We are aware of the login problems affecting the forums, and appreciate your patience as we work on a fix.
Did you recently purchase a new Tesla, Rivian or Lucid vehicle directly from the manufacturer and willing to share how your experience compared to previous vehicle purchases made through a traditional dealer? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 2/19 for details.
Dodge Dakota - General Topic
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
----snip------
Hi guys
I'm back in the group after a +/- 3-year hiatus.
Bpeeples--> Glad to say you are still on the board
anyway just thought i would pass this on in case anyone was interrested. My '00 Quad just turned 52,000 miles and it was time to replace the OEM Gdy Wrangler RT/S 31x10.5's. I probably could have got another 3-5k out of them but the winter months are here and i didnt want to be running on bald tires.
I just put on 32x11.5x15 BFG AT/TA(KO)'s on my 2000 FullTime 4x4 Quad's stock 15x8 rims...Im sure someone out there has already done this. This tire is a great fit and only scrubs a corner of the front inner fender at full lock(nothing a dremel wont take care of.
Question----> I now need to let the truck's PCM in on the tire swap. i know the dealer can do this for me but i figured, since i was going to spend $30-$40 to have this done, i would spens $300-$400 and buy a PCM upgrade from JetChip/SuperChip/Hypertech since most of these allow you to do this (at least on the GM/ford models)...
Does anyone have any experience(good/bad) with these reprogramming modules from any manufacturer?
Thanks Guys
Chad(NorthCarolina)
The AWD vs. 4WD debate needed the opinion and data from an experienced AWD Dakota driver. It sounds like each system (AWD, 4WD, and 2WD) has its virtues, weakness, and sins perpetuated by the marketing department. Thanks for helping us sort this out a bit more.
For example, the "AWD" on a Jeep is perhaps the best in the buisness. You could have ONLY ONE WHEEL TOUCHING THE GROUND and you would have full tourque deliverd to that one wheel. The system is amazing. (and Jeep holds the patent)
The Subaru system uses viscous couplings and some other clever components to provide a very usable "AWD" system for use on slippery road serfaces. (not for hardcore 4-wheeling)
The Porsche system uses syphticated electronics to deliver supurb traction and handling on DRY road surfaces.
The Dakota is a cheep open-differental in the xfer case. DC does NOT call it "AWD" for a reason. It is called "full time four wheel drive".
Check this website against the xfer case in YOUR dakota to see what you have.
http://www.newventuregear.com/tcases.html
(I suspect it is the NV244HD 4WD Full Time/Part Time Transfer case or the NV242HD)
NV233
The NV233 is an electronically controlled part-time transfer case with a low-range gear reduction system. There are three ranges, plus a neutral position: two-wheel drive, 4 low and 4 high. The 4LO and 4HI ranges are for off-road use only and not for hard surfaces. The exception is when the road surface is wet or slippery or covered with ice or snow. The gear reduction system is engaged in 4LO only and provides a 2.72:1 reduction ratio.
NV244
The NV244 is an electronically controlled full or part-time transfer case with no two-wheel drive provision. A differential in the transfer case is used to control torque transfer to the front and rear axles. A low range gear reduction system provides increased low-speed torque capability for off-road operation with a 2.72:1 reduction ratio.
The NV244 has three operating ranges plus a neutral position: AWD (All-wheel Drive, 4HI (Part-time), and 4LO. The AWD position can be used on any surface condition. The 4HI and 4LO positions can only be used when the road surface is covered with snow, ice, or other slippery material.
There is the answer right there. Just a differential in the xfer case. Nothing more.
The NV244 is an electronically controlled full or part-time transfer case with no two-wheel drive provision. A differential in the transfer case is used to control torque transfer to the front and rear axles.
The wheel with the LEAST traction is where all the torque goes.
In other words, if ANY ONE WHEEL is off the ground (no traction) you are stuck.
I havent looked in the B.O.B. but my service manager swears that the antispin option includes antispin clutches for the front end as well as the rear end...(bpeoples can probably vreify since my B.O.B. is M.I.A. currently)...hopefully this is the case.
The dakota AWD is definitley NOT the jeep Quadratrac setup. If anyone thinks or tells you that the dakota AWD is the "same thing" as the quadratrac, find yourself another dealer.
Chad (North Carolina)
There is no vehicle manufacturer who would install a LSD in the front of a vehicle due to the liability risk.
It is dangerous to have the "trac loc" LSD (Limited Slip DIfferential) in the FRONT of any vehicle. It causes loss of steering control under some conditions. (both front wheels slide sideways instead of ROLL.)
BTW: Adding LSD to the rear end of a "Full Time Four Wheel Drive" actually makes matters WORSE. Since the open differential in the xfer case will send the torque to the driveshaft with the LEAST resistance, the LSD in the rear will virtually GUARANTEE that the torque will always be sent to the front under slippery conditions.
Thus, one of the FRONT wheels will always spin first. (One front wheel will ALWAYS have less traction than BOTH rear wheels)
But seriously, I've heard of people using the brakes to help get out of situations where you've got excessive wheelspin. (I've not done or seen it, so it's only hearsay.)
I've started to see more & more manufacturers putting LSDs into front- and all-wheel-drive cars lately, too. Typically it's the Asian pocket-rocket cars. I don't know how they get around that whole loss-of-control issue. That would be interesting to find out.
Bookitty
like i said.....some dealerships will just tell you what they think you want to hear,
Of course, on road drivability might suffer but I digress.............:)
The Subaru AWD system varied depending on what type of transmission you had. For manual trannys, I believe it was a viscous type coupling that normally split the torque 50/50 front/rear. The automatic trannys used an electronically controlled multi-stage clutch that normally split the torque 90/10 front/rear.
Bookitty
The "electronically controlled LSD" on front wheel drive vehicles is not clutches in the differential. Instead, the ABS sensors at each of the front wheels sense wheelspin and gently apply the brake at that wheel. (thus sending the torque to the other front wheel.)
My wifes VW Jetta has this feature. It also has the ability to cut engine power too. Coupled together, this makes for a very usable traction control for a front wheel drive vehicle. I can mash the throttle on a snow-covered road and the vehicle will controllably accellerate as fast as traciton permits with very little wheelspin.
Her VW also has ESP (Electronic Stability control) which virtually eliminates lateral slippage. (sideways skidding) This is the most advanced safety system available today. It was pioneered by Mercedies Benz several years ago.
I hesitate to explain how this ESP system works here because the 'lowly' Dakota can only dream of having such a system.... and this is, after all, a Dakota forum. All I will tell you is that is is UNCANNY how her VW can handle on a snow-covered empty parkinglot... I cannot even MAKE it slide sideways when I try.
Thanks,
Ron
The rears simply bolt right up. I just laied under my Dak to install them. The upper nuts have 'tangs' welded to them so you do not have to put a wrench on them.
The front install is slightly more complicated. You have to jack up each wheel and remove them. To install the fronts, you have to compress the absorber then allow the internal spring to press it into place.
Do not forget to use a torque wrench to verify proper fastener tightness.
Also go jan24 for my ball joint replacement..and C35 wire harness recall check.. Wonder what the flemington NJ truck dealer is gonna do about the "re-alignment" check.. Hoping the do full check but since I won't be there to watch, who knows..unless I mark up the front end a bit to see if any adjustment was made.. Otherwise, truck running fine.. Ger
They have been great in every situation I've gotten in to. This will be the second Pennsylvania winter for them. I noticed about a 1-2 mpg drop, probably because there was so much more "meat" on these tires versus those worn-out GY's that still looked good but were dangerous in the wet / snow.
The Dakota service manual specifies that the upper and lower joints are spared with the control arms as a complete unit. But I'm suspicious that under warranty they are just replacing the joint itself.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Dusty
Sounds good with those prices. We have STS tire(s) stores in central NJ,,they quoted me $190 per tire!! Went 200 yards down the road on route 22 in greenbrook nj and was quoted $160/tire. Our local bridgewater Costco had that beat for the $134/tire+$10 lifetime balance-rotation..plus I killed (2) birds with (1) stone there as my wife picked up a whole chicken for dinner! Paid the $1 disposal fee/tire.... well take care..get ready for tomorrows (sat) snow storm! Ger
The UBJ used to be spare-parted as part of the upper-control-arm.... They would make more $$ selling complete upper-control-arms.
But when they were forced to start footing the bill for the UBJs, they changed the way it is spare-parted and now offer just the UBJ as a seperate item.
Hey, thanks! Yeah, that makes sense to me, too. Aftermarket companies typically spare the joint separate, but factories often do not. I'm not sure why. As you pointed out it raises the price of replacing ball joints. Maybe somebody thought they'd make more money, but on the other hand they could lose a lot of business that way as well.
Someone here wrote that the new replacement uppers are "shiny." I noticed a 2004 Dakota a while back that had a shiny ball joint, although I'm sure this one was factory and hadn't been replaced. Maybe that's why the 2004s weren't part of the recall.
Bests,
Dusty
Supposedly, as these Revos wear down, a softer tread compound will be exposed to compensate for the reduction of sips, etc. to maintain a safe level of traction in its "old age". So I was game after feeling like I was throwing away good rubber with the GYs. Pricing was a second-tier concern but GY ATs $ and others were right up there and the labor, stems, balancing, disposal, tax costs are the same no matter what tire you put on. I looked and researched all sorts of tires and ways to buy them (too much time on my hands as a "young" retired person) and then made the decision just before hunting season (2003).
So far, so good.
With the sudden cold weather the MPG has dropped drastically, with the last five tanks all being under 16.0 MPG. My last fill-up (today) the MPG was 12.79, an all-time low.
Regards,
Dusty
I should add that this last tank took me through four of the coldest days we've had around here, +4, -2, -4, and -11 over night lows. It's two degrees above zero here at the moment. In addition I let the Dak sit and idle for very long periods of time just to dry the inside out and driving never got over 50 MPH and was stop-and-go.
Regards,
Dusty
Does Edmunds have the capability to start a MPG topic and limit the data entry to mpg-appropriate data?
An alternative would be to make the Dakota folder a big database so we could sort for mpg-related entries and disregard the rest?
Just my opinion. We could continue to talk about MPG in the general forum. It's worked in the past.
Bests,
Dusty
Bookitty
Well, the following is probably my inner nerd speaking -- But is there a way to lessen the subjectivity and assorted variables? For example, the board could establish a thread in the summer in which posters could pick a week, check their tire pressure, fill the tank with decent juice, and drive in a way that would produce their best possible actual mileage. At the end of the week, participants report their mileage, plus drive train info and anything else that seems semi-pertinent.
Again, a set presentation format would provide the best service to those interested in the subject.
I can categorize the discussion this way: Dodge/Dakota/Fuel System/Fuel. But that is specific as it gets.
FWIW I'll be in the market this spring. I think I'll end up with a Dakota quad cab. But meanwhile local Ford dealers are selling new, V6, 4wd Rangers with MSRPs of $27K for $20. At first glance, that looks decidedly bargainish. But the folks I know who drive Rangers typically avg only 15-16 mpg in easy suburban use.
Saabgirl, my missus, could be hard to live with if I brought home a bargain that: a) rode like a Ranger, and b) got that kind of mileage. I might have a bad case of buyer's remorse myself. (Though the Ranger owers I know generally like 'em.)
Owners' actual experience is much more persuasive to me than window stickers and four-color brochures.
Steve
Dodge Dakota Owners: MPG-Real World Numbers
Overall sales are down (except for 'gas savers') for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is that fewer buyers qualify for financing.
Another factor is most likely that current Dakota owners have no real reason to change.
In this area, I have yet to see another '05 Dakota on the road. And, of course, having an '05 I am always looking for another and would recognize it from afar.
There are some who did not know that my '05 was not my '01. Same black quad cab to them.
To me, they are barely similar.
Ron
Still, the Dakota is new. I remember it took me awhile to appreciate the '94 RAM look, as well as the new RAM look. RAM sales around here are robust.
After '99 Dakota reliability and customer satisfaction began to rise and I think owners of the most recent builds are quite happy to keep their current ride when the new Dakota's looks are less than appealing to many.
Bests,
Dusty