| From | Message |
PRP98svt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/16/2002
14:44:57
|
 Subject: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
I am getting ready to purchase a new R/T and have a choice between a 2001 and a 2002 model. Is there an appreciable difference in terms of performance or design between the '01 and '02 model years? The 2001 is obviously cheaper - what would you guys recommend?
|
rez
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/16/2002
14:51:50
|  RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
i'd go for the cheaper one,more money to spend on goodies!
|
MikeD
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/16/2002
14:54:56
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Especially the cheaper one cuz unfortunaltey the R/T's don't really come w/ much more power than the 4.7 but has more potential when you mod it up. So you'll have more to spend on mods.
|
Dakaty
GenIII
1/16/2002
14:56:31
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Wait for the 2003 and get the 5.7!!!!
|
D
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/16/2002
16:43:01
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
5.9 only has more potential as of now....in a
few years, when the 5.9 is obsolete, everybody
will wish that they would have purchased the
4.7 and/or 2003/2004 5.7 dakota. Many
companies are coming out with some great
performance parts for the 4.7, and personally,
I picked an 01 4.7 over an 01 R/T. I liked the
idea of aluminum heads (aftermarket
aluminum heads for R/T $969.99) plus, the
smaller motor means less weight. Even
though the 4.7 has less horses than 5.9,
weight plays a large factor. Personally, I
would try to wait for the 5.7 motor to come out,
but if you're itchin for a new dak, go with the
4.7 not the R/T. If you want a 4.7 that's just as
fast as an R/T, order a std cab 5spd limited
slip with 3.92 gears.
D
01/4.7/CC3.55/airaid/Dynomax3"/TBspacer/
180stat/JetStage2/DJMdrop3-6/pegleg :(
|
Anthony G
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/16/2002
17:52:19
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
I would have to disagree with you on the 5.9L being obsolete and the 4.7L getting more stuff.
Even now the older engines like the pre-magnums have way more after market parts. Sure Aluminum heads to the R/T might cost 1k, but they sure flow better than the stock 4.7L heads. Iron still makes more Horsepower Vs. Aluminum at the same CR.
It takes a full CR point or more to make up the power vs iron. Sure it's weights more, but it cost a whole lot less, and wont crack or warp as easy.
I still think it's cheaper dollar per horsepower on older designs.
Sure wait for the 2003/4, but don't expect to get the same body style or weight advantage with that 5.7L hemi or parts.
To me, the newer the car, the more restrictions the manufactures and government put on the vehicles Just like the Mopar PCM, once you could pick one up for $200-$300. Now you have to get a custom flash for $400 or more, and some of them can't be removed if your limiter is set to 98mph. Now how is that better?
No replacement for displacement
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/16/2002
23:13:09
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeh saying the 5.9 will be obsolete is way off. They haven't been making big block Mopars for some time now but the aftermarket is still putting completely new products every year. The factory is still making completely new and redesigned peices for the Hemi and it hasn't been in a car since 1971!
I'm very happy I got my R/T last year even though I plan on possibily 'upgrading' to a 5.7 hemi Dakota or maybe that SRT ram if it really is as affordible as a Lightning. The problem there is neither the 5.7 Dakota or the SRT will be ready before the 2004 model year. By then my R/T will almost be paid off and I never have been able to keep the same car longer then 4 years anyway.
As far as the year goes I think saving the money is better if both are in similar condition. I would try to get a 2000 if you could, as it is the last year for the Mopar Performance PCM. My choice was a new ordered 2002 or a really clean 10,000 mile 2000. I'm glad I went with the 2000 although I only saved about 15% by doing it and I only get a 2 year 26,000 mile warranty (remainder of the factory). Since then I have seen some even better deals on 2000's, although no where near where I live.
|
TODD
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/17/2002
10:37:05
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
THE 5.9 WELL NEVER BE OBSOLETE
|
Todd Bouton
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/17/2002
10:57:21
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
'D'
10 more stock HP? That the diff. in 4.7 &5.9!
MOre weight, obviously lower tech if 1.2L can only generate 10 more hp!
'01 QC, 4.7 5spd, cold air intake, no belt fan, IAT adjuster.
Hell, the IAT adjuster alone often gives 10 more HP! So does the 5spd. Autos are for......
|
Mike
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/17/2002
12:03:15
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Back to the original question.
I'd get the 01, like "rez" and Mike D said, more money for goodies...everyone likes goodies!
Like a kid at Christmas.
|
MikeD
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/17/2002
12:18:27
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Plus theres so much more to the R/T than just the engine...its lowered an inch, huge tires and rims, heavy duty suspension, anti-sway bar, infinity sound system. I hear about some people buying a 4.7 but putting all the stuff an R/T has on it, just buy an R/T and you get it all, then you can spend your money on performance mods not trying to upgrade to run par w/ an R/T.
|
Dr Q
DakotaEnthusiast
1/17/2002
12:28:48
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
New goodies are comming out for the 4.7 all the time! KRC has got a sweet head port and polish a cam is in the works, HO pistons. Let's face it the aftermarket is catching up to the venerable 5.9.
Q
Dr.Q
'01 Patriot Blue SLT RC 4.7 5sp 3.92 pegleg
0-60 @ 6.20sec.
1/4mi @ 14.75@97.1
Home Brew Airbox
K&N Drop In
Lakewood Traction Bars
Dremel TB Port and Polish
|
nick12.55
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/17/2002
12:30:07
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
I have a reg cab dak. 5spd with the 318 and it romps the 5.9 RT's
|
Anthony G
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/17/2002
13:20:55
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
"10 more stock HP? That the diff. in 4.7 &5.9!
MOre weight, obviously lower tech if 1.2L can only generate 10 more hp!"
It also generates 50tq more!
"KRC has got a sweet head port and polish a cam is in the works, HO pistons. Let's face it the aftermarket is catching up to the venerable 5.9."
Anyone can port and polish a stock head, try offering differen't ones. Cam's, pistons in the works? So it hasn't caught up yet. I like to see how much two Cam's would cost for your 4.7L.
"I have a reg cab dak. 5spd with the 318 and it romps the 5.9 RT's"
I'm sure their 5.9 RT's that would stomp you 318L or 1.8L that can stomp both the 4.7L,5.2L,5.9L
SO?
|
MikeD
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/17/2002
16:24:35
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
The dude that romps the 5.9 R/T's are the guys buying mods to run w/ the R/T's...U find an R/T w/ the same mods as that guy w/ the 5.2 and forget about it.
|
Joel
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/18/2002
11:12:56
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Todd, your focused on HP differences. Do you like the feeling when your car/truck puts you in your seat? Thats not horsepower working, that is TORQUE. The 5.9 has ~30lbs more torque than the 4.7.
Joel
|
Spanky
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/18/2002
20:53:39
|  RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Then why is it slower than a 4.7?
|
D
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/18/2002
21:23:39
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
its heavier.
|
JohnnyJaguar
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/18/2002
22:03:42
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
I THOUGHT WE WERE ON THE SAME TEAM! Anything can be made to go fast or faster. I have an RT, Bought it cause I like it. not becuase I thought it was faster than anyone.
|
MikeD
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/18/2002
22:14:21
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
The 4.7/5.9 battle will never end...maybe the 5.7 Hemi will put an end to all of this once and for all.
|
Firestorm
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/21/2002
19:19:50
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Do the R/T's come with a five speed?
|
Wesley
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/21/2002
19:48:53
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Why is it that every time this 4.7 vs. 5.9 BS comes up everybody hollers about whose truck is faster? Sure the 4.7 is as fast or faster than the 5.9, but not in the same configuration. If you want an even race get them as close to equal as possible. Get a CC R/T and a CC 4.7 w/ auto. I'm not saying which is the better engine, I'm just saying to make it equal if you want to compare the two. Dodge screwed up by not offering a 5 speed with the R/T so now they have a Dakota Sport that can hang with or beat the R/T. Their loss. Anybody with loads of money can make anything fast. I got smoked by a Honda Civic in my 13.2 sec CC R/T.
Wesley
|
Murphy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/21/2002
20:51:08
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Um..the guy just asked a simple question and it turned into this "my truck is faster/better/smarter/cooler" thing again...
How about just answering the guy's question.
I didn't hear a question about the 4.7, it was about an R/T, correct? I don't think the man wants to wait for a "maybe we'll make it" 5.7 Dakota in the future.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/22/2002
00:42:37
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
This topic was drug from the past. Just what we need instead of making a new 4.7 -vs- 5.9 post (which this one originally wasn't) we can just keep pulling out the old ones add adding a new post. I might show people how many times this old argument has already been hashed out. There must be one or two new ones a week, we sure don't need the 4 months old ones resurfacing.
|
xplikt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/22/2002
01:30:16
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey Mark, interested in makin' a 4.7 vs 5.9 forum?
Hehe..
Hey Hersbird, I was in Missoula this Saturday, your theatres are soo much nicer than ours and still cost less! Most of the time ours have gross floors and seats and busted speakers. I have been meaning to ask you, what is there fun to do Fri./Sat. night. -- also remember, I am not old enough to drink, legally anyhow.
|
TurboBlew
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/22/2002
02:24:47
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Hehe, this is funny. You guys with the *regular* Daks go ahead and modify it to put it on par with the 5.9 R/T. I find it amusing. YOu see the first and foremost reason you didnt get an R/T is because your "beer budgets" wouldnt allow it (or some smart banker wouldnt finance you...lol)
The 5.9 R/T is ALWAYS going to be worth more than any of the Daks offered. Its a special production run reserved for a few.
Personally I could give two craps about getting into the 13s or even 12s with a pickup truck...thats crawling compared to what Im used to. I can already go 9s @ over 145mph and 185mph+ topspeed on a street legal motorcycle.
Compare apples to apples!!
|
rtdkota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/22/2002
11:11:00
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Personally-- if I had the money, I'd buy a 4cyl...
Keep my RT in the garage, and drive the 4cyl to work to save some $$$ on gas!
There's a LOT more out for the 5.9L, and always will be. The 4.7L will, and is coming around mod wise. I doubt it will be as common as a 5.9L, but who knows with DC! The hemi isn't going to happen.... the hemi IS going to happen, now it's not... Now it is! (worse than a woman buying a pair of shoes!)
But, if you have a 4.7L, and need a F&B TB, let me know! I sell 'em!
performanceparts@cox.net
|
R/Truck
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/22/2002
11:40:24
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
How about an answer to your original question:
There really isn't much difference except for some minor cosmetic options on the 2002. Go to speedtweaks.net they have the dodge option list on there website that shows what's new for 2002.
If you can save at least $2000 then I would go with the 2001, besides you will have low miles for a 2001 and the warranty doesn't start until you drive off the lot.
Hope this helps.
|
McCracken
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/23/2002
15:04:41
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
I just want to clear up a HUGE misconception I see repeated on this board. According to the 2002 Dakota catalog the 4.7 produces 230hp in regular and extended cabs, not 235. Only 4.7 in quad cabs make 235hp. So if you are comparing a 4.7 extended cab vs. an R/T then the difference is 20hp, not 10. 230hp vs. 250. Like I said this is in the 2002 Dakota catalog. I don't know about previous years. See for yourself. Not saying one is better than the other, but people should have their facts straight before posting.
|
QUADMAN
GenIII
4/23/2002
15:51:00
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
You r/t guys are so funny! You can afford a special production run truck but can't pay for a membership? I disagree about the r/t being worth more than other daks, I will always get more on trade-in for my 4x quad than you will for your r/t. How about some of you r/t guys throw some money Marks way for a membership.
OPINIONS ARE LIKE....WELL, YOU KNOW THE REST!!
33X12.50 MTR's, 3" PA Body Lift, Procomp Prerunner Lightbar, K&N Dropin, Flow 40 with duals, MANY MORE TO COME...
|
R/Truck
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/23/2002
16:22:28
| RE: 2001 vs 2002 R/T?
IP: Logged
Message:
Why, so we can post a picture of our truck?
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
