| From | Message |
troskie
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/06/2003
15:33:14
|
 Subject: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
since the dakota is dodges smallest truck, i was just wandering how it holds up against the ranger.
how about a new ranger edge 4.0 5 spd against a 4.7 dakota 5 spd.
1/4 mile times???
reliability?
gas?
I know you guys are going to be biased, but why did you guys pick the dakota over the other trucks? thanks
|
Mopar
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/06/2003
16:13:47
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
First of all I dont think you can get a 4.0 Ranger with a 5 speed manual, but you can get a 5 speed auto. The 4.7 Dakota regular cab 5 speed would hand a 4.0 Ranger its a%*.
|
Troy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/06/2003
16:22:19
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
You can get a 4.0/ 5-speed ranger.
|
02R/Tcc
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/06/2003
16:28:07
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
Going by the performance of my R/T, I would have to say the Ranger would win.
|
troskie
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/06/2003
16:39:53
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
you can get a 4.0 5 spd in a ranger.
what about the v6 dakota against the 4.0 ranger???
trucks aren't built for racing so what other reasons did yall get your dakotas?????
02rtcc you have to by joking because a 5.9l would pretty much destroy every truck besides the lightning. What does your r/t run in the quarter stock?
|
Greg
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/06/2003
17:46:11
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
I test drove a 4.0 4wd Edge before buying my Dakota back in December of 2002. The Ranger had a nice ride, but even with the 5 speed it doesn't have the cohones the Dakota with a 4.7 has. I believe the 4.0 V6 is rated at 207hp while the Dak's 4.7 is rated at 230hp. The torque figures are a bit more distant, 295lbs/ft for the 4.7 & I think the 4.0 is around 230. The Ranger was very narrow inside, much more room in the Dak. I had a 92 Ranger 2wd with a 4.0 & it felt like it had about the same performance as the new SOHC 4.0 on the Edge.
I got a few options on my Dak that I couldn't get on the Edge, most notably the 4.7 V8 & FT4wd (at least I don't think you can get FT4wd on the Edge). With what I got on my Dak for options, if I'd outfitted the Edge accordingly, the Dak would have run me only $1000 or so more. Along with the 7/70 powetrain warranty, I felt like I got a pretty decent deal with the Dak. It's a really nice vehicle.
Greg
|
JMII
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/06/2003
18:49:34
|  RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
I had a 4.0 V6 Ranger Splash Extra Cab before I got my 4.7 V8 Dakota Quad Cab - and there are some BIG differences between the two:
The Ranger had that horrible Ford I-Beam front end which made for bumpy turns - my wife nicknamed the truck "Rollie Pollie" so that tells you how bad it was. It had NO top end speed what-so-ever. Pulling my boat 65MPH was pedal to the metal and it could go no faster. With my Dak I've gone up to 90MPH passing people with the boat in tow and still had plenty of pedal room (and power) to spare. The top gear was too tall in the Ranger, thus the RPMs dropped and the engine putted along, so ANY attempt at accelerating or any small hill (I live in FL, so every "hill" is small!) resulted in a downshift - not good. Mileage is about the same with both trucks - around 13. Interior wise the Ranger was not bad, but the Dakota is nicer I think and of course roomier by far. My father has a Ranger now ('00 model year) and when he drove my Dakota a few months back he immediately remarked how "tight" feeling it was, especially the steering. The Ranger feels very vague on the road, it just plain sloppy in comparison.
Now granted my Dak is brand new ('02) with the 3.92 gears and my Ranger was a beat-up old dog (a '96), but still it was a loaded "Splash" model which was the sporty version of the regular Ranger. It's the same engine they put in the Explorer SUV so it should be OK, but I'm telling you it does not haul at all compared to the 4.7 V8 Dodge has when it comes to smoothness and pure power at any RPM, especially the top end. The only advantage is the new Rangers true 5 speed auto vs the Daks 4 speed + alternate 2nd gear tranny. Personally I have not towed with this new Ranger tranny, but my father says it's nicer than his previous 4 speed Chevy Blazer.
Based on the handling alone I'd take the Dakota. The size and available V8 power makes the Dakota the better truck without a doubt!
- John
http://home.mindspring.com/~jntmoore/truck/home.html
|
Daksmack
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/06/2003
19:51:02
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
I echo everything listed above. I own a 97 Exploder Sport with the 4.0. I did like the torque of the 6er but the tranny seemed hopeless.
First and Second gear were so close it felt stronger than it really was. But once your up in high gear or overdrive, a downshift made the thing sound like it was gonna blow. Not to mention, that V6 vibrates very much climbing the rpm's.
I still like it but cant compare to the satisfaction I have with the 4.7 Dak.
|
troskie
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/07/2003
00:41:15
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
thanks for the feedback guys. one more question, why did dodge make a huge jump from a 4.7 v8 to the 5.9 in the r/t's i mean, why didn't they offer another engine somewhere over 5 liters??
oh yeah, i need a manual transmission because thats what makes driving fun in my mind and well you just feel more in control of the car, but to each his own.
Are there any major problems w/ the dakotas, i've heard that dodge is notorious for their transmissions, can yall comment about that or clue me in a little?
|
mrman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/07/2003
11:45:22
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
The 4.7L has 235hp/295lbft, the 5.2L had 220/300(i think), and the 5.9L has 250/345. Imagine a 5.2L R/T being outrun by a 4.7L(4x2) 5spd clubcab.
Dodge needed the biggest V8 they had to put under the hood of the R/T.
As for trannys. I've not heard of any problems with the manuals, but I've heard horror stories about the auto. I have the auto in my '00 dakota and so far so good, with two exceptions. First - delayed downshifts, not severe but enough to be annoying. Second - 3rd/4th gear hunting. on small hills the tranny can't make up its mind on which gear to use. That's easily solved by turning the O/D off. Also with O/D off under 50mph fuel economy has gone up.
|
Daksmack
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/07/2003
16:55:22
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
Any tranny now a days are not as strong as they should be (with overdrives being the norm).
Overdriven trannies put alot of stress on bearings due to longer shafts, so I usually drive with od off when below 50 like the above post mentions.
I think car manufacturers go through spurts of good and bad cars. I havent had a hint of trouble from my 2000 Dodge, but you couldnt pay me to drive a dodge built in the mid 80's.
I used to LOVE Chevy trucks, but they are crap now, IMHO (I run a large landscape comp with 30 crews in 98 and up Chevies which are crap).
Toyota may have a better consumer report, but I just cant see myself in one. Imports just are not comfortable to me.
So, to each his own I guess.
|
TECH
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/07/2003
17:12:22
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
I've got an 02 Dak Quad Cab w/ the 4.7 v8.
The big thing with me is the Dak has a lot more room than the econo-trucks but not so bulky as a full size. Combine the extra power you can get, it just says, "take me home"
|
troskie
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/07/2003
19:06:46
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
yeah, i know what u mean by it having more room than the small trucks but it isn't too big.
every car has to be parked somewhere and i'm not sure if any of you have tried parking a big truck/suv but it's a bitch. Why did dodge stop giving out the 5.2l as an option because i see that only the older daks have them. Well i guess i shouldn't have a problem if i got a dak cuz i will only drive a manual, that's one reason why i won't take the r/t cuz i lose interest very quickly if i'm not doing something and my mind will start to wander and it's better if i have something to concentrate on.
Oh yeah, does anyone know what a stock dak w/ a 4.7 in it runs in the quarter????
|
00287RC
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/07/2003
20:02:32
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
5spds RC's can break into the high high 14's and although some autos have done that as well, most are in the low 15's.
|
troskie
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/07/2003
20:19:16
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
00287RC
- alright, can u treat me like a noob and tell me what RC means please.
so with I/H/E you will be in the 14's w/ a
5 spd??
|
00287RC
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/08/2003
01:29:58
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
4.7 RC (regular cabs) the 5spds and autos can break into the 14's but it is less likely for the autos. If you are not a great driver low 15's are easily attainable.
|
TECH
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/08/2003
11:38:08
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
Troskie, the 4.7 took the place of the 5.2.
The 4.7 is an overhead cam engine, with a coil on each cylinder. It' much more modern and efficient than the older 5.2. The power is about the same, but fuel economy is better.
The 5.7 hemi took the place of the 5.9.
The 3.7 took the place of the 3.9 v6.
Those older engines have been around for a looong time, with updates over the years, but new engines were desired for these times.
|
troskie
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
6/08/2003
12:54:19
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
TECH, thanks for the info.
i get the whole RC, CC, QC deal, just describes the cab of the trucks. thanks for the help guys
|
Barry Merritt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/02/2019
13:44:47
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
Will the front wheel bearings of a 2wd 2000 Ford
ranger fit on a 2wd 2000 dodge dakota?
|
Barry Merritt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/02/2019
13:46:17
| RE: dakota vs. ranger
IP: Logged
Message:
Will the front wheel bearings of a 2wd 2000 Ford
ranger fit on a 2wd 2000 dodge dakota?
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
