|
I don't drive a Dakota (never have) but I'll throw in some anecdotal experience:
My truck is a 2002 Ram 1500 QC/SB with 4.7L V8 2wd manual NV3500 trans and 3.55 rear with 265/70r17 (at the time BFG LongTrail T/A) tires. A coworker at my last job drove a 2002 Dakota 4x4 Crew same engine/trans/final drive ratio with 31" BFG AT tires. This was before I did any eco-type driving and drove mostly a 6 mile work commute plus longer highway trips. We both got exactly the same mileage...16-17 city and 19 highway. I've since bested those numbers in my Ram with driving technique and I'm sure you could do equally better in a Dakota. The 4x4/4x2 difference is the unknown. I don't doubt you could do 1mpg better in 4x2 than 4x4 as that seems to have been the EPA official take but I don't have experience to back that up. Bottom line is with the V8 I don't think you'll lose more than 1mpg stepping up to full size. I tend to agree with Frank Lee...the Dakota has grown too big for its britches and offers slightly less than full-size capability and comfort with equally full-sized thirst.
BTW since my powertrain combo can be had in a Dakota my truck runs about 71 mph at 2000 rpm (scaled to 60 mph at 1690 rpm).
__________________
|