00 dakota 4.7l

keg3 · February 2000

i just put in the "drop in" k&n FILTER in my stock air box. i didnt put in a new air intake or air box. like i said there is some increase in power on both ends.

ron35 · February 2000

DC has issued a TSB # 09-01-00 for the water emulsion problem in the oil filler tube. Basically they say that this is a non-problem and no corrective action need be taken. The TSB was issued Feb 18 2000. The TSB is available for viewing at http://www.geocities.com/natedak2k/Oil_cond_TSB.jpg Kind of makes me wonder what they are going to tell us guys with the 5 speeds on the idle search problem.

Ron S.

edermar · February 2000

A rep from K&N said the 33-2084 is the right filter to use in th 4.7. My question is this: Will just the drop in filter element ( about $45) be enough to make a difference, or will we need the Filtercharger Injection Performance Kit to make a meaningful difference. Those go for around $110.Anyone use one yet?
Ed

mrb9 · February 2000

HOUTSLAW, the top speed limiter shuts you down at 90 MPH, or so I am told, have not received my new QC so, I dont know for sure. But other posts in these forums have said 90. I am sure they are correct, this group is very thorough.! Mrb9

pomyc · February 2000

Has anybody else noticed that, after changing the oil with the manufacturer recommended 6 qts., the oil level shows about 1/4 in. to 3/8 in. over the full mark?

themacguy · February 2000

top speed limiter is (was) around 95mph. and it is tied into the cruise control (action) stalk.

oil change - put in 5 quarts, then add about a half quart when started, warmed and then shut down to 'top off.' one of our posters puts a little oil in the filter first - before installing it; if you do that put in about 4 quarts, then top off after running a couple of minutes (shut it off first). just DON"T overfill the crankcase.

themacguy · February 2000

This is simply sulfur 'flashing off' and out of the regular petroleum-based oils' base stock. It has no where to go in this new sealed type engine 'system,' so it evaporates at temp and then 'boils out' at this upper point in the engine oil's filler tube; then it reintroduces itself at the top of the tube as an emulsion and clings to the plastic tube sides where we see it as the 'dreaded yellow peril.' It is NOT harmful to the engine (other than whatever harm a little sulfur normally causes) and is NOT present in the synthetics. It is NOT water or water vapor - so rest easy... so sayeth my dad who was Gulf Oil's senior petroleum geologist for many years (and a pretty darned good mechanic as well). He did say it nicely though. I just wanted to get everybody's attention with my holier than thou proclamation. At least it sounds plausible - and a little like Charlston Heston. ;-P

magsteve · February 2000

Just saw the post on speed limiter, I have the 4.7L, 5 spd, 3.55 axle. I can vouch for the 85 as the max on cruise control, so far I've been up to 110 with no evidence of a cutoff.

andy_jordan · February 2000

old man - lets remember this thing is a truck. The speed limitation is there for a reason - these things are not particularly stable at high speeds - and your tires are not rated for speeds above 85mph - they get very hot very quickly, especially when new.

themacguy · February 2000

Yeah, forgot to mention I'm running HR's on mine. DO NOT drive this this truck (or any other) with the stock tires (unless rated / and if you've got a current will) at speeds above 85-90mph - you shouldn't normally drive these speeds anyway, in anything, unless you have a deathwish. And especially the 'LT' tires - their tread will literally peel off with any extreme high speed use. Not to mention the (un) stable nature of a higher center gravity vehicle. Let's keep it sane folks.

swobig · March 2000

on not running above the speed rating on the tires, but running 90, 100, 110 is perfectly ok if you know the vehicle and know how to control it. I run those speeds often and don't have a problem - it's the people with cell phones, reading, etc., that cause a lot of problems. It's not the speed, it's the driver...

bookitty · March 2000

That's nothing, I flew my 6 engine B-47 jet bomber underneath the Golden Gate bridge. It was not one of my smarter moves, and I got my [non-permissible content removed] racked by the USAF, but I made it. It was one of my most stupid moments, and I had plenty of them. Respect the fact that guys who are giving out advice are seasoned experienced racing participants and know all about calculated risks taken in a vehicle designed for the purpose of racing. I might argue with them as to what kind of fountain pen to purchase, but not about things in which they have professional expertise. By the way, themacguy, what kind of fountain pen do you like. Don't become a statistic. My luck held out during 53 missions in Korea. Better men fared not as well. A word to the wise.

Bookitty

renegade69 · March 2000

How true! Pushing the envelope is fun at
times, however anytime you do you risk
your life and others on the road with you.

Be aware some nite when your driving 110MPH
and you come up on a slow vehicle..........
lets just say it won't be pretty. And besides
what fun would this chat area be if we have to
keep breaking in newbies all the time.

p.S. I have carried a Mont Blanc pen for over
2 years now. It is the finest writing instrument
I have used.

Later Renegade

swobig · March 2000

I typically drive on open roads (no one around) so why not go a little faster. If it's raining, snowing, by all means I slow down. But, I haven't had a accident in 10 year. Planes travel 600 MPH and there safer than cars. My point is that if you know what your car is capable of, have the right equipment, and are alert you should not have a problem. Don't think it's pushing the envelope - 140+ would be pushing it. And I'm not driving my vehicle hard - tach reads about 3000 rpm and crusies nicely. Be different if I was skidding all over the place, overreving the engine. Hope you guys are not in favor of 55 MPH - I celebrated when they changed to 65 and wish it would go up higher. Speed doesn't kill - the driver does. Take care...

andy_jordan · March 2000

let me tell you a story about someone I used to road race with in the UK. He had a Porsche 911 and the local Porsche dealers sponsored an owners day at the local track. He knew the track well having raced there many times and thought that he was in with a good chance of taking home some of the prizes.

He was running S rated tires (I don't know if these were stock or not - macguy you may know), and he considered these ample for his needs. S rated tires are considered good for speeds up to 180km/h, 112mph. He was clocked on the main straight (fastest point on the track) at various speeds between 120 and 130 mph. I believe the fastest speed was around 131. Anyway the rubber overheated and his left rear failed in a major way - looked like Mansell in Australia all those years ago.

He never raced again.

If you are going to drive fast, get the equipment. A stock Dakota is not designed for it and something will fail. It may not be on your truck, it may not be today, but sooner or later if people overdrive their tires, or their vehicle, it will fail. In all probability you won't get another chance to make that mistake.

Mont Blanc for as long as I can remember.

swobig · March 2000

and I didn't say I was racing. Have the equipment, been a safe driver, watch the road, so I go. Too each his own...

renegade69 · March 2000

Well enough on this topic....

Opinions are like ball point pens...

.......well all have one. LOL

renegade

tunared · March 2000

Discussed this DC & they said it's normal. I asked for something in writing (in case it is a problem later) I was told they would only give me something in writing if I sued them ! Great customer Service. Also tried to look at the contract for the extended care service warranty from DC. I was told I could not look at the contract before I signed it. What is it with DC?

asta · March 2000

Hey all - long time no post. I'm (still) trying to make up my mind between the Dak Quad Cab and the F-150 Supercrew. Finally got to drive the new Fords the other day (left my impressions in the Supercrew chat board). But, during the drive, the salesguy was going on about how much more stable the Ford beds are compared to Chrysler's (Dakotas) Something about the way the two beds are attached to the frame. Does anyone have any takes on this? Any experience with the Dodge beds being flimsy or creating too much play on the highway etc. (obviously not at speeds in excess of 90 MPH -c'mon guys - this is not the BMW or Audi TT forum, right?

We are talking 4x4 trucks here with AT tires etc. Hardly the recipe for a street legal race machine.

themacguy · March 2000

Yes, I've driven - and ridden in - both trucks. The SuperCrew (3 of them) and the Dakota Quad Cab. I think I was the first to post some very positive info about driving the SuperCrew on one of their sites a while back. Won't re discuss it much here. I'm 5'8" (on a good day, also) and one of my business buddies owns the largest Ford dealership in W. TX, so I got plenty of seat time and 'encouragement' to buy the Ford from him for $$$ LESS than dealer cost. No such deal from Dodge. The Dodge dealers out here are really pretty poor (sales depts. only; but the service depts. are stellar), and have been for years. My appraisal of both trucks is VERY similar to yours. I'm very much a Chevy & Porsche guy so I was pretty neutral or maybe a little pro-Ford - but I let the trucks do the talkin'.

Rode in the SuperCrew for 50 miles (wouldn't let me drive it) and drove the Dakota to the office and back (10 miles). Bought the Dodge. Didn't even wait to order one. I have since driven the SuperCrews for several days each; white one for 3, black one for 2 (300+ miles total), and been offered my original cost back to me to trade for the Ford. I've also driven a Sport Trac for 35 miles. They just are not 'quite' what I want or need. But for many others either Ford will be a fabulous choice. I have since talked a good friend of mine into a black Sport Trac.

Send me an e:mail for an off post detailed discussion if you'd like. I might have some other thoughts that would surprise you.

henne · March 2000

my best friend had a ford 97 or 98 f150, the bed kinda wraps around the back of the truck like the dakota quads bed does, the f150s bed would hit the back when the truck was drivin with one side on an incline of more than 25 degrees (if i remember the degree correctly) so as far as the ford be being stronger, IMHO i think its a crock.

robert

bpeebles · March 2000

(asta) Are you saying you are basing your decision on this salesman's efforts to embellish the 'stability' of the bed on a Ford? I am curious on what you are going to haul that makes this a big part of your decision. (SAND, GRAVEL, FIREWOOD,SAWDUST, WORK BOX, CAP....etc)

I have a cab-high cap on my Dak. and have traveled several thousand miles in it. Sure, there is some flexing of the frame but this is exactly why the cab/box are separated from each other. All real trucks have the cargo section separate from the passenger compartment for isolation and other reasons.

I know of a Veterinarian that travels from farm -to- farm with a Dak. The box has a special 'insert' that has compartments all around it.(Doors, drawers ...etc) This man WORKS out of his Dak. and carries a load at all times over several hundreds of miles a day. He has gone through many trucks in his career and says that the Dak. is by far the best yet!!

asta · March 2000

thanks bpeebles on the bed notes. I was thinking to myself when the sales guy was yakking about the Ford's bed being bolted, welded, blah, blah, to the frame about my neighbor, who hauled out several hundred lbs of stone and concrete when he redid his patio. His Ram didn't seem to bounce or flex too much when he was hauling that kind of cargo to the dump!

It's not so much what I'm going to haul as the Ford guy made it sound like he's seen Daks driving around with their beds flopping around, regardless of the load. He also hinted that the Daks beds are not structurally sound and would breakdown off the frame after heavy usage! Man, these sales people are really tough on each others brands! When I came in after the F-150 test drive, the sales manager was like: "just ask yourself this: how many Chrysler products are in the Top 10 vehicles sold every year in this country? But, there are 5 Fords and 5 Japanese brands. Enough said!"

Okay, dude. let's kick the competiton around a bit more, eh?

What's your take on the interior construction of the dak vs the Supercrew? I've seen posts on the Ford board about the Daks front bench/buckets being thin and subject to wear, and also uncomfortable on long trips (which I do a lot of).

themacguy · March 2000

play a lot in the roll of who sells what and who's in the top ten. I know for a fact that Ford bought one of the car rental companies (or invested VERY heavily in one) years ago, loaded up the rental fleet with - as I recall - lots and lots of Tauruses (Tauri?) and stole the year end #1 sales title out from under the Honda Accord at the very last minute - Honda doesn't (or didn't then) allow their cars to be used as rentals. I don't know of anyone who thinks the Taurus is superior to an Accord, but what a marketing coup. Also, the GMC and Chevy (together) trucks very nearly equal the F-150 sales numbers. And probably would if they stopped not only heavy factory rebates, but DEALER rebates for every little thing you can imagine. Another bit of sales genius. Not bashing Ford or their products or anyone else's, but remember: we're buying iron with every dollar we spend - I can't and won't believe the Fords cost so much less to make, or sell. And my personal experience with Ford and their dealers (one of my best friends is one, and he's gonna read this) has not been 'pleasant.' But you can say that about ANY make - in ANY area. These 'sales' people are interchangeable. You know they work at one place one month and somewhere else the next. Their job is to move the floorplan. Yes, there are some exceptional sales people out there; and lawyers and politicians. I just haven't met many lately. But I have heard of a few... and have met two. My experience with the dealer I picked had nothing to do with what THEY wanted to sell me. It's the attitude they had about getting me what I requested.

Pam & Brigitte at Benny boyd in Lampasas, Tx. executed flawlessly. They never tried to sell me ANYTHING; instead they asked what they could do for me. Over and over. And I worked them very hard. They're still doin' their job for me and will continue to get my business. But they are the exception - not the rule.

I say: research your needs / wants, drive the trucks that your research shows to fit, back away and do some more research, narrow down your choices, drive em again, go get some other folks' opinions if you want, drive em again, etc. Until your choice is CRYSTAL CLEAR. If it's not: repeat.

From personal experience with several trucks and zillions of miles: if the truck bed is not moving (way) separately from the cab, you're gonna be in BIG trouble really quick. Separation is also the reason nerf bars or tubes shouldn't EVER attach to the rear bed frame AND the cab. They should NEVER be tied together.

And ya'll might take a look see at what the salesmen have at their residences. Not what the dealer has them drive home. I did a couple of years ago and it just blew my mind. foodforthought

bookitty · March 2000

As usual, an intelligent and pragmatic answer from themacguy. I am impressed with his clear as well as practical thinking. Here here!

Bookitty

bookitty · March 2000

On Friday, March 03,2000, Ernie informed me that my truck "has gone to frame" confirming a ship date of 03/06/00. That actually means that it is completed on that date and goes to the shipping point to await, trains, planes and cars. However, it certainly looks like a good sign. Please exert extra caution at rail crossing to prevent a possible train wreck. Thank you for your continued cooperation.

Bookitty

2drive · March 2000

In my opinion, the Dakota seats are much firmer and far more comfortable than those of the Ford's. Concerning durability, I have no idea which may last longer, but, the Dakota seats appear similiar in inner and outer material to those of my old Voyager, and they lasted 16 years and almost 400,000 miles.

Also, keep in mind that the Supercrew sells for 5-10K more than the QC.

spike50 · March 2000

Grew up around bases (OH, TX, NJ, ME, and PA). So you flew the B-47 "Stratojet". Built models like crazy back then. Had all X's, fighters, bombers, etc. When I get a chance I get into a sailplane around State College, PA. If your ever get to Merced, CA, its home to a nice "open air" museum. They have a B--47.

asta · March 2000

2drive - personally I really liked the buckets on the Dakota when I testdrove it. I was worried, cuz I had just driven a friend's Y@K Jeep Grand Cherokee the day before and found the seats too tight and stiff. However, the Dak's seats were great. I heard that chatter about the Dak's being thin and non-durable on the Ford board, so it is a biased view I imagine. Anybody else want to weigh in on this comparison - seat construction??? Also, how does the Dak's bench measure up to the buckets - I only drove the buckets and, like I said, they fit me very well.

mrb9 · March 2000

I would also be interested in finding out about the bucket seats. When I ordered my Quad, I got the 6 way power buckets, But I had only test driven 2 quads, both the 60/40 bench. My Toyota T100 has the buckets and I love em. Hope the Quads are more comfortable then the Toyota's. Anyone got the Buckets and how are they? Mrb9

bookitty · March 2000

They have a B-47 at SAC headquarters in Omaha, as well as one in Westover. It was pretty sophisticated then with the K bomb/nav system. But, it used vacuum tubes. There has been some changes since the 1950's. Thanks for the information. Soon I'll be "flying" my Quad.

Bookitty

knkresort · March 2000

I actually measured both seat configurations before ordering. The two seat styles look similar, but they are different in width across the bottom where the seat belt connects. The bench is 16" across and the buckets are 17" across. This inch is significant if you a bit wide in the beam, but for an average person, it makes little difference.

The big difference is the console. The bucket console is narrow, but deep and is permanently mounted to the floor. The bench console is really the back support for the middle fron seat laid down. This means it is wide, about 10 inches, but also shallow. For those into drinking, you also get better cup holders with the bench. The buckets have fixed-size cup holders whereas the bench's are adjustable to handle a variety of drink sizes.

Buckets have the 6-way power option, but that is not available for the bench.

Hope this helps...

KnK

asta · March 2000

knkersort: I noticed the deep thin console when I tested the buckets. Is this too deep to use while driving (alone in the car) as opposed to the bench with the foldonsole? My friend has a Ram 2500 and he has the bench with the console and he loves that thing. Puts his whole darn office in there. I prefer the console on the bench, but the buckets seem more supportive for long drives. Any difference in comfort between bench and buckets and if I go with bench will I be sorry?

andy_jordan · March 2000

There have been some comments that the buckets are uncomfortable on longer drives because of the lumbar support. I have buckets and they certainly do have quite a firm support structure. For me this is a good thing, but it is something to bear in mind with the bucket seats.

mwolak · March 2000

Just called DC about my order. Was informed that the 4.7 has been on material restriction for the last 2 days due to a quality issue. No other info available. Anyone have any other news?

greynold1 · March 2000

mwolak: I have the same problem, only when I talked to Ernie this morning he put me on hold for like five minutes to talk to his supervisor and when he came on again said it was a restriction on 4.7 Quads so they could fill 4.7 Durango orders. I'm not sure this makes sense, and he seemed a little vague about it. Who did you talk to?

mwolak · March 2000

greynold1: Sorry, did not get a name.

themacguy · March 2000

I've got the bench in mine, and it has the 6-way power seat (driver's side only) option. It also has a nice (driver's side only) triple position switch for lumbar support. It was a little too firm for me at first until I realized I spent 1/2 my time driving lease roads (oil field), and I hadn't noticed the lumbar switch was all the way 'extended!' Ouch! Any seats in the oilpatch are pretty 'tough' though, unless you've got an old 70s / 80s Detroit boat...

Satisfied now because I really need the fold down center console for my job. If you don't, seriously consider the buckets. My only issue with the buckets is that deep, narrow center console.

mwolak · March 2000

Regarding the pros/cons of bench vs. bucket seats, the dealer told me that the bench allows for more leg room for the back seat center position, (Quad and Clubs). May or may not be an issue for consideration.

keg3 · March 2000

i can get a MOPAR bug guard for my dak without having to order through a dealership? any online parts store carrying them? etc.

asta · March 2000

themacguy: ditto on my end here with the buckets vs bench. I don't like that deep center console on the buckets, but I do like the feel and support of the buckets. Haven't actually spent any time in the bench but they're probably similair to my friend's ram. he swears by that fold-down center console for his work, too. good to hear power driver's side is offered in the bench as well as the buckets. thought it wasn't for some reason.

mwolak: is the legroom the same for the entire back seat in bench vs buckets and only improved upon in the center for the bench? If the bench offered more rear legroom along with the fold-down console, that would be enough to convince me.

knkresort · March 2000

My dealer said I couldn't get power seats with the bench. Guess he was wrong. Didn't really need it anyway (that's what you call rationalizing....)

KnK

themacguy · March 2000

Don't be too despondent. I've used my power seat only once - at the dealership the day I bought it. That's it. I reached to the place where the seat controls are on my Lincoln (the door panel) the other day, forgetting the Quad's are on the side of the seat! After that I just left it 'set' where it is. Tell you what, if you've got the overhead computer I'll trade you for my power seat... ;-)

asta - w/ the rear seat 'raised' as it is, legroom is really quite decent. And I believe (though could be wrong) that with the buckets a little better for taller drivers, it could be that they're a little lower - closer - to the floor. Anybody?

mwolak · March 2000

asta: Didn't really pursue the back seat leg room issue. Just relating what the dealer told me. Personally, I tried both the bucket and bench. I didn't feel enough of a difference to justify the added cost of the bucket.

As far as the added leg room in the back center, it could be that the console, being attached to the bench, can be moved forward, while the console with the buckets is fixed. I don't know what those dimensions are. My order is in restriction limbo. Maybe folks can take a tape measure out and measure their bucket/bench min and max knee clearance.

bigal31 · March 2000

I think they are a waste of money. You use them a hand full of times over the use of the truck. I think the money could be well spent some place else. The only exception,5 different people driving "your" truck. But thats my opinion.
Allen

mwolak · March 2000

My 2 cents. They are nice when different height people will be using the vehicle. Also, on long trips, its nice to be able to shift it around a bit.

tinyivan · March 2000

Another thought on bench vs. bucket is if you ever want to "kick-back" or lay down in your front seat. Buckets prevent this from being an option (or carrying a third front passenger). Just a thought....

I did fret about the difference between the two as well but the clincher for me to go with the bench was when I noticed how comfortable an armrest the lowered center console was vs. the narrow plastic of the buckets. I think it comes down to personal preference though. The extra inch of room is almost negligible (at least for me it was). It looks like it'd be a nice writing table too...

jwm2 · March 2000

I haven't seen anyone mention yet that with the power seats your lumbar suport is adjustable. I wish that I had gone with that mysself.I think that there is more support there than needed when your in the truck for long trips.
But the bench seats are nice with the center armrest and the drink container is a great idea that is adjustable all for $200.00 less than the bucket seats.

Jim

spike50 · March 2000

Sat in both types today. Both recline the same 45 degrees. Good enough for a snooze. The lumbar support does seem more pronounced in the bench but maybe its the mis-curvature of my spine.

bpeebles · March 2000

#511 of 511: No spark plug wires (bpeebles) Fri 10 Mar '00 (06:33 PM)

(jcody1) You are just touching the tip of the
Iceberg on this engine! The 4.7L is very different
from the 1960s-based engine it replaces.
It can be classified as a true Hemispherical
engine. The spark-plugs are BETWEEN the valves.
Here are a few URLs that provide more info on the
4.7L.

Award:
http://www.wardsauto.com/best10/99info/dcc47v8.htm

Mechanical Review:
http://dodgeram.com/technical/cammer/4_7_v8.html

http://www.4adodge.com/glossary/torque_charts/index.html?quad

The plant where it is built:
http://www.autointell.com/chrysler10.htm
http://www.autointell.com/chrysler22.htm

00 dakota 4.7l

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy