I've owned a 96 Ranger with the V6 and a 2001 Dakota 4x4 with the 360. If your after a more depandable truck, I would pick the Ranger. I had no problems at all with the Ford.

On the other hand, I had many problems with the Dodge. I was pretty disappointed to have to replace a entire fuel pump assembly with only 37 K on the truck. The shop that did the work said they have done several low mileage Dodge fuel pumps, so that is something to keep in mind. There were several other issues with sensors and brake issues. I have to admit though, the power from the Dodge was really good and it had no problems towing over 5000 lbs. The mileage on the Dodge was much less also averaging around 14 MPG.

BigBlueBronco43, for one, dont take numbers as the end all be al either...in that case, my V6 5 spd reg cab s/b 150 should get owned in all races against a V8 full size and not be able to tow ANY of my vehicles.....but it will take any full size stock truck except an SS, a lightning, S/C Harley, Hemi, or SRT 10 (it aint far behind the Hemi BTW), and tow ANY of my vehicles, each of which weigh between 4k and 6k unladen without gas, add in the tandem axle 20 ft metal/wood trailor I use which is antoehr 1500 lbs...and it still gets done...

did you know Ford was notorius for their numbers being LOW in HP, TQ, and tow rating? Wehre as both dodge and Chevies are typically a bit optimistic in their numbers? i.e. (my '275 hp' 71 stang put out over 320 at the wheels from the factory) (my previously mentioned truck, while not dyno'd runs alow 16s stock....great for a full size one-wheel wonder :)

Secondly, please do remember that you ARE on a Ford forum, and typically we will fight for Ford to our vary last breath.

Thirdly, and pertaining to this conversation.... I have driven all the previously mentioned trucks before. 92 3.0 Ranger, 02 3.0 ranger (both 5 spds) 01 3.0 auto ranger, 04 4.0 auto ranger, 98 5.2 dakota auto 01 4.7 auto dak, and onewith a stick, and also a 00 5.9 or whatever it is ext cab auto.

all trucks being 2wd trucks. I prefer the ranger alot more. one...feels more like a truck, alot quiter inside, no annoying squeeks..at all.

Power? haha you should see what my little stock 92 could do. a quick little truck. The new ones are even quicker, I dont know if Ford offers a 5spd behindthe 4.0...prolly, never driven it... the 4.0 auto can almost keep up with a 3.0 stick. I can imagine what a 4.0 backed up with a shifter would do.
Towing? hm last thing I towed with my ranger was a 4500 lb boat for a few hundred miles...remember this was on a 9 year old truck with 150k miles and a 3.0 with a 5 spd
The 4.0 I have seen towing over 6k....safe...prolly not, but it can and will do it for you.
The Dakota cannot do any morethan the ranger in any configuration, it is simple, neither trucks are limited my motors, both are limited by the frames. same as 1/2 tons being limited to 10k lbs...not the motor, why you think the 5.4 in the 250 can tow a helluva lot more than it can in the 150?

gas mileage...I know I am payin over 2 bucks a gallon....I would rather get 20 mpg to 14-17 any day of the week, and I dont typically pay any attention to gas mileage, I routinely drive 90+ and dont care....but why hurt yourself if you dont have to right?

Why does he need to pay the same for a 3 year old V8 dakota that is used, has a quistionable maintnance history, will nee more work, less reliable, than a BRAND NEW truck that can do the exact same stuff? I mean the EXACT same stuff.
If he needs a V8 power in a truck...screw a dakota, go with a full-size of course.

(BTW, I have never seen ANY stock dakota doin 15 flats...only high 15s...not alot faster tahn my.....stock sixer....in a BIGGER truck!! that is with me driving both mind you, and I am considered a good racer)

reliability. We know the ranger is areliable truck....we see plenty of them on the road...I mean PLENTY I will see 10 of them on my way to work tomorrow, ranging from 80s-new....as far as dakotas, I will see one when I get to work...if it makes it there :P...Granted, the only dakota I have had the pleasure of having in the family died 50k miles short of where I sold my ranger. The dakota was a few years older, and was more meticulously cared for. But I dont see alot of dakotas on the road, my trip to Baton Rouge this weekend, I MIGHT see one. honestly 400 miels and I will see one dakota.....where as I will prbably see at least one ranger from every year they have been made as a compact truck.

Off-road...dakota is not going to come NEAR touching the ranger. The Ranger is built like a truck, albeit a small truck, but still a truck. Whether you go from personal expierience, or from amgazines, you would know the ranger is a better off road truck, you would know it has better gas mileage, you would know it is more reliable, you would know that the performance differance is almost miniscule, especially when you take a similiar priced truck into consideration...and that they can both tow the same.

Yeah if I had plenty of moeny, I would buy that dakota....so I could park a TRUCK on top of it.

As was side...what exactly is the purpose of the dakota? Strictly a Sport Truck...and nota very good one. (considering it cost 10k more than my truck did brand new and runs under half a second quicker)

That is one thing I would recommend to anyone buying a new car/truck

Vehicle A cost 20k new, but can only run a 17 flat and tow 8k

Vehicle B cost 35k new, but can run high 15s and tow 10k...

I am gonna go with vehicle A...why...casue with that 15k I saved, I could, but another muscle car that outruns both, or put that 15k into veh A and have a veh running 14 flat or lower, and capable towing more than both stock vehicles combines. :)




BTW, original poster, sorry you could not get the ranger, they really are great trucks....I jsut wont get another....I like my full size...got 3 of em now :)

perhaps I will get a ranger if I end up with a extra 302 to put in between the wheels....haha show all them dodge boys now.



BTW BBB43....you prolly only own chebbies huh?

Hey jimmy dean excellent post there. How can anyone argue with your comments. Oh Im sure there will be someone.

Personally, after owning a 1988 Dakota (First Year, I think) I wouldn't touch a Dodge unless they gave me one for free :-X24

It wasn't so much that the truck was a lemon ( Over 15 trips to Dealer, 3 trannies, two tows, one Dealer visit was 6 months but that was from an accident & not warranty work(original quote was for 2 weeks)) but the way Dodge Treated me :-X09 They even tried to reuse a bent axle shaft but kept eating up the bearings :p I was finally able to dump the truck w/ 35K miles on it at a huge depreciation.

I see a lot of both on the road and not stranded along side, so either one would probably fit the bill..

Good luck,

Russ

Jimmydean-excellent post on your personal experiences with Dodge and Ford, but afterall, this IS a Ford enthusiast site. As for off-roading, your putting words in my mouth, I would never say the Dakota is better off road. I would say the new ranger is as good off road as the earlier rangers also because of the IFS up front. What model F150 do you have? I have a friend with a 97 4.2 w/5 speed and he can just barely beat my buddies 91 F150 w/5.0 auto in a race, and at about 100 the 97 shuts down because of a governer. I'm not sure if you've done anything to it, but when we tried throwing a full load of mulch in the bed, it was bottoming out over bumps. This is a 97 F150 2wd 5 speed with the 4.2-it has great torque and pulls hard in all gears, will chirp 2 and sometimes 3rd but I honestly don't see it doing everything you said unless you've modified it or have a better suspension setup than my friends. All the comments about reliability- so be it, there your experiences, I've had different and haven't seen the issues listed here, but I can assure you that a dakota with the 4.7 even with the auto, will smoke the ranger in a drag race, or towing. And once again- YES the Dakota has WORSE mileage-Bigger truck, Bigger engine= Less mileage-I never argued it was economical.

Hey bigbluebronco I just have to interject here. The ranger is definitely the better truck here. Face it it has everything going for it. Relaibility. durability good gas mileage looks can do everything the dakota can do. I see many around here back in the 80s style still running still performing. Many with 200,000 + miles. As far as the dakota I guess the fuel pumps are a weak spot might leave you stranded. Frankly I just dont see many on the road. I advise everybody I know to get a ranger. Theyll be happy. There I go again ranting about ford again. Fire back

Yuck
 

My Stepfather has an 88 Ranger with 56,000 origional Miles on it, I like it.. HATE the 2.9 in it..

I havent driven any of the newest Rangers, last one I drove was a 99 I believe, but I hated it, road like it had wooden wheels and concrete shocks.
Again, as this was a work truck, it also suffered the same problems the Explorers did on the strip jobs,, mainly front end trouble. Motor seemed to hold up great, But the front end was definitley the weak link.
Interior LOOKED good, but didnt hold up too well..

The Dakota, I had one in 92, Held up decently.
I just dont understand why someone would one of these puny Rangers.. too small, I mean if your not going to haul anything then get an SUV, cause the Ranger isnt big enough to Haul anything of any size.

Around here, and prior to this when I lived in WV, the Dakotas out numbered the Rangers 3 to 1, Once the Dakota change their body style, they just took off.From My experience, the Dakota is the better, more reliable truck, with More power, More towing and payload capabilities ,, Easy Choice.

Well if you want haul anything get a half ton truck thats there purpose. The ranger is just that a compact pickup. The dakota you might as well have a half ton if your goig to buy one of those. Ive seen these rangers loaded and overloaded and abused. No dakota could hold up under these conditions like the ranger does.Ive never seen the dakotas outnumber anything around here.Thats definitly the exception. Believe me Ive seen these rangers are tougher than any dakota.

"in that case, my V6 5 spd reg cab s/b 150 should get owned in all races against a V8 full size and not be able to tow ANY of my vehicles.....but it will take any full size stock truck except an SS, a lightning, S/C Harley, Hemi, or SRT 10 (it aint far behind the Hemi BTW),"

I'm glad you put that in the beginning of your post, saved me some reading time...

So, JD, your saying that your V6 is faster and will outhaul all the factoryV8s except the ones listed? I find that very hard to believe. Tell us your HP, torque, gears, modifications and wieght of your vehicle so we can see how much smoke your blowing!

I must wonder then, Wheres the supercharger?
I've been in V6 F-150s and fast they aren't.
If youve modded your motor, then thats a different story,
However I have a VERY HARD TIME believing a V6 F-150 will out accelerate a 295 HP Silverado, a 300 HP f-150, a Titan, Etc...
This belongs with those " My Friends Big Block 4x4 Dually couldnt pull a fallen tree outta the yard, so I had to hook up my 300 six to do the job."

Ohh Bull crap, How do you have ANY idea how many S-10s or Dakotas have hundreds of thousands of miles on them, You dont.. And for that matter you dont have any Idea How many Rangers have that many miles to compare it to now do you.. Just another blanket statement of ASSUMPTIONS,

For reference, dodge v-8's get poor gas milage. A 5.2 in a stock 98 grand Cherokee AWD get 12 on the streets and 16.5 on the highway, and its only rated at 220 horses (hp varies depending at what book you read).

For reference, dodge v-8's get poor gas milage. A 5.2 in a stock 98 grand Cherokee AWD get 12 on the streets and 16.5 on the highway, and its only rated at 220 horses (hp varies depending at what book you read).

I will never contest 318/360 getting bad mileage (although that seems a little low). However, the 4.7 (which shares nothing w/ these motors) DOES get better mileage. Never had a problem breaking 19 MPG on the highway to S. Padre (fairly steady 70-75, 2 people, dog, and 4-5 peoples worth of stuff in the bed/probably no A/C). I admit that this was after tuning on it for a while, it probably would have gotten 16-17 stock.
Not that either one of these are good (19 MPG for a smaller truck on the highway is still nothing to brag about).

One thing about smaller dodge vehicles w/ V8's is that the people that buy them tend to use power a little more than other people. I drove a 1994 ranger 4 banger as a delivery truck for a year or so. The few times I figured mileage on it, it never was over 21-mostly HWY Of course, thats w/ ME driving :). OTOH, I probably couldn't have gotten worse than 18 if I'd tried.

"According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the least fuel-efficient 2004 model automobile sold in the United States is a variant of the Dodge Ram pickup with a 4.7-liter engine; it gets an abysmal city/highway mileage of 9/11 mpg."

Source: http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2004...?partner=msnbc

I realize we are talking about a bigger truck here, but those are still hideous numbers for an engine. Would I ever want something like that in my Ranger? No way. :-X15