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
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