What the heck does "bhp" mean?

Horsepower.

im agreing with what mattsbox99 said a while back... my dads dakota has had problems with the front end of his. i hit some RR tracks and popped off the upper arm on the thing, after having it abt a month. other than that i love it tho, good power, size, and handling isnt bad. but yah, it is a gas hog

Brake HorsePower (bhp) The power output of automobile engines is quoted in brake, or shaft, horsepower. That is, the maximum theoretical horsepower of the engine minus the power lost through heat, friction and compression.

Apparantly the soccer mom drivers are being really tough on the Durango and Dakota front ends, too. Take a look:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in580233.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in589356.shtml

Personally, I wouldn't have much confidence in either of them if I was going off road.

The 4.7 is a good strong engine, at the expense of being very thirsty for a midsize truck. I get over 20 on the Highway with my 4.0 OHV 4x4. I've seen lots of posts of people getting even better with the SOHC 4.0. It seems that 16 is about the most I have heard of people getting from the 4.7. I mentioned earlier that my Uncles Durango, my aunt drives it, gets only slightly better than the last 5.9 Ram that he had. As far as power, stock to stock, the 4.7 will be faster than the 4.0, but as WXboy said, for $230, you can buy a chip for the Ranger and get within 5 HP and 20 ft-lbs of torque as the 4.7. Being in a lighter truck, will get you very similar acceleration. And to those who think that you'll only get about 10HP from a chip, try 10% HP gain and 15% torque, and I can vouch for that. Chips are awesome. True, you could get one for a 4.7, but you're still going to be getting lousy mileage. Quite simply, Rangers are awesome, Heck, the new Dakota is going to be almost a full size pickup, almost the same size as the Tundra I believe. It needs a V-8 where the Ranger gets the job done with a V-6, but a V-8 would be a nice option.
Well said by 1956MarkII:
Dakota: all the disadvantages of a small truck (about the same head and leg room as a Ranger), combined with all the disadvantages of a large truck (lousy gas mileage). This is one truck that has never made any sense to me.
I completely agree.

The rangers are the best small compact pickup out there no holds barred. Dakota and Chevys new colorado pale in comparison. These rangers are tough little pickups seems like they never quit. On the road rangers outnumber everybody else by quite a little,. A popular little pickup.

im not liking the colorado at all....i mean who puts struts on a truck first of all? rangers are much better for off roading than dodges and chevys too for that matter. theyre tough little trucks. ive always leaned towards dodges, thats all my parents buy. and a dakota is a cool lookin truck, for on road, but if you drive a truck like a truck is supposed to be driven, go with a ranger.

:-X22 Agreeded, my money is on the Rangers all the way. We have an 84 & 98 and they are both good, tuff and dependable trucks.

I've had plenty of seat time in newer rangers and they aren't bad trucks. But if it was me I would go with the dakota as I did w/ my 98 (5.2 5spd.) It had (has) a higher tow rating than the 99 f150 I currently drive. They WILL run flat 15's stock. I SAW a brand new 4x2 4.7 5spd. w/ only a K&N panel filter and traction bars run high 14's (~700 miles on it). You better hurry and order, they are switching to the new body soon. And good luck trying to find a V8 5spd. on the lot. Much better aftermarket for the Dakota as well. The factory brakes wear out quickly, but I found them more than capable of slowing it down.

forgot to mention-if you get the v8 5spd. combo, you also get the 9 1/4 in. rear end. A stout unit for off-road/big tires. I've driven an 4x4 Auto. 4.7 w/ the HO jeep cams, cat-back, and K&N FIPK and this thing was a beast. Altogether he said it cost <1K $.

If it were me, id definatly go for the ford. The ranger i have has never failed me. Dont ask how but ive had the tires 5 feet in the air, landed hard on a curb and carefully brought it to a stop in a snowbank. The damn thing walked away without a scratch. (after we were towed out by a super duty) Not too long after that my bud drove it into a tree.:-arrgh (and it really wasnt me, im not lying) With the grill pushed a few feet back it still fired up and got us back home. Built Ford Tough sure means tough.

my brother has a 99 ranger and loves it. it has the 4.0 and he was pulling our pop up camper which weighs about 2000 lbs and all the camping gear and fire wood. he got 20 mpg going up and down a few hills. driving 65 mph and he said that it never 65 mph. I love his pick up. yea the 4.7 will have more power but the vehicle can only handle so much weight and i think that a V-8 in a compact pick up is point less.

"yea the 4.7 will have more power but the vehicle can only handle so much weight and i think that a V-8 in a compact pick up is point less."

Yeah, but that "so much weight" is about twice what the Ranger can tow, though that speaks more of the tranny than the engine. The way I see the Dakota is: a light 1/2 ton that is much easier to manuever and especially park than a full size. As for pointless, I've never minded having a little more power than I need.

i didn't really expect this much of a response,but i'm glad i got it... i almost bought the ranger, but when i went to get an insurance quote, I almost had a heart attack.. 388 a month!!!!! guess i'm gonna get an old bronco.....