Notices
Ford vs The Competition Technical discussion and comparison ONLY. Trolls will not be tolerated.

ranger Vs. dakota

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 12, 2004 | 02:04 AM
  #16  
Fomoko1's Avatar
Fomoko1
Moderator
20 Year Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 97,592
Likes: 2,008
From: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Club FTE Gold Member
We have a 98 Ranger with the 4.0 engine and auto o/d. No problem to pull a 65 Mustang on a car trailer at hiway speeds. Power is not a problem.
 
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2004 | 10:49 AM
  #17  
jonathoncounts's Avatar
jonathoncounts
New User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Steelville Missouri
I owned a 2000 Dodge Dakota with a 4.7 and a 1997 Dakota with a 5.9 the 4.7 is much quicker and more powerful thatn the 5.9. Tru the gas mileage is not the best in a dodge 4.7. I now own a 4.0 Ranger and a 5.7 Hemi the 4.0 has plenty of power to do what your want to do with it and better gas mileage.
 
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2004 | 02:51 PM
  #18  
99 ranger bob's Avatar
99 ranger bob
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
From: formerly Brooklyn NY now
I have a ford ranger and while ive never owned a dakota id never buy another dodge product. I have a dodge caravan i bought second hand that has been nothing but a problem... its one of four caravans i have owned over the last ten years and frankly one has been worse than the next. the warrantys are useless as i drive more rentals than the van. i dont mean to sound like im flaming dodge here but i can document everything i say here. Go with the Ford way more reliable and mine has 85K on it
 
Reply
Old Mar 12, 2004 | 03:59 PM
  #19  
1956MarkII's Avatar
1956MarkII
Lead Driver
20 Year Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,746
Likes: 7
From: Tampa Bay, FL USA
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.
 
Reply
Old Mar 13, 2004 | 08:09 AM
  #20  
Delta's Avatar
Delta
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: Central IN
1956MarkII,

I agree and it looks like Toyota is doing the same thing with the Tacoma. I guess they don't believe we need small trucks anymore.
 
Reply
Old Mar 15, 2004 | 01:43 AM
  #21  
Dave76's Avatar
Dave76
New User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: idaho
I drive a 03 ranger fx4 everyday and i love it. When i get on it the power is pretty good, not enough to squeal the tires but a definate kick in the butt. I have the 4.0 supercab 5 speed auto fx4 package and I get almost 17 mpg, but thats with just 5500 on the ticker. Off roads pretty good as well.
 
Reply
Old Mar 15, 2004 | 10:36 AM
  #22  
makealoop's Avatar
makealoop
Freshman User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
I'm a big fan of crash test results. If you look at iihs.org, you'll see that the Dakota is rated 'P' for poor.
 
Reply
Old Mar 16, 2004 | 09:28 AM
  #23  
AceTheLegend's Avatar
AceTheLegend
Junior User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: Wisconsin
I have the 03 XLT FX/4 Level 2 ranger with the 4.0 and I get 17 or better on the highway when I am not going like 80 mph! I love it and I can squeal my tires, sorry dave76 but i can! But all I know is that everyone I have every talked too have always said go ford or chevy because dodge pretty much isn't good from truck stand point! I love my ranger, has plenty of get up and go, good gas mileage, nice to look at, enough power, and who wouldn't want that!
 
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2004 | 11:02 AM
  #24  
KCFD408RT's Avatar
KCFD408RT
Freshman User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by jonathoncounts
I owned a 2000 Dodge Dakota with a 4.7 and a 1997 Dakota with a 5.9 the 4.7 is much quicker and more powerful thatn the 5.9. Tru the gas mileage is not the best in a dodge 4.7. I now own a 4.0 Ranger and a 5.7 Hemi the 4.0 has plenty of power to do what your want to do with it and better gas mileage.
Actually you have no idea with you are talking about. Dodge didn't put the 5.9 aka 360 into the Dakota until 1998 in the R/T. If you had a 1997 Dakota with a V8 the only motor you could have would have been the 5.2 aka 318. Plus the 5.9 is more powerful then the 4.7....5.9 has 250 bhp...345 ft. lbs. of torque. The 4.7 has 235bhp and 290ft. lbs. of torque. The 4.7 is rated at 16 mpg. My fathers 2001 Ranger 4X4 Edge only gets 16-17 mpg.
 
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2004 | 11:04 AM
  #25  
KCFD408RT's Avatar
KCFD408RT
Freshman User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by makealoop
I'm a big fan of crash test results. If you look at iihs.org, you'll see that the Dakota is rated 'P' for poor.
Whats the Ford rated.........
 
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2004 | 11:07 AM
  #26  
KCFD408RT's Avatar
KCFD408RT
Freshman User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Originally Posted 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.
The 4.7 gets just about the same MPG as a 4.0 Ford......Plus its a lot quicker.

I personally went with the 5.9....I can care less about MPG.
 
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2004 | 11:08 AM
  #27  
KCFD408RT's Avatar
KCFD408RT
Freshman User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by gilraine
I'm considering buying either a 2001 dakota sport (4.7, 5 speed, 4x4 and clubcab)or a 2004 ranger(4.0,stick, 2 door supercab and 4x4)... price is about the same, monthly payment wise. I just want to know which would work better for me... I just will carry hay and building supplies with it and wheel them a little... towing at most 3K twice a year..
Here is my advice. Go and test drive both before you make you choice. I've owned 4 Dakota's. My father has a 2001 Ranger 4x4 edge with teh 4.0...I hate driving it.
 
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2004 | 12:57 PM
  #28  
WXboy's Avatar
WXboy
Logistics Pro
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 1,016
From: Central KY
You are joking, right? My buddy's new 4.7L gets such horrible mileage that he took it back to the dealer because he thought there was something wrong with it. They said "nope, that's normal". My 4.0L turned 19.6 mpg on the last tank. You could turn the Dakota off and coast downhill and you'd never get that kind of mileage. And with a simple computer chip, the Ranger will make identical power to the 4.7L Dakota too. You guys can have your V8s...I'm through with them.
 
Reply
Old May 1, 2004 | 02:19 PM
  #29  
KCFD408RT's Avatar
KCFD408RT
Freshman User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by WXboy
You are joking, right? My buddy's new 4.7L gets such horrible mileage that he took it back to the dealer because he thought there was something wrong with it. They said "nope, that's normal". My 4.0L turned 19.6 mpg on the last tank. You could turn the Dakota off and coast downhill and you'd never get that kind of mileage. And with a simple computer chip, the Ranger will make identical power to the 4.7L Dakota too. You guys can have your V8s...I'm through with them.
A simple chip huh....I'm sorry but a simple chip will not get you an extra 30 bhp.

I know thats what the company says but everyone knows that a chip might get you about 10 bhp. Plus it wont even come close in torque. The 4.7 will get about 16mpg which isn't bad. My 5.9 gets 14.3 and the Supercharged 408 gets close to the same. If your going to bitch about MPG maybe you should by a 4-cyl. but everyone knows there is NO replacement for displacement. A stock 4.7 Dakota reg. cab 5-speed will run around 15.0 @ 90 mph in the 1/4 mile.....lets see your 4.0 V6 with a chip do that.....your looking at high 16s best. If you want we can line our trucks up and see if your really making V8 power.
 
Reply
Old May 1, 2004 | 03:29 PM
  #30  
1956MarkII's Avatar
1956MarkII
Lead Driver
20 Year Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,746
Likes: 7
From: Tampa Bay, FL USA
Tacoma and Ranger/ B-Series were rated highest with an "acceptable" rating.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38 PM.