Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Dodge Dakota - Club Cab



  • greenogreeno Posts: 13
    I believe that's what I have when my shift lever for 4wd doesn't have a 2WD marking. It only has 4WD LOW, N, 4WD, and 4WD HIGH. Do a lot of 4.7's have this type of transfer case and 4WD? And how is this system really--the dealer says they have improved the full time 4WD in 2000 by using @#$#$%%(4WD jargon) in the front drive axles to reduce wear while in normal driving. Is this true? And last one, does the front wheels really pull when the back wheels start slipping on ice automatically? Thanks.
  • greg116greg116 Posts: 116
    I remember reading somewhere that the 4.7L with auto tranny does not come with part-time 4WD. I dont understand that, as I dont trust full-time 4x4. Too many alignment and service issues. Oh well.
  • spike50spike50 Posts: 481
    Many of us have part-time 4WD with the 4.7L engines. Usually do most of our driving in 2WD and our floor shifters are marked: 4WD-Low, N, 2WD, 4WD-High. Better gas mileage but not as good as a straight 2WD truck.

    The Full-time 4WD units are no doubt more sophisticated but probably are not as high tech as a Jeep's Quadratrac, or any of the foreign systems on rally cars.
  • greg116greg116 Posts: 116
    I think full-time 4wd is a waste for trucks. All it does is jack up the price and causes more service headaches. Actually i think fulltime "4x4" is a waste for anything bigger than an S-10. The "4x4 auto" selection that was on an Explorer we rented worked just fine. It ran in 2wd untill it slipped, then locked itself in 4wd high untill it wasnt needed. Simple and functional.

    However, I still find myself trying to decide if i want a 4x4 CC. On the one hand, i'll have a higher ride height, better traction for the snow and muck, and the option of a little light 4wheeling now and then.

    On the other hand, a 2wd gets better economy, cheaper MSRP, cheaper to service (no differentials, axles, electronics etc...) better handling and acceleration. I plan on using it for lots of highway cruising, but running a high risk of some extremely crappy weather along the way and i'm afraid of getting stuck. Canadian winters being what they are, getting a 4x2 sounds like a bad idea, but I dont want to spend the extra money if i dont have to.
  • bookittybookitty Posts: 1,303
    Greg, the arguments that you posed were indeed valid. However, you answered your own questions with the statement: "but running a high risk of some extremely crappy weather along the way and i'm afraid of getting stuck. Canadian winters being what they are, getting a 4x2 sounds like a bad idea, but I dont want to spend the extra money if i dont have to." Greg, you could get a 4X2, and perhaps reap a bit more mileage and save a few dollars. Then, when you are stuck in a snow drift alongside of the highway, you could play the radio, and count your money. But don't let the engine run to provide heat, because you might use up all or most of the fuel that was saved.

  • greenogreeno Posts: 13
    To set the record straight, I have almost 10,000 miles on my full time 4 wheeler and have had no problems with it. I think it is how you drive the vehicle with the full time package. If you beat it, corner hard, etc, it will wear down the drive gears and tires a lot quicker than if you take care of it. Of course the full time 4 wheel will use tires more quickly than 2 wheel drive but keeping up with the tire rotations and alignment once a year will not make the 2 wheel drive have THAT MUCH MORE tire life. What are we talking about 5,000-10,000 more miles on the 2 wheel drive? Inconsequential. I got the 7 year bumper to bumper anyway just incase I had problems with it.
  • Your facing the same dilemma I was 2 years ago. I ended up with a 2WD(99 cc 5.2L, 5sp. LSD ect.) for the very reasons you point out. After 2 winters in Minnesnota, I've faired very well. More important than 4WD in dealing with "extremely crappy weather"(snow,ice), is a complete set of dedicated winter tires. This, together with LSD and contained weight over the rear axle (sand bags), will offer not only comparable get-a-goin traction but better tracking and braking than a stock 4WD. When spring comes (yeah....right!) you simply switch over to your street tires, throw out the extra weight and your ready to roll with a rig than handles better, is lighter, faster and more economical than a 4WD.
  • greg116greg116 Posts: 116
    Well, I've decided on the part-time 4x4. Sometimes in Calgary and over the prairies the snow just gets far too bad for a 2WD with snow tires. Remember Cool Runnings, the airport scene where they come out into -25 degree weather? Yeah, I thought it was an exaggeration too. It's not, trust me . Besides I like to have a true do-it-all vehicle, and the part-time 4WD on our Durango has come in extremely handy, including getting us out of a ditch in low range, something a 2WD could never do on its own.

    Aside from that I like a higher ride height (i'm 6'4" and dont like low vehicles). Now the only decision left is auto tranny or stick shift. Can you get the stick with bucket seats and floor console? Are there cupholders in the truck when you order the 40/20/40 bench seat?
  • limcolimco Posts: 1
    The company brought a 1998 Dodge Dakota Sport 4x4, 5.2 liter pick up in November 1998 and it has been in the service shop quite often for a new vehicle with less than 72,000 am on the clock.

    The pickup have been in the shop for the following failure:
    Fuel tank module replacement
    Rear wheel speed sensor replacement
    Front disc rotor
    Front stabilizer bar failure and replacement
    AS module replacement.

    Just two days ago the speedometer stop working and we suspect that the electronic speed sensor may have become defective. In addition, we have noticed that the transmission slams sometimes when it is shifted from park into drive.

    We are wondering if there is anybody out there that have encountered these problems

  • It really sounds that you have a lemon on your hands. Trade it in & try again.
  • stvdmanstvdman Posts: 62
    If your Dakota came with the 255/65/15's and you changed just the tires to a different size which did you go with. Are they working ok? I am thinking of going with a 255/60 or a 275/60 if they fit, which I also need to know. Thanks
  • I am going to buy a Dodge Dakota club cab with sports plus pkg,which engine is best? I like a v-8 but am concerned about mileage. (STANDARD TRANS IS MY CHOICE WITH THIS PKG.
  • I forgot to mention that the club cab I am going to purchase is a 4/2 with a sports plus pkg. like I said in my previous msg , I like a v-8 but am concerned about mileage. my transmission will be a standard, any thoughts or suggestions?? THANKS
  • bookittybookitty Posts: 1,303
    Bill, we have been down this road so many times. The 3.9 engine is very marginal to say the least. It is old technology and is really undersized for a vehicle the size of a Dakota. The mileage for the two engines is roughly the same, and with an automatic transmission (you are getting a 5 speed)
    the V8 many times outperforms the V6. You did not mention wether you are considering a 2X4 or a 4X4.
    The price difference going in is not excessive, but I certainly don't want to sit here and spend your money, The majority of people on our forum and owners club will tell you the very same
    thing that I am spouting forth. You asked, and I answered. Good luck with whatever you choose.

  • bobs5bobs5 Posts: 557

    The dodge site has fuel economy ratings for engine size, transmission type, 4x4, 4x2.

    For the configuration you listed:

    16/22 for v6.

    15/20 for v8.

    If it were me....go V8, the difference in mileage is small.

  • ohc_babyohc_baby Posts: 116
    I usually get 22 hwy with my 2001 4.7 5-spd with 3.55 LSD rear-end. The new tranny is soft on the shifts and have been hit or miss (everyone loves them or hates them), but I've not heard anyone that wasn't thrilled with their 5-spd. Go for the 4.7!
  • ron35ron35 Posts: 134
    Bill - You definitely want the 4.7 over the 3.9. I am on the Dakota Mailing List and have read hundreds of posts comparing these 2 engines and the choice in over 90% of these posts is the 4.7. I have a 4.7 with 5 speed and get 16-18 mpg; friends who have the 3.9 are getting either the same or worse. You may have one other choice if you can afford to wait. In 2002 the Dakota will replace the 3.9 at 175 HP with a 3.7 (derivative of the 4.7) at 212 HP.
  • spike50spike50 Posts: 481
    I wish DC had the OHC 3.7L V-6 when I bought. Although I have no problems with the 4.7L, it does make the truck more nose heavy. When I was test driving different models, the V-6's seemed more balanced. Went with the 4.7L because I couldn't bring myself to spend that amount of money for a truck and put a 1950/60 design engine in it. Also, according to the window stickers at the time, the 3.9L gas mileage was 1-2 mpg worst. I think that a OHC 3.7L could be just right for me and give me 2-3 mpg more than my avg 15.85 with the 4.7L, 4WD, 5sp, LSD, T/H Package.

    BTW, most of my vehicles in last 30 yrs have been Mopar.
  • greg116greg116 Posts: 116
    First off, in all logic the 3.7L OHC V6 is definitely Dakota-bound. It was designed as a truck motor, and a truck motor it shall be. It's already slated for the Grand Cherokee, Liberty and 2002 Ram, so most definitely the Dakota.

    Now heres something to discuss - Should the Club Cab come with a third or fourth door, a la Ranger and S-10? If so, three or four? Now, before you snap off an answer, keep in mind that with these doors comes the very real chance of reduced cab rigidity and, over time, squeaks and rattles and all matter of annoying noises.

    Personally, I think a 3rd door on the driver's side would help a lot, as long as it comes with heavy reinforcement so it makes no difference in structural strength. They could make a 3rd door standard, and a 4th door optional, again, with heavy reinforcement.

    Pickups are highly profitable vehicles for manufacturers, and it wouldn't be terribly hard on the bean counters to add a little door. Theyd probably make up the difference in increased sales anyway. The Dakota is a vehicle that people seem to have very few design-related complaints about, and this would solve one of the biggest ones. The 3.7L OHC would solve the other (bad fuel economy).
  • bobs5bobs5 Posts: 557
    I think the 4.7L V8 is the perfect match to a Quad Cab truck. The V6 would be ok for a regular or club cab model, but feel it would be underpowered for a quad. I am still curious as to how the new v6 will perform. If d/c actually goes through with the new v6.
  • bobs5bobs5 Posts: 557
    To me a 3'rd or 4'th door on a club cab would only reduce the structural strength of the cab. I prefer to have the B pillar and true doors as oppose to the "suicide doors"
  • spike50spike50 Posts: 481
    I guess I got used to 4 cylinder engines with 5 speeds because I now find myself a bit too much on testosterone with the 4.7L. Have to admit that there are a few times when I scared myself. For me, the smaller engine might be safer. No doubt about it though, the 4.7L can really haul butt.
  • namfflownamfflow Posts: 202
    There is a very simple reason why many people get better milage with the V8 as compared to the V6. With the V6 you have to push the engine to get it going and run it up toward maximum capacity while with the V8 you don't have to drive it as hard. It also tends to last longer.

    This isn't a new thing. Even back in the 60's with cars like the Coronet the 318 (5.2 for the modern masses) got better gas milage than the 225 slant six because of the same factors. That is why even if I wasn't a lead foot I would never take the base engine. Too weak in most cases. (yes I know the 4 is the base but not in the club cab so it don't count)
  • Picked up my truck about a month ago, have 500 miles on it now. On Sunday went for the first real highway ride to the jersey shore. This is the best riding and handling truck I have ever driven. At 65 with the cruse on gas mileage was 17.8, better than I expected for not being broken in. Love this truck!
  • bookittybookitty Posts: 1,303
    Ben,we recently discussed your problem. The Dodge Dakota with V8 gets MPG that compares favorably with other trucks given the same type drive line equipment. Next time you purchase a vehicle or any other major product I would suggest that you utilize the power of the Internet (which you obviously have at your fingertips) "prior" to purchasing. All of this information is and was available to assist in making an intelligent choice. The 3.9 engine is old technology, yet you chose to select it. "It is better to light one candle then to sit and curse the darkness."

  • iowabigguyiowabigguy Posts: 552
    ben221, I realize that you are unhappy with your mileage however I don't agree with your broad statement "mileage well below the other truck makers" I have a co-worker with a 2000 silverado 5.3 4x4. The absolute best he has gotten driving very conservitavely was in the low 17mpg range and when driven normally provides mid 15mpg. We have 2 Chevy suburbans 2500s with 5.7 4x4 auto that have never seen 14mpg. We also have a GMC3500 crew cab 5.7 4x4 auto that usually gets about 10mpg with a best in the mid 13s. I had a Ford F150 with a 300cu inch 6 cylinder and a 4 speed manual that seldom saw over 16 and was usually in the mid 13mpg range. I replaces it with a Dakota with a 5.2 V8 auto and saw my average mpg increase by 1 in both city and highway driving. Then at the other end of the spectrum I just got back from a trip to Arizona. We rented a 2001 Camaro convertible with a 3.8 v6 auto. We put almost 1000 miles on this car with highway speeds averaging 75 to 80 mph. The worse tank of gas was 31mpg and the best was 33.5mpg. The engine in this car is an antique by your definition but look at its mileage. A lot of it has to do with gearing, aerodynamics and weight. If you want mileage you go small and light. If you want a truck, no matter who builds it, you won't get super mileage. Rick
  • I just got a set of front and rear splash guards for my 2001 dakota. It says that the front and rear guards are the same but the rear ones are about 1 1/2" off on the bottom mounting hole. They are the mopar molded guards with the rams head on them. does anyone know if this is correct?

  • tuvtesttuvtest Posts: 237
    According to my Accessories Catalog,
    Rear w/flares 82203619
    front w/flares 82203473
    front or rear w/o flares 82202719

    you didn't mention about flares, so I hope these #'s help
  • I looked closely at the install sheet that they came with and it says for Dakota Front and Rear with Wheel Flares 82203473/82203619. I e-mailed they guy from Wyckoff Chrysler and he said that 82203473 is for both front and rear with flares...

  • ben221ben221 Posts: 8
    Lets see now,,,,,,A Silverado is atleast 1600lbs than a Dakota excab= 4150lbs. And the owner of this vehicle is able to get 17mpg???? 4mpg higher than I can get with my Dakota???? Thanks for proving my point iowabigguy. And you cant compare a Suburban 2500 and GMC 3500 because of there massive size although I bet the mileage they get isnt far from my Dakota. And yes this truck has been back to the dealer and yes I did call Dodge Corp. and yes I did take it to another dealer. And the answers were all the same,,,,,they cant find anything wrong with this truck and 13mpg is all that I'm going to get in the winter in the northeast.
This discussion has been closed.