| From | Message |
MullicaMick
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/19/2002
17:03:13
|
 Subject: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
Whats new with 2003 Dakota compared with
the 2002 ??
Any improvements or added options ?
|
Brad
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/19/2002
19:13:56
|  RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
Looked at an 03 yesterday and the changes are...
-4 wheel disc brakes
-new type of good year tires on 4x4
-no decals on the side just stickers (yes even Slt) on the back. (looks like crap.0
-Sxt is all the same color instead of graphite grey
That is all of the changes. Not many but I wish I had 4 wheel discs.
|
wanna know
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/19/2002
19:31:48
| RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
Someone posted here a while back stating that it's better to have drum brakes on the back of a truck, because there's a lot greater contact area between the shoe/pad and rotor, which is apparently better for really heavy loads(??).
So, why go to discs, and why is everybody excited about it?
|
cjc
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/19/2002
20:44:26
| RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
also you can now get leather in the club cab.
|
kevster
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/19/2002
21:14:44
|  RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
Just 2 more Rotors to warp... Huh? Iam happy with rear drum on my 02 quad cab 4x4.
|
Michael
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/20/2002
00:12:48
|  RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
I have rear disc on my 2000 QC 4.7 and couldn't begin to describe how much better they are over the drums. To keep it short though, the stopping distance is dramatically reduced. More control over braking. One more thing, weight reduction.
My rear disc are way lighter than the drums.
Search through some of my post and you'll see why I switched. I have some pics of the install
@ www.pbase.com/wiz473. I must say they do look nice behind the R/T wheels on my truck.
|
Sofanda Cocks
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/20/2002
02:02:56
| RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
If that is true about no decals on the side, then i saw four 03 daks today while getting my oil changed. They had four regular cab V8 dakota sports and none of them had any decals on the sides.
|
Michael
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/20/2002
02:04:16
| RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
One more thing, there may be greater contact area
with the drums but the front to rear ratio is less for the drums. When you install the rear disc, you have to modify the distribution block to direct more power to the rear. Now you can't go modifying the block to work with your drum setup because drums can't handle the extra heat that will come from increasing power to the rear.
|
blueballs
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/20/2002
09:37:42
| RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
How hard do you think it would be to convert? If I could do it a few parts at the time it would be in the buget.
|
Michael
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/20/2002
15:38:14
|  RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
Stainless Steel Brakes Corporation makes the conversion kit. I ordered mine from performance suspension for $749.00 free shipping and slotted rotor upgrade.
|
Demon-Xanth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/20/2002
16:51:35
| RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
Drums are better for heavy loads, however a Dakota can't handle what I consider to be heavy loads.
|
Michael
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/20/2002
21:56:35
|  RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
Not really, because they don't help much in the
first place.
|
Ho No
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/21/2002
00:27:18
|  RE: 2002 vs 2003 DAK
IP: Logged
Message:
Now we have to listen to everybody bitching about their rear brakes too!
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
