How is it going to stack up against the Ranger and other offerings?

I saw a show today that went over the new Dakota. Base engine is the Magnum V6, with the 4.7 Magnum V8 coming next in line, and a Hemi lying in wait in a few years for the performance (R/T?) Dakota. Heated seats, increased roominess, Crew Cab available. How's it going to stack up to the Ranger?

Why doesn't Ford follow suit with Dodge putting V8's in...and feed the Ranger a 4.x V8...either like a 4.2 Modular...or source the 4.0 from Jaguar (Or past SHO motor...) and rework that?

 

dodge needs a v-8 to make the dakota feel less than gutless.. my friend has a 2001 with the v-6 and it is ok. we raced a 4.0 ranger and lost by a lot...the front end is also too small..

 

I just sold my 2000 Dakota it had the 4.7 with 3.55 posi and that truck moved out, sucked the gas though. Now i have a V10 that I houl in. I don't think that I would be a fan of the 6 banger.

 

I drove a Dakota 4x4 to Vegas last November.

Except for Gas Mileage it did okay.
Handled well at 85 mph, cornering on Mountainous Roads & Black ice.

It now has a performance chip in it.

 

Howdy boys,
The other night I ran my '99 Ranger XLT 4.0 against some ancient Dakota V6...now, I dont know how, but this thing hauled ***, I mean, I matted it and I olny just kept up...but then, he also had a running start on me...but nonetheless. I think these new Dakotas look kinda bloated like the Durango but when it finally does get the HEMI, it'll haul *** the way the now defunct R\T. Now, when you suggest putting an eight in the Ranger, I whole heartedly agree. If it were up to me, I'd throw a cleveland in it...but I'm sure the feds can find something wrong with that...I dont even know how DaimlerChrysler pulled it off, but it worked for them.

 

I always thought that the first gen Dakota was the best looking. All that side-sculpturing and that nostril nose on gen 2 never looked good to me. The new one is even worse IMO. Their size however, is what they have going for them. I've owned two Rangers, and although they were great little trucks...they were just that...little trucks. I didn't fit into them very well. The Ranger is getting kinda long in the tooth, and when Ford re-does it, I hope they make it bigger. A V8 option would be great, and an SVO would be even better. Ford has got to be losing some sales to Dodge because of the size and engine issue.

So listen-up Ford...Make the Ranger bigger, do a dynomite styling job on it and give it a V8 option. What a great little sport truck it could be.

MR

 

In Dec. of 03 our 01 Dakota was in a total loss accident. It was a 4x4 quad cab with the off-road package, and tow option. The Dodge was a running unit, mileage was 16 at interstate speeds, steering and handeling was leaps and bounds above our current truck. It also did very well with our 25' TT. On the down side the interior was a little cozy but still comfortable, and there was, in my opinion, to much wind noise at 75-80 mph. We liked it so much that as of now we are shopping for another one.

 

The Ranger doesn't have a V8 because it doesn't need one. The 4.0L makes almost 210 horsepower and 240 lb/ft of torque....and gets 17 mpg average. Why would Ford ruin that by dropping a thirsty, weak V8 under the hood like the Dakota??

 

A rediesigned Ranger is in the works and from what I hear it will be larger in size than the current Ranger (similar in size to the Dakotas and Colorados). The new Ranger was initially slated to debut in the 2004 model year but, that has obviously been pushed back. The Ranger nampe plate will be dropped when the new truck is intorduced and I do believe it will have a V8 option.

 

IMO Ford trucks have been losing out big time on power issues. The 3-vavle 5.4 is a good step but still not enough. Nissan and Dodge beat it out. Not by a whole lot but they still beat it. Then coming with the new frontier. A 4.0L V6 with 250+ horses? If that thing doesn't have a S/C on it I'm going to start worrying about Ford big time. I think the new 3-vavle 4.6 should go in it when it comes out. I still think that that engine could hold up 15-17 mpg. Just my 2 cents.

 

Every vehicle needs a V-8. Ok, not really, but it would be nice to see it at least as an option. I sgree that it could get at least 17. Aren't F-150's rated for that, in a smaller ligher truck, it should get even better. I don't think the Ranger should get much bigger. Better use of space in the interior, and a better super cab would be nice, but I think the Dakotas are too big. They defeat the purpose of a small truck. They get much worse mileage than Rangers, aren't really much roomier, and take up more space on the road. I love the size of my ranger. Bigger than and roomier than a Tacoma, good mileage out of the 4.0, but less bulky than a Dakota. My future father-in-law has a 93 Dakota 2wd. Similar miles as mine, slower, worse mileage, noisier and falling apart. The Dakota extended cab seat is just as worhtless as the Rangers. It really makes no sense to put a bench in the back if there's no room for your legs. At least a kid can sit halfway comfortable in the Rangers backseat. They are both better suited for cargo.

 

The '05 Dakota has the 4.7L V8. Makes 230 HP and 290 lb./ft. torque. The '05 Frontier has a 4.0L V6. It makes 250+ HP and 275 lb./ft. of torque. So as far as power, towing, acceleration, etc. goes....the two trucks are virtually identical. But at the fuel pump, the Nissan will save you BIG dollars. Much better fuel economy with the V6. And that is why the Ranger doesn't have, and doesn't need a V8. The power/weight ratio is already higher with the Ranger now than it is with any V8 powered truck out there.

 

I will have to disagree. Just because the dakota has a V8, doesn't mean it will get worse milage. It is all in howe you drive it. What the ranger has going for it seems to be build quality, as they are put together faily well(at least the newer ones) But, are nothing compared to the dakota in the power department when you talk the V8. Rangers are great if you want a small truck, but if you want any room at all they just dont cut it. just my opinion.

 

I have heard that the V-8 Dakotas get horrible mileage. I know the Durangos are bad, although they are a bit heavier. The V-8 Dakota will smoke a 4.0 Ranger, it's not the HP advantage so much as the Torque advantage. I till agree with MrOldV8 that Ford probably looses customers to Dodge due to the lack of a V-8. I also believe that many people woulod buy the V-8 if it was available. I know I would when it comes time for me to buy new. I doubt that it will ever happen due to fleet gas mileage requirements that Ford needs to acheive, but it would be one fun little truck. They could make a heck of a sport truck out of it too in the 2wd form. They need to do something though, the sales of Rangers have been dropping trmendouly. It seems they have had the best small truck for so long and the others are starting to catch up.

 

My dad has a Ranger. His truck has absolutely no power to it whatsoever. But of course he only has a 4 cylinder in his and its an automatic. He says that he does not get very good gas mileage out of his even though it is a 4 cylinder. Probably 15 mpg, maybe 16. I've never drove one with the V6's in them, but I know the 4's have no power.