Forums
Forum Tools
|
 |
02:32:30 - 12/29/2024
Dakota Performance
| From | Message |
CanDak
Dodge Dakota
6/24/2001
18:15:11
|
 Subject: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
I was on my way home when I noticed a red Dakota RC Sport turning onto the freeway just in front of me, thinking it was a 4.7 or 5.2 I tailed him into a run. I changed lanes as I was gaining on him and slowly walked him, at this time I noticed the badge on the front fender, V6! I finally got by him, now over 100mph, but couldn't shake him.
I slowed back down to the speed limit and let him go, by this time I was a little nervous of the radar. I must say I was very impressed with the V6s' performance, I have no idea what mods he had but I have a 5.2 that has a great deal of modifications.
|
andrew
Dodge Dakota
6/24/2001
20:00:19
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
I know what you mean about a V6 being able to hold its own with our 5.2's. On the way home today, This new V6 Explorer with a loud exhaust growl was driving like a mad man and finally cut me off. I followed him a long way since we were going in the same direction and finally found two lanes of open freeway. I switched lanes and floored my 93 Dakota 4x4 w/318 and started catching up to him somewhere between 105-110mph. I walked past him somewhat easily but I couldnt believe he could the power of that V6.
|
Kyle M.
Dodge Dakota
6/25/2001
14:07:19
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
My 1993 3.9L V-6 will run with the best of em. I have torn apart many V-8 Dakotas and Rams.
|
Dan Gruber
Gen III
6/25/2001
19:04:12
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Then again, you may have been the victim of an "anti-rice." Somebody who has a V8 or all kinds of mods but puts the V6 or 4 cylinder badge on it. That's what kills me about the 2001's...when I see them on the road I never know what they've got under the hood unless I can hear them.
Dan
2000 CC SLT 4.7 4X4 Auto 3.55 LSD
|
fast80cc
Dodge Dakota
6/25/2001
19:09:19
|  RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Before purchasing my new 4x4, Reg. Cab, 5-spd., 3.9L, I read several posts comparing the 4.7L to the "anemic" V6. Yes, I probably would have purchased a 4.7L except that it would actually cost significantly more than the $590 "upgrade". That's basically because the only (1) 4x4, 4.7L, 5-spd., Reg. Cab to be found in California had every possible option. There are plenty of 4.7L 2wd, with autos to be had. There are lots of Quad Cabs with 4.7L (again, autos). Basically, it seems that Dodge is configuring the 4.7L Daks for a more "upscale" truck buyer. When comparing the V6 to the 4.7 (or any other motor for that matter), what REALLY counts is power/weight ratio. That and having a 5-spd. instead of an auto. I actually test drove a 4x4 QC, 4.7L, 4-spd. auto. SLT. That configuration weighs about 700 lbs MORE than my reg. cab 4x4 Sport 3.9L. Guess what, there wasn't actually that much of a difference in performance (at least based on my seat-of-the-pants perceptions). Not that I'm into drag racing, but the old, tried-and-true rule of thumb is 100lbs = 10HP (i.e. for every additional 100lbs of curb weight, you need an extra 10HP).
If you look at HP/lbs ratios for various typical Dak and Durango configs. with the 4.7L, it appears that I only need to get about a 10% HP and torque improvement out of the V6 to be in the ballpark. That's assuming the common 4.7L Durango (auto, 4x4), and 4x4 Dak (QC or CC, auto)configs.
I suspect, based on what dealers have told me, that the majority of the Daks sold have the 3.9L. Then again, the Forum members with 4.7's looking for even more power, are probably NOT representative of the typical Dak. owner! Anyway, I'm happy there's someone out there (Bernd) paying attention to the 3.9. It's actually a pretty nice motor considering it's a TRUCK MOTOR. It appears that some Forum members have forgotten they're driving a truck!
My main goal (requires about 10% improvement) is to be able to trash my friend's GMC Sierra 1500 4x2 auto (4.3L, 254 lb-ft, 220 HP). He's pulling an extra 500+ lbs around. Running with the new 2002 Explorers would be nice too. Basically, the magic number is 20 lbs/HP or around 15 ft-lb/lb of torque. For my 3900 lb. Dak, that means getting to 195 HP and 255 ft-lbs.
Bernd says that's easily achievable with his Stage-III kit.
|
Art
Dodge Dakota
6/26/2001
15:05:08
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
hey fast whats your GVWR on the sticker on the door jam? mines 5960 its a 01 4x4 R/C 4.7 5 speed 9 1/4lsd 16 inch rims full spare ac deleted,H/D package,skid plates all the goods in side if urs is 3900 then im only 60 pounds more,take off the spare and im lighter than yours?
|
fast80cc
Dodge Dakota
6/26/2001
20:07:12
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
My door sticker GVWR is 5330. I'm not sure if they actually measure this with the installed options or what. GVWR is to determine max. laden weight (law mandated). The only real way to tell is to go to a truck scale (or dragstrip) and get weighed. You've got the same setup, without AC
(don't know how much it adds, 20lbs?). I figure the 4.7L is probably 100lbs more than the 3.9L but don't have any hard numbers. Anyway, you'd clearly dust me with your extra 70 ft-lbs of torque. The point of my post is that the V6, in a light Dak, with the 5-spd. is actually pretty darn fast, compared with the configs. the 4.7 normally gets put in. I know, I've got "V8 envy",
well, that is until I fill up. My MPG is bad enough now, but, despite what the 4.7L sticker says, seems like most of the Forum members are getting much worse. Then again, it may have something to do with how they drive... BTW, you're pretty lucky with that config. (it's VERY rare). The "all the goods" was the thing that kept me with the V6 (big price jump to a fully loaded 4.7L).
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
6/26/2001
21:48:17
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey fast80CC I have heard that the 4.7 actually may weigh less or the same as the 3.9 because of the composite intake and aluminium heads. Again just hear say.
|
Lattimer
Dodge Dakota
6/26/2001
22:32:02
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey fast80cc, did you actually weigh your truck to get that number? I weighed mine, with a full tank of gas, and extra 140 lbs of stereo equip, a 70 lb tool box, 2000 Dak SLT CC 4x4, with 3.9L auto, air, power windows and locks, Trailer hitch, bech seat, and 31x10.50-15's (factory Goodyears). She weighed in at 5260. I wouldn't think the auto and club cab added that much weight. Of course, put me in the cab, and she's over 5600. Maybe that's why I leave the line so slow;)
|
Bernd
Gen III
6/27/2001
00:56:56
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
WOW!! Heavy Trucks!
Mine weighs in at 4390 with the toolbox, myself, and 3/4 tank of fuel at the track. (Toolbox has stuff in it even when I run at the track and the tailgate stays on.)
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT - V6
Supercharged @ 10#
|
fast80cc
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
01:09:19
|  RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
I posted this under another topic - repeat here...
Remember, GVRW isn't vehicle weight, but includes max. load. The GVRW of a 4.7L better be higher, it's got a higher towing capacity. I assume it also has a higher bed load capacity? The www.4adodge.com site lists both GVRW (which is useless in determining how much your truck actually weighs) and Curb Weight (what you really want to know). I believe they measure curb weight with an empty tank (full tank will add about 120 lbs). The Dodge site doesn't list the weight delta for the 4.7 (from 3.9). From the numbers there, I'd guess your just under 4000 lbs. The CC adds a few hundred lbs., the QC about 500. A 4x4 4.7L QC with auto probably weighs in at 700 lbs more than a RC, base 4x2 with the 3.9L. My point was, a 4.7L QC, auto, 4x4 (i.e. a big BEAST) is going to need an extra 70HP to beat my lowly V6 stick, RC. Anyway, I guess I'm just to hung up on weight from racing go-karts (10 lbs makes a big difference when you've only got 28HP)! I suspect there are handling advantages to the V6, especially off-road. Even with alum. heads, I can't believe the 4.7L would be lighter. At least the extra weight is down lower relative to the truck's CG (lighter heads help here). It would be interesting to get some real weight numbers on the various engines (3.9, 4.7, 5.9).
|
Art
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
03:17:11
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
fast the GVRW means this the way I was told is,5960 on my sticker I have the 2000 pound payload 5960-2000=3960 pound truck it was a factory order waited 2 months for it, the towing rating GCWR Gross Combined Weight Rating is 10 500 -3960=6540 guess thats how much I can tow,ya im sure your right the 3960 is not the real curb weight and im sure your right again that they dont take into acount options and deletions,the v6 is nice engine tho and off roadin bet you do just as well as our 8`s and your right weight does make alot of difference,gonna look into the engine weights
|
fast80cc
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
13:26:39
|  RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Thanks for the clarification Art. Sounds about right from what I've seen (3960 lbs.). I wonder about my GVRW number. It's def. 5330. I'm pretty sure my truck weighs at least 3850 lbs. (probably about 3900 lbs.) based on the Dodge site specs. (unless they purposely want to inflate the weight for marketing reasons???). Does that mean my payload is that much less than yours (same truck/body, tire/wheel package)? How did I loose 600 lbs. of payload (5330 GVWR - 3900 curb = 1430 lbs. payload). I can certainly see a big diff. in towing capacity with a bigger engine, but am surprised there'd be that much payload diff. Anyway, just curious (doesn't really matter, my go-kart only weighs 180 lbs!).
|
Kyle M.
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
13:31:16
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
I weighed my truck a while back when I took some scraps into the scrap yard. It said either 3240lbs or 3420lbs. I have a 1993 3.9 V-6 RC, 2WD. That is a really light truck.
|
Art
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
13:36:01
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
fast it was an option either you get the 1450 payload or the 2000 payload i:e bigger springs and bigger drum brakes in the back,I think that was all the difference,went thru all the options dam there was alot of em im in canada the trucks base price was 22k something ended up at 31k got it for 28 1/2k,strap on that v6 to your kart :)
|
Kyle M.
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
13:39:51
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
I also have the Towing Package on my 1993 Dakota.
|
fast80cc
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
15:57:23
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Art, thanks for the clarification. This all seems to add up now (numbers make sense). I assume you're talking $CAN! Bought mine for $17,265 USD (4x4 Sport, RC, 3.9L, CD + Infinity, A/C, tire and handling, sliding rear window, 5-spd.). Would've gone your route and special ordered, but it was too late to order a 2001. That would've meant delivery in Oct./Nov., and I'd have lost the $2300 in incentives. Was hoping the new 3.7L V6 would come in the 2002's but looks like that'll have to wait for 2003 (only in the Jeep and RAM for 2002 as far as I can determine). Hey, I'm getting 28HP from an 80cc (no, didn't forget a '0') 2-stroke. Let's see, with that ratio, my 3.9L should be getting about 1365 HP!
|
Lattimer
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
16:18:51
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
I understand your point about the power to weight ratio. Now I'm just wondering what I did to make my truck so damn heavy!!!!! I weighed on the truck scales at work. I gotta wonder if maybe they are way off.
If you could get 1365 HP out of a 3.9, boy wouldn't Bernd's face be red!!
|
Brad
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
18:25:40
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
I have a 97 dak, 5.2L auto rc with air and aftermarket rims that tips the scales just over 3900lbs with a full tank of gas. Just for a comparison.
|
fot80
Dodge Dakota
6/30/2001
12:55:26
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Was curious about the weight of my truck. Found the shipping paper in the glovebox that came with all the other papers when i bought it. It says it's shipping weight is 4227 lbs. Damn, that's heavy, but it sounds right i guess.
4.7 club cab
5 speed
4x4 3.55 LSD
|
jj
Dodge Dakota
6/30/2001
14:36:37
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
I Remember test driving a dakota 3.9 reg cab, i think it was about 1991.I floored it and the sales mans eyes bugged out as i tore rubber half way down the block,the tail gate slammed open,very impressive indeed !I remember him telling me that this one was the only one left all the 1991 were sold out and i`d have to wait till the next model year to get one equipped the way i wanted.ended up buying a 91 ranger , it took me 10 years to get the dakota i wanted, well worth the wait. Jj
|
lil red dak
Dodge Dakota
6/30/2001
21:26:37
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
My 97 cc 3.9 3.55 auto out ran a 99 F250 cc with a triton V8 in it he had a head of speed trying to pass me on the onramp on the hiway and i decided their was no way in hell he was going to take the lane I neede away from me so i ran his ass. Beat him by about 2 lenghts into the gap we were both headed for. considering he was at one point ahead of me and had what sounded like a full head of steam he sure sucked. About a week later he was behind me again, this time he was much smarter and saved his gas.
|
KYLE M.
Dodge Dakota
7/02/2001
16:38:08
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
you can get 1365 hp out of a V-6. You just have to know how to do it right, and have a lot of money. Why not use twin-turbos? I've seen it done on a 4 Cylinder that pushed over 1,100 hp. Now that is a 4-Banger.
|
Todd W
Dodge Dakota
7/04/2001
01:42:38
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
I know what your saying, I bought my 2000 Dakota Sport on impulse. I really was checking out a 4x4 S10 at another dealer. Hated it, could reach across the cab without leaning and couldn't see the nose. That drove me nuts, I knew it was there, but I couldn't see it. And I'm not exactly short at 6' 2" either! :0)
Anyway, off subject. Went to look at the Dodges, just because I had time. Ended up test driving a 2000 Dakota Sport Extended Cab V-6 Automatic. Nice truck, fell in love immediatly with the interior and handling. Hated the Auto, it castrated that V-6. I could tell there was power there, since it started to pull JUST before shifting, but the Auto wouldn't let me at it! Didn't want an Auto anyway.
Talked to the saleslady, and she tracked down a V-6 5-speed in Ohio. The only other 5-speed around was a V-8 that cost almost twice as much with all the options. Needless to say, they made me an offer I couldn't refuse and now I'm the happy owner of a 2000 Dark Green Dakota Sport V-6 5-speed with the low-gear ratio rear axle. Added a Airaid intake system and a toneuu cover, plus a few little mods, and I'm good to go. Even without trying you can squawk the tires shifting into second.
That little V-6, driven right in a stick, can MOVE!
|
Zaurusman
Dodge Dakota
7/04/2001
02:29:46
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
For the record, my V6 '98 RC 5spd and I have hung with a teenager ragging on mommy's or daddy's V8 Explorer with my now ex-wife in the truck adding weight. My only mod was a K&N cool air. Nobody beat anybody, though I sure caught hell from her when I inadvertently jumped the next intersection at 80 plus. :-) Besides her being mad, the kid looked pretty annoyed too, but that's what he got for making me turn up the Infinity system at the previous light to drown out his noise, the little turd!
That said, my parents have a 5.2 Jeep GC that I borrowed while my brush-in Herculiner was drying in their garage (curse of apartment living - had to impose on the parents to do the bedliner thing), and that machine with an automatic makes my Dakota feel like my old 63hp '81 Gas Miser Omni. But someday it, too, will tremble at my rumble as it shall be wont to do! -tk
|
fast80cc
Dodge Dakota
7/04/2001
02:44:22
| The new 3.7L V6 vs. good old 3.9!
IP: Logged
Message:
Wow, there's some GREAT discussion on this Forum! I've seen a few flames but everybody seems to know what they're talking about! It's funny, my karting buddies think trucks are supposed to be trucks (i.e. not fast). Think I'll send them the www.dragtruks.com website just to piss them off! I've got a Neon ACR (real light, nice stock engine with some simple mods, pretty fast). It'll do high 15's in the 1/4. That's def. faster than my new Dak. But, guess what, the Dak FEELS faster! Down low GRUNT (torque) is what's a blast! You can't beat CCs for that. I looked at the www.jeep.com site for specs. on the new 3.7L. It's interesting, they've done the typical marketing deal - up'd the HP at the expense of torque. Don't get me wrong, that'll be a GREAT motor (in the Daks in 2003/4 - long wait...). Clearly the marketing guys told the engineers they needed to get the HP numbers up. Consumers look at those (as do the mags.). Funny though, the 3.7L has a whopping 210HP (35 MORE than the current V6), BUT... Again, CCs tell the torque story here. They're only getting 10ft-lbs more (235)?!? I'm an engineer (the "wrong" kind - electrical, don't know that much about engines). I do know that you can always make trade-offs in a design. You can get a higher HP number, but it might be REAL high in the rev. range. Look at the 3.7. It's PEAK torque number (235 ft-lbs) is a 5000!!! RPM. Even my little 2.0 DOHC Neon rice-burner (it's a Mitsubishi motor - sorry) has a torque peak lower than that. Do those marketing guys really think the average Jeep Liberty buyer is going to rev. their baby that high? Guess what, they won't even get the chance if they keep it in "D". The 3.7L is apparently only going to come in the "Limited" version, which ONLY comes with an auto! Sorry guys - guess I'm just a believer in good old fashion "grunt" when it comes to a truck (used to an old F150 straight 6,
4L). I want my torque to kick in at 2000 RPM (gotta love those push-rods)! Anyway, I had a bit of a case of V8 envy (4.7 that is). Wish I could've gotten a super deal on a 4.7 with a stick, but they're sooo rare it'd have cost a bundle more. Hey the ol' 3.9 ain't that BAD. Sounds like you Forum guys have the pinging problem licked. Those new V6's in the Liberty's will be pulling another 500lbs around. Let's see: headers, Gibson catback, V8 t-body, cold-air intake and I should be able to surprise a few of them...
|
Todd W
Dodge Dakota
7/04/2001
11:33:43
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeah, so far I'm real impressed with my V6. My previous truck was a 1980 Chevy 1/2ton with a 305 (automatic). Do to some screwups, and me being bored, the engine ended up with some serious mods after it lost compression through valve spring failure. After being bored .10 over, putting domed pistons in, replacing the cam with an Edelbrock, new intake, 650cfm 4-barrel (Ha! They told me it wouldn't work! Mwha! Ha!) and a shift-kit that litte beast would make that old Chevy GO.
My V6 though, I think, goes just as well. Probally because it's a stick. If you get the V6, you HAVE to get the stick and low gear rearend. I've never had a pinging noise, but even since I added the Airaid the truck has had a looping idle when first started. I mean, it sounds like a dragster, enter frame shudders and it makes this sucking noise through the airaid. That noise is impressive, had people look at it funny when I fire it off. :0) Next step for me is headers and exhaust, then probally a 48-50mm T-body and maybe a chip. Right now though, the body is getting the attention. Still need to put the fender flares on, get the clear turn signals, a black brushguard, and a new tannuu (Bah, spelling is not my thing).
Question though, what type of MPG is everyone getting? My sticker said 20 city and 25 highway. I don't know what they were smoking, but I average 18 in mixed driving, 20 on pure highway. I only run 87 octane though, because higher than 89 makes my engine ping like crazy and screws up my gas milage even worse! Ran 92 once, pinged like mad, got 15mpg. Just shows where the computer is dialed in, eh?
|
Zaurusman
Dodge Dakota
7/04/2001
20:55:03
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Todd, I'm subject to summer reformulated gas, so mine should be worse than yours right now. I'm pulling 15.9mpg with MSD wires; pulled 14.6 last summer in city driving. In the winter mine jumps up to 16-17mpg, but I've never averaged over 19mpg on the highway, perhaps partially because at 75-80 mph mileage drops significantly. However, I should note that upgrading to MSD SuperConductor wires actually improved my mileage by over a mpg to my surprise. Broke 22 mpg once, all backroads.
I run hi-test gas; anything less means pinging for mine. With the 180 stat and the MSD's (both, I hoped, would help). I'm gonna switch to the AutoLite plugs next, and if that doesn't work get the previously mentioned timing adjuster. Curiously, I used two bottles/tank (22-gallon) in a row of RXP and then did a third tank with regular with barely any pinging. But the next one pinged like mad. -tk
|
Gary F
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/06/2002
15:58:57
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
fast80cc the DOHC 2.0L in the Neon is NOT a Mitsubishi motor. Sorry, it's built in the good old USA.
Gary F.
'98 Neon R/T
'01 Dak Sport
|
ALTF4
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
2/07/2002
15:35:10
| RE: V6 Dakota impressive
IP: Logged
Message:
Go the keys to my 2002 club cab slt yesterday. It is replacing my 88 dak(had 296982 km).
I no nothing about truck sorry..I just know this truck is as much fun to drive as the civic my wife got in June.
Dispite the the fact that everyone and their dog told me not to get a dodge. I love this thing..fast lots of snap.
I founs this site and forum while doing my purchase research. Thanks for making me feel good about my new dak! MY DAMN FATHER BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH HE GOT A 99 ON TUESDAY!.
Also what is the first cheap mod I should try?
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
|
