Forums
Forum Tools
|
 |
15:57:39 - 04/27/2024
General Dakota Board
| From | Message |
berge
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/01/2007
15:12:24
|
 Subject: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
looking to buy 00-04 Quad Cab 4X2 4.7L/auto. anything to avoid, to get, to look out for. definitely DO NOT want the shorter gears as I will not tow and want the better fuel economy. how do I tell which gears the truck has.
all tips appreciated.
happy new year
|
.boB
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/01/2007
17:04:11
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
IMO, the first few years of the 4.7 were not that good. The torque and HP numbers looked good, but the curve was very sharp with multiple spikes. If you can get the 5.9, you'll probably be happier.
The Dodge differential is pretty famous for dying out at 60-80K miles. Not all, of course, but many. Grab the driveshaft and try to turn it. If it moves a measurable amount, you'll need to rebuild it.
If it's a 4x4, make sure the ball joints have been replaced.
Rear gear ratio is usually on a metal tag on the differential. If it has an optional ratio (like 3.92), that usually listed on the underside of the hood or the inside of the glove box door.
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/01/2007
18:34:50
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
I disagree with boB's assessment of the early year 4.7's. You may also find the gear ratio on a tag in the glovebox; and is often on a tag stuck on top of the left axle housing, visible looking through the wheel well. I wouldn't worry about the gears too much though; my milage seems slightly better since going from highway gear (stock 3.55) to 4.10. The 4.7 likes revs.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
.boB
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/01/2007
19:23:00
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeah, there's always somebody who disagrees with the power assessment. If you're going to make a statement like that, you better have the data to back it up. Put up or shut up. Fortunatly, I have the data.
Go here: http://s13.photobucket.com/albums/a256/bobcowan/?action=view¤t=2001DodgePublished.jpg
This is the dyno charts as published in the 2001 sales brochure. Maybe not wholly accurate, but certainly good for comparison.
The red line shows HP. Ignore that. HP numbers and curves in a truck engine is really not that helpfull.
What you're really interested in is the torque curve. That's where the numbers start to take on meaning. Look at the green lines only, that's torque. At about 1200 rpm the 5.9 makes more torque than the 4.7 makes anywhere. And it holds that power production to about 4,500 rpm's. The 5.9 is making near max power anywhere in that power band of 3,300 rpm's.
That's what a truck engine is supposed to do. That's where the work gets done.
Now take a look at the 4.7. It starts at around 1200 rpms making 230 ft/lbs. Then it sharply rises, flatens off, then sharply rises, then drops quickly. This is an engine that's difficult to keep in it's power band. It's real/best power band is on about 1500rpm's wide (3,000-4,500).
For people who are interested in statistics, and really know how to read a graph, compare the area under the curve. That's where the work gets done. You don't have to be a mathmatician to see the differance.
Of course, somebody will still dispute those numbers. It's usually people who bought the 4.7, and have to justify their actions some how. But, it's right there in black, white, and green. It's hard to argue with that, but somebody will try.
I don't have them, but I have seen the same charts from later years, like 2003/2004. Those torque curves look a lot better. Stil not as much torque as the 5.9, but much flatter and broader, with a better area under the curve. The distinction between the two engines starts to blur and become almost inconsequential to most people.
If you're buying a truck to be a truck, look for the 5.9.
|
.boB
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/01/2007
19:47:15
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
OK, that didn't work. Try this one:
http://s13.photobucket.com/albums/a256/bobcowan/?
|
DSW
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/01/2007
23:14:23
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Berge said...
"definitely DO NOT want the shorter gears as I WILL NOT TOW and want the better fuel economy.
So why would he want the 5.9,,, a definate fuel hog over the 4.7.
I'm very happy with the tow capabilities (3500# boat) of my 03 CC 4.7 auto with 3.55 gears, a good compromise of towing ablilty and reasonable fuel mileage. Same for my old 00 CC with the 4.7.
I would look for an 03 or 04 as the braking system is much beefier than the previous years, larger front brakes and disc's in the rear. I had a 2000 CC dak and the braking system was poor, especially when towing. I think all the 4.7 trucks have 3.55 gears unless equipped with the factory tow package, then they have 3.92's.
Check out the upper ball joints, they are known to go bad. There is a factory recall on them for several years of the Dak's,,, 4x2's and 4x4's. Dodge extended the warranty for the upper ball joints on my 03 QC 4x2 to 100K. Also, check out the front wheel bearing(s), one went out on my 00 at 80K and one on my 03 at 30K,,, bad when I got the truck.
Good luck, Dan
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/02/2007
08:51:41
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
boB - changing the subject will only win you an argument when arguing with fools. Your original claim was that "the first few years of the 4.7 were not that good". That implies later years were much better; yet there have only been minor changes, and factory power graphs have remained very similar. My '00 runs quite strongly (I'm comparing to later year 4.7's, not 5.9). For a decent example of early 4.7 power, check out Texas Todd's '01 dyno #s recently posted on the performance section "rev to 7000" thread started by GraphiteDak. The later years are still very different from 5.9 graphs; and it isn't fair to compare dynos done on different machines under different conditions. Your contention is badly flawed.
DSW makes some better points, later year brakes are better; but the 3.92 gears definitely are not part of the tow package - they're a separate option. My '00 came with the tow package and 3.55 gears, as did many others.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
berge
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2007
09:59:44
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
ok, I'll look for a 03/04.
any thoughts on the 5spd auto that was brought in 04 vs the 4spd? the EPA lists identical mileage ratings for both trannys.
re the gearing not affecting fuel economy, I'll have to disagree. I had a 94 accord sedan and wagon. the sedan was 4.1 and the wagon 4.3. 5% difference. EPA highway was 2MPG lower on the wagon, and, the wagon had a better coefficient of drag. on the dakota, the optional gears have a 10% higher and that's bound to have a tremendous impact on fuel economy. I can't find anything listed for mileage with the 3.9 gears but I wouldn't be surprised if it drops the EPA highway numbers from 20MPG down to 17/18MPG.
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/02/2007
10:18:10
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
That's basically the same transmission, with an extra, taller overdrive gear added electonically.
You are, of course welcome to disagree about the gearing; you cite conventional wisdom, which is what I believed too until I switcted. The examples you cite have nothing to do with the 4.7 however; different motors with different torque characteristics pushing vehicles of much lesser weight. Some motors are more efficient at hight revs, some gear ratios better suited for different duty - can also depend on how the vehicle is used. In spite of your disagreement, several of us with the 4.7 have noticed slightly better milage going to 4.10 gears. Good luck in your search.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
Dan M
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2007
11:01:43
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
I've only owned my 02 4.7L QC for about a year now. It's a great truck, much more power over the 3.9L. I have towed once in my 02 vs several times in my old 95. The 4.7L is a decent towing vehicle. however, that is not what was asked, but I'll chime in anyway. I did not have any problems towing a trailer weighing around 3000lbs even from a dead stop on a hill. I have a 4x4 with 3.55 lsd. And my truck is one of the fatest here. It weighs in the neighborhood of 5500 lbs with my fiberglass shell, tool box, and me and my wife in it.
when i was towing with my 02, i only hit inside the 3000-4500k power band bob is talking about during accelration, but normal crusing speed you're down around the 2000-2500 range and there is plenty of torque there to keep the trailer moving. I personlly want my acceleration to be in the power band, it's not necessary to keep it there at cruising speed and lower torque is fine because you're already moving and less is needed to keep it moving.
the dakotas with the 4.7L engine are great, reliable, fun to drive.
- Dan M
|
.boB
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2007
15:38:17
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
I wasn't trying to change the subject, just expounding on a previously made statement.
Newer 4.7's do better, with a better/smoother torque curve. But I don't have a copy those dyno sheets to back up that statement.
As for gas mileage between earlier 4.7's and 5.9's, there doesn't seem to be much differance. I get about the same as a 4.7 with a 3.55 rear. Which (I think) supports yours and many previous statements that these trucks tend to be more efficient with a lower rear gear ratio.
Before the Dakota, I had a 1500 Ram with a 5.2/5 speed. I changed the rear gear from 3.25 to 3.92. Gas mileage improved slightly. Didn't make sense, but there it is. I wonder about an early 4.7 with 4.10's?
So - and here's the real point (finally) - if you have a choice of 5.9 vs. 4.7, get the 5.9. Mileage is about the same, power is better.
|
eddy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2007
16:05:59
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Hmmm, as a 04 4.7 Quad CAb owner, trying to think what perspective I can offer you. These can be vibration-prone trucks. Drive that puppy. Look for steering wheel shake or butt vibrations when braking, accelarating, or coasting. Could indicate wheel balance or rotor issues depending on in which situation the vibration occurs. I had various vibration gremlins with me until I took care of the last problem at 45000 miles by swapping rotors for the second time, this time going after market.
Be especially attentive to the brake rotors. Can't overemphasize that enough. The pads on my 04 were still fine at 45000 miles, but I was finishing my second set of Mopar rotors by that time. You can reasonably expect 80-100000 miles out of the rotors on many other vehicles. The MOPAR truck rotors are really 30-50,000 mile units unless the owner drives slow as molasses and always coasts to a stop. If the previous owner didn't change them, plan on doing it soon unless the seller is an 80 yr old grandma who only took it to church once per week.
Anything over 60,000 miles, find out what fluids have been changed. If you have no evidence that there's fresh diff fluid, tranny fluid, or transfer case fluid in there, swap them out first thing just to be on the same side.
There were early sludge issues on 4.7s. I'd want to see proof of oil changes ever 5000 miles or less.
Anything earlier than an 04, check the ball joints to see whether they've been replaced by recall, or if it didn't qualify, that the stockers are still tight.
Other than vibration issues, my 04 has been a mechanically sound and trouble-free truck. 5.9s are nice but they are getting rare so if you have to go with a 4.7 I'm sure you'll still be happy. It's a peakier motor but I've never had any problems finding power when I needed it. YOu'll just find its probably more prone to downshifting when accelarating at speed than the 5.9. But it sounds ohhh so good when it does it.
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/02/2007
17:25:32
|  RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
boB - I'd like to refer you back to your own quote - "put up or shut up"! Yup, that's how you wanted it. The 4.7's have shared very similar power graphs from start to present. The reason you can't produce the graphs you'd require of others is that yor claim is BS ! Time for you to shut up now ? Your claim that the milage of the 5.9 is similar to the 4.7 is also wrong. The 4.7 is more fuel efficient. Did you check out TexasTodds '01 dyno #'s ? Have a nice day.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
STS
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2007
17:30:42
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
I do agree with what boB. is saying here. I leased out a 00-01 Dakota (3.55,Clubcab,2x4) with the newer 287 cid motor and noticed that it really didn't make that much power at high RPMs. Also, the engine loved to stall at idle speed. And talk about a fuel hog;I only got at best "16" MPG! My older '94 can get sqeeze out 18 with its longest leg (4x4). And to honest, I tested out a '96 with the smaller 239 V6 that seem to have a better toruqe band that the larger OHC motor.
I miss the true Magnum motors. The 318 ruled in the 91-99 motor trucks! Also the 360 was probably the reliable and "WILL" most likely be the most powerfull engine the Dakota brand ever had.
|
Bob 134 Bob
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2007
18:45:30
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
I have a 2004 dakota with a 4.7 and 5 speed manual with under 7000 miles I just may sell the truck it is loaded and still under the factory warranty. The truck is mint!! If you would like to e-mail me and we can talk. Bob
|
Bob 134 Bob
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2007
18:49:38
|  RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
The 2004 dakota is the Stampede model I left that out!
|
modain
GenIII
1/02/2007
21:03:05
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey .boB, you have some really nice toys in your garage, and you hang out with good company. But, where are your Dakota photos? :-)
What's your left foot doing?
=========================================
2002 Graphite QC SLT Plus, 4.7L, NV3500, Superchips 3715, 3.92 LSD, loads o'fun...
2001 Patriot Blue Durango SLT, 4.7L, 45RFE, Superchips 3715, 3.55 Open (for now)
1999 Forest Green Dakota RC Sport, 2.5L, NV1500, 3.55 Open
|
Bob 134 Bob
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/02/2007
21:09:39
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
You have to be a member to post pic right??
|
.boB
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/04/2007
15:34:28
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
>> boB - I'd like to refer you back to your own quote - "put up or shut up"! <<
Kowalski, I posted the data I have. If you have anything to dispute it, go ahead and post it. I don't know why this statement stuck in your craw so much. There's the data direct from DC. Take it or leave it, believe it or not, I don't care. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't pound feathers in to marble.
Yes, I saw Texas Todds data. Pretty good power production for a highly modified engine. Means nothing when comparing stock as delivered specs.
As for fuel mileage, go back and read posts here on this board. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of posts about fuel mileage in all kinds of trucks and all kinds of conditions. From what I saw, similar trucks in similar situations except for the 4.7 get about the same mileage I do.
Modain, I don't have pics of the Dakota because it's nothing special. Just my winter beater/daily driver/tow vehicle. 99 and 99/100th's stock. Not picture worthy. Just a good solid truck that I don't want to give up.
|
Kowalski
GenIII
1/04/2007
17:39:48
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
boB, you haven't posted any data showing later 4.7's better than early 4.7's; that's the only point I'm trying to make here - not comparing to the 5.9. Some of us would consider Todd's truck lightly modified... ;-)
Lead, follow, or get out of the way
|
STS
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/05/2007
16:25:35
| RE: 2000-2004 Dakota
IP: Logged
Message:
A never ending debate! I quess it all sums up by what ever engine is your test. OHV-OHC
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
|
