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
yes, I was a little surprised too regarding the R/T. However, I CANNOT see DCX dropping the R/T for good. I guess it might be a marketing thing or a 5.7 supply issue. Now that you mentioned it, I do recall reading something about a supply issue regarding the 5.7 assembly plant. Another possibility (IMHO), is that the "current" AN platform and components may not be strong enough to handle the power of the Hemi; thus, will wait until 2005 for the redesigned stronger hydroform platform? Time will tell...
Cheers,
dataguru
They have suffered from few genetic problems, with the exception of leaking intake manifold gaskets and even that was caused by a change in the material and gasket configuration that brought the same problem to the 318 and 360 motors.
As to fuel consumption the 3.9 V6 Dakota isn't unique. Ford and GM owners of V6 trucks are just as likely to be found complaining of gas mileage when compared to their V8 brethren. This is especially true of Ford Rangers, which I might add are technically a smaller truck. As to V6 S-10s, I'm pretty sure that despite the claim of higher gas mileage by many owners, you'll find the 3.9 every bit as powerful, if not more so. In addition, the 3.9 Dakota outweighs the S10 and develops more torque.
Best regards,
Dusty
You're certainly correct that small trucks generally don't offer the mileage gains they ought to, commensurate with their lower weight. The problem isn't Dodge-specific. The Dakota form factor is perfect for me, it's the vehicle I'd like to own. (I suppose the vehicle with which the Dakota really competes is the Tundra.) ... If the new engine is good for a couple more MPG (and it should be) I'll go back to the showroom for a further look. It appears that the new 5-speed automatic transmission is specific to the 4.7, which is a pity - assuming that they're both good, a new engine and a new transmission together ought improve mileage several MPG. Were that the case, I'd own one tomorrow, and consider the lack of separation in purchase price as an investment in mileage gains.
Momma says it's time to change trucks...00 QC,5 spd,lsd,4.7,with 63k has been real good to me.MPG's about 18 all around..
Need to be able to haul 5 people as we pick up after school for the neighbors.
New Tundra due out in "fall" 03 is supposed to have 4 real doors like our QCs..and also to have 8 foot bed.anyway..Did you know that 25% of all trucks sold in the USA are bought in Texas ?!!!
What do you guys think?
There is a difference between the same gas mileage often reported on mid-size or small trucks, to standard size trucks. And that is performance. I just recently drove a friends V6 Dakota and was amazed at the performance compared to my 2003 with the 4.7 auto. To follow what you are saying, he said his gas mileage was "15-17" around town. Well, that's about what I'm getting. But it also cost me $1000 over the V6.
His brother has a full size GMC with a V8 and according to him these trucks are just about neck-and-next from a stop light to about 60 mph, and the GM gets about the same in gas mileage.
What this is telling me is that the various manufacturers are designing these platforms for a level of performance, regardless of the engine. And if you stop to think about this, it makes perfect sense for a truck.
Best regards,
Dusty
He's got a dual exhaust system on it. I do not know if it's a cat-back or what. He did tell me that he put a larger throttlebody on it. His makes a factory 3.9 move like the anchor off of the Bismarck!
I know of a couple of others that have the V6 and have been tweaked in some way that perform nicely, from what I've been told. So there is performance potential in the 3.9 if you want to consider modifying one.
Bests,
Dusty
Especially their trucks. I say that because my dealer said that their volume is only about 5% in trucks (that's Tundra & Tacoma combined). And they sell more Tacomas. But everytime I'm in for service there are always two, three, or more Tundras in being repaired. Brakes seem to be one of the most common, and I've seen one get a new rear axle assembly and two with their transmissions torn down.
I drove a Tundra and I found it to be a very impressive truck from many points of view. The problem for me was price versus size versus value. I drove the V6 model and although I would say the performance was better than average, it didn't seem to have the torque. And rightly so, since Toyota tunes that engine for higher RPMs. The Tundra just didn't seem very roomy. Now my Dakota IS smaller, but it cost me a lot less, offers exceptionaly good handling for a truck (Club Cab Sport Plus, front & rear sway bars) and rides decently. I like the interior and its a comfortable truck to drive long distances. The assembly quality has been nearly 100%.
Don't get me wrong. The Tundra is no piece of junk, but I think it's more competitive against the Dakota than a RAM, F150, or Sierra, and in that respect I don't think it does well against the Dakota when you consider price.
Just one person's opinion, of course.
Best regards,
Dusty
My 00 Quad has endured 64K with no major rehab or dysfunction.I think the QC is a great combination of style and practical application.I will look at the left over 03's and the new 04's before I commit to a Double Tundra..
I think if the TUNDRA demensions are similar to the Sequioa it's going to be one big truck and the price may be hefty (25-30+ Grand$)The flip side is you get what you pay for...Maybe this is the vehicle to last till the kid gets out of college.
I think that it's great that you guys still read and comment on this site.
stephen
Bookitty
Pass through so I can keep an 11' surf rod inside while I doze. What's your take on D/C rust resistance - aftermarket undercoating worth it? And headlights that I can switch off, and low powered foglights, will keep me from getting killed by colleagues if I come down the beach late while they're already fishing. Did I miss anything?
3.9 = 225ft.-lbs. @3200 rpm
3.7 = 235ft.-lbs. @4000 rpm
The 3.7 seems to be better suited to a lighter vehicle than what's needed for a truck.
John
Assuming that Dodge will use the same specs in the Dakota as they do the RAM, the ratings are as follows:
3.7 = 215hp + 235 lbs. ft. torque
3.9 = 210hp + 225 lbs. ft. torque
As Dakowner points out, the 3.7 makes more horsepower and torque but at a higher RPM. This is not normally the best way for truck engines to be tuned. I know a fellow who has a Jeep Liberty with the same engine and he says its a "rocket" power plant. It may not have the same HP and torque specs as the RAM version. I don't know.
A lot of folks have complained about the old 318-based 3.9 motor, but in my opinion they had all the torque one would need in a mid-size pickup.
As to recommendations for your purposes, the first thing I would mention is a limited slip differential. Dodge now calls it "TracLoc" (use to be Sure Grip). The Sport Plus versions come with the front a rear sway bars and much larger tires, probably both a good option for your needs.
Beyond that I think its pretty much personal preference for anything else. It ought to make a very nice platform for fishing the ocean, although many would probably feel safer transversing sand with a 4x4.
When it comes to rust resistance, Dodge is the leader in my opinion. The Ford F150s are very good, too. I don't think the Rangers are quite as notable, however. The GM versions in any size are the first to pop holes around here. S10 platform-based vehicles rust aggressively. My sister-in-law has a '99 Blazer that has a hole in the driver's door skin already. We use road salt here in the winters.
Best of luck,
Dusty
Dusty
Bookitty
Ron
Chevy short box regular cab curb weight = 4147 lbs
Dakota Quad Cab curb weight with auto trans = 4248 lbs
The lightest Chevy crew cab weighs 5488 lbs. (excluding the Colorado, couldn't find specs on it). No EPA estimates are posted for the 2500 series Chevy trucks.
EPA fuel economy estimates:
Dakota Quad with 3.9 auto trans 18/19 mpg
Chevy 4.3 with auto trans 16/20 mpg
Given these specs I don't think the fuel economy (with curb weight figured in) is out of line with the competition.
I couldn't find any specs on the Colorado.
Thanks for the correction.
Bests,
Dusty
Regards,
Dusty
I won't be buying there. We've probably passed on the beach at Smith Point, and this fall I'm going to spring for the Federal side permit too, just to see. I drive a 1993 green Explorer 4dr with no vertical rod rack, but with ski racks on top. bookitty, I never thought of anything BUT 4x4 for my prospective QC Dakota, but should have mentioned it. NYS Parks Dept. won't issue permits to anything but a 4x4 either. And a large part of my itch for a QC is the need for more space to accomodate the stuff I have to take with me for legal beach driving. NYS requires porta-potty (big space eater, that one) full size spare, jack and jack board, cables, air hose, tow rope, fishing gear. Suffolk County Parks Dept. doesn't require the potty but does require a fire extinguisher. Common sense dictates coolant and water, first aid, flares, extra clothing; I have an air hose for beaches with pumps, a compressor, a one-shot tire inflator, and would very much like the security of a big compressor either under the hood or on a power take-off. No such thing as too many amps, an extra battery is another Good Idea. Now the back of the Explorer is pretty well filled ... and here I am. Thank you all very much.
A couple of things have contributed to slightly higher gas mileage as of late:
1. Slightly heavier gas pedal from stopped up through the first to second gear shift. I let it rev up to 2500rpms instead of 2000rpms. Getting that little extra boost in first gear seems to make a difference. Also makes the shift from second to third happen sooner and accelerates to 40mph faster. I thought that keeping the rpm's lower would contribute to better gas mileage, but seems to be the opposite.
2. I no longer use the 89 octane ethanol (midwest blend) gas. Using the 87 octane seems to help mpg. Had a slight hesitation when engine was restarted warm, after about 1/2 hour sitting. Truck would hesitate on initial forward movement from stopped. Since I've switched to only 87 octane gas it has completely gone away. Can't be positive that it was the gas, but have no other theory for it.
I've been keeping very close statistics on how I drive and what I do differently. I never change more than one variable at a time so I can make more accurate assumptions. I'll get some more statistics added to my website when time allows. Really enjoying my Dakota. Still miss not having the 4.7 v8 but I'm ok with what I have. BTW, those links at the bottom of my home page were placed there without my knowledge. I'm not endorsing any of them.
Dakowner's Page
I have 63K miles on my truck with an overall average of 22.2 MPG (not counting the trips that I pull my 21' travel trailer). I still get 12-14 pulling my trailer (3,500 lbs, 9' tall, 8' wide)
In my experience just about any vehicle with a manual transmission will get better gas mileage than an automatic. Of course it depends on how one shifts, everything else being equal. With the v6 it seems the shift points between first and second catch the 3.9 at an awkward point in it's powerband. Comparisons between the automatics of the 3.9 and 4.7 wouldn't be helpful as they are totally diferent. I'm betting that a 3.9 manual wouldn't match the mpg of a 4.7 with manual transmission.
For those posting about MPG all over this site...get over it!!! please.
This emotional situation might be due to the many people that have come in here to post their unprovable claims about "how much" better the gas mileage is on their Fords and GMs. I think it may have made Dodge owners a little insecure and paranoid.
Some truck media people have done the same thing with patently unscientific results, and I believe many Ford and GM people took that, ran with it and come into the Dodge forums to taunt. I know of one incident in here where a fellow claimed poor gas mileage on his "new Dodge RAM 1500," and he didn't know that I knew him and that he doesn't own a such a vehicle. Under threat of exposing him he has since not been around.
The closest thing to a pure unbiased test of fuel consumption is the EPA certification. Since as you pointed out there is such a wide range of reported fuel consumption, even with Ford and GM models, the obvious element of the human being having the most significant impact on MPG seems to get lost on many people.
Best regards,
Dusty
Mailman
The fact is if you go into the Ford/Chevy/Toyota/etc. forums you'll find people there that report MPG on the low end as well. And I know lots of truck owners who got 19 MPG once and think that's what they get all the time.
Your recommendation to keep track of one's fuel consumption is not without merit. I think Gregg was responding to the obsession with it and some who bought a med or fullsize truck thinking they were going to get 20+ most of the time.
Bests,
Dusty
Yes, I knew it would not get exceptional fuel mileage. From some earlier posts I noticed concerns about gas mileage as compared to other trucks both smaller and larger than the Dakota. The Dakota Quad cab offers so much more than a standard cab full size truck and does so without giving up comfort, performance, or economy.
Well, then I guess they shouldn't by a Dakota then if gas mileage is that much of a priority..that's my entire point. Why buy a truck that you know will get around 15 MPG then be obsessive over it? From some of the posts here, it sounds like some are babying around with their trucks and constantly worrying about their MPG instead of having some fun with their v-8's.
By the way, driving 10,000 miles a year, at $1.75 per gallon, the difference between 14 MPG and 18 MPG is $276 a year. I can't believe anyone who buys a new Dakota at $20k+ can be that obsessive over $275 a year that it would cause them not to have some fun in their driving.
There is one hill that she kicked down on me, but so did the F150 5.4 I rented once. That doesn't happen unless I use the cruise control. I had a guy pass me on another hill in a Sierra hauling a single ATV and his dropped down while maintaining the same speed even though the Dakota stayed in overdrive all the way to the top.
I started out shopping for a fullsize truck a year ago, and after buying the Dakota I thought I had made a compromise. But after a year now I find that the Dakota is actually the right side, it's lack of exterior bulk makes it almost a pleasure to drive. The precise and correctly dampened steering, the ride, and quiet interior make this vehicle nearly ideal for me.
As much as I like Nissan and Toyota products, I have to honestly say that the Dakota has really surprised me. The Frontier is rugged and well engineered, but too small. Same for the Tacoma. The Tundra is real nice but also equally disappointing for a "full size" truck.
I must say if I were to do it again I think I'd have to go Dakota. There's just nothing equal to it.
Best regards,
Dusty
Just to make it clear. The most OVER talked about topic is brakes, not MPG.
Went to Maine for a couple of weeks, about a month ago. Best gas mileage was 22 mpg.
http://www.edmunds.com/townhall/chat/townhallchat.html
6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!
I am looking at an 03 Avalanche .The current promotions are great and this baby does some fascinating things.It will also allow me to deduct 70% of the price off my income in the first year as a business deduction.
I would value your comments about this purchase and the Suburban family.I promise not to ever discuss mpg's!!!
thanks,
stephen
Got a Sierra crew cab,slt,....it is the size of planet earth but....it will grow on me and OPEC.
i will contiue to watch this site as you folks are some of the best..
stephen
Bookitty
The factory service manual warns that the ABS can be affected if the overall diameter of the tires is changed from factory-delivered.
Additionaly, if you run an automatic tranny, the speed sensors that control shifting may be affected. (do not forget that there are sensors at the INPUT and OUTPUT of the tranny that feed into a computer to control shift-points, shift-length and overall shift-quality.)
There is also a sensor in the rear axle housing that feeds tire RPM to the onboard computers. These computers need to know the tire rating in "rotations per mile" entered into the computer. ALl calculations are based on this pre-programmed setting.
Either pay the dealer to update the onboard computer or use one of those "programmer boxes" to change it yourself.
Regards,
Dusty