| From | Message |
sicminds
GenIII
8/03/2002
13:33:15
|
 Subject: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
Just wondering..........
seeing how my buddys think the dakota would loose
in a head to head match up......
meaning.....
Stock Dakota Regcab
Stock Ranger Regcab
Stock S-10 Regcab
All with the v6 models 3.9,4.0,4.3
close in gears if not the same and
all auto trannys with 4x2. same tire
size and all.
When matched up with pretty much same
conditions except motor who really
would win?
I have faith in the dakota but other fans(ford/chevy) think differnt.
Just seeing what you guys would think.
now you know thats..................
sic
|
kryp2nite
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/03/2002
19:52:39
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
im pretty sure it would be
1st S10
2nd dakota
3rd Ranger
just my experiences from when it was stock
00 Rc auto
|
madmaxin22
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/03/2002
23:09:51
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
i dont know, i had a ranger 4.0 reg cab sportside, and it was light as heck, and fast as heck. i have had a 4.3 s-10 5sp. and i would say the ranger was faster by a tad. i like daks but i would say
ranger
s-10
dakota
would be close between the chevy and ford, but dodge would be slowest, unmodded of course
|
Jon
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2002
10:25:34
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
Never driven the other 2 but pretty much everyone i talk to agrees that the 3.9 is really quick for a stock motor. So i would have the dak either 1st or 2nd.
-Jon
|
EyeTrip
R/T
8/04/2002
11:40:27
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
If they were all 5-speeds I would lay money on the 3.9 Thats just my Experience
HomePage
|
dodgeboy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2002
12:33:22
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
get a gen 2 dak instead of a gen 3 and throw it in the mix. that makes them a little closer to the same size. A heavy gen 3 will in my opinion be the slowest out of the bunch. However, get the biggest engine available in each truck and race. The gen 3 dak was designed with a v8 in mind to haul around all that weight. the rangers and s10's were designed with v6's in mind. Therefore a v6 ranger should out run a v6 dak
|
sicminds
GenIII
8/04/2002
13:29:03
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
I think in the g3 truck catagory
it would go
s-10
dakota
ranger
but in earlier gen2 and gen 1
i think the dakota would be first.
I also think the dakota was designed
for the v8 and thats why they had it weigh
so much. But then again, you could get a v8 in
older generations too.
Another good question is which one responds to
mods better. Throw on an intake,muffler on all three and then see who comes out on top.
or is it, who starts fastest ends up fastest?
now you know thats..................
sic
|
TONY
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2002
16:28:04
|  RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
what is the exact horse power from the rear wheels, not the crank, on all three trucks-Dak 3.9,ford ranger 4.0, and the s-10 4.3? Thanks for the info! I need to know what would be able to pull a fishing boat with.
|
Jon
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2002
19:15:21
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
HP has nothing to do with towing, you need to look at engine torque and transmission/rear end gearing.
For instance a engine with 150HP and 250lb/ft torque (like a Ford Inline 6) will pull a lot more weight than a V8 with 220HP and 190 lb/ft torque.
-Jon
|
n8 dawg
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/04/2002
21:43:55
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
im thinkin it would be
s-10 (for sure)
dak
ranger
but my stock dak was slow....and i have encountered a few 4.0 rangers that dont have to much of aproblem keeping up with me......so the ranger may take a stock dak?
|
sicminds
GenIII
8/04/2002
22:52:18
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
yeah, but what one responds better to mods?
never have faced a 2wd ranger 4.0 spank a 4x4 all the time
now you know thats..................
sic
|
SS_Dakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
00:26:36
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a 4.3 in a GMC Jimmy once and it was rahter fast... heavy as well but I think the 4.3 would get'cha. Weight would be a big contributor I would think.
|
n8 dawg
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
01:21:41
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
4.3's are pretty fast.....3.9's are rather slow(espically off the line in an auto)
tony u wanna pull a fishing boat? how bigs the boat? proably pull better with a v8 dak =)
and has anybody else raced alot of s-10's? and noticed that the later model 92 and older are faster? dunno why b/c the brand new have more hp?
oh and sicminds....my friend bet me $25 that his dads stock 02' dak would beat my dak....we raced...and i have $25....so that just shows how stupid people can be...so dont always listen to people
reason being he thought that was b/c we were traveling side by side at about 70 mph and he punched it to the floor.....i barley got on it and started to catch up around 85 and i let off. oh and funny thing is hes going to school to be a mechanic, said my truck was ragged out(which for some reason it is over a second slower at the track than earlier this year) b/c it has 88k miles on it...guess i showed him =)
|
Dave M
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/05/2002
21:51:57
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
Here's an interesting very unscientific "apples to oranges comparison" of speed and performance of my personal S-10 Blazers and pickups, 88 Ford Ranger Club Cab, and '02 V-6 QC Dak from over the last 16 years, ...
My '86 4x4 S-10 Blazer Tahoe had a 2.8 and auto tranny was quick off the line, but would then slowly fall behind untill it reached the top end. Once it was cruising, then it could blow away my college friends' Rangers, Toyota pickups, and Mistu's off and a Dodge D-50. Only the '84 Jeep Commanche with 2.8 could beat it. Typical engine rpm's at 70mph per the tach were 2200.
My "second vehicle" '88 S-10 4x2 pickup with the 2.8 and an automatic, was FAST! Could even leave behind some 5.0 Mustangs and Camaros! Typical was 70mph @ 2150 rpm.
My work truck, a used late-model '88 Ranger 4x4 with 2.9 and 5 speed seemed quick enough when I first got it, but didn't last long enough to have fun because it rather than smoke other cars and trucks, nearly went up in smoke itself, ... literally!!! The wiring harness on the left fender wasn't secured too well, nor was the jacket properly installed around it. Was my first and LAST Ford.
My '92 S-10 Blazer Tahoe 4x4 with the 4.3 and an auto could spin tires easily without trying, even on dry pavement during a test drive at the dealership. I thought WOW, this new truck is gonna be great and it "seemed" to be quick down the highway. Only after I had purchased it and had it for a while, I then began to realize it lacked a little on the top because it had trouble passing most "normal" traffic. Typical engine rpm at 65mph was 2300.
Looked into buying a '98 Chevy Blazer (S-10), but didn't like it. The suspension was way too soft and drivability was more like a station wagon. Yeeeeach!!! GM finally castrated the model to become a family grocery bagger soccer wagon!!!
My '98 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 Sport with the 4.0 engine and auto was quick off the line, had no problem coming up on someone or passing most traffic, BUT seemed a little labored at times in maintaining "faster" highway speeds. Typical engine rpm at 65 was 2250.
The '02 Liberty, ... I came, I saw, I left. Didn't even drive it.
Now for my '02 Dak, it feels like the '86 S-10 in that it is slower off the lineand is a come from behind type of vehicle. I also have absolutely NO problem keeping up with everyone in traffic and can even pass people when I want to. Typical engine rpm at 75mph on the Atlantic City Expressway last month was 2200.
Like I said, it's "apples to oranges," but hey, thought it would add to this discussion just to make it interesting!
OH!!! My stab at ranking of Trucks per the original discussion??? Providing they're all '01 or newer I would rank them as:
1. Dakota, but in a photofinish.
2. S-10
3. Ranger, but might tie with the S-10
Throw in an '01 Jeep Cherokee 4.0 and it'll beat the S-10 and knock the Ranger out of contention.
|
BAD DAK
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/09/2002
15:02:43
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
Man this is how it is:
1. Dakota
2. Dakota
3. Dakota
Nothing can hold a BAD DAK. I just raced a Monte Carlo SS V8. Whooped that. I only have a 3.9L stock. But I'm look'n to upgrade her.
|
kryp2nite
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/09/2002
22:54:58
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
you raced a what?
umm monte carlos have V6's in em
|
92Dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/09/2002
23:13:30
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
The older ones had V8's
|
Dan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/10/2002
01:40:57
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
ok did some research at car and driver.com they say:Our rear-drive test truck started out as a short-wheelbase, regular-cab, step-side S-10 with a 180-hp, 4.3-liter Vortec V-6 mated to a four-speed automatic transmission.
The stock single-tube engine air intake is replaced by a two-into-one air intake topped with a pair of K & N air filters. In back, there is a cat-back exhaust system made of stainless steel that is three inches in diameter with dual chrome exhaust tips. It lends a throaty, boy-racer exhaust note. SLP says this system adds 15 hp to the 180-hp L35 Vortec 4.3-liter V-6.
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door pickup
Engine type: pushrod 12-valve V-6, iron block and heads, GM engine-control system with port fuel injection
Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 cu in, 4300cc
Power (SAE net). . . . . . . . . . . . 195 bhp @ 4400 rpm
Torque (SAE net). . . . . . . . . . .245 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm
Transmission. . . . . . . . 4-speed automatic with lockup torque converter
Curb weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3570 lb
Zero to 60 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.6 sec
Standing 1/4-mile. . . . . . . . . . . .16.5 sec @ 82 mph
Top speed (governor limited). . . . . . . . . . .100 mph
and from my log books i have taking down 4.0L rangers with the 5-speed auto
3.9L, 5-speed, series 40 flowmaster, 2wd rc
|
BAD DAK
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/10/2002
09:53:25
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
I raced a 88 Monte Carlo. But I do believe the SS are equiped with a V8. So hey if you don't believe me to bad.
|
kryp2nite
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/10/2002
16:52:24
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
sory didnt think of the old ones
|
Les
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/11/2002
02:58:48
|  RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
have driven rangers with a 4L, daks with 3.9, and s-10's with 4.3
I would choose
1 Dakota
2 s-10
3 Ranger
S-10's feel fast because of soft springs and narrow tires.
rangers Just suck that 4 liter feels like a 4 cylinder and it rides way to rough
the Dakota with 235's will spin the tires any where and has great exceleration.
If you are like me love off road put the 31's on and toast those lame GM's and ford's every where
THATS WHAT A TRUCK WAS MEANT FOR
|
sicminds
GenIII
8/11/2002
09:57:14
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree, you cant have a truck without
getting it dirty every now and then.
If you dont want it muddy, buy a car
like a honda or somthing
now you know thats..................
sic
|
RicktyT
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/19/2002
17:58:24
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
The 0-60 time for the 93 DAK v-6 is 8.3 seconds. Add a few tweaks {such as IAT, synthetic oil, and K&N }and that should be enough to edge out the s-10 and ranger. Weight loss is important too. Speakers,tools, spare tire, and other unnecassary items slow you down. My son is about even with me in his v-8 astrovan.
|
DakSport
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
8/19/2002
20:35:25
| RE: Dakota Vrs. Ranger Vrs. S-10 The Truth
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey what is the 0-60 time supposed to be for a 2000 V6 CC? I have a homebrew and a V8 TB and i seem to hit 13 secs. Could it be that im just gunning it from a stop not holding the brake till it reaches about 2g rpms and gunning it?
thanks
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
