercrew and a RAM Quad Cab that I drove on the same route, my Dakota downshifts a lot less on those hills. Unloaded it never needs to downshift.
Now, the opinion of power is subjective. What may be more than adequate for me may not for you or your circumstances. If you drive a lot in hilly country then maybe a 3.92 axle will benefit you. Lower axle ratios will not change your low speed or around town (local) gas mileage that much. Where you're going to see real difference is highway mileage. Your rate of towing is a little higher than mine so maybe your circumstances make a lower axle ratio a more viable consideration.
Consider how many miles you're going to put on this vehicle and estimate the fuel cost difference assuming a reduced mpg factor. Let's assume you'll drive 10,000 miles a year and get 16 average mpg. That's 625 gallons of fuel. If a 3.55 axle will get you 17 mpg, that's 588 gallons of fuel. At $1.60 a gallon (western New York State prices) that's about $60 less a year in fuel cost.
That was only an example. I (we) don't know for sure what the delta will be for the axle ratio difference or your particular driving situation. But this might give you a method to estimate the total financial impact.
Good luck and keep us posted on how you make out.
Bests,
Dusty
Bookitty
Yeah, I've heard the same thing about the 3.9 and some low reports as well. But I've also noticed that when I talk to older drivers I almost always get reports of much higher gas mileage from the 3.9. Like I said earlier, most people with the 3.9 are reporting 1-2 mpg better than I for city, highway, and combined.
(When my son bought his '91 Dakota in '93, he complained that his pre-Magnum 3.9 didn't get very good mileage, although he did no worse and had more power and more truck than the two S10s he owned previously. Anyway, on one trip down to the property I drove both ways. We got 27 going down and 26 coming back. This is a 3.9, 5-speed manual, 6000 GVW conventional cab.)
I understand your comment about load and efficiency, but I don't believe the efficiency difference is that wide. Even if true, as I said earlier, "all other things being equal," two more cylinder firings per tire revolution is going to burn more fuel. How much more can only be a contention since there are a number of factors that will impact this. My 21.87 may be the best my 4.7 will ever do. I don't know. But I do know some with 3.9 automatics that get 24 and better.
Since the EPA ratings do not show a huge gas mileage advantage with the 3.9, I think your basic point is valid, however. And when driven hard under load the point may be even more acute, since most 3.9s come with the 3.21 axle ratio.
I, too, find that my 4.7 with the 3.55 ratio still supplies plenty of reserve power on hills when carrying a load. I wouldn't even begin to consider opting for the 3.92 ratio if I ever did this over again. In fact, if they offered a 3.21 I'd might consider that. Of course, I don't tow that much. About 6% so far, and that will drop since hunting season is over.
Best regards,
Dusty
There's certainly a lot of factors to consider when deciding upon the final drive axle ratio. The following EPA figures are from the energy guide printed on the window stickers of both vehicles. The 3.9L with 3.92s prints it as 19 mpg city and 26 highway. The 4.7L with 3.92s lists it as 20 city and 27 highway. I know these are under ideal conditions and we likely can not duplicate them. Now, these figures are also in Canadian Imperial gallons (which is slightly larger than a U.S. gallon). Personally, with my 3.9L QC with 3.92s coupled to a 42RE 4-sp auto has not done better than 24 mpg highway and city combined 50/50. My worse mileage has been 17 mpg city (90%). This is with a K&N replacement filter installed with no other mods.
I have to agree with Norm that the next gen 4.7L is of better design (semi-hemi) over the 3.9L LA series engine which has served DC well for decades. I understand the 4.7L H.O. on the Jeep Grand Cherokees are even better with the newer pistons, composite intake manifold, forged crank, etc etc. I guess it really boils down to needs as both of you have identified. One has to live with the gas mileage and performance when we are not doing any towing. (personally preference, I guess) Given the good power of a 4.7L engine, I believe I should be happy with 3.55s mated to the 4.7 but, others say, "...if I already have the tow pkg and the HD group, get the 3.92s or you will be sorry later going up a steep hill with a load..." I guess it's decision time...
Thanks again, you guys are GREAT!
>>(EPA) The 3.9L with 3.92s prints it as 19 mpg city and 26 highway. The 4.7L with 3.92s lists it as 20 city and 27 highway.<<
These look like 5-speed manual transmission figures. Is that correct?
>> Personally, with my 3.9L QC with 3.92s coupled to a 42RE 4-sp auto has not done better than 24 mpg highway and city combined 50/50. My worse mileage has been 17 mpg city (90%).<<
This actually is pretty good, based on what others have told me. My daughter's 3.8 Explorer has never gotten over 18. My nieghbor's S10 Blazer has never gotten over 19. I've had 3.9 auto conventional cab owners give me the same results. And that is probably with the 3.21 axle. I have had two individuals tell me that they have gotten as high as 27 with their 3.9 autos. But, like you, most owners are within the 20-24 highway range.
Well, maybe I'm wrong about the 3.9 and its more of a slug than I thought. I trust the EPA ratings more than anything else.
Unless you're driving is highly concentrated in hill country, I think you'll be quite pleased with the performance of the 4.7 and 3.55 axle.
Of course, I might be more easily satisfied with horsepower. If you can, test drive both combinations if at all possible.
Best of luck,
Dusty
> No, both were auto transmissions. All things being equal, I would think a manual trans would get better mileage due to timely shifting by the driver. <
The EPA gas mileage figures quoted were from window stickers on 4-dr Quad Cabs having auto trans with LSD and 3.92s. The only difference is the 3.9L V6 uses the 4-spd auto, 42RE, as compared to the 4.7L which uses the 5-spd auto, 5-45RFE. These mileage figures are also quoted in "Imperial Gallons", which is slightly larger than the U.S. Gallons. Hence, the numbers may look low. For example, 1 Canadian Imperial Gallon is equivalent to approximately 1.2 U.S. Gallons.
Well, personally, I would hate to see what the performance of a 4-dr Quad Cab (over 4K lbs) would be like with a 3.9L V6 coupled with 3.21s going up a very steep hill. (even empty) However, the gas mileage would be great.
Thanks, Dusty.
Yes, I'm going to try a tow test against both configurations (as Norm and yourself have suggested) Guess what I'm doing this weekend?
Cheers,
Bill
Gee, that 27 highway doesn't sound right with the automatic and 3.92 gears. My 2003 Club Cab is rated 15 city, 20 highway with 3.55s and 545RFE. I believe that the same truck with 3.92s was 14 & 19 when I was shopping.
Bests,
Dusty
I drive both the 3.9 & 4.7 and they both get about the same mileage, but I can tow with the 4.7.
Dusty, I'm only quoting mileage figures from what is displayed on the window stickers for the configured vehicle. Please keep in mind these are in Canadian Imperial Gallons and are for Quad Cabs built in Warren,MI. for Canadian consumers. They list the 4.7L with 3.92s, 5-45RFE 5-spd auto, as 20 city/27 highway. For the 3.9L engine, with 3.92s, 42RE 4-spd auto, they list it as 19 city/26 highway.
I believe the conversion factor is 1 CDN gal = 1.20095 US gallon or conversely 1 US gal = 0.8326738 CDN gallon. Therefore, my highway 27 mpg is equivalent to your 23 mpg (approximately) and my 20 mpg would be approx your 17 mpg.
Merry Christmas and Happy Festive Holidays to ALL,
Bill.
Bookitty
To confuse everyone, the factory quoted the Kilometreage differently on their window stickers. In their wisdom, they presented it slightly different to us in Canada. By that, I mean, they listed it as "x many Litres of fuel consummed for 100 kilometres travelled". To get the Miles per Gallon figure, one has to look it up in an EPA energyguide table quoted in Imperial Gallons. For example, 10.1 L/100Km Highway is 27 mpg (Imperial Gal) or 23 mpg (US Gal). (i.e., that's 10.1 litres of fuel used to travel a distance of 100 kilometres). I've done a fair amount of research recently to make my deision and all the window stickers appear to be consistent for each vehicle configuration.
BTW, I concur with you that the 4.7L engine is a much more efficient engine. Hence, is why it uses less or similar amounts of fuel as the 3.9L (given same benchmarks). I think the Power Tech 4.7 H.O. (260HP) is even better but, only available on the Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland or JGC Limited editions.
Merry Christmas and Happy Festive Holidays!
Bill
Bookity
Bob
Does anyone know if Chrysler is going to extend incentives into the new year? I know that the current offering from Dodge runs out on the 6th of January.
Thanks for the help,
Raven
I did better than $3400 off the list price on a $23,000+ Dakota, so I think I got a fair deal. Maybe I could've done better, I don't know.
Good luck,
Dusty
Just found this reference article on TheCarConnection:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5644
Looks like we will know by the end of the week.
All the best,
Raven
Thanks,
Raven
(cant verify it right now.... wife took my Dak to work this morning)
I know that some Daks are built in Brizal (CampoLargo)
http://www.autointell.com/nao_companies/daimlerchrysler/dc-manufa- cturing/chrysler-mfg-campo-02.htm
Of course the 4.7L engine is built in the newly-renovated, Mack Avenue Engine plant
Durango -- Newark, Del
RAM -- Warren, MI
RAM -- Lago Alberto, Mex
RAM -- Saltitlo, Mex
RAM QC -- -- --St. Louis North
Well, I have the list I downloaded from the Automotive News website back in October. It should be fairly current. But you may be correct.
Regards,
Dusty
Thanks for all your help,
Raven
http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz03/b012303.htm
Bookitty