Last post on Oct 05, 2003 at 5:08 AM
You are in the Pickups - Archived Discussions
What is this discussion about?
Dodge Dakota, Exterior, Truck
Join other Dakota owners in Edmunds.com Dodge Dakota Owners Club!
Aug 29, 2001 (7:27 am)
Noticed a new 2002 Dakota on a lot yesterday. From what I could tell, there was nothing unusual about it except that I noticed that Dodge listed the fuel economy of the the 2WD 4.7 liter engine at 15/20 which is a gallon better than last year. Also I think the hp of the engine gained 5 hp. Does anyone know for sure when they Dodge will be changing body style of the Dakota? According to truck trends - next year (2003). Also when the new hemi engines start coming out, I wonder if they will incorporate them to the Dakota line-up....I'm just trying to decide whether to buy one this year (2002) or wait until next year...
#1099 of 1886 5 spd clunk
Aug 29, 2001 (11:16 am)
I have it too. Been there since day 1. I just turn the stereo up to overide the sound. With proper engine rpm and clutch engagement/disengagement the sound can be pratically nullified. I find if I let the engine reduce in rpm before shifting, the clunk is at a minimum.
#1100 of 1886 maringa - 2002 Dakota
Aug 29, 2001 (1:27 pm)
The Dak QC is supposed to be due for an overhaul in 2003 model year by all accounts (magazines, dealer, Dakota websites, etc.).
#1101 of 1886 Part Time 4WD vs. Full Time AWD???
Sep 04, 2001 (9:24 am)
I am about to order a new quad cab and need help
deciding between full time AWD and Part Time 4WD.
I assume that the gas mileage would be worse with full time AWD and that future repairs might be more costly as a result. Therefore I'm leaning toward the Part time 4WD. Won't really be towing anything, but I do live in the mountains (9000ft) so we get a lot of snow. Also think I'm leaning toward the 3.92 ratio axle for mountain driving.
Anyone have any input on this issue??
#1102 of 1886 rjay re full time versus part time 4WD
Sep 04, 2001 (1:55 pm)
Reed, I have never been an advocate of full time 4WD, and other than Quadratrac used in the Jeep, I cannot fathom why anyone would want it. At 9000 feet, you may need the extra grunt afforded by the 3.92 as there will be some power loss due to the breathing ability of the engine. You failed to mention which engine you were considering, but all of the engines would experience some minor power shortage at that altitude. You are correct that the full time 4WD will consume more fuel and could add extra cost if repairs were needed, but premature tire wear could also be a significant factor. This is only my personal opinion.
Sep 04, 2001 (7:20 pm)
Hey folks, considering a buy on 2001 16x8's. Would just like to verify that there will be no problem placing on my 2000 slt with tow package.
thanks in advance.
#1104 of 1886 About to Order........3.92 vs 3.55????
Sep 06, 2001 (9:15 am)
I am about to order an 02 Quad Cab, 4.7, auto, whl pkg, and am deciding between the two axle ratios. I don't plan to haul or tow much, but I do live in the mountains (9000ft) and do a lot of mountain winter driving. I'm concerned about fuel economy but have read in earlier posts that there isn't much difference between the two (less than 1mpg) in that respect. I'm also considering the ltd slip diff. ANy input from this group is appreciated.
#1105 of 1886 2001 wheels on a 2000
Sep 06, 2001 (2:21 pm)
Should bolt right up... Just make sure that the overall diameter of the tires does not change. Otherwise the onboard computer will need to be re-programmed to assure proper operation of the ABS system.
#1106 of 1886 Full Time (AWD) -vs- part-time
Sep 07, 2001 (6:30 am)
This has been discussed many times in the past and I'm still confused on exactly how AWD works and what wheels are being driven with perfect traction and what wheels are being driven with bad traction...so, here we go again, I'm sure someone can verify the below: (sorry for asking again)
AWD with perfect traction: only one rear wheel is driven, as there is no full time split of torque between front and rear, right? (if so, no extra tire wear?)
AWD with perfect traction and limited-slip: Are both rear wheels ALWAYS provided torque full time?
(If so, some extra tire wear but part-time 4WD with limited-slip would also have more tire wear?)
AWD mode with bad traction: the wheel or wheels with the least traction, regardless of it being front or rear, get all the torque? It is possible in certain situations, for wheels on one axle to get the same amount of torque applied or even for all 4 wheels to get the same amount of torque?
Ok, I've got AWD, from my experience in the rain, it's doing something right: pouring rain, red light turns green, right foot floors it, no wheel spin, a great launch, being thrown back into the seat...can a DAK in 2WD (or in just sloppy enough conditions that don't warrent 4WD) do this? Don't think so, hence to me, AWD is a benefit in regards traction and a sense of safety...re: wear and tear and/or replacing AWD parts, I'd be surprised if I keep the truck past it's standard warranty.
Please correct me if I'm wrong or mislead re: anything above.
Sep 07, 2001 (10:44 am)
I have both a 3.55 rear and a 3.92. (97 and 01 SLT CC) My personal opinion is get the 3.92 with LSD. It puts the engine in good power bands so you have good pickup in the hills and LSD pays for itself on any slick surface. 3.55 is good if you are always on the highway.