Options
Dodge Dakota - Club 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
Invoice states AC system leaks. Replaced evaporator coil evac and recharge system co.
Parts: Housing E., Housing H., Evaporator, seal kit,carpet floor,seal front,adhesive and seal package.
Tommorow it will be 90 degrees and a forecast of severe thunderstorms. You can bet I will have the air cranked up and I will drive through the storms with my eyes on the carpet.
Thanks for the help. We appreciate it.
I have driven through some wicked storms with my A/C cranked up and haven't had a drop of water in the cab.
What I have noticed that is different, I can visually see water puddling on my driveway once it is parked. Obviously it is coming from the A/C.
Prior to being repaired I observed only a few drops from the A/C on the driveway.
Thanks folks for your assistance. It was greatly appreciated.
Sounds like the boys on the assembly line kinda got in a hurry the day they built yours.
Best of luck in the future on AC performance
Well for the last month or so I have been reading the reviews, checking out the plusses and minuses, checking on costs and now I have gone and done it. Yesterday I drove the 2 hours (110 miles) to purchase my 2001 Dakota Club Cab, 4.7 V8, Auto, SLT +, red and silver. Of course no one for 80 miles around my area had the CC V8 SLT+ so I had to drive.
I did an internet sale/purchase and picked up the Dakota for $18,117 after rebate + TT&L, absolutely no additional charges. They got invoice plus $150 or so and their "advertizing" bump. I guess I could have fought a bit more but overall I think it was generally fair - perhaps I am wrong??--hope not!
Anyway, all the way home I looked at the floor to check for water leaks, check and recheck my engine light, felt for problems with auto - slamming from 2nd to 3rd......sheesh reading everyones negative comments got me paranoid....hahaha!
But no problems. I'm sure the truck will be alright and without problems. I have a grin on my face and think I will end this and go out for a spin Nice to join the group!
Bookitty
In Atlanta
Hope you enjoy your CC!
Travis
When I bought the truck I didn't trade in my car at the dealership. So Friday night I drove my truck happily home. On Sat., my sales associate and another driver drove my car back to me (110 mi) at no charge!
Now I need to look for a decent bedliner. I've heard that Duraliner is the way to go. Not sure I want a spay in liner as it can never be removed and can chip. I'll have to call around and see who sells the Duraliner.
It may be the case for some of you. You can probably check it by playing around with it.
I would think that most any "name brand liner" would work well. The biggest variable is the installer. There are a lot of horror stories from putting in Brand-X with an installer that doesn't know what they are doing. Also, will the installer cover repairs/warranty work? Get references!
Travis
When the Dak first came out, it had a std. Mopar 5 on 4.5 pattern, but I don't belive the spindles and axles are the same as your 95. My suggestion is to sell the set you have and get a new set.Sorry for the bad news
They will increase the wheel offset so you need to check that.
Personally I wouldn't use the spacers. I would rather replace the wheels.
KarenS "Dodge Dakota Owners: Events" Sep 24, 2001 8:16am
Ron35
Bookitty
If if had a decent drivetrain (like the Mitsu 3.0L V6 or something within the last decade) and real shocks it would be alright. As is it is a piece of crap. Dealer says all problems are "as designed".
What gear/mph are you at when you are unable to maintain speed on a slight grade? 5th gear is overdrive, and if you think it's bad unloaded, try it with 4 people and a bed full of gear. If you ask me the shift points that dodge gives you in the manual (15, 25, 40, 45) are too low for the 4.7L engine. Problem is, if you rev it up a little your gas mileage will drop like a rock.
The truck is quite fun to drive if you rev it up a little.
If you look at the HP/torque graphs for the 3.9L v6 vs the 4.7L v8, the v6 is actually puts out more HP in the 1000-3000 rpm range than the v8. The v8 puts out more torque than the v6, but I hate how you have to rev the crap out a vehicle to get any power out of it.
So when you put your shiny new V8 in overdrive and try to do 60 mph, you're running with less power than a v6. More torque, but which one matters more? If I'm not pulling a load, then HP would be more desireable, right?
I don't have any steering problems.
Good luck.
I believe that your statement is incorrect in regards to the 3.9 having more horsepower but less torque than the 4.7 between 1 - 3k rpms.
Horsepower is a factor of torque! if rpms are equal, then you cannot have less torque and yet more horsepower at the same time! Tell me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it is impossible.
Not to belittle any 3.9 owners, but I would put my 4.7 against any 3.9 any day of the week. Assuming they are both stock.
Blue
Anyways, I don't care. I derived the above post simply by looking at graphs printed in the brochure. Don't take my word for it.
My major gripe with today's engines is that all the power comes in the high rpms, where I generally don't drive my vehicles. I don't like the way that SOHC engines have the power up high, rather than down low like the older pushrod(?) designs.
I recently drove my ffil's (future-father-in-law's) new Corvette Z06. Unbelieveable how the 5.7L Pushrod v-8 has so much power down low. I also noticed a big difference in my Uncle's 5.3L vortech Silverado. No need to tach up either engines to feel the power.
Can somebody tell me why the Dakota's 5-speed is so damn clunky? geez
I drive both the V6 and 4.7 V8 and I can tell you that the V8 wins hands down in all catagories. The probable reason that many engines are hitting their power points higher is that it makes for a better fuel economy in testing. The asian makes are big on 4k+ power peaks. The only major difference in valving is that an overhead cam is able to hit higher rpms without the valve float that a pushrod engine is vulnerable to.
Now figure that one out.
Chevy fuel injected engines have always seemed to be better on fuel even in their throttle body injection days, they sure beat Fords attempt at fuel injection in the late 80's .
What "problem" did you hear about?
-Does anyone have any suggestions about fuel octane level in the 4.7? Manual says 87, but I've read about folks getting better highway mileage with 89/93. Not sure what to do on this.
-I drive a 2001 SLT Club Cab, 4.7L, auto trns. Have had it for just over a year with no problems except the ash tray (pops open every time I close a door or hit a bump). Installed an Airaid intake and noticed a 2 MPG improvment in city driving (11 to 13 MPG). Altitude plays a big part, as I'm stationed in Colorado.
-Thanks in advance for any replys/suggestions!
I don't post often but I am here every day and am interested in what everyone has offered in advise and problem solving. I started reading these posts in 1999, before the first Quad Cab was delivered, when the major discussions were options, build dates, deliveries and how to track the train shipments. A lot of owners posted invoice prices and when I went to order my truck the dealer didn't understand how I knew so much about it. Would I buy another Dakota? Yes, if it was Quad!!! :->
Dick
At 4370 miles, so far so good. As delivered all equipment works perfectly, no apparent assembly or quality defects to be found. Better assembly quality than our '99 toyota Avalon.
The ride is surprisingly good and it handles extremely well. Very comfortable seating and very good ergonomics. Lots of power! The transmission and engine combination make this the smoothest I've ever driven, save for a '02 RAM. Very quiet except for tire noise. Did I mention that this truck has lots of power?
The EPA rating is 15 city, 20 highway. My best recorded was 21.87 interstate at steady 65 mph. Worst was 13.98 during 138 miles of stop & go driving with 650 ATV in the bed and sub zero temperatures (hunting season). Normal weekly gas mileage is 16.5. My to-date average is 17.4 for all driving. Better gas mileage than my daughter gets with her Explorer and friends with their S10 Blazers.
I drove them all before I bought. Although I would have preferred to buy a Nissan truck, this Dakota has not disappointed me. In fact, it's surprised me. I think the Dakota is the premier mid-size truck. I hope the reliability keeps pace with all of it's other fine attributes.
Dusty
Dusty
A 3.21 axle ratio would REALLY clobber the accelleration performance. (but improve the MPG)
There are several folks that think the 3.55 is too steep of a ratio and went with the 3.92.... but a 3.21 is like a constant overdrive.
I wonder if the xmission ratios have been changed to accomodate the 3.21?
(dustyk) is this for the 2WD or 4WD? (or both?)
what is the primary significance of the size differences between the axles (9.25" vs 8.25")? Is the larger 9.25" axle a more heavy duty version? Are there other advantages/disadvantages of either?
For us in Canada, DaimlerChrysler Canada offers the 8.25" Corporate axle with 3.55s as "standard equipment". (both 2WD/4WD) However, 3.21s and 3.92s can be ordered as a customer preference option.
Bill
Bookitty
The difference between the 8 1/4 and 9 1/4 axles is the ring gear outer diameter is one inch larger, but other internal components are also beefier. Physically, the differential housing is larger and I think the axle shafts are larger in diameter since (to my eye) the axle tubes look bigger.
I didn't check on axle availability with a 4x4 Dakota, so I don't know. If you go into the Dodge website and select "Build", as you step through the webpages you'll get to the options page and should be able to find out there.
My 4.7 with the 3.55 gearset runs so darn well that I'm sure a 3.21 axle ratio would be fine for most of my towing requirements. But, you're right it would slow the vehicle down, too. The problem is I'm not so sure if I would realize much of a MPG gain in my weekly driving since I'm only two miles from my office. In some situations having a slightly higher numerical ratio wouldn't be noticed and I think this might be it.
With the 3.55 in mine towing my 650 pound ATV around is a piece of cake. Yes, I feel the extra weight, but street performance is still more than adequate. And I move up hills like it was nothing.
A good New Year to all.
Best regards,
Dusty
Thank you
Lenny
LOWER ratio number makes for better MPG but worse accelleration and towing abilities.
HIGHER ratio makes better accelleration and towing abilities but worse MPG.
You have to choose what is best for you.
Dusty
Your questions have been answered in another forum. It is considerd rude to post the exact-same message on multiple forums. Most of us have ALL of the Dakota forums in our "message center" and prefer not to keep reading the same stuff over and over.