Forums
Forum Tools
|
 |
17:23:44 - 04/16/2024
General Dakota Board
| From | Message |
jevanof
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/11/2006
12:51:23
|
 Subject: Used to own a dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Hi, last year I had a 97 4X4 V6 Dakota, It was a good truck but a little under powered, I sold if for what I bought it for and now I miss it, I now want a 4X4 4 door dakota with a v8. What I need to know is your opinion an what is better 360, 4.3 or the other one, forgot what it is, and a year recamandation would be nice too. I would like to stay under $15,000.00
Thanks
|
Spaminator
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/11/2006
13:40:29
| RE: Used to own a dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
4.7 is one of the best motors out there right now.
|
.boB
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/12/2006
00:54:14
| RE: Used to own a dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Motor choice depends on year. the 360 is a tried and true motor with a tremendous durability record. You can really abuse the motor and it will continues to work well. It makes a lot of torque across a very wide power band. The are under the curve is huge, which is exactly what you want real work - towing and hauling.
I think only 2000-2003 had the 5.9 as an option, but don't quote me on that. The point is, there's only a few years where you get a QC with a 5.9.
The 4.7 is another story. In the first couple of years it was not very impressive. It made a good torque number. But it was very peaky, the curve has a sharp rise and dramatic drop. Not much area under the curve. That made it a fine street engine as long as you kept the revs and shift points in the right place. But not much area under the curve; which didn't make for a very good truck engine. The torque curve was so bad, they designed a new transmission with two second gears. Yes, I know I'm going get a lot of indignant flaming for this, but the dyno sheets will bear me out. Also, it was a new design, and therefore had some bugs to work out.
I thought it odd that the dyno sheet looked like that. The smaller displacement, good head design, good intake and exhaust manifold design, and overhead cams had a tremendous potential for torque. But it just wasn't there yet. I drove both in 2001, and was not impressed with the 4.7. It was obvious the 5.9 had a lot more usable torque. And fuel mileage ratings were essentially the same! Didn't make sense.
Fast foreward a few years. The 5.9 is gone. The 3.9 still sucks. And the 4.7 is the only V8 option. Fortunatly, some of the shortcomings of the OHC have been resolved. The newer torque curves look considerably better. It has a lower overall rating (slightly), but a much broader and flatter curve, with more area under the curve. A much better truck engine. Still not quite as good as the old 5.9, but much better.
So, what does all that mean? I think in the years that the 5.9 was available, it was a better engine. In the later years, the differance was not so dramatic, in the earlier years it was huge. Now of course, there's no option. When available, year vs. year, get the 5.9. But don't over look a newer truck just because of the 4.7.
But, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
|
little jer
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/12/2006
02:08:36
| RE: Used to own a dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
You may not be wrong. there are a lot of posts that have to do with problems withe the 4.7. It may have been improved now. However, if you can get one with a 5.9, go for it.
|
Old Dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/12/2006
06:17:54
| RE: Used to own a dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Some of you have been sniffing your exhaust too much. Fuel milage on 360,s suck and thats the main reason its gone. Then you compare a 360cid to a 287cid and say-oh, it has less torque! All cammers have less torque low down. Like a diesel, just keep it in the powerband (and its a wide one) and shift it one more time. Quite being lazy and drive instead of riding behind the wheel.
|
Kowalski
GenIII
9/13/2006
18:10:44
| RE: Used to own a dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
What boB says about the early 4.7's is quite simply not true. The 2 second gears were already right there from the start - I should know, mine's a '00 with the 45RFE tranny; before they added a fifth gear to make it a 545RFE. Later years used a different manifold, a compromise between the original which had the best low end torque and the HO manifold. Then the HO manifold was dropped, and all 4.7's, including HO's, got the compromise design. With its smaller 62mm TB, the older 4.7 should actually have better low end torque than the newer ones that get a 65mm TB. Same cam specs through the years. Same valve size, and same compression. If boB actually has dyno specs to back up that mis-information, they must be from different dynoes or different atmospheric conditions - the minor changes the 4.7 has gone through will not back up his claims !
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
Ky_man
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/13/2006
19:38:09
| RE: Used to own a dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Or you can go right in between and find the 5.2. (1997-99?) lol
(don't get your hopes up about good gas milage though)
|
Kowalski
GenIII
9/14/2006
15:21:53
|  RE: Used to own a dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
I think you'll find 5.2 quadcabs scarcer than hen's teeth - first year for quadcab is '00; same year 4.7 replaced the 5.2.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
jayb
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/15/2006
16:24:23
| RE: Used to own a dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
you all say the 5.2 has bad mileage, but the 4.7 and 5.2 get basically the same. and my 93 5.2 get fine gas mileage now that i did a full tuneup on it. before the tuneup(129k), oh my god.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
|
