if you are going to drive on the beach, get a 4x4 and order the posi rear. Whatever size tires you get make sure you air down to 1/2 the max tire capacity. Also order the skid plate pkg. why these trucks don't come with skid plates as standard equipment I'll never know.
Make sure you have a portable air compressor to air up those tires once you leave the beach. A shovel and some boards help when you get stuck, as you surely will. Rick
Well I have had my 03 quad 4x4 for 1 month now.Mileage is around 18 mpg, as you said Dusty.I only have 800 miles on it so it's still early to tell if it will get better? My question now is what do you recommend as a oil filter for the 4.7 engine. I usually change my own oil in our 3 vehicles.Went to Wally world (walmart) and looked in the fram book and it showed a ph-16 for 2002 4.7s.No 2003's in the book. I thought I read somewhere on this site that fram oil filters wern't that great? Any ideals? I also use Penzoil motor oil.
18 mpg!?!?!? I have the same config, except an '02. 4x4, 4.7, QC. I get on avg. 12 to 13, the most being on a trip out West last year pulling a pop-up, where I got 15 mpg. How many tanks have you checked?
Have most other folks reading gotten that kind of mileage with the same config I have??? If so, any suggestions for why my mpg sux so bad?
I started off using 5W-30 Penzoil until about 5000 miles, at which time I installed 5W-30 Mobil 1. The Fram PH-16 is good for all year 4.7 (287) engines and that's what I use.
The claim that Fram filters are defective by design is based on an overtly simplistic evaluation of component piece materials and uncorrelated assumptions about operation that are not supported by the so-called "research." It is in my opinion, without any exception, one of the poorest examples of scientific approach I have ever seen. It is interesting that despite the conclusion of being a lousy filter, the original author makes no claim of actual performance evaluation. In addition, that author has not been forthcoming regarding questions about being in political conflict with the company over a consumer related issue.
My '03 Club Cab Sport Plus will return a reliable 17-18 mpg in around-town driving for me. I might add that mty driving style should be classified as sedate.
I now know three other Dakota owners with the 287 motor (4.7) and the 545RFE transmission. As a group we are averaging 16-18 mpg.
('03 4x4 Club Cab, '02 4x2 Club Cab, '03 4x2 Club Cab.)
You'll probably find that the 287 motor takes a little longer to break-in compared to most engines, especially Asian designed and assembly units. I'm over 10,000 miles now and I think it may still be breaking in.
If you're a more spirited driver I can understand the mpgs being as low as you report. The 287 Magnum motor runs real nice and a number of Dakota owners have remarked about how they love the exhaust sound. These seem to be the one's most disappointed with the fuel consumption. Since most of my driving is routine, I know when I'm going to get more or less than my average by how much I've put my foot into it. When asked, the little 287 polyspherical motor can really turn on and the performance has surprised a number of people.
Thanks to all who replied so quickly.Sounds like PH-16 will work. Still have to put more miles on it before my 1st change.To Jeffb1,I've checked mileage 3 times and 18 is pretty consistant for highway.You have to remember I'm from Illinois ,lot of flat land!! I have to say my Quad Dakota sure beats the hell out of my 98 Chevy ZR2 especially for ride.
Quote from the web site: "These pages are NOT to be taken as gospel. The primary motivation behind this study was to provide information about what oil filter brands are made by which manufacturers. The secondary motivation was to uncover some of the obvious internal construction issues of these manufacturers. This "study" is not a "test". The SAE J806 and J1858 tests were designed to test the filtration capability of these filters, but unfortunately they have several short comings. These include issues such as anti-drainback valve functionality (valve train noise, etc.), filter element containment capability (how long before it blocks and bypasses--related to surface area), and many testimonials that appear to point in the direction of certain manufacturers. It has been my hope to shed some light in the direction of these issues. While my infamous "two eyes and common sense" approach may not be the most scientific, it is the best I could do considering there was no personal return on the investment of time and money I put into it. "
I use the oil filter from Pep Boys. It is identical to the mopar filter. Look at the numbers stamped on the bottom of the filter. As far as mpg, I get 11 to 12 around town with the 4.7, 3.23posi and a cap. A 1500 ram with a hemi gets almost the same. go figure.
All you 02 and 03 owners, check your drivers side wiper arm. It may be hitting the hood and chipping the paint. the hood has to be moved foward about an 1/8 of an inch
Thx for the response to my mpg question. I didn't mention that I also have a fiberglass cap on the truck bed, which may add enough extra weight to make a difference as well. I do make a lot of short trips, and the truck may sit for days without being driven, although if I let it sit for at least 9 days the battery will consistently be dead -- something Dodge said was 'normal' :-( (but that's a whole other story for another time...)
The so-called "study" being referred to is most certainly not science. It contends to prove that certain oil filters are deficient or "junk" by a rather subjective and juvenile inspection of materials and construction techniques, neither of which alone or together can be used to establish the actual suitability, effectiveness or reliability of any oil filter. There are no empirical findings in this "study," in fact, there are a few totally false conclusions regarding several of the materials used.
1) The contention that the amount of filter paper (media) in a filter as measured by its surface area is the sole determinant of filter capacity, is patently incorrect. The theory contends that the more square inches of media, the more capacity. This simple visual inspection of one aspect of a filter's media is totally misleading and does not or cannot establish the ability of the media to trap and hold dirt particles. The belief that more paper SURFACE automatically equates to increased ability to trap dirt is without merit. What is overlooked in this simple analysis is the effect of media depth and cellular construction, something that was not measured in this "study."
A visual-only analysis of filter media is extremely ignorant. Some filter manufacturers will use a media with a specific structure, composition, and depth that are less able to trap smaller particles and hold less quantities of dirt, but by using more of that media in the filter assembly they bring the overall filter capacity up to an acceptable level.
The SAE HS806 filtration test is the current standard for measuring the media, and therefore oil filter's effectiveness at trapping dirt. This much acclaimed sophomoric research known as the "study" makes no attempt to use or even establish empirical data that would indicate the effectiveness of this most important aspect of a motor oil filter. And yet, through assumption based on mere material visual inspection and construction techniques, none of which are ever scientifically proven to be deficient in any way, the author and many of his followers conclude that a Fram filter is "junk."
2) Another claim is that the Fram bypass valves are "plastic" and contain molding irregularities. The fact is that the author never says that he had actually observed a molding irregularity, but assumes that because they are "molded plastic" and is a common defect. The fact is that the Fram bypass valves are made of glass filled Nylon,. a highly durable material and widely used in high temperature applications. This material has been selected specifically for its ply ability and long-term durability. In testing, they have withstood hot oil durability testing of 1,000,000 cycles at 275 degrees (F), according to the manufacturer, and are 100% inspected. It is odd that the original author has chosen to conclude, without any evidence to back up his claims, a design feature that is actually more reliable than a metal valve which may be prone to prolapse, tempering and rust over long term use.
3) Another criticism concerns the end disks used in various Fram oil filters. These disks only serve one purpose in the Fram assembly. They are used to hold the glue which keeps the pleated media formed into a rigid circular tube. The glue-to-media interface is also one of the sealing surfaces keeping dirty and filtered oil from mixing. The unproven conclusions of the so-called "study" is that only metal-end disks can adequately seal and have enough strength in the hot oil environment. The problem with this conclusions is that the material doing the sealing is the adhesive, not the disk! What matters is the strength of the adhesive, its proper curing, the thoroughness with which it can be applied to the disk, and its adhesion to the disk. Composition end disks are used by Fram to facilitate a more viable, reliable, and long-term durable bond. The adhesive provides exceptionally strong adhesion to the fiberboard disk, something that cannot be as reliably made when trying to adhere to a metal disk.
In addition the end disk in question is not made of ordinary corrugation material or "cardboard" as claimed by the author. It is in fact made of a special fiber material and is designed to be strong and inert in hot oil at temperatures exceeding manufacturers specifications. Oddly, the claim that the current Fram filters have deviated in this design aspect and are inferior to Fram filters of old, points again to the ineptness of the author's criticism. Fram has used these fiberboard disks in oil filters for 38 years!
Despite the often proclaimed "these pages are NOT to be taken as gospel" precaution, it is interesting that the defenders of this "study" treat this "study" as the definitive example and "proof" of the assumed ineptness of Fram oil filters. It must be noted that the original version of this "study" contained extreme and blantantly biased language, something that was later removed. And despite the fact that Fram was the selected target of most of the product disdain, it was another company who threatened litigation because of the near total ineptness of the "study's" methodology and ultimate conclusions that were insupportable by his own "study." It must also be noted that a so-called example of an Allied Signal engineer admitting that Fram oil filters were "junk" can no longer be found (the link is broken), and that the original author has long since distanced himself from his work.
that dovetails with your points made. I have not read all the posts, but it interesting to note the flow levels for the filters studied. Of course, he's using a Ford 302 oil pump, obviously different pumps would yield different oil pressures but at least he appears to be able to control the input pressure consistently.
I just completed an 1100 mile trip after installing a Dynomax muffler and Redline lubricant in the differentials (75W-90 in front, 75W-140 in rear). My mileage ranged from 17.2 to 19.1, with an average of 17.7. Speeds were in the 70-72 MPH range. My previous highway mileage ranged from 15.3 to 16.0, with an average of 15.5 at the same speeds. That is starting to be respectable for an 2002 QC, 4x4, 4.7, auto, with 3.92s. My mileage while towing a 3000 lb trailer is up a solid 0.5 MPG as well.
Thank you for including the link to that website. It was quite interesting. To this person's credit at least he's tested something using a sound methodology and his tests yielded measurable results.
Unfortunately, I'm unsure what his results are telling us. What he's basically done is to have measured resistance to flow of each filter assembly. But he starts with what I believe to be an unestablished assumption -- that being that resistance to flow in a oil filter correlates directly to more effective filtration.
The flow resistance in the ToughGuard filter could be due to at least to different causes:
1) due to the use of a closed-cell media that will trap smaller particles
2) due to an inadequate quantity of meduim-cell media that will not trap very small particles
That's why the SAE HS806 test is the benchmark for determining oil filter effectiveness. This test actually counts and measures the size of dirt particles trapped in a test sequence oil filter.
(This is done by inserting known quantities of various size dirt particles into the oil flow and then after the test sequence has been completed, measuring the quantity left in the oil. By subtraction it can be determined the quantity that was retained by the oil filter.)
The problem with the single and multi-pass results as advertised by the oil filter manufacturers is that they themselves run the HS806 test sequence and the results are subject to challenge. At the moment, I know of no automotive service oil filter manufacturer that has the HS806 conducted by an independent laboratory.
Some years ago I believe that Consumers' Reports did do a test of oil filters, and as I recall it was a Fram that was the only one that trapped particles down to 8 micron. Admittedly that was some time ago, and as we all know things can change so it should not be taken as an endorsement.
will impact this study as well. I think this fellow used the equivalent filter for a Ford 302....I think....well no, maybe it was for the Ford Escort. Those did use large filters, like the PH8-A from Fram, PF 1 AC Delco, and the Motorcraft FL1-A. My guess would be that all other factors being equal, a larger filter can theoretically hold more dirt and contaminants when compared to My question is however regarding the HS806 test is how many "passes" can oil make thru a given filter before it "clogs" and goes into bypass mode?
Good questions. Of course, we know that for any filter design that as the media traps more and more particles that this will raise the flow resistance. Theroretically, when that resistance gets to a certain point the filter should bypass.
I agree that a oil filter that uses more media (hence physically larger) has more capacity, but that then leads to still other question: is the selected media designed to trap smaller particles? I do not believe that its wise to assume that a larger version of the same filter application from any manufacturer will always use the same type media that's in the smaller version.
It would be no surprised to me that in a equal test the various brands would all perform somewhat differently as the design approach by the each manufacturer is also different.
I think for most automotive internal combustion engines the desired outcome would be oil filtration effectiveness of 100% @ 6 microns. Unfortunately, this very important performamce aspect of today's commercially available oil filters is not readily available.
You mention changing to redline in the front and rear differentials... Did you forget to put redline into the Xfer case?
There is a VERRY wide chain the Xfer case that is constantly churning through the lubricant. Using redline in the Xfer case can improve the MPG even more.
As I said before... with redline in the differentials, Xfer case and manual tranny, I have touched 21MPG during long trips.
Just my 2 cents. I've always used Fram filters without any oil related problems of a vehicle. However When I switched over to Mobil 1 5w30 several years ago I was impressed with the construction quality of the Mobil 1 Filter. The model number is M1 204. It is a little more expensive but so is everything else we put into our beloved quads. John
My results from a '00 4x4 Quad, 4.7L, 5sp, LSD rear, 31x10.5-15 tire/handling, HD electric and elephant ear mirrors: 223 fill-ups in total, the most common occurrence is 45 (20.2%) fill-ups produced mpg's between 15.5 - 16; 184 (82.5%) fill-ups produced results between 15 - 18 mpg (includes the previously mentioned 45). At the limits: 5 were below 12.5 mpg (trailering motorcycles at speeds above 65 mph) and 6 were between 19.5 - 20.5 mpg (cruise-control on the flat at or below 65 mph). Still running the original Goodyears and think that they will go to 50K miles with my twice/year rotation. 85% of the time I use regular gas and at times I've run sloppy/muddy gas pipeline right-of-ways through the Pennsylvania woods in the pursuit of wild game or for fun. Real-world results on a completely stock truck.
I wonder if my mileage will be anywhere close to that if my deal I'm working on pans out. I'm looking at a 2003 Ram 1500 Quad Cab 2 wheel drive with he 5.7Hemi, 5 speed auto and 3.92 gears? Window says 14 city and 18 highway but I'm afraid that is optimistic.
Im torn right now. Im little concerned with alot of the talk about low mgp. Im looking at an 03 quad 4x2 4.7 V8 5speed auto. I do alot of driving and this will be my main vehicle. Im torn between do I buy now $22k fully loaded truck, or do I wait for the 04's which I hear willnot be out till Winter and no pic's yet
With the Dakota changes for 04 and the new GM Colorado Mid-sized truck coming out this fall it should be interesting. Rebates are taking potential new vehicle buyers out of the market so I vote for a "wait and see" plan of attack. There's going to be plenty of leftover 03's out there and I bet Daimler and the rest will be offering factory to dealer incentives to move them. I received the 3k rebate and 2k more from the dealer due to my Quad being on the lot from last fall until May. A friend of mine is a GM exec. and he's telling me that car sales are off 6 -10% so far this year.
If you're looking for good gas mileage in a truck this pretty much confines you to small trucks with 4 cyl engines, and then, depending how one drives, this may be disappointing to you, too.
My '03 Dakota with the 4.7 V8, 5sp automatic, 3.55 rear axle has given me 20.76 on the highway with an average speed of 63 MPH carrying approximately 1300 pounds. This bests the EPA rating by 0.76 MPG.
I drive relatively sedately. I know some others with V6s and even a 4 cyl here and there that do not do any better. I think all vehicles that are in correct factory condition will give you the EPA rating, and probably a little plus. But driving habit is the main factor. If you like to get your foot into a lot, you're probably going to be unhappy with the mileage.
I agree with lotech's suggestion, unless you have the itch real bad or need a truck in a hurry. The '04 model releases are just four months away. Most dealers will be submitting their '04 orders by the end of August. I believe that inventories are above the normal June average, although for trucks this isn't as bad. Sales are soft for nearly everybody in the auto business right now, and one of the reasons is that this has been an rebate and incentive market for nearly the whole year.
This has been caused by GMs insistance to continue rebates even when they didn't need to, just to try to puncture Ford. GM can play the money game because their pockets are much deeper, but GM has had to take far less profit and the stockholders may not like that in the fourth quarter.
So now the people that were going to buy (and some that weren't, but decided to because of the heavy incentives), have purchased. The market has thinned out and now the manufacturers have to continue rebates. So, its a sellers market and I think it'll be that way through the end of the year.
Thanks Dusty and Lotech1, I am itching because moving in August. So depending how good the deal is Ill get one now, Ill be going to look at the end of June.
When I was deciding between another Dakota and a Ram 1500 I was in the same quandary as tb11. My dealer told me there were no significant changes in the 2004 Dakota. The new Dakota would probably be out in late 2005 as a 2006 model. Rebates on the new 2004 Dakota would be lower than currently available on the 2003 models at least initially.
As far as changes go for 04 my dealer claims the Dakota will be downsized for 04. I really doubt that but who knows. He says there will be some powertrain changes too (he couldn't elaborate). I wanted to wait until closer to the 04 rollout but the deal was sweet and my credit union was offering a good interest rate. Daimler financing couldn't, or wouldn't, touch it. Had I elected the Daimler financing I would have lost the negotiated price. In the end I'll be saving $1k in interest expense even though Daimler offered me 0% @ 60 months. Makes no difference to me where I get the money. The salesman warned me that dealer financing would cost me more and he was right.
Well, I finally gave in to my heart, wisdom, and including the vast knowledge, experiences of fellow Dak owners on this thread...
I got tired of the intermittent minor quirks and decided to upgrade my 2001 Quad Cab 3.9L V6, 42RE 4-spd auto, LSD, 3.92, etc etc.
Yes, sitting in the driveway is a shining 2003 QC 4.7L V8, 5-45RFE auto, LSD, 3.92, etc etc I took delivery this past weekend and the pseudo break-in process is now underway. However, I do miss some of the nicer features on the '01 which are no longer available on the newer models. For example, no sunglass holder and no garage transmitter holder on the mini overhead console; the spare now comes as a black steel rim versus the nice alloy aluminum; no ashtray (non-smoker anyways); no top windshield rubber moulding; glove box is now smaller; smaller interior courtesy lights; the idiot lights for the power window switches are now green instead of amber; the nice gradient sunscreen front winshield is now only a wire meshing at the top; etc. However, one huge improvement is the brakes which are now 4-wheel discs. Everything else is about the same. I am really impressed with the new 5-45RFE 5-spd auto which shifts smooth as (take your choice)... butter, glass, a baby's bottom. At 507 kms or 315 miles and counting, all is well. I'm normally a sedate driver at the best of times but, have noticed the gas mileage appears to be better thus far but, I haven't driven any speeds over 80 kph or 50 mph as yet. Will do the calculations at my first fill-up. As with the 3.9L V6, I hope the gas mileage will improve as time goes on.
Two questions...
Firstly, would it be overkill to do an oil & filter change at 500 miles to clean out any metal filings due to the break-in period?
Secondly, I notice the oil pressure indicator now sits smack in the middle of the gauge between Low and High whereas, on the 3.9L, the indicator sat at the 3/4 position between H and L. Is this the normal position (in the middle) for a 4.7L? The oil level is right where it should be according to the dip stick.(between Full and Safe) THANKS dataguru
The "normal" pressure range is indicated on the guage itself. Look at the guage carefully and you will see indicators for the 'normal' range.
The oil level in the crankcase has virtually NOTHING to do with the pressure that the oil pump is supplying to the galleries. The gauge on the dashboard is an indicator of the oil PRESSURE that is in the galleries. This pressurized oil is supplied to all of the vital engine parts. (bearings, cam lobes, piston skirts...etc)
Any engine that has the oil level in the carankcase so low that the oil pump sucks air.... will live a short liftime. (Very expensive damage will result)
If your dash gauge is within the indicated 'normal' range on the gauge, things are as they should be. When the engine is VERY hot, you may notice that the pressure will drop at bit at idle. (hot oil is thinner and harder to pump up to pressure) As long as it remains in the 'normal' range.... you are all set.
To answer your other question.... An oil change at 500 miles will not hurt the engine... but may not be necessarry. Heck, the rings are not even fully seated at 500 miles.
Bruce, thanks for the thorough explanation and confirmation of the workings of the guage. I just thought there might be a difference between the 3.9L and 4.7L oil pressure guages. If I recall correctly, the manual says (for 3.9), the indicator should sit at the 3/4 position at normal operating temperatures. I better refer to new manual.
I suspected the oil & filter change at 500 miles is most likely an overkill but, I thought I might swap out the factory oil and coat the internals with some good synthetic oil (e.g. Mobil 1 5W30). Based on your experiences, when can one expect the rings to begin to seat adequately for a 4.7L engine. Are these rings made of moly alloy or chrome materials? I recall in younger days (years ago), my GM big block took ages to breakin properly after a rebuild due to the chrome rings that were installed. I ended up tearing it down after 10K+ miles as it never broke in and replaced with moly alloy type rings. THANKS dataguru
Well my Monster Quad is at the dealer today. Putting on body side molding (ordered Laramie molding so it matches the silver in the 2 tone paint). They gave me a loaner and what a loaner it is!!!!. I have the use of a 4 wheel drive Ram 2500 quad cab with I believe every option available installed. It has the Cummings Diesel and an automatic. I took it out on the interstate and drove my normal work/home route at my normal speeds. The average MPG was over 21 MPG. I could not believe that a truck of these massive proportions could exceed by almost 2 MPG what I could get out of my 2000 Dakota Quad cab with the 4.7v8 and the 5 speed manual. I imagine that a Dakota Quad cab with a smaller diesel could cruise along pulling MPG ratings in the higher 20s, possibly even getting to 30 with a light foot. The acceleration is good, not up to my Hemi of course but really moves along when you get on it and more importantly it really is quiet for a diesel. There is very little clatter to be heard with the window down and you hear virtually nothing with the window up. I think if the next generation Dakota has a diesel option I might consider a size downgrade from my Ram 1500 and go back to a Dakota. Then again maybe not, all the extra room has really spoiled me in the short time I have had it. I have actually averaged just over 15 MPG (on the overhead readout) on my third tank of gas and with almost 700 miles on the engine. I have seen perceived no negative difference using 87 octane over the 89 octane I used in the second tank. I actually saw a decrease in MPG using the 89 octane Gasahol in my non scientific testing Rick.
Most folks have reported that the 4.7L v8 takes at least 3,000 miles before the MPG starts to level off.If the MPG increase is related to seating of the rings. Then you have a ways to go before the rings are sealing at their peak effecinecy.
BTW... Many folks beleive that synthetic oil should not be used until after the rings are seated. They claim that the added lubricity slows down the process.
I do not recall the ring and sleeving materials used in the 4.7L V8. I do recall that the overall design (A TRUCK ENGINE) is for durability. Even the piston skirts are coated with teflon from the factory.
Do not forget that , after the first 1000 miles, you should use occasional FULL THROTTLE ACCELLERATION followed by decellation. This 'loads up' the rings so they can seal to the cylinder walls better. In fact, the manual to my Dak even says to use "occasional FULL THROTTLE ACCELLERATION"
(iowabigguy) Although not available in the USA.. the Dakota is built in Barzil with a Detroit diesel engine. This is designed for ECONOMY not pulling power.
Based on the fact that my wifes Jetta TDI gets over 52 MPG on every tank of fuel... I would suggest that your gustimates are a bit low. A Dakota with an ecoDiesel engine should get better than 40MPG.
Good point regarding the early use of synthetic oil may delay the seating of the rings of new engines. I'll hold off on the early oil/filter change and delay the switch to synthetic.
Regarding break-in, I'm taking your advice from an earlier post (to another fellow owner) and plan to limit speed to no more than 50mph for the first 500 miles and varying the speed often between 30 and 50mph with intervals of accelleration, decelleration, and cool down. From 500 to 1000 miles, I plan to top out speed at 60mph with varying speeds between 40 and 60mph with partial throttle accelleration, decelleration, and cool down.
I am looking at a '03 QC, 4x4, 4.7L V8, Lmtd Slip Differential, Auto, tow package, etc. and I asked the Dodge dealer about putting additional weight in the back for driving in the rain. He said that he would not put additional weight in the back but to put the truck into 4WD (this will be a part-time transfer case). I thought I had seen somewhere on this board where someone said that they would not do that.... Thoughts?
(jboehm) Your 'Dodge dealer' obviously knows nothing about 4 wheel drive. He is a bonehead!!
If the xfer case was locked in 4X4 under those conditions, you will notice very obvious steering problems. (it will feel as if it is "walking" around sharp curves.... because it will be!!) Using the 4X4 setting tries to 'lock' all of the wheels together to spin at the same speed. The only time the wheels all spin the same speed is in a straight line... as soon as you turn the steering wheel, all of the tires now want to spin at different speeds... but since the Xfer case is 'locked' things start to bind up.
Not only will you notice the above 'walking', you may lose grip around corners and are risking twisting an axle. (or a driveshaft)
The Xfer case should only be 'locked' into 4X4 under very low traction conditions and always below 40 MPH. NEVER expect to turn very sharp while the xfer case is locked into 4X4.
There is nothing intrinsically 'special' about driving a truck in the rain. Just drive with your normal caution when it is raining. (Using the 2WD setting on the Xfer case.)
Jeff, Bruce is "right on the money" as usual. On wet pavement drive carefully in 2WD and do not drive faster and/or more "herky-jerky" than is safe for those conditions. The LSD will offer something in keeping traction under control. 4WD is usually resrved for more severe and limited conditions. Stay safe.
bpeebles, is it written anywhere never to go over 40 while in 4x4 mode? I know it is a very smart rule of thumb but I was wondering if it was written anywhere from Dodge. I only ask because as a firefighter I have done over 40 in 4x4 (in the snow) responding to calls. So I was curious if I was in danger of hurting the truck. Thanks.
(livnlrn) The only way you can 'hurt' the truck is to run into somthing. (like a tree)
My main point was that when the xfer case is locked into 4X4, the wheels tend to LOSE tracion around corners at higher speeds. Most drivers are not accustomed to this.
I am sure that when you are responding to an emergency call, The driver is familear with driving a vehicle locked in 4X4 on the snow. Such a driver can actually take advantage of 4X4 in the snow.
A 'normal' driver that is scared whenever the vehicle starts to slide sideways SHOULD NOT use 4X4 at higher speeds. When they should be hitting the gas pedal to make the 4 wheels spin, they will be hitting the brakes and lose all control of the vehicle. (One cannot steer when the wheels are locked up!!)
Ahh yes, the beauty of the power slide. The only thing I am worried about hitting while responding with lights and sirens blareing is the other drivers that do not get out of the way or turn in front of you ect. It is very interesting to see what the person doing 10 mph in the snow will do when a truck flies past them at 45mph. Just checking to make sure I hadn't missed something in the owners manual. I know about people who do not know how to use 4x4. We pick them out of the snow banks all the time, they think because they are in 4x4 they can drive like normal, they are invincable!
Hi looking for some real world info on an 03 Quad. Model I'm interested in, is a V6 4x2 with a stick 3.55 axle ratio. Wondering what mpg might be. I am putting a camper shell on it (does that help mpg). Read some consumer reports about warping rotors and engines being replaced after less than 5k miles. Any truth in this. I am driving a Toyota Tacoma 97 now and have had no problems but need more space.
In over 4 years of following Dakota forums on several diferent websites, I have only heard of ONE time where a factory defect caused engine failure. (And was prompty replaced under warrantee)
They are junk at least they were on the 2000 model year. The consensus in this forum is to go for aftermarket units, especially powerslots. I'd have done that but I got rid of the truck after two frustrating years.
ccaufield1 - I have a 2K Dak 4.7 CC 5 speed with 43K miles and have had no brake problems at all and the pads have quite a bit of life left on them. If I were you I would try to find a 4.7 in lieu of the 3.9, the 3.9 represents older technology it is being phased out and will be replaced by the 3.7, which is currently in the Jeep Liberty. The 4.7 is a great engine especially with a 5 speed and the gas mileage is about the same as the 3.9.
I have a 2000 QC with 61K miles. I am still on the original brakes, rotors, and tires. I think it all depends on how you drive. I'm a conservative driver and with the amount of pads I have left on my truck, I should get 100K out of the brakes. I had 85K miles on my Taurus brakes when I sold it to buy the Dakota.
If you drive hard, the OEM brakes won't last long. I'm sure the "higher" performance brakes will last longer. Does everyone need them... NO.
By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.
Comments
For sand, you should look for WIDE TIRES that can 'float' on the sand.
http://www.frankhunt.com/FRANK/corvette/articles/oilfilterstudy/o- ilfilterstudy.html
Regards, Ger..
Have most other folks reading gotten that kind of mileage with the same config I have??? If so, any suggestions for why my mpg sux so bad?
Thx.
Jeff
The claim that Fram filters are defective by design is based on an overtly simplistic evaluation of component piece materials and uncorrelated assumptions about operation that are not supported by the so-called "research." It is in my opinion, without any exception, one of the poorest examples of scientific approach I have ever seen. It is interesting that despite the conclusion of being a lousy filter, the original author makes no claim of actual performance evaluation. In addition, that author has not been forthcoming regarding questions about being in political conflict with the company over a consumer related issue.
But, you be the judge.
Best regards,
Dusty
My '03 Club Cab Sport Plus will return a reliable 17-18 mpg in around-town driving for me. I might add that mty driving style should be classified as sedate.
I now know three other Dakota owners with the 287 motor (4.7) and the 545RFE transmission. As a group we are averaging 16-18 mpg.
('03 4x4 Club Cab, '02 4x2 Club Cab, '03 4x2 Club Cab.)
You'll probably find that the 287 motor takes a little longer to break-in compared to most engines, especially Asian designed and assembly units. I'm over 10,000 miles now and I think it may still be breaking in.
If you're a more spirited driver I can understand the mpgs being as low as you report. The 287 Magnum motor runs real nice and a number of Dakota owners have remarked about how they love the exhaust sound. These seem to be the one's most disappointed with the fuel consumption. Since most of my driving is routine, I know when I'm going to get more or less than my average by how much I've put my foot into it. When asked, the little 287 polyspherical motor can really turn on and the performance has surprised a number of people.
Best regards,
Dusty
Never have used one since.
Quote from the web site:
"These pages are NOT to be taken as gospel. The primary motivation behind this study was to provide information about what oil filter brands are made by which manufacturers. The secondary motivation was to uncover some of the obvious internal construction issues of these manufacturers. This "study" is not a "test". The SAE J806 and J1858 tests were designed to test the filtration capability of these filters, but unfortunately they have several short comings. These include issues such as anti-drainback valve functionality (valve train noise, etc.), filter element containment capability (how long before it blocks and bypasses--related to surface area), and many testimonials that appear to point in the direction of certain manufacturers. It has been my hope to shed some light in the direction of these issues. While my infamous "two eyes and common sense" approach may not be the most scientific, it is the best I could do considering there was no personal return on the investment of time and money I put into it. "
As far as mpg, I get 11 to 12 around town with the 4.7, 3.23posi and a cap. A 1500 ram with a hemi gets almost the same. go figure.
All you 02 and 03 owners, check your drivers side wiper arm. It may be hitting the hood and chipping the paint. the hood has to be moved foward about an 1/8 of an inch
Thx for the response to my mpg question. I didn't mention that I also have a fiberglass cap on the truck bed, which may add enough extra weight to make a difference as well. I do make a lot of short trips, and the truck may sit for days without being driven, although if I let it sit for at least 9 days the battery will consistently be dead -- something Dodge said was 'normal' :-( (but that's a whole other story for another time...)
Thx again.
Jeff
1) The contention that the amount of filter paper (media) in a filter as measured by its surface area is the sole determinant of filter capacity, is patently incorrect. The theory contends that the more square inches of media, the more capacity. This simple visual inspection of one aspect of a filter's media is totally misleading and does not or cannot establish the ability of the media to trap and hold dirt particles. The belief that more paper SURFACE automatically equates to increased ability to trap dirt is without merit. What is overlooked in this simple analysis is the effect of media depth and cellular construction, something that was not measured in this "study."
A visual-only analysis of filter media is extremely ignorant. Some filter manufacturers will use a media with a specific structure, composition, and depth that are less able to trap smaller particles and hold less quantities of dirt, but by using more of that media in the filter assembly they bring the overall filter capacity up to an acceptable level.
The SAE HS806 filtration test is the current standard for measuring the media, and therefore oil filter's effectiveness at trapping dirt. This much acclaimed sophomoric research known as the "study" makes no attempt to use or even establish empirical data that would indicate the effectiveness of this most important aspect of a motor oil filter. And yet, through assumption based on mere material visual inspection and construction techniques, none of which are ever scientifically proven to be deficient in any way, the author and many of his followers conclude that a Fram filter is "junk."
2) Another claim is that the Fram bypass valves are "plastic" and contain molding irregularities. The fact is that the author never says that he had actually observed a molding irregularity, but assumes that because they are "molded plastic" and is a common defect. The fact is that the Fram bypass valves are made of glass filled Nylon,. a highly durable material and widely used in high temperature applications. This material has been selected specifically for its ply ability and long-term durability. In testing, they have withstood hot oil durability testing of 1,000,000 cycles at 275 degrees (F), according to the manufacturer, and are 100% inspected. It is odd that the original author has chosen to conclude, without any evidence to back up his claims, a design feature that is actually more reliable than a metal valve which may be prone to prolapse, tempering and rust over long term use.
3) Another criticism concerns the end disks used in various Fram oil filters. These disks only serve one purpose in the Fram assembly. They are used to hold the glue which keeps the pleated media formed into a rigid circular tube. The glue-to-media interface is also one of the sealing surfaces keeping dirty and filtered oil from mixing. The unproven conclusions of the so-called "study" is that only metal-end disks can adequately seal and have enough strength in the hot oil environment. The problem with this conclusions is that the material doing the sealing is the adhesive, not the disk! What matters is the strength of the adhesive, its proper curing, the thoroughness with which it can be applied to the disk, and its adhesion to the disk. Composition end disks are used by Fram to facilitate a more viable, reliable, and long-term durable bond. The adhesive provides exceptionally strong adhesion to the fiberboard disk, something that cannot be as reliably made when trying to adhere to a metal disk.
In addition the end disk in question is not made of ordinary corrugation material or "cardboard" as claimed by the author. It is in fact made of a special fiber material and is designed to be strong and inert in hot oil at temperatures exceeding manufacturers specifications. Oddly, the claim that the current Fram filters have deviated in this design aspect and are inferior to Fram filters of old, points again to the ineptness of the author's criticism. Fram has used these fiberboard disks in oil filters for 38 years!
Despite the often proclaimed "these pages are NOT to be taken as gospel" precaution, it is interesting that the defenders of this "study" treat this "study" as the definitive example and "proof" of the assumed ineptness of Fram oil filters. It must be noted that the original version of this "study" contained extreme and blantantly biased language, something that was later removed. And despite the fact that Fram was the selected target of most of the product disdain, it was another company who threatened litigation because of the near total ineptness of the "study's" methodology and ultimate conclusions that were insupportable by his own "study." It must also be noted that a so-called example of an Allied Signal engineer admitting that Fram oil filters were "junk" can no longer be found (the link is broken), and that the original author has long since distanced himself from his work.
Dusty
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;- f=6;t=000513;p=1
Unfortunately, I'm unsure what his results are telling us. What he's basically done is to have measured resistance to flow of each filter assembly. But he starts with what I believe to be an unestablished assumption -- that being that resistance to flow in a oil filter correlates directly to more effective filtration.
The flow resistance in the ToughGuard filter could be due to at least to different causes:
1) due to the use of a closed-cell media that will trap smaller particles
2) due to an inadequate quantity of meduim-cell media that will not trap very small particles
That's why the SAE HS806 test is the benchmark for determining oil filter effectiveness. This test actually counts and measures the size of dirt particles trapped in a test sequence oil filter.
(This is done by inserting known quantities of various size dirt particles into the oil flow and then after the test sequence has been completed, measuring the quantity left in the oil. By subtraction it can be determined the quantity that was retained by the oil filter.)
The problem with the single and multi-pass results as advertised by the oil filter manufacturers is that they themselves run the HS806 test sequence and the results are subject to challenge. At the moment, I know of no automotive service oil filter manufacturer that has the HS806 conducted by an independent laboratory.
Some years ago I believe that Consumers' Reports did do a test of oil filters, and as I recall it was a Fram that was the only one that trapped particles down to 8 micron. Admittedly that was some time ago, and as we all know things can change so it should not be taken as an endorsement.
Best regards,
Dusty
My guess would be that all other factors being equal, a larger filter can theoretically hold more dirt and contaminants when compared to
My question is however regarding the HS806 test is how many "passes" can oil make thru a given filter before it "clogs" and goes into bypass mode?
I agree that a oil filter that uses more media (hence physically larger) has more capacity, but that then leads to still other question: is the selected media designed to trap smaller particles? I do not believe that its wise to assume that a larger version of the same filter application from any manufacturer will always use the same type media that's in the smaller version.
It would be no surprised to me that in a equal test the various brands would all perform somewhat differently as the design approach by the each manufacturer is also different.
I think for most automotive internal combustion engines the desired outcome would be oil filtration effectiveness of 100% @ 6 microns. Unfortunately, this very important performamce aspect of today's commercially available oil filters is not readily available.
Bests,
Dusty
There is a VERRY wide chain the Xfer case that is constantly churning through the lubricant. Using redline in the Xfer case can improve the MPG even more.
As I said before... with redline in the differentials, Xfer case and manual tranny, I have touched 21MPG during long trips.
John
Raven
Im torn right now. Im little concerned with alot of the talk about low mgp. Im looking at an 03 quad 4x2 4.7 V8 5speed auto. I do alot of driving and this will be my main vehicle. Im torn between do I buy now $22k fully loaded truck, or do I wait for the 04's which I hear willnot be out till Winter and no pic's yet
opinons
My '03 Dakota with the 4.7 V8, 5sp automatic, 3.55 rear axle has given me 20.76 on the highway with an average speed of 63 MPH carrying approximately 1300 pounds. This bests the EPA rating by 0.76 MPG.
I drive relatively sedately. I know some others with V6s and even a 4 cyl here and there that do not do any better. I think all vehicles that are in correct factory condition will give you the EPA rating, and probably a little plus. But driving habit is the main factor. If you like to get your foot into a lot, you're probably going to be unhappy with the mileage.
I agree with lotech's suggestion, unless you have the itch real bad or need a truck in a hurry. The '04 model releases are just four months away. Most dealers will be submitting their '04 orders by the end of August. I believe that inventories are above the normal June average, although for trucks this isn't as bad. Sales are soft for nearly everybody in the auto business right now, and one of the reasons is that this has been an rebate and incentive market for nearly the whole year.
This has been caused by GMs insistance to continue rebates even when they didn't need to, just to try to puncture Ford. GM can play the money game because their pockets are much deeper, but GM has had to take far less profit and the stockholders may not like that in the fourth quarter.
So now the people that were going to buy (and some that weren't, but decided to because of the heavy incentives), have purchased. The market has thinned out and now the manufacturers have to continue rebates. So, its a sellers market and I think it'll be that way through the end of the year.
Good luck,
Dusty
I got tired of the intermittent minor quirks and decided to upgrade my 2001 Quad Cab 3.9L V6, 42RE 4-spd auto, LSD, 3.92, etc etc.
Yes, sitting in the driveway is a shining 2003 QC 4.7L V8, 5-45RFE auto, LSD, 3.92, etc etc I took delivery this past weekend and the pseudo break-in process is now underway. However, I do miss some of the nicer features on the '01 which are no longer available on the newer models. For example, no sunglass holder and no garage transmitter holder on the mini overhead console; the spare now comes as a black steel rim versus the nice alloy aluminum; no ashtray (non-smoker anyways); no top windshield rubber moulding; glove box is now smaller; smaller interior courtesy lights; the idiot lights for the power window switches are now green instead of amber; the nice gradient sunscreen front winshield is now only a wire meshing at the top; etc. However, one huge improvement is the brakes which are now 4-wheel discs. Everything else is about the same. I am really impressed with the new 5-45RFE 5-spd auto which shifts smooth as (take your choice)... butter, glass, a baby's bottom. At 507 kms or 315 miles and counting, all is well. I'm normally a sedate driver at the best of times but, have noticed the gas mileage appears to be better thus far but, I haven't driven any speeds over 80 kph or 50 mph as yet. Will do the calculations at my first fill-up. As with the 3.9L V6, I hope the gas mileage will improve as time goes on.
Two questions...
Firstly, would it be overkill to do an oil & filter change at 500 miles to clean out any metal filings due to the break-in period?
Secondly, I notice the oil pressure indicator now sits smack in the middle of the gauge between Low and High whereas, on the 3.9L, the indicator sat at the 3/4 position between H and L. Is this the normal position (in the middle) for a 4.7L? The oil level is right where it should be according to the dip stick.(between Full and Safe)
THANKS
dataguru
Bookitty
The oil level in the crankcase has virtually NOTHING to do with the pressure that the oil pump is supplying to the galleries. The gauge on the dashboard is an indicator of the oil PRESSURE that is in the galleries. This pressurized oil is supplied to all of the vital engine parts. (bearings, cam lobes, piston skirts...etc)
Any engine that has the oil level in the carankcase so low that the oil pump sucks air.... will live a short liftime. (Very expensive damage will result)
If your dash gauge is within the indicated 'normal' range on the gauge, things are as they should be. When the engine is VERY hot, you may notice that the pressure will drop at bit at idle. (hot oil is thinner and harder to pump up to pressure) As long as it remains in the 'normal' range.... you are all set.
To answer your other question.... An oil change at 500 miles will not hurt the engine... but may not be necessarry. Heck, the rings are not even fully seated at 500 miles.
Bruce, thanks for the thorough explanation and confirmation of the workings of the guage. I just thought there might be a difference between the 3.9L and 4.7L oil pressure guages. If I recall correctly, the manual says (for 3.9), the indicator should sit at the 3/4 position at normal operating temperatures. I better refer to new manual.
I suspected the oil & filter change at 500 miles is most likely an overkill but, I thought I might swap out the factory oil and coat the internals with some good synthetic oil (e.g. Mobil 1 5W30). Based on your experiences, when can one expect the rings to begin to seat adequately for a 4.7L engine. Are these rings made of moly alloy or chrome materials? I recall in younger days (years ago), my GM big block took ages to breakin properly after a rebuild due to the chrome rings that were installed. I ended up tearing it down after 10K+ miles as it never broke in and replaced with moly alloy type rings.
THANKS
dataguru
BTW... Many folks beleive that synthetic oil should not be used until after the rings are seated. They claim that the added lubricity slows down the process.
I do not recall the ring and sleeving materials used in the 4.7L V8. I do recall that the overall design (A TRUCK ENGINE) is for durability. Even the piston skirts are coated with teflon from the factory.
Do not forget that , after the first 1000 miles, you should use occasional FULL THROTTLE ACCELLERATION followed by decellation. This 'loads up' the rings so they can seal to the cylinder walls better. In fact, the manual to my Dak even says to use "occasional FULL THROTTLE ACCELLERATION"
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/9711ddc.html
Based on the fact that my wifes Jetta TDI gets over 52 MPG on every tank of fuel... I would suggest that your gustimates are a bit low. A Dakota with an ecoDiesel engine should get better than 40MPG.
Where do I sign up to get a Diesel Dakota?
Regarding break-in, I'm taking your advice from an earlier post (to another fellow owner) and plan to limit speed to no more than 50mph for the first 500 miles and varying the speed often between 30 and 50mph with intervals of accelleration, decelleration, and cool down. From 500 to 1000 miles, I plan to top out speed at 60mph with varying speeds between 40 and 60mph with partial throttle accelleration, decelleration, and cool down.
Thanks again for the valuable tips.
If the xfer case was locked in 4X4 under those conditions, you will notice very obvious steering problems. (it will feel as if it is "walking" around sharp curves.... because it will be!!) Using the 4X4 setting tries to 'lock' all of the wheels together to spin at the same speed. The only time the wheels all spin the same speed is in a straight line... as soon as you turn the steering wheel, all of the tires now want to spin at different speeds... but since the Xfer case is 'locked' things start to bind up.
Not only will you notice the above 'walking', you may lose grip around corners and are risking twisting an axle. (or a driveshaft)
The Xfer case should only be 'locked' into 4X4 under very low traction conditions and always below 40 MPH. NEVER expect to turn very sharp while the xfer case is locked into 4X4.
There is nothing intrinsically 'special' about driving a truck in the rain. Just drive with your normal caution when it is raining. (Using the 2WD setting on the Xfer case.)
Bookitty
My main point was that when the xfer case is locked into 4X4, the wheels tend to LOSE tracion around corners at higher speeds. Most drivers are not accustomed to this.
I am sure that when you are responding to an emergency call, The driver is familear with driving a vehicle locked in 4X4 on the snow. Such a driver can actually take advantage of 4X4 in the snow.
A 'normal' driver that is scared whenever the vehicle starts to slide sideways SHOULD NOT use 4X4 at higher speeds. When they should be hitting the gas pedal to make the 4 wheels spin, they will be hitting the brakes and lose all control of the vehicle. (One cannot steer when the wheels are locked up!!)
The only thing I am worried about hitting while responding with lights and sirens blareing is the other drivers that do not get out of the way or turn in front of you ect. It is very interesting to see what the person doing 10 mph in the snow will do when a truck flies past them at 45mph.
Just checking to make sure I hadn't missed something in the owners manual. I know about people who do not know how to use 4x4. We pick them out of the snow banks all the time, they think because they are in 4x4 they can drive like normal, they are invincable!
looking for some real world info on an 03 Quad. Model I'm interested in, is a V6 4x2 with a stick 3.55 axle ratio. Wondering what mpg might be. I am putting a camper shell on it (does that help mpg). Read some consumer reports about warping rotors and engines being replaced after less than 5k miles. Any truth in this. I am driving a Toyota Tacoma 97 now and have had no problems but need more space.
Thanks
In over 4 years of following Dakota forums on several diferent websites, I have only heard of ONE time where a factory defect caused engine failure. (And was prompty replaced under warrantee)
The consensus in this forum is to go for aftermarket units, especially powerslots.
I'd have done that but I got rid of the truck after two frustrating years.
Ron
If you drive hard, the OEM brakes won't last long. I'm sure the "higher" performance brakes will last longer. Does everyone need them... NO.