Dodge Durango

crapper · June 2000

I just bought a 2000 durango (brand new) last friday. I love it. It's loaded, drives as smooth as any truck/suv i've driven. My only complaint thus far is minor. My driver seat squeeks like crazy. Anyone else have this problem? Otherwise, I feel like said grand weeezard when I'm in it.

crapper · June 2000

I should have spell checked. I meant Seat!

2k_cpr_d · June 2000

I've seen a lot of posts about the "D". Everyone one here are big boys and girls, so you know what you like and don't like. I'll tell you my experience so far with my "D".

1. I can't imagine owning or driving any other truck. (I've been through 11 vehicles of many makes and models in the last 20yrs.) I LIKE V8, I LIKE REAR DRIVE, I CAN LIVE WITH LOW GAS MILEAGE. THAT'S JUST MY CHOICE.

2. GAS MILEAGE on my 4.7V8 with 3.55 rear, PT4WD WITH Optional DSA: Anti spin rear.
0 MIles: 11MPG mixed driving
15 Hiway
at 3000Mi. 13.5 mixed (lots of steep hills)
17 hiway (n.e. PA/NY hills.)

3. SQUEAKY SEAT: Yes! I have that too. I think it has to do with how high the truck is and leaning on the left side getting in and out. Ask the dealer if anything can be tightened. I live with it.

4. 2nd ROW - Thin firm seats that don't recline. (with 3rd row option) I don't know what it does if you don't have the 3rd row.
3rd ROW - good for kids, dogs, groceries, small adults. GET REAR A/C WITH THE 3RD ROW!!!

GENERAL COMMENTS:
For a 5,000 pound TRUCK (and make no mistake, this is a truck) nicely finished when loaded but still a truck, it is a nice ride. I like the driveability, I like the acceleration, I like the handling.

For those of you who love this vehicle and want to have a good time meeting others that do and talking about your "D" good / bad / or indifferent. Consider joining the DOC - Durango Owners Club. www.durangoclub.com

Enjoy everyone. If we all wanted and liked the same thing, imagine how long the line would be.

Rob b.

msjr · June 2000

Thanks for the info on the reclining seats. That eliminates the D for me. With a sleepy 3 year old, a reclining second and third row is a requirement.

Guess I'm back to the montero!

2k_cpr_d · June 2000

Your 3 yr old will adapt. He/she is young. There are all kinds of car seats etc... I'm sure the mitsu is nice, but the 'D'. Oh! the "D". You can probably tell I really love this truck. My boy (15 months) every morning looks out the door at my truck, turns to me and says: "da da, mummm mummm".

Good luck whatever you decide.

Rob b.

vac23 · June 2000

The used D were not all '98s, there were quite a few '99s & 1 or 2 '00. (Just to clarify)

msjr · July 2000

2k cpr d, I appreciate your love of your D. I currently have an SUV that doesn't have a reclining seat and my daughter is now in a booster seat which provides NO head support. I can't tell you how many times I've had to pull over on the highway and prop her head up with jackets and stuff. It's a real pain. Your son is probably still in the infant/toddler seat which gives more support. There's nothing worse than driving and looking back to see your child folding in half because they have fallen asleep and have no head support. I don't understand why the car seat manufacturers don't incorporate headrests into the seats! Don't they have kids?

Oh well, without a sunroof and reclining seats I'll have to wait for a future D model.

mrstiffy · July 2000

3 year old should be in a car seat...reclining seat would be hazardous since they would "submarine" through the seat belts in case of an accident.

2k_cpr_d · July 2000

your child folding in half. The seat my boy is in is good for up to 40 pounds. It reclines a little bit, but not much. When he falls asleep, his head still flops forward even though he is in a car seat. It's tough to watch and wonder if he is uncomfortable. I guess when he is older I will have to deal with the other seat problem too.

Good luck, I know how you feel. If my son could say he didn't like this truck or the seat, I'd sell it tomorrow just because he said so. Good luck on the SUV hunt. I hope you find the right one that fits everyone.

Rob b.

msjr · July 2000

Mr. Stiffy, Obviously you don't have a child or you didn't read my post thoroughly. The type of seat that a child should be in is based on weight not age. My 3yr old is 42 pounds which means that she no longer fits in a toddler seat and moves to the next level, booster seat. She will remain there until she is 80 lbs.

Of course she is in a seatbelt. It's a 5 point belt incorporated into the booster seat. A slight recline in the seat does not affect safety, but provides more comfort when she falls asleep.

2k cp r, Since my daughter can express herself, she tells me that her neck hurts when she wakes up, so I know that the flopping forward is affecting her. Like you, my childs happiness, safety and comfort are my priority. Hopefully someone from Dodge reads these posts and will incorporate that feature in the future!

Does anyone know why Durango doesn't offer a sunroof, even aftermarket?

apvitale · July 2000

I'm new to this area and appreciate many of the comments. I'm considering a 2000 SLT+ and I'm curious about a couple of things:

- I've reviewed several of the reports on safety and it appears the Durango gets mixed results. We have a child on the way and safety is a big concern. What were your feelings on the safety of the Durango compared to other SUVs?

- We're considering leasing. What do the residuals look like after 36 months? Can anyone give me an idea of lease price range for 36 months/12k miles?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Andrew

rcarboni · July 2000

I'm not sure why everyone thinks that a sunroof is not available in a D. There are many D owners with sunroofs, and I see many on the road everyday.

Dodge does not offer a sunroof as an option, which is a good thing because they would just give you a cheap one anyway, and overcharge you for it (like the stereo). There are many aftermarket companies that will install a sunroof in the D, even if you have rear air and/or overhead console. These are high quality units that will be installed right, unlike most of the units that come with other vehicles.

I suggest you look here for a dealer near you:
http://www.solairesunroofs.com/searchmap.htm

rcarboni · July 2000

Here's the IIHS Durango ratings. Looks pretty good to me:

http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/mid_suvs/durango.htm

Although, you should consider that this tests only one collison type in an infinite number of possible scenarios.

BTW, my insurance company rates the D very well, and my premiums reflect that.

panzer948 · July 2000

I have noticed several discussions on which choice of options is best. It really comes down to this (does not include RT):

Acceleration: 4.7L w/ 3.92 gears
Towing: 5.9L w/ 3.92 gears
Fuel Economy: In my opinion, the difference is only minimal and is not a factor (all SUVs get terrible mileage anyway).

Prior to my purchase in November 1999, I test drove both the 5.9L and 4.7L w/ 3.92 gears and found the 4.7L to be noticeably quicker. However, if you are into mods, not many are available for the 4.7 L (but are promised). Since I do not plan on towing, it was an easy decision for me (4.7L w/ 3.92).

I hate to repeat many of the others, but I do love this vehicle. It is probably one of the quickest vehicles I have ever owned, which really says a lot for an SUV. I often rent vehicles for out of town work, which can require 4x4s, and none of them (even most of the cars) perform in acceleration, handling, and the feeling of safety like the Durango.

As for as quality, I have had no problems, not even a squeaky seat.

apvitale · July 2000

rcarboni: Thanks for the safety info. Lots to consider on the safety side.

2k_cpr_d: Thanks for the info on leasing. I'm finding a lot of leasing numbers on various sites. Looks like the best residual is about 56% right now on a 2000. Sounds like a good program through Chrysler.

slclark3 · July 2000

I too test drove both 4.7/3.92 and the 5.9/3.92 and found the 4.7 to be quicker. It still amazes me and others who have ridden with me the power the 4.7 produces. I talk to the hard mopar buffs who find it hard to believe that the 4.7 out performs the 5.9. I'm glad someone else has this opinion because it renforces what I thought all
along.

bpeebles · July 2000

that a 2000 technology engine is quicker than a 1960s-based design? Anyone that has studied physics knows that less weight means quicker accelleration.

Just imagane what DC has in store for the "power freaks" when the 'big prothers' of the 4.7 become available as announced. These OHC HEMI engines promise to be awesome.

robbiet · July 2000

www.OrangeParkdodge.net

rcarboni · July 2000

The 4.7 may seem quicker off the line, but the 5.9 will pull away after 40-50mph. The 4.7 torque drops off too fast after about 2200rpms, but the 5.9 torque remains strong all the way to 4000. The weight savings in the 4.7 is minimal.

As said, the 5.9 is also the better engine for adding more power with mods. "There's no replacment for displacement".

The 4.7 is still an excellent engine, and has proven very reliable, but if you're looking for speed, get the 5.9.

rcarboni · July 2000

Regarding "2000 technology"... Overhead cams really aren't "new" technology. Dual overhead cams (DOHC) were first used back in 1912 by Peugeot in a Grand Prix race engine. The first production DOHC engine was a 1500 cc straight six built by Alfa Romeo in 1928.

OHC technology is in fashion mainly because a smaller displacement engine (stock) can achieve higher power ratings by increasing the revs with less risk of valve float. The smaller engines fit nicely in the current smaller cars. We no longer have the engine compartments of the '60s.

The downside of OHCs is that they are (typically) more expensive to manufacture, and many of the multi-valve designs are more complex which leads to expensive repairs and exact tolerances. The advantages of the more advanced engines include variable valve timing, but currently only finds its way into the very expensive production vehicles.

Properly built pushrod engines however, as proven by the Viper, can outperform the OHCs, even in competition where technology is unfettered.

sorcerer · July 2000

I'm currently considering purchasing a DD, but I would like to have a couple of questions answered for me first.
1. What are the advantages/disadvantages of the two diff's? (3.55 vs 3.92)

2. Advantages/disadvantages of full time 4wd. VS. part time 4wd.

Thanks in advance!

mrboost · July 2000

Does anyone who has a 4.7 run it in the 1/4 vs a 5.9 in the 1/4??? My guess is the 5.9 is quicker, note not a slam on the 4.7.

Regarding the new 2002 5.7 Hemi. According to Automotive monthly, this is a pushrod engine, not an OHC like the 4.7. They did this for cost reasons.

For Sourcerer:

The difference in the gear ratio means that the higher the number, the easier it is to accelerate. Thus if you want to tow really high loads, ie say a car on a trailer, get the 3.92. You should look in the brochures, it gives the weights for each combo.

The FT4WD NV242 adds about 350$ to the price. IT allows you to have 4wd on dry pavement. The 4WPT NV231, only can be used on slippery surfaces or off road.

I would opt for the FT4wd.

Later

a6chris · July 2000

I'm currently looking at a 00' DD SLT 4x2 for $24,000. It's got the standard 5.2L V8 and am wondering if there are any major problems with this engine. I live in Houston and do a lot of city driving and am wondering how the power is passing and getting on the freeway. Any help would be appreciated!

slclark3 · July 2000

When I drove both the 4.7 and 5.9 both with 3.92 gear it was from a standing start to 80 mph. I did not feel that the 5.9 was quicker after 50 mph. According to Truck Trend, Auto week and Motor Trend magazines the 4.7 is quicker in all test in the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile.The 5.9 may be quicker if both were hooked to a trailer.

bpeebles · July 2000

(rcarboni) Thanks for the Refresh on Overhead Cam -vs- pushrod. Here is a few items about the 4.7 you missed.

You forgot you mention the bypass cooling system. (MUCH better thermal performance) or Carbon/nodular-iron 'girdle' that is usually found on VERY hi-performance engines offering SUPERIOR torsional stiffness FAR beyond what '4-bolt-mains' can accomplish.(There are over 20 bolts/studs holding the bearing mains on the 4.7!)

What about the NO SPARK PLUG WIRES or the Magnesium valve covers? There is also the advanced lubrication system and high-compression combustion chambers that runs on pump gas. All with an IRON block for the durability of a truck engine.

Perhaps the best part of the 4.7L is that it has all of this while its fuel economy matches that of the V6 (The 60s-V8 with two cylinders lopped off!)

Please refer to motorcycle engines to see what may be coming into autos in the future. These are currently beyond 100HP/Liter on a durable, normally - aspirated engine. VERY technical stuff in this realm of engine design.

bowhuntwi · July 2000

The 5.2 is a quick engine, heck any of the engines in the durango is snappy, I can attest to the 4 speeding tickets my wife has gotten since we bought the Durango. We have the SLT+ 4x4, so I would say the 4x2 would have no trouble merging in & out of traffic.

2k_cpr_d · July 2000

My 2000 PT4WD has the 4.7 (note it also has a different tranny). Although its still a 4 speed, it has 2 different 2nd gears. One for starts and one for passing at higher speed. So there's one more variable in the equation. Jeep used this motor/tranny combo last year. So the history is limited.

As far as driveability and performance, I find the 4.7 is a little quieter than the 5.9. Also the 4.7 does feel (to me) to be faster off the line and up through about 50MPH. But it tops out quick. You cant punch it at 70MPH and expect much without the tack tickling the red.

The fuel economy is okay. I've put 3000 miles on (I know, not quite broken in) and have a running average of 13.5 MPG. LOTS OF HILLS and about 35% hiway driving. Best N.E.Pa. hiway trip was 17MPG. (Again, Lots of hills).

PT vs FT: also consider the DSA option (Anti spin rear) regardless of 2wd or PT4WD. Once you break that $30,000 mark, the cost of a few more extras don't make you wince as bad.

But the biggest reason I liked this truck: (2 actually)
Chili Pepper Red Pearl Coat and an
Awesome stock exhaust note.

Enjoy all,
Rob b.

rcarboni · July 2000

Thanks for the additional info. I don't want you to think that I don't like the 4.7... quite the opposite! The 4.7 is definitely the near future trend in truck engine design, and is a very good engine. I just wanted to point out that it does not have advantages over the 5.9/5.2 in terms of power, performance, or longevity. It's advantages are size and efficiency (although I'd like to see some better efficiency).

Most of the features you added are necessities of the 4.7 because of the higher revving nature of this engine, and again are nothing revolutionary. Now, if it was all aluminum, multi-valve, VVT....

I must disagree with your gas savings assessment though. From almost every report I've seen, the 4.7 is not gaining more than 1mpg more than the 5.9. Comparing to a V6 may be a good contrast nevertheless, because a V6 in a 5000lb vehicle will get about the same (check out the Montero - 4500lbs, 16/19mpg). The real disadvantage to the mpg is that under load, the 4.7 suffers more than the 5.9 under load.

Finally, I agree with you that more technical, high-powered engines are in the future. The Hemi Grand Cherokee is rumored for MY 2004. The 5.7L is expected to output 350hp and 350ft.lbs. of torque, giving it more stock hp than an LS1 Vette!

rcarboni · July 2000

I don't see too many Durangos running at the track, so I don't know about comparitive times in this vehicle. However, there are many Dakotas that run, both 4.7 and 5.9. The 4.7s typically run in the low 15s stock, and the 5.9s run high 14s to low 15s stock. It's close, but on average the 5.9 wins the 1/4 mile.

I guess as more 4.7 Durangos get on the road, we'll see more at the track, and maybe a few will start modifying them to see what they are capable of doing. A slightly modified (open intake/exhaust) 4.7 will definitely take a stock 5.9.

2k_cpr_d · July 2000

there are many mods available, and its a well known motor. They can take a lot of punishment. Like with everything, there are always pro/cons/ and compromises. For Daimler-Chrysler, I think they were just trying to get ahead in the government C.A.F.E. standards game. For me, I was looking for an okay fuel economy, decent enough power, light towing vehicle, loaded to the gills with leather and features, but in the end it came down to a phrase I saw on a Harley-Davidson ad...."Drop the wrench, step back, and laugh evilly." Uh-Uh-Oooh- Nice Truck. It was all about the body for me. I would have been happy with any motor.

I agree that the 5.2/5.9 with 3.92 rear is your ultimate towing choice. I suppose with 5000 lbs of truck, the 4.7 or a V6 would suffer under heavy load. (Side Note: This months CAR AND DRIVER has an article on a V6+Hybrid Electric Drive Durango).

If all your looking for is towing a garden trailer or a few motorcycles, the 4.7 is OK. But for hard core towing and passing at hi-speed while towing, the 5.9 is the choice. Most guys I know with the RAM (5.9) are averaging 13-14 hiway.

As far as fuel economy. The 4.7 is on the money with what I posted. I drive hard and fast and a lot of hills. I've put 9 tankfulls or more in and measure every drop of 87 octane. I think if I'm more careful and stick to the flatlands, I might get another 1 or 2 MPG out of her. Oh, and the rear is 3.55 in my PT4WD beast. But in the end, none of it was a rational choice. I'm just nuts about this truck.

darkstar4 · July 2000

Hello

,

I like to hear from anyone who has had similar problems with their Durango, as I will tell my story below.

I drive a Durango SUV 2000 model, it is 4WD, and currently has 7260 miles. I live in a rural area, with some gravel roads, almost all of my current driving has been on rural paved roads, with the usual pot holes, and other misc road hazards.

I had the vehicle serviced, and learned that it needed to have the brakes replaced, steering box replaced, transfer case resealed, front tires replaced, and the rear parking park was stretched.

They claim that the vehice has been driven past its performace standards.

The roadway is paved, steep hills (used low gear), I sometimes drive 70 - 95 miles per hour on the freeway. The rural roadway is 55 mph, but 35 - 40 is the norm for driving.

I am looking for information, is this standard, am I pushing this vehicle past its performace limits, or is this the norm for this vehicle.

Thanks for your help

panzer948 · July 2000

I have heard of no such problems and I too have a 2000 model with ~ 7,000 miles. And I think we both now you are not pushing the vehicle past its limits. Although I don't live in a rural area, the city is full of potholes and I am VERY heavy on the pedal (one reason why I bought the D was its acceleration). I've had no mechanical problems what so ever.

I don't mean to question you, but your description of your vehicle seems suspect. Are you sure you own a Durango?

msjr · July 2000

I went to check out a Durango this week and when I informed the salesman that I didn't real need the car until September, but I could pay my current lease off now if I wanted, he told me to wait, because DC is offering a leasing incentive in August. He claimed he wasn't supposed to tell me, but decided to share anyway.

So for any of you who are considering leasing, you may want to wait a couple of weeks if you can. You might be able to save some money!

homer61388 · July 2000

My best friend is currently looking at a dodge durango SLT. He likes the room, engine choices, and the ride, but he is still wondering about the rear brakes. THEIR DRUMS! Are they going to last, are they safe to travel on? And the reliability, this is his first time with a chrysler product. Please give me information on these questions.

Homer61388

mgutowski · July 2000

Has anyone heard when the 2001 model is going to start building and where I can find pricing info on it?

rcarboni · July 2000

The use of rear drum brakes has been discussed before, and basically it is a way for Dodge to keep the costs down without sacrificing very much. My suggestion would be that if you really like the Durango in every other aspect, but are hung-up on rear drums, then get an after-market drum-to-disc conversion kit, and you'll have the total package.

The drums that come with the Durango are more than sufficient for rear stopping power. They last quite well, and the pads are less expensive to replace than the front discs.

Dodge is supposedly converting the Ram to rear disc, so I imagine the Durango is not far behind. However, it still may be a few years.

bikerus · July 2000

chose the 4 whell drive abs and you will get 4 whell disk brake option i think

tom_ · July 2000

The 2001 Durango is scheduled to start in Newark, DE on July 31

robert1972 · July 2000

I also own a D mine is a 98, this morning I took it to the dealer for the 6th time in only 15K for problems, my transfer case is leaking and the steering colum makes a poping noise when you turn from left to right. Everything that can leak has leaked, its never been off road and we bought it new. I have sent a letter to Chrysler, but have not had a response. I have been talking to different people wit Durangos in my area, gas stations, restaurant etc.. If I see a D and someone next to it I ask what kind of luck they have had with it. It seems that 1/2 the people I talk to have had problems, I don't think that is a very good percentage, which means when you buy one you only have a 50/50 chance its a good one.

rcarboni · July 2000

Look at the bright side - at least you didn't spend 10-20K more on a BMW or ML just to find that you'd have to visit the dealer just as much.

csea · July 2000

I have a new 2000 Durango. Just had it a month and half. It's been in the shop 4 times because occasionally upon startup, the gauges don't engage. The car will start and run, the the gauges don't work. Dealer service dept. seems stumped. Any suggestions or thoughts?

mazman1 · July 2000

Had the same problem with my Caravan. I assume you checked the fuses? My dealer had to replace a computer module to fix the gauges.

Good Luck

paisan · July 2000

Hey all, just visiting from the Isuzu camp. I just got rid of my '97 Rodeo that went 120,000 miles w/o seeing the dealer 1x. Moved into a 2000 Trooper LS. I was considering a Durango except that it had less room than the Trooper and was too curvy in the back to put boxes in. Also was a little afraid of moving away from the Isuzu quality and fit/finish I had on my Rodeo. I'll just keep an eye on this board for a while, hope you guys with problems get em worked out by DC.

-mike

rcarboni · July 2000

Sounds like you want to fire up the Trooper vs. Durango topic again, huh?

Ok, you might have us on fit and finish, but the clunk, bad a/c, dealer woes, lousy mileage at break-in, rattles, etc. are not extinct from the Trooper forums either. You know what they say about those in glass houses...

It's actually amazing that anyone posts anything bad on the Trooper forums with the fascists that own them.

Anyway, when I was purchasing, here's the advantages I found that the Durango has over the Trooper:

- More low-end torque
- Power band more usable (I don't want my engine screaming at 5400rpms to get max)
- Towing
- Payload
- Ride
- Handling
- More custom options
- Better for the shade-tree mechanic
- Styling

The advantages of the Trooper:

- Better off-road
- More gadgets (Limited)
- Larger cargo space (2 cu. ft.)

The Trooper is a fine truck - I hope you have great luck with your new one.

paisan · July 2000

I've had good luck with towing, (towed a 5200lbs. car trailer with my rodeo) so I'm sure my troopr will handle that. I used to own the pre-cursor to the durango. '83 Dodge Ram Charger 2x4. Best car I've ever owned. 250,000 miles and we had to retire it only because the doors fell off and th interior went to crap. Had a 318 chrysler in it. Towed a ton of crap, and never got stuck in the snow or off road. I was hoping they would re-vive it with the new dodge ram, but no such luck except in mexico.

I do wish we had a 3rd row of seats (they do outside the US) I'll probably buy some aftermarket ones, and the durango does have the V8 power.

-mike

robert1972 · July 2000

that the D has a TSB on the steering col. and also on the FT. transfer case. I picked mine up yesterday and thats what they told me, Chrysler is aware of it but doesn't do anything about it until the customer complains about it (not surprising)I didn't ask though if it is limited to only the '98 or the newer ones also.

Has anyone sent a letter to Chrysler about their problems and gotten any sort of response back? If so, who, what address and what did they do? Also about how long did it take them to respond, if they did at all. ANY info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

Robert

rcarboni · July 2000

Technical Service Bulletins for all vehicles are located here:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/

as well as other locations on the net.

robert1972 · July 2000

Tried using your info on the TSB for the D but nothing came up? Don't really care because they fixed it, but for the people that want to get the info for them selves, it doesn't seem to be very accurate.
R....

rcarboni · July 2000

you use Dodge Truck as the Make, and not just Dodge. There is another site www.alldata.com that also lists TSB information.

Remember that TSBs do not affect every vehicle, even in the same year. They are general information for fixes that have occured, but do not reflect the number of vehicles with the problem. Dealers use them as guidance, but do not just perform them because you have your car in for service, or to fix something else.

Unfortunately, you have to sometimes remind them of the TSB. This happens at ALL dealers, not just Dodge.

2k_cpr_d · July 2000

...may be coming soon. I saw the article about the RAM SUV in Mexico, but I recently saw a press release about a Canadian DC plant being retooled to build SUVs based on the RAM. I saw it on the Durangoclub.com forum http://www.durangoclub.com/ but when I went looking again, it was gone. You may get your chance again. In the meantime, I'm enjoying my 2000 SLT Plus Durango (4.7V8). No problems at 3,500 miles. I'll let everyone know if any crop up.

Rob b.

Dodge Durango

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles