Don't forget the KKM Tru-Rev kit at www.kustomz.com (they've got lots of other Ranger goodies too). Have you ever looked at Gibson cat-backs? I'm extremely pleased with mine, both performance and exhaust note.
Maybe BBK will finally get the bugs worked out of its Instacharger to put it on the new Cammer. I'd take a roots-type any day over a centrifugal.
But, 250hp and 280ft/lbs is easily doable with the Cammer and a little over a grand. Kinda makes the TRD S/C look even more expensive with its $3,200 price tag just for parts (let alone installation).
I would have to disagree about sales numbers. Sales turn into profit for a company, any company. The Ranger has been the number one seller for 13 years straight with no other compact truck even coming close to its sales numbers. Even if just 15 percent of Ranger sales were to rental fleets or companies the Ranger would still out sell its nearest competitor by almost 3 to 1. The consumer makes the choice. After 13 years if the Ranger were the hunk of junk the Toyota and Nissan owners say they are wouldn't you think the S-10, Tacoma, Frontier or whichever would have passed the Ranger in sales even after just 5 years?? Spoog, you took it too far with the supercharger. Noway does it out pull or out run a Dodge 5.9 or 4.7.. Take another look at the HP/Torque curve.. I still feel the Dodge doesn't belong in the same category as the Ranger, Tacoma, S-10, Frontier. This truck has a V8 and its interior room is larger along with the outer dimensions.. With its V8 option there is noway any of the above could even match its towing, pulling or hauling ability. Dodge created a niche and they can claim victory..
While either Dodge engine has more HP, Torque, Towing Capacity neither out accellerate even the stock 3.4 in the Tacoma. It depends on what you mean by "blow the headgaskets off of the tacoma". Looking at accelleration only, a supercharged Tacoma would leave the Dakota easily considering the stock has faster 0-60 times. Check the numbers yourseleves.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Anybody can just look at the figures on the times from 0-60. The Dodge 5.9 can tow a helluva lot more than a Tacoma, but just because it has plenty more hp and torque does not mean it's faster than a Tacoma. I have looked up the numbers and I can tell you a stock Tacoma with no S/C is faster than a Dakota R/T with the 5.9. The new 4.0L SOHC in the 2001 Ranger is supposed to be faster than all of them.
Ok,the times were impressive.They still do not prove anything other then the Tacoma gets to 60mph faster empty.How does it compare with 500-800lbs in the bed?It falls on it's face in comparison.You cannot argue against cubic inches.
Come on. The 4 dr Ranger is not 4 real working doors. It is a 2 door extended cab. You have to open the front doors to access the back doors. It is only an extended cab and not a true back seat.
There is no comparison between the Ranger and the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab. There are only three true 4 door pickups on the market today: Nissan Frontier Crew Cab, Ford Explorer Sport Trac, and the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab. The Nissan has the smallest bed, smallest cab, smallest engine, smallest price. Real low end interior. First to market but the last of the choices.
The Ford Explorer Sport Trac is based on the Ford Explorer new body style. The inside uses a lot plastic and the marketing types say this is so the outdoorsy type don't have to worry about messing up the inside. The bed is also a composite plastic bedliner type material instead of metal. No bedliner needed since it is already a bedliner. Real bizarre looking body. The bed is narrow and high with clunky looking tie down hooks on the outside.
The Dodge Dakota Quad Cab has 4 full doors that open independently. Cloth seats and door panels, carpeting, power windows, doors, seats etc. Available with two V8's. 1450 pound hauling capacity. Notice that is 3/4 ton, like a full size truck. 6250 towing capacity. Class IV hitch so you can really tow something. The back doors open almost a full 90 degrees so you can get into the full size back seats that fold up for additional storage.
All the luxury and snob appeal of an SUV with the guts and hauling of a truck. Great body style. There is no competitor. Dodge Dakota Quad Cab. As their advertisment says about the 4 door: Grand Slam. Slam. Slam. Slam.
If we are getting into HP or 1/4 mile as the criteria here, we are not going to get anywhere. Anyone can throw money into a truck and get more power or a few 1/10 seconds off the 1/4.
mahimahi: I did not find anything that you said as being snide. The remarks were by others and they seemed to be chevy fans (how anyone could be a chevy fan, I'll never know...sorry) I find it ironic that they are griping about government sales because the feds and states are the biggest buyers of Suburbans. I have no problem with this as the Suburban used to be the only product that fit a need. One reason that Ford is real big in fleet and government sales is that they are the only current manufacturer of full size rwd cars. This is why both GM and DC are reviving their rwd lines. The market is there and they are missing it because of poor decision making.
vince8: Could you please stop sounding like my wife's annoying little dog. What happens to your opinion about v8s if the Ranger comes out with them? The next generation of Explorers and Rangers is going to be several inches wider. The decision of which vehicles to include was determined by the originator of the discussion. Every manufacturer is trying to find a niche that they can corner or a look that clicks. Dodge showed foresight with both since most of the others are going to the Dakota size and power.
Dodge Dakota Quad Cab? Sure, if you like to see your truck on a lift night and day. And what's "All the luxury and snob appeal of an SUV" mean?" Is this what sold you on your truck? The t.v commercial? Yikes.
I'm still chuckling at your comment about a stock tacoma beating a Dakota 5.9L R/T in a 0-60 contest. Just think about that statement for a second. that's like saying a camry will toast a Mustang GT off the line. I'm not sure where on the Edmund's site you got your numbers from, but the Tacoma time you posted of 7.6 sec. is so far off it's almost ridiculous. Here's why: 1. I've driven a tacoma TRD a couple of times; it's not that quick off the line. judging by "seat-of-the-pants" feel, I'm quite sure my Explorer could whoop it in a 0-60 race. 2. According to fourwheeler.com, the actual 0-60 time for a TRD is 10.4 seconds. This comes from their PTOTY review, -a site spoog often posts to herald the wonders of the tacoma. hollar if you want me to post a link. (or ask spoog)
BTW, the 0-60 time for a dakota 5.9 R/T is 7.0 sec. this comes from the latest edition of Auto World Weekly magazine, where they did a full report on the dakota r/t. no chance a tacoma could keep up. -with or without a supercharger.
Of course, 0-60 times are kinda pointless when talking about trucks, but I just wanted to set the record straight on some of this bad data flying around. tacoma guys tend to get a little overzealous about their trucks.
You said "Why have a pickup if you're not going to use the vertical and lateral hauling ability? Why not just buy a Durango or Expedition or whatever? Cap owners will disagree I know. Reasons why...." I have a Dakota Quad Cab 4x2 with a Leer Topper, Why??? Well, I need to be able to haul 4 adults comfortably and I also have room for a 95lb Doberman. When I take her out for a long walk she occasionally gets muddy, swims in a lake and generally gets grungy. I don't believe in hauling a dog in a open pickup bed. The topper protects the dog from the elements. I also don't want or need a grungy dog getting the interior of my Quad dirty and it wouldn't work when I have my wife and 2 teenage kids in the Quad anyway. As for the short box, most of what I haul fits inside the box. On occasions when I need to haul longer items like a few 2x4s or some moulding I have a Yakima rack on the Leer topper. If I ever really need to haul heavy duty I have a 4x8 utility trailer. Rick
"BTW, the 0-60 time for a dakota 5.9 R/T is 7.0 sec. this comes from the latest edition of Auto World Weekly magazine, where they did a full report on the dakota r/t. no chance a tacoma could keep up. -with or without a supercharger"
Is the RT a 4x4? Last time I checked, it wasn't. Im talking about 4x4's here.
A supercharged Toyota Tacoma 4x4 is faster than a Dodge dakota 4x4 with it's biggest v8.
In FACT, I had the pleasure of BEATING a brand new Ford mustang and a v10 Dodge ram just the other day.
Ok. I also wanted to say that Ford also has a full line like you pointed out rwd cars, compact pickups, 3/4 ton and 1-ton trucks not to mention their F-650 and F-750's. This is perfect for a county goverment: rwd car(police, fire chief), compact pickup(water meter reader, utility management, bug sprayers, etc.), 3/4-tons & 1-tons(general road work), big trucks(Power line repairs and heavy-duty work, even throw a box on the back and the school board uses it to haul school supplies around). Anyway, I see why the reason Ford would be used or any domestic automaker for that matter...they make an entire line up. This way the buyer only has to buy line and train their mechanics on one brand same with a corporation. I personally think that all of the automakers are pretty even as far as reliability goes, so for Vince to state that ford sells so many vehicles because of it's reliablity(from a business stand point it's all about the $$$, same with gov't bidding war)...is not only wrong but ignorant! There are many factors why Ford sells as many as they do, many that we've all been over.
Vince has made a lame attempt to guessing what the figure of fleet and gov't sales might be, but even if he were right (3:1) what's the dealer ratio? True Ford's demand is probally strong enough to support that number of dealerships, but a more correct way of comparing sales would be to take two brands of vehicles. Here's an example: Find all the Nissan dealerships here in the US(use them first because they have less dealers) then in each of those markets find the Ford dealerships even if there are two use them, THEN compare the sales figures. Ford will still be higher, but by how much? But this would be a more accurate sales camparision.
Congrats on beating the V10 Dodge and the Mustang.They obviously did not want to run for you to beat them or you have done something to your truck that you have not said.
In the past, I've read post after post about, "...well, my truck has an ultra-mega charger and is faster!!" That's all fine & good. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.
However, why on earth would you want a s/c on a 4x4 truck? It just seems like overkill to me. If you are worried about 0-60 times, & who you can outrun from stoplight to stoplight, buy something that is BUILT to go stoplight to stoplight!!
If I were a gambling man, my money would be on the Dakota 5.9 R/T. No question!
Spooge:
a brand new Mustang & a dodge v-10, huh? The Dodge is understandable. The Mustang MUST have had a v-6.
"Is the RT a 4x4? Last time I checked, it wasn't. Im talking about 4x4's here."
actually I have no idea what you're talking about spoog. I was replying to Tacoma_TRD's post in which he stated that a stock tacoma could beat a dakota r/t off the line. even you would have to admit that a dakota r/t would make a tacoma look pretty foolish in a 0-60 contest. but yes, for the record a dakota r/t is 2wd. (although it wouldn't make much difference even if it was 4wd)
I wouldn't disagree with you that a supercharged tacoma could beat a 4x4 dakota with it's biggest V-8. (the 5.2L) the 5.2 is a pretty tired engine that's decent for towing, but not real quick. but once again, the only way the tacoma can beat anything is if you add that horribly expensive supercharger. if everybody else adds a supercharger to their trucks, then the tacoma is back to the bottom of the pile again. BTW, there's no way that mustang you beat was a V-8.
spoog, why don't you show us a picture of your s/c tacoma?????
Was the mustang in question a GT? You know, the 4.6l v-8? (i think we already know the answer)
Road & Track's test of the Mustang GT (Dec. 1999 issue) listed the 0-60 time of 5.4 seconds. There's just NO WAY a s/c pickup truck beat one of those. NONE!
Well, know that I think about it, it COULD happen.
It was me who made the statement about the stock Tacoma and that is not my opinion that is what the numbers said. You posted some numbers that were different. Who's are correct? I dont know.
Another thing, there is a distintion between the R/T and R/Ts and it seems like some are lumping them together.
I am not claiming this to be a fact, but I have heard both first hand and read about supercharged Tacos taking v-8 mustangs.
Was the mustang in question a GT? You know, the 4.6l v-8? (i think we already know the answer)
Road & Track's test of the Mustang GT (Dec. 1999 issue) listed the 0-60 time of 5.4 seconds. There's just NO WAY a s/c pickup truck beat one of those. NONE!
Well, know that I think about it, it COULD happen.
FYI - you made statements about the 5.2 engine in the Dakota. The 5.2 has been gone for a long time. The v8s offered in the Dakota are the 4.7 and the 5.9. The Durango may still offer the 5.2, but if so, not for long. The 5.9 is probably gone within two years, as soon as they decide what to replace it with.
There are two versions of the 4.6 in the Mustang. One has 32 valves and the other 16. A 5sp 32v has a 0-60 of 5.6s. A 5sp 16v is 6.4s while an automatic 16v 4.6L is 7.2s according to testing done by Carpoint. So it is very possible for a supercharged Tacoma to beat "a" 4.6L v8 mustang, but not the fastest v8.
for butting in I don't have a s/c or even a 4x4, all I have is a 2wd Ranger, (4cyl even!) I just have 1 question. I'm 6'3" & 39 yrs old; do any of these trucks we're comparing have comfortable seating? Comfortable enough for a 12hr trip? Should I just give up and buy a car? INL
You're right, without one of us going out with a stopwatch and testing ourselves, it is hard to verify any of the numbers that we see posted. but I think that 10.4 seconds for a stock tacoma is pretty reasonable based on my own experiences. After driving one, I would have guessed it to be around 9-10 seconds going by my own judgement. however, tacoma_trd posted something like 7.6 seconds that he claims he saw on edmunds. I'm not blaming him at all, but I think this has to be a misprint. I'm kinda doubt that even a supercharged tacoma could do 0-60 in 7 1/2 seconds. Dakota R/Ts?? -never heard of it.
I don't know what you read, or who you talked to but I think the only person who has ever been foolish enough to claim that a s/c tacoma could beat a V-8 mustang would be spoog. I don't care which V-8 it is, it can't be done. nor should it, I wouldn't expect any truck (except for maybe the Lightning)to be able to out accelerate a mustang.
-steve234- sorry, I forgot that dodge ditched the 5.2 for the 4.7 in the dakota. the 4.7 is an awesome engine!
devoy, Try the Dodge you need to sit higher off the floor in my opinion. The Dodge has the biggest interior. Don't get the Nissan it doesn't have a lumbar, although I'm 6'-1" and have been on several 8hr trips and haven't been the slightest uncomfortable. Because I sit higher off the floor than I did in my Acura Legend it's a more comfortable ride by far(I know that sounds crazy but, true)
resqman, While the Nissan Crew Cab has the smallest cab of the three you mentioned, it doesn't have the smallest bed as you posted. The last I checked the Ford Sport Trac's bed is the smallest of the three you mentioned. It's alot narrower and shorter, it's hieght doesn't make up the difference.
Not digging up the past but your statement in post #81 was so general, I had to throw this in here, before a die-hard GM fan:(in reference to "I wouldn't expect any truck (except for maybe the Lightning)to be able to out accelerate a mustang."
Don't forget about the syclone that was a DAMN fast truck! Unless you were talking about trucks that could last more than 30K miles j/k GM guys.
I'm not even gonna comment on your trd tacoma. cthompson21,I'm going to check out that site for toys for my new Ranger, did I mention the new color frost metallic silver same as the new 2000 lightning,I did read that the new 4.0 is quicker than the Dak R/T but I do not know if it was a 4x4 or 4x2 tested and I also read that a full 4 size door Ranger may be available with a V8 either the 3.9 or the 4.6 and may be all wheel drive a product of SVT.
I need decent lumbar support too. I just switched from a Mazda B3000 to a Dakota. I find the driving position much more comfortable in the Dodge. Not only do you have much more hip and shoulder room, but the seats provide better support too. I haven't taken a long road trip in the Dakota yet, but I do feel more comfortable during everyday driving. A tall guy like yourself could probably use extra leg room. Check out the Dakota Club Cab. One word of warning - if you drive one with the 4.7L V8, you'll want it!!! Great engine...
look under Edmunds reviews for 0-60 times, all the times that I posted were on 2WD models. I believe the Tacoma 4x4 V6 0-60 was 8.6 sec. The 5.2 dodge V8 is only availible in the Durango and Ram, and I cannot belive this thing about a s/c Tacoma beating a Mustang GT. We own a 99 Mustang GT and a 2000 4x4 Durango w/ the 4.7L V8. I find the mustang to perfom pretty well. After driving that then getting in the Durango, it seems like the Durango just doesnt go, but I have to admit that the 4.7 is a great engine and performs very well. It drives so smoothly and comfortably. I still just don't understand how a Dakota R/T is very fast when its just an engine for horsepower and towing rather than speed, and its same engine thats put in the Ram and Durango . I thought I had seen the R/T 0-60 times more like 9.0 sec. I had put the 2WD 0-60 times posted because the R/T is a 2WD, and Edmunds does have a 2WD V6 Tacoma at 7.6 sec from 0-60. I'm pretty sure the TRD 4x4 is slower but the R/T is not a 4x4. We have to compare apples to apples.
The 5.9l engine is available in all Dakotas, but is the only engine offered in the R/T. The R/T is offered as a hot rod truck and because of its setup cannot tow more than 2000 lbs. I have not had enough time to make one of my endurance runs in my Quad, but the seats are as comfortable as my f150 which has made several 15 hr runs. I would definitely look at power seats with lumbar support in any vehicle for long hauls.
Although I like the general idea of a Dakota (little bigger than a compact with available V8), IMHO it has a few drawbacks that noone seems to have mentioned:
(1) size - For all of its towing ability with either V8, it just doesn't have the mass to deal with a heavy trailer. An almost 7000lb trailer is gonna toss that truck all over the place. I'd be just as comfortable towing with either of the Ford or Chevy big displacement V6s (the 4L and 4.3L) the amount of weight I'd limit myself to in the Dakota.
(2) economy - Unless you've got a trailer hitched to your truck at least 50% of the time, the hit to your wallet with V8 mpg just isn't worth the V8 penalty.
(3) performance - With such low mpg, I'd expect some mindnumbing performance. The new 4L Cammer Ranger and 4.5L I6 S10 will probably both be quicker (or damn near equal) than the V8 Dakotas without the big hit to mpg.
Now before all you Dakota guys start trying to run me over, don't get me wrong. I love V8s. I love trucks. I love V8s in trucks. I just don't think large displacement V8s are worthwhile in a compact/mid-size truck. I'll take a smaller displacement, higher-tech V8. It'll get better mpg, prolly be quicker, and tow/haul the maximum amount I'd be comfortable with in a truck of that size.
I'll say one more thing. I haven't had much exposure with the new 4.7L V8. By all accounts I've heard, it's great. Maybe it is just the V8 I'd be looking for in a compact/mid-size truck. As for Rangers, I'd take the 3.9L V8 out of the Lincoln LS. For S10s, I'd go with the new 4.5L I6, which I believe just came out in the Brevada (or maybe '01).
get in the way: '98 Dakota R/T 0-60 7.0 secs (copywrite TruckTrend Apr., 1998.) '00 Dakota Quad 0-60 7.4 secs (copywrite MotorTrend Jan., 2000.) '99 Tacoma TRD 0-60 8.9 secs (copywrite TruckTrend Feb., 1999.) A 4.0 Ranger will not touch the Quad much less the R/T. (1) Size is precisely the advantage with the Dakota - if your towin' 7000 lb. trailers than you should be lookin' at full size pickups. If not, Dakota gives much better performance, handling and maneuverability than a full size - you can actually park these trucks! (2) Dont think 50% is the cut off here. Even if you pull a trailer (or whatever) only 4X a year, if you need the V-8, you need the V-8!!! (3) mmmmmmm......dont think so.
Check my post again. I'm talking about future engines in both the S10 and Ranger.
Ranger: SOHC 4L 207hp 238ft/lbs
S10: SOHC 4.5L I6 250hp
The OHV 4L in the '00 and prior Rangers is definately not a racing type of engine. It is a towing, hauling, 4x4-ing type of engine. The Cammer adds the top end while keeping the low end on the old OHV.
My point is that either big V6 in the Ranger or S10 will tow the amount of weight one would feel comfortable towing with the Dakota. Just 'cause it's gotta V8, don't automatically mean it's great.
I think the Dakota fills the niche of people who want a bit bigger cab and a V8 (but don't actually need the V8) and don't want the bulk of a full-size truck.
Unless you've got a head to head test and run the trucks back to back on the same track, those numbers just don't mean much (although it's still kinda silly in my mind to race trucks unless they're Lightnings or Syclones).
Weather, humidity, track conditions, and a whole host of other factors can affect performance numbers.
As long as we are talking which truck is faster than the other by .01 here and there.Who really cares. My 2000 4x4 Quad Cab Dakota is better looking then any trucks in this forum,NA,NA,,NA,NA..Lets see you argue that...... Allen-
not to mention how they are equipped. Many times the magazines test one type of vehicle against a "comparably equipped" vehicle by another manufacturer. But when you look at the fine print, they seem to take a lot of license with the term "comparably equipped". Many times the enigines are way different in how they perform even though they may be same size displacement wise.
You would be surprised at the amount of mass in a Dakota. My Quad is within 100 lbs of my 91 F150 SC. While the Dakota is rated for up to 6300 lbs towing, I would not recommend anyone pull that much because the GCWR does not allow that weight and a load of people/gear. 7000 lbs is serious truck load. The v8 vs v6 issue depends on the engine choices. The 4.7 Dodge will outperform the 3.9 v6 and in most cases, can get better mileage. If you are offered two engines of the same displacement, a v6 and a v8, the v8 would be a better truck engine, all things being equal, and the mileage will be the similar.
Plus, you've got the differences between the same vehicles. Two Dakotas could be absolutely identical, but it's more likely than not that they wouldn't run identical times. Magazines don't account for manufacturing fluctuations.
I don't know that I want to argue about who makes the nicest looking truck. However, I would be willing to express an opinion for which one is the ugliest! My vote for ugly truck goes to the Toyota Tacoma 2WD. Either Reg cab or Ex-cab, it doesn't matter. Nothing about that truck looks right. The proportions are all wrong. A co-worker just bought one and had to show it to me. I was polite and diplomatic, but man was it difficult!!!
Comments
Maybe BBK will finally get the bugs worked out of its Instacharger to put it on the new Cammer. I'd take a roots-type any day over a centrifugal.
But, 250hp and 280ft/lbs is easily doable with the Cammer and a little over a grand. Kinda makes the TRD S/C look even more expensive with its $3,200 price tag just for parts (let alone installation).
Now, the Toyota is the most downright ugly truck in plain 'ole 4x2 configuration.
Spoog, you took it too far with the supercharger. Noway does it out pull or out run a Dodge 5.9 or 4.7.. Take another look at the HP/Torque curve.. I still feel the Dodge doesn't belong in the same category as the Ranger, Tacoma, S-10, Frontier. This truck has a V8 and its interior room is larger along with the outer dimensions.. With its V8 option there is noway any of the above could even match its towing, pulling or hauling ability. Dodge created a niche and they can claim victory..
Tacoma 3.4L V6: 7.6 sec
Dodge 4.7L V8: 8.4 sec
Dodge 5.2L V8: 9.4 sec
Ranger 4.0L V6 8.5 sec *this is NOT the '01 SOHC
(they didnt give times for the 5.9, but I remember seeing somewheres that it is slower than any of these)
There is no comparison between the Ranger and the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab. There are only three true 4 door pickups on the market today: Nissan Frontier Crew Cab, Ford Explorer Sport Trac, and the Dodge Dakota Quad Cab. The Nissan has the smallest bed, smallest cab, smallest engine, smallest price. Real low end interior. First to market but the last of the choices.
The Ford Explorer Sport Trac is based on the Ford Explorer new body style. The inside uses a lot plastic and the marketing types say this is so the outdoorsy type don't have to worry about messing up the inside. The bed is also a composite plastic bedliner type material instead of metal. No bedliner needed since it is already a bedliner. Real bizarre looking body. The bed is narrow and high with clunky looking tie down hooks on the outside.
The Dodge Dakota Quad Cab has 4 full doors that open independently. Cloth seats and door panels, carpeting, power windows, doors, seats etc. Available with two V8's. 1450 pound hauling capacity. Notice that is 3/4 ton, like a full size truck. 6250 towing capacity. Class IV hitch so you can really tow something. The back doors open almost a full 90 degrees so you can get into the full size back seats that fold up for additional storage.
All the luxury and snob appeal of an SUV with the guts and hauling of a truck. Great body style. There is no competitor. Dodge Dakota Quad Cab. As their advertisment says about the 4 door: Grand Slam. Slam. Slam. Slam.
mahimahi: I did not find anything that you said as being snide. The remarks were by others and they seemed to be chevy fans (how anyone could be a chevy fan, I'll never know...sorry) I find it ironic that they are griping about government sales because the feds and states are the biggest buyers of Suburbans. I have no problem with this as the Suburban used to be the only product that fit a need. One reason that Ford is real big in fleet and government sales is that they are the only current manufacturer of full size rwd cars. This is why both GM and DC are reviving their rwd lines. The market is there and they are missing it because of poor decision making.
vince8: Could you please stop sounding like my wife's annoying little dog. What happens to your opinion about v8s if the Ranger comes out with them? The next generation of Explorers and Rangers is going to be several inches wider. The decision of which vehicles to include was determined by the originator of the discussion. Every manufacturer is trying to find a niche that they can corner or a look that clicks. Dodge showed foresight with both since most of the others are going to the Dakota size and power.
Is this what sold you on your truck? The t.v commercial? Yikes.
I'm not sure where on the Edmund's site you got your numbers from, but the Tacoma time you posted of 7.6 sec. is so far off it's almost ridiculous. Here's why:
1. I've driven a tacoma TRD a couple of times; it's not that quick off the line. judging by "seat-of-the-pants" feel, I'm quite sure my Explorer could whoop it in a 0-60 race.
2. According to fourwheeler.com, the actual 0-60 time for a TRD is 10.4 seconds. This comes from their PTOTY review, -a site spoog often posts to herald the wonders of the tacoma. hollar if you want me to post a link. (or ask spoog)
BTW, the 0-60 time for a dakota 5.9 R/T is 7.0 sec. this comes from the latest edition of Auto World Weekly magazine, where they did a full report on the dakota r/t. no chance a tacoma could keep up. -with or without a supercharger.
Of course, 0-60 times are kinda pointless when talking about trucks, but I just wanted to set the record straight on some of this bad data flying around. tacoma guys tend to get a little overzealous about their trucks.
LOL
Rube Jim
I have a Airaid spacer on my truck, it has more power and I've noticed a slight increase in mileage, about 1.5 mpg.
if you're not going to use the vertical and lateral hauling ability? Why not just buy a Durango or Expedition or whatever? Cap owners will disagree I know. Reasons why...."
I have a Dakota Quad Cab 4x2 with a Leer Topper, Why??? Well, I need to be able to haul 4 adults comfortably and I also have room for a 95lb Doberman. When I take her out for a long walk she occasionally gets muddy, swims in a lake and generally gets grungy. I don't believe in hauling a dog in a open pickup bed. The topper protects the dog from the elements. I also don't want or need a grungy dog getting the interior of my Quad dirty and it wouldn't work when I have my wife and 2 teenage kids in the Quad anyway. As for the short box, most of what I haul fits inside the box. On occasions when I need to haul longer items like a few 2x4s or some moulding I have a Yakima rack on the Leer topper. If I ever really need to haul heavy duty I have a 4x8 utility trailer. Rick
sec. this comes from the latest edition of Auto
World Weekly magazine, where they did a full report
on the dakota r/t. no chance a tacoma could keep
up. -with or without a supercharger"
Is the RT a 4x4? Last time I checked, it wasn't. Im talking about 4x4's here.
A supercharged Toyota Tacoma 4x4 is faster than a Dodge dakota 4x4 with it's biggest v8.
In FACT, I had the pleasure of BEATING a brand new Ford mustang and a v10 Dodge ram just the other day.
My truck is quite fast.
Vince has made a lame attempt to guessing what the figure of fleet and gov't sales might be, but even if he were right (3:1) what's the dealer ratio? True Ford's demand is probally strong enough to support that number of dealerships, but a more correct way of comparing sales would be to take two brands of vehicles. Here's an example: Find all the Nissan dealerships here in the US(use them first because they have less dealers) then in each of those markets find the Ford dealerships even if there are two use them, THEN compare the sales figures. Ford will still be higher, but by how much? But this would be a more accurate sales camparision.
However, why on earth would you want a s/c on a 4x4 truck? It just seems like overkill to me. If you are worried about 0-60 times, & who you can outrun from stoplight to stoplight, buy something that is BUILT to go stoplight to stoplight!!
If I were a gambling man, my money would be on the Dakota 5.9 R/T. No question!
Spooge:
a brand new Mustang & a dodge v-10, huh? The Dodge is understandable. The Mustang MUST have had a v-6.
Thats the view from here!
keith24
Im talking about 4x4's here."
actually I have no idea what you're talking about spoog. I was replying to Tacoma_TRD's post in which he stated that a stock tacoma could beat a dakota r/t off the line. even you would have to admit that a dakota r/t would make a tacoma look pretty foolish in a 0-60 contest. but yes, for the record a dakota r/t is 2wd. (although it wouldn't make much difference even if it was 4wd)
I wouldn't disagree with you that a supercharged tacoma could beat a 4x4 dakota with it's biggest V-8. (the 5.2L) the 5.2 is a pretty tired engine that's decent for towing, but not real quick.
but once again, the only way the tacoma can beat anything is if you add that horribly expensive supercharger. if everybody else adds a supercharger to their trucks, then the tacoma is back to the bottom of the pile again. BTW, there's no way that mustang you beat was a V-8.
spoog, why don't you show us a picture of your s/c tacoma?????
Was the mustang in question a GT? You know, the 4.6l v-8? (i think we already know the answer)
Road & Track's test of the Mustang GT (Dec. 1999 issue) listed the 0-60 time of 5.4 seconds. There's just NO WAY a s/c pickup truck beat one of those. NONE!
Well, know that I think about it, it COULD happen.
But, only if :
A: the mustang was turning @ the stoplight.
or
B: the mustang was parked on the corner.
keith24
Another thing, there is a distintion between the R/T and R/Ts and it seems like some are lumping them together.
I am not claiming this to be a fact, but I have heard both first hand and read about supercharged Tacos taking v-8 mustangs.
Was the mustang in question a GT? You know, the 4.6l v-8? (i think we already know the answer)
Road & Track's test of the Mustang GT (Dec. 1999 issue) listed the 0-60 time of 5.4 seconds. There's just NO WAY a s/c pickup truck beat one of those. NONE!
Well, know that I think about it, it COULD happen.
But, only if :
A: the mustang was turning @ the stoplight.
or
B: the mustang was parked on the corner.
keith24
ineedlumbar)
Dakota R/Ts?? -never heard of it.
I don't know what you read, or who you talked to but I think the only person who has ever been foolish enough to claim that a s/c tacoma could beat a V-8 mustang would be spoog. I don't care which V-8 it is, it can't be done. nor should it, I wouldn't expect any truck (except for maybe the Lightning)to be able to out accelerate a mustang.
-steve234-
sorry, I forgot that dodge ditched the 5.2 for the 4.7 in the dakota. the 4.7 is an awesome engine!
Try the Dodge you need to sit higher off the floor in my opinion. The Dodge has the biggest interior. Don't get the Nissan it doesn't have a lumbar, although I'm 6'-1" and have been on several 8hr trips and haven't been the slightest uncomfortable. Because I sit higher off the floor than I did in my Acura Legend it's a more comfortable ride by far(I know that sounds crazy but, true)
resqman,
While the Nissan Crew Cab has the smallest cab of the three you mentioned, it doesn't have the smallest bed as you posted. The last I checked the Ford Sport Trac's bed is the smallest of the three you mentioned. It's alot narrower and shorter, it's hieght doesn't make up the difference.
Don't forget about the syclone that was a DAMN fast truck! Unless you were talking about trucks that could last more than 30K miles
cthompson21,I'm going to check out that site for toys for my new Ranger, did I mention the new color frost metallic silver same as the new 2000 lightning,I did read that the new 4.0 is quicker than the Dak R/T but I do not know if it was a 4x4 or 4x2 tested and I also read that a full 4 size door Ranger may be available with a V8 either the 3.9 or the 4.6 and may be all wheel drive a product of SVT.
I have not had enough time to make one of my endurance runs in my Quad, but the seats are as comfortable as my f150 which has made several 15 hr runs. I would definitely look at power seats with lumbar support in any vehicle for long hauls.
(1) size - For all of its towing ability with either V8, it just doesn't have the mass to deal with a heavy trailer. An almost 7000lb trailer is gonna toss that truck all over the place. I'd be just as comfortable towing with either of the Ford or Chevy big displacement V6s (the 4L and 4.3L) the amount of weight I'd limit myself to in the Dakota.
(2) economy - Unless you've got a trailer hitched to your truck at least 50% of the time, the hit to your wallet with V8 mpg just isn't worth the V8 penalty.
(3) performance - With such low mpg, I'd expect some mindnumbing performance. The new 4L Cammer Ranger and 4.5L I6 S10 will probably both be quicker (or damn near equal) than the V8 Dakotas without the big hit to mpg.
Now before all you Dakota guys start trying to run me over, don't get me wrong. I love V8s. I love trucks. I love V8s in trucks. I just don't think large displacement V8s are worthwhile in a compact/mid-size truck. I'll take a smaller displacement, higher-tech V8. It'll get better mpg, prolly be quicker, and tow/haul the maximum amount I'd be comfortable with in a truck of that size.
I'll say one more thing. I haven't had much exposure with the new 4.7L V8. By all accounts I've heard, it's great. Maybe it is just the V8 I'd be looking for in a compact/mid-size truck. As for Rangers, I'd take the 3.9L V8 out of the Lincoln LS. For S10s, I'd go with the new 4.5L I6, which I believe just came out in the Brevada (or maybe '01).
Ranger: SOHC 4L 207hp 238ft/lbs
S10: SOHC 4.5L I6 250hp
The OHV 4L in the '00 and prior Rangers is definately not a racing type of engine. It is a towing, hauling, 4x4-ing type of engine. The Cammer adds the top end while keeping the low end on the old OHV.
My point is that either big V6 in the Ranger or S10 will tow the amount of weight one would feel comfortable towing with the Dakota. Just 'cause it's gotta V8, don't automatically mean it's great.
I think the Dakota fills the niche of people who want a bit bigger cab and a V8 (but don't actually need the V8) and don't want the bulk of a full-size truck.
Unless you've got a head to head test and run the trucks back to back on the same track, those numbers just don't mean much (although it's still kinda silly in my mind to race trucks unless they're Lightnings or Syclones).
Weather, humidity, track conditions, and a whole host of other factors can affect performance numbers.
My 2000 4x4 Quad Cab Dakota is better looking then any trucks in this forum,NA,NA,,NA,NA..Lets see you argue that......
Allen-
You've got trannies, rear ends, equipment packages (weight), body styles (weight, aerodynamics), tires, tire sizes, etc...
Plus, you've got the differences between the same vehicles. Two Dakotas could be absolutely identical, but it's more likely than not that they wouldn't run identical times. Magazines don't account for manufacturing fluctuations.
But, in any case...
WHO CARES?!?
THEY'RE TRUCKS, NOT RACE CARS!!!
:^P