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

13233343537

Comments

  • datagurudataguru Member Posts: 95
    Dusty,

    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
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    Am I missing some detailed posts (I may be) or has DC been awfully closemouthed with information on a new V-6 cylinder engine and a new 5 speed automatic transmission? No one seems to have a good word for the old V-6, a new one is significant news. A new 6 and a new transmission could be a significant improvement in the Dakota's underwhelming gas mileage. Is there any good public information on this? The Dakota's interior seems dated to me. That said, the only reason I didn't buy one earlier this year was the lack of an engine and powertrain that could deliver gas mileage commensurate with the difference in weight between a Dakota and a half ton pickup. Presumably this new engine will be available in the 2005/6 vehicle, and perhaps other DC products; any information? And I'd buy a diesel Dakota in a heartbeat.
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    Pity DC doesn't have an I-6 along the lines of the one in the TrailBlazer. For those of us who want a midsize truck that can move smartly in highway merges, but aren't much concerned with towing, that kind of torque would be fine, just fine ... don't know how the mileage is, though.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Well, I have a few words of praise for the old 3.9 Chrysler V6. It's been every bit as durable as the 318-base V8 it is derived from. There are very, very, very few incidents of catastrophic failures, they have a reputation for easily going 150,000 miles and an uncanny proportion have gone 200,000 and better (I've seen five with over 250,000 on the original motors). They don't have a reputation for consuming oil or having premature valve problems. They have lots of low-end torque and one automotive article reported that over 75% of current owners would be completely satisfied with another Dakota with the same engine.

    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
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    Can't disagree, you speak from experience that I don't have. Does reliability require bad mileage? Perhaps I am blaming the engine for mileage limitations that flow from a dated truck design and GVW. It annoys the bejabbers out of me that despite the size and weight difference between the Dakota and larger vehicles, there is no MPG difference - and the purchase price is all but identical. Why so?
    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.
  • slr9589slr9589 Member Posts: 121
    hi all,
    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?
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I don't know or have heard of any plans to use the 545RFE transmission from the 4.7 on the newer 3.7 V6. Since the 545RFE is almost 200 pounds heavier than a 46RE, the engineers are probably thinking that the current 42RE (or a 44RE) would do just as well for people expecting a little more economy.

    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
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    That's a thoughtful post, Dusty. You may well be right. If the new 6 is worth one or two MPG more, that'll do me. Presumably this will buy Dodge some experience with the engine before it has to appear in the 2005 remake. I may have to wait that long to see what Dodge decides to do for a more advanced truck, though the stuff I carry now is starting to bulge out the Explorer's windows.
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    slr9589, the 4 door Tundra should turn up in the next couple of months at showrooms, I guess. However, once it does, you're in a whole 'nother price bracket for wheels. Betcha the base price of a 4 door Tundra is around $35K. Sizewise, the Dakota and current Tundras make an interesting comparison.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I should mention that there is a 3.9 V6 standard cab Dakota around here that is pretty fast. He and I met on NY 104 a few weeks ago and he and I were neck-and-neck until the 4.7 got into the upper RPM range.

    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
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I could have bought a Tundra if I really wanted one. We currently have a '99 Avalon that in most ways is a fairly satisfying if not pleasing road car. Despite all the bluster you'll sometimes hear from Toyota owners, Toyota products are not necessarily bullet proof, put together with maximum refinement, or the ultimate in reliability.

    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
  • slr9589slr9589 Member Posts: 121
    I think the comparison was more fun when the T-100 roamed the planet but anyway....
    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
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    Stephen, it's good to hear from you again. You were a great contributor to these threads and we would welcome your input anytime.

    Bookitty
  • quadder45quadder45 Member Posts: 1
    Chevrolet is coming out with a Dakota clone, its called the Colorado. It is basically the same dimensions as the Dakota. It has an I-5, yes I-5, that is suppposed to put out more power than the 3.9 and get 2-3 mpg more. I have had my Dakota for 3.8 years now, I happy with the mileage on the freeway but I admit there is a lot of room of improvement in city driving. But if you drive 12K a year the cost difference is less than $170 a year. Don't think it is worth the investment
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    Dusty, your opinion is informed, and I read your notes with interest. I don't doubt that the 3.9 can be tweaked for zip, but if zip I want, I'll get the more modern design in the 4.7. Speed from the stoplight isn't a concern. I'm more likely to annoy the folks behind me with a light foot on the gas pedal. The new 3.6 for 2004 interests me (cheap dog that I am) and since it's accompanied by captains' chairs, I'll look it over as soon as it shows up at an area dealers. (When do the 2004s ship, anyway?) I agree that the Dakota QC is a vastly better value then the Toyota Tundra. It's actually a surprise to me that the Tundra is bigger then the Dakota QC, I'd'a thought the bed space was similar, but the QC has more useful proportions (IMHO). ... since you're buying a dealer as well as a truck, the other concern is his service dept. The nearest Dodge large dealer had the most dimwittedly carnivorous salesmen I've met in years; the pitch I got for a new Ram was aggressive and clumsy to a point that would have made a good comedy skit. So I gotta find a good guy. Quadder45, the Colorado/Canyon twins sound interesting, but I am not sure they're going to be in the same size bracket as the Dakota. The proportions seem more like a Ranger or even Tacoma. Compare vehicle width. An inline engine is fine and I don't need to tow, but, it'll be brand new. New vehicle, new engine and drivetrain, let the first hundred thousand early adopters help GM debug it. GM build quality, y'know, not always something that leaves you crazed with enthusiasm. Anything new has gotchas no matter who builds it. GMC's warranty is still 3/36K, isn't it? Even the 3.6 is a bit of a gamble, as a new powerplant. I drive around 16K-18K a year, could easily have low mileage when the 7/70K warranty runs out even on the 3.6. As far as gas mileage goes, I don't assume that gas prices stay at current levels. The Niddle East is unreliable, and becoming more so. You could open a dozen ANWRs and not replace Saudi Arabia, and the Russians are a decade of building away from replacing them. Good gas mileage is good insurance. Dusty, perhaps you can suggest some options on the Dakota QC, if I bite. I go offroad as a surfcaster. Beach driving means deflated tires, a cautious foot on the pedal,an offroad package for the sake of clearance and skid plates (Montauk is rocky) and a locking differential. It's nice to be able to run an air compressor off the engine to reflate. Installing any appliance upstream of the differential may void the warranty, and especially with a new 3.6 I don't want to do that. Can the Dakota be hand with a power takeoff at the differential? (That salesman? Didn't know what I was asking about.) The frame design is old. The new one for 2005 will doubtless use the same hydroforming that the Ram does (hydroforming's a bragging point these days, it's the truck version of a bigger bust) but till then, would those sway bars you mention be a good idea? I'd also like to stuff an extra battery under the hood, or under the cap I'd put on the cab. No fun needing a charge if you're below the high tide mark. Put a solar panel on the roof for a trickle charge if need be. Lockable storage inside the cab would be nice for the binoculars, someday I'll own an expensive pair.
    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?
  • dakownerdakowner Member Posts: 21
    Interesting torque specs between the two:

    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.
  • jhorljhorl Member Posts: 89
    Are you from Long Island? If so avoid Neil Dodge of Medford like the plague. They are by far the worst dealership I have ever encounterd, of any vehicle, by far. I drive a 2000 Quad on Smithpoint Beach and I have no problems with the 4.7.
    John
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    The "new" 3.7 (226cid) derivitive of the polyhead 4.7 V8 has actually been out for two years, I am pretty sure. I know a fellow that has one in a 2002 RAM. From what I can tell, the 3.7 is a solid engine and I know of no genetic problems.

    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
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    ....are fairly strong and rigid. My extended cab shows no signs of flexing on off-level approaches, despite it being longer. I don't know about the Quad version, but I haven't heard one complaint either. I think you are right, Brian. The next generation Dakota will likely receive a hyroformed frame assembly.

    Dusty
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    Brian, I would assume that you are considering a 4X4 for use on the beach. On LBI, a beach buggy permit will not be issued for 2X4 vehicles. And, the LSD is imperative. A jump start battery with built in air compressor can be purchased at Sam's Club for around $40.00. I never leave home without it. Good luck in finding a truck. I love my 2000 4X4 Quad with LSD , 4.7 and the 5 speed (3:55).

    Bookitty
  • ronslakieronslakie Member Posts: 58
    dusty - I believe you need to check the horsepower you listed for the 3.9 at 210; the Dak brochures I have as well as the data sheets show the 3.9 horsepower at 175. The torque you show is correct.

    Ron
  • dakownerdakowner Member Posts: 21
    I was looking at the specifications/fuel mileage estimates for the Chevy trucks and comparing them to the Dakota specs. From what I read there isn't much difference in the EPA fuel economy ratings between a chevy regular cab and the Dakota Quad Cab.

    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.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Yes, you are correct. The latest horsepower version of the 3.9 Magnum motor is 175 hp.

    Thanks for the correction.

    Bests,
    Dusty
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Well, apparently Chrysler has already mated the 545RFE transmission to the 3.7 V6. According to Rapid Response Transmittal #02-024 (11 Nov 02), 188 of the early 2003-built 545RFEs left the manufacturing site with potentially defective Pressure Sensor Transducers. This applied to Dakota, RAM, and Jeep Libertys. The Jeep Liberty only gets the 545RFE auto with the 3.7 engine.

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    jhorl, Neil is where I got that godawful sales pitch, LOL. Your opinion is one I've heard elsewhere, too.
    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.
  • missedbassmissedbass Member Posts: 48
    You can get a fold up porta potty that folds flat and takes up no space for $15 and meets the NYS permit requirements. Got a cap from J&J in Oakdale with the rack on top and put rod holders on that. One thing missing on the QC is a front tow hook. Have to figure out where to put one.
  • jhorljhorl Member Posts: 89
    Good to see some fellow LI'ers here.
  • dakownerdakowner Member Posts: 21
    I'm at 4,000 miles on my 03 Quad with 3.9 v6 and auto transmission. I drive 80/20 percent (city/highway) and my overall gas mileage is 16mpg. Best to date has been 20mpg on one tank where most of the trip was highway with some city driving.

    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
  • ferousferous Member Posts: 226
    That is interesting, because I'm a low RPM shifter and I get great gas mileage. I have the 4.7 with 5 spd mannual.
    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)
  • dakownerdakowner Member Posts: 21
    Ferous, you're getting +22 overall city and highway combined? Of the 4000 miles on my truck only about 900 miles of the total is highway only. About 1,500 of the total is city only (frequent stop and go, speeds between 25 and 40mph). About 1,600 miles combination city/highway with speeds between 25 and 65mph.

    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.
  • greggpatsgreggpats Member Posts: 7
    they are everywhere...why buy a truck(especially those with the v-8's) then worry about an extra 1-2 MPG? I mean really. We all knew what the MPG were before we bought.. right? I could care less what I'm getting with my new 2003..I know it's somewhere between 14-18MPG...I knew that before the purchase, so why be obsessive over it now? I didn't get the 4.7L to baby around constantly worrying about accelerating too fast because of gas mileage.

    For those posting about MPG all over this site...get over it!!! please.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    You make an excellent point.

    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
  • mailman54mailman54 Member Posts: 111
    I have to 2nd Greggpats on this. I'm really tired of hearing about MPG with V8 trucks. Let's talk about how the darn things run. If I wanted to hear about gas mileage, I would have joined a Mini Cooper forum! Seriously, I don't care what we talk about, if you all are really interested in MPG(ZZZZZZZZZ).

    Mailman
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    You've made some good points, too. I think what some find boring are the few who appear to be obsessed about their gas mileage after others are telling them they get better, usually with something else. This seems to have been acute after the new RAM was released with the 4.7 motor and one or two people where in here constantly trying to reinforce anything negative with the vehicle.

    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
  • dakownerdakowner Member Posts: 21
    I apologize for cluttering up the message board with mpg posts. I'm in research so it comes naturally. Dakotas seem to be exceptional vehicles and I enjoy testing mine to see what's possible with it, as opposed to what's wrong with it. Also helps during the tiring commute home after work. I'll continue to monitor the board as a lurker.

    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.
  • greggpatsgreggpats Member Posts: 7
    "No everyone has so much discretionary income as to just pump in the gas and not be concerned about the cost of operation."

    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.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    My trip yesterday down to my property in the SouthernTier of western New York, hauling my 700 lb. ATV, chainsaws, tools, etc., I did appreciate having that 287 (4.7) motor on those hills between Geneseo and Corning area. In the Dakota the 287 motor is all I could think anyone would ever need, especially for weekend hauling.

    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
  • ferousferous Member Posts: 226
    I'm really disappointed to read the bashing in these postings. This has always been a great chat room. Clean facts talking about all areas of the Dakota.

    Just to make it clear. The most OVER talked about topic is brakes, not MPG.
  • bcarter3bcarter3 Member Posts: 145
  • bcarter3bcarter3 Member Posts: 145
    Thanks to the monitors on Edmunds this is a relatively civil forum. You want to see bashings go to dodgedakotas.com!!!!!
  • bobs5bobs5 Member Posts: 557
    Been awhile since my last post. Truck runs great.
    Went to Maine for a couple of weeks, about a month ago. Best gas mileage was 22 mpg.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Don't forget tonight's member-to-member chat -- Our topic tonight is "Warranties: Are they worth it?"

     

    image

     

    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!
  • slr9589slr9589 Member Posts: 121
    I have been driving an 00,4.7,5 spd,2wd,green quad for 3 years with no real problems. I agree that it is a remarkable vehicle that filled a niche when it arrived in 1999.Great feel,power,and personality.
    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
  • slr9589slr9589 Member Posts: 121
  • slr9589slr9589 Member Posts: 121
    I sold my truck today to the GMC dealer....he gave me a fair price considering I knew it needed a new fuel pump and body work.
    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
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    Stephen, good luck with your new truck. Let's have some details, 4X2, 4X4, gasoline , diesel? Facts Stephen, we need facts.

    Bookitty
  • brianbmbrianbm Member Posts: 55
    Dakowner, no one need apologize for discussing any normal technical concern. No one can take a munfacturer's posted mileage rating at face value, any more then you can take the salesman's word on maintanence issues. The best way to assess mileage is to discuss it with a group of users. Some of us, like myself, are here to research a vehicle they might buy in the near future, so it's not quite the case that "we all know what we were getting into" - some of us want to know before getting in, thank you. Greggpats, it's nice that gas cost is irrelevant to you, but it's of interest to some. If your major concern is acceleration, well, good for you. That's boring for me. If my driving were the 10K/year you use as an example, I'd be less interested in MPG myself, but that's a low figure, and I'm not willing to assume that $1.75/gallon is normal any more.
  • jimtjimt Member Posts: 56
    Have been shopping for tires for a couple of weeks. Original tires Goodyear Wrangler, 265/70x16 with 77,000. Wanted Bridgestone AT Revo's, but not available 'til Nov. Decided on Yokohoma HT-S Geolanders. Same size not available without a wait also, so have ordered 275/70x16s. Tire is about 1/2" taller overall. I know it changes over effective gear-ration by small amount, but will this effect computer parameters? Will it need to be flashed(i.e. by dealer) or is this small enough of change that computer will compensate? Any thoughts on this will be appreciated! Jim
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Member Posts: 4,085
    This is a safety concern.

    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.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I agree with Bpeebles. One thing I would add is that with respect to an automatic transmission, it should eventually readjust the shifts points on its own as it goes through the learn cycle a few times.

    Regards,
    Dusty
This discussion has been closed.