What is your point? Do you buy a car/truck/suv because a magazine rates it the highest? Like I said before, go test drive several before you make your call. I drive a Dakota, my father has a Ranger 4X4 Edge 4.0......I personally like the Dakota. My Father also says the Dakota is a nicer truck, but went with the Ranger because he gets the X-Plan. However saying a 4.0 V6 with a chip will equal the performance #s a Dakota with the 4.7 V8 is just plan B.S. and I think most of you know that.

 

_______________________________

I would agree. In small truck applications the 4.0 may hold it's own for work and towing, since the trucks themselves are limited in capability regardless of engines being used. The 4.7L will probably offer an acceleration advantage in the same uses though. The difference is torque application.

No way could a 4.0 be used to move an empty full sized truck around - nevermind loaded. The 4.7L does this pretty well from what I've seen and heard however. I think Dodge's 4.7L and Ford's 4.6L do not get the recognition they deserve really. My brother had a 97' F150 supercab short bed with 4.6L and I tell you- this thing had alot more pulling power and acceleration than I would have thought. My F150 4.2 V6 may not be all that far behind on paper, but there was a huge difference in performance reality. My mother has one in her Lincoln Continental, and my youngest brother had one in a 97' Crown Vic. These aren't light cars - and they would haul azz.

None of these vehicles are still in the family however. One brother got tired of fixing constant transmission and alignment problems, so he sold the truck.
Now he uses my old 96' Ram 2500 when he needs to pull the horses around.
My mothers 97 Lincoln had suspension problems, it needed a whole new air suspension - at a cost of 3,500.00. I offered to convert it to coils but she just sold it altogether. My youngest brother made the mistake of selling his Crown vic. In all honesty - this car was a bit of a pain - it went through at least one set of 4 brake pads every 3 months, new rotors twice in the time
he had it (about a year), and needed two new front calipers in that same time (I've never seen any vehicle prior to this one with so many brake problems). Still it was a mistake - I tried to convince him to keep it. The car was paid off, had lots of room, nice acceleration, and just fit him perfectly.
Now he agrees since he's got a 98' Taurus with a loan that has had just as many brake problems so far, and other headaches on top of that.

It's weird, everyone in my family bought Ford, because they see what I put my trucks through - yet mine have been the only ones which have been relatively trouble free. My Dodge has been through even more than my
Ford's have, but chances are if they had bought Dodge's because of my experiences - they'd have had problems there too...lol.

I'm not saying a Dakota is a better truck than a Ranger is - it depends on what your looking for from it I guess, but I definately do not believe a V6
4.0 can hold it's own to a V8 4.7L - my 4.2L would not even have a prayer, so the 4.0 is definately out IMO.

 

Well this is one time I disagree. I drove the 4.7L before I bought my latest Ranger...and the power difference was not noticeable. With a chip you're looking at 270 lb./ft. or so from the SOHC 4.0L. That's very comparable to the 4.7, and being in a lighter truck it would blow the 4.7L away. That's probably why Ford is going to stick the 4.0L in the Mustang starting in '05...but that's another story. I'm not saying the 4.7 is a bad engine.... but I hear more complaints from it from it's weakness than I ever do about the 4.0L. Anyway, I still say the 4.0L gets better fuel economy, and will tow and haul just the same...look at the ratings. And yeah...show me where you live and I will line mine up with your 4.7. After driving both I'm certainly not afraid. You expect us to believe a 4.7 will run 15 flat through the 1/4 mile when the Hemi is barely doing that?? Yeah right

 

I live in Kansas City and have two Dakota R/Ts one with a stock 5.9 and the other has a 408. The 4.7 Dakota will run neck and neck with a stock 5.9 R/T. Everyone knows that the 4.7 in a Reg. Cab 5-speed will run 15 flat....and the club cab will run around 15.5. You have no idea what you are talking about.
The HEMI is in a 5100 lb. truck. A Dakota Reg. cab is about 3800 lbs. If you still want to line your lil 4.0 with either one on my trucks let me know. If I were you I'd wanna run my stock 5.9.

 

I remember when the 4.7 came out in the Dakota; all of the magazines were surprised that it held its own with the Dakota R/T 5.9

 

The 4.7 is not near as heavy as the Iron 5.9. Plus you can get a 5-speed with the 4.7 and only a automatic with the 5.9 R/T.

 

I have a 2000 Dakota CC with an automatic and the 4.7 with 4x4. I raced my friends 2002 Ranger Extended Cab 4x4 4.0L and the race was over before I was out of second gear. I don't know how fast it is but I would put it up against a Ranger any day of the week. Also my truck has K&N Filter and Cat-Back system from gibson.

 

With a simple computer chip, or a K&N Air filter system and a good cat back system a 4.7 would get better power and equivelent milege to the 4.0, having driven a 4.0 i HATE them. They are gutless.

 

A better conparision would be the 3.7L V6 Dakota and the 4.0L V6 Ranger.
This would make the cost comparision better. I believe the Ranger for what you are able to buy for your money is a better choice.

 

Why do you believe that? Your opinion please.

 

The reason for comparing the 3.7L to the 4.0L is they are very close in HP and torque. It isn't a fair comparision when one has a V8. As for the Ranger's purchase price and options it was a much better deal at the time verses the Dakota. If price and local dealers were not a factor, I would probably would have purchased something else.

 

My money would be on the Ranger, better designed and better built. I remember some of the vehicles Chrsyler made and am surprised that they are still around. They had decent power trains but the bodies were poor, the doors didn`t close right, the trim, fit and finish was very poor if at all. Since the europeans saved Chrysler from going under and took it over it maybe some what better, only time will tell. I remember prior to that and to me a Chrysler product will always be just a Chrysler and a very distant third in North America. Compare my 84 Ranger to any Chrysler product from 84 and I will take the Ranger in a hoof beat! I like doors that close right the first time, every time and a vehicle that still looks like it did when it left the factory with all it`s orginal trim on it. Before I would buy a Chrysler I would have to buy a GM and then it would be off the Japanese, just don`t trust Chrysler at all and never will after seeing their many previous mistakes.

 

Another thing to look at as far as buying a ranger or dakota is durability I believe ranger wins hands down. These trucks really go the distance. In my town there are several 80s model rangers still going still performing for there owners. These little trucks are tough. They really hold up. If you take a survey in my town on the number of Rangers,S-10s,or Dakotas. Ranger would blow everybody away it wouldnt even be close. In my town Chevys are the predominate truck except when it comes down to compact trucks Rangers rule. Everybody loves there Ranger Buy the Ranger.

 

Test drive both. Never EVER Japanese.

 

WXboy-Are you sure you didn't test drive the 5.2 Dakota? In 2000 they switched to the 4.7 and its a very powerful engine that makes the 5.2 look like a 4 cylinder in comparison. As for towing capacity-5900lbs for the Dakota. Obviously it will get worse gas mileage-its a bigger truck with more power. Its the best option I believe between the smaller trucks and a 1/2 ton because its still smaller and easier to drive/park, but also has equal power and high towing capacities much like the 1/2 ton. The Ranger is a solid truck that performs well with the V6. Although from my experiences it hasn't been the best on gas mileage either. My friend has an 01 Ranger and all he complains about is how bad the gas mileage is on it. I wouldn't go saying the Dakota is horribly built and not reliable because my best friends girlfriend bought a 2000 Dakota and has had no problems. Another friend has an extended cab with the old 3.9 V6 (98 model) and even though he's cracked it up a few times and doesn't ever do maintenance on it, it has never had a problem. Everyone has horror stories about some car, but that can't be the standard for comparing reliability. Test drive them both and see which one YOU like better, and go in without a bias like you want the car your driving and not with everything you've read here. Good luck on your purchase.