3 MPG increase during road trip!

[MosersMopars]

My family and I went on a little road trip this past weekend. 3 hours of stop-free driving to our destination, and on the way home we were never more than 1 mile from the highway, plus the truck didn't sit long enough to lose significant heat. The result was over 16.9 MPG! Obviously city driving kills mileage, but I never expected this, especially since my modification list is: synthetic oil and roof rack cross bars moved to the rear. I'm really looking forward to increasing this further over the coming summer. More synthetics in the drive axles, plus new spark plugs and wires are next up.

[GRU]

wow, don't get me wrong and take this another way but that's just terrible. I would have thought at least 20mpg for a Durango. I had a 2003 Escape (but it did have a smaller motor than your's) and i would get about 25mpg on the highway, that's a huge difference

Are you willing to trade the Durango for something more economical?

[trooper Tdiesel]

the only dodge Durango that can crack the 20 mark is the 2wd with the 3.9L V6

and there's very very few of them....only sold one year....
Compare Old and New MPG Estimates

or the later model 3.7L V6 one
Compare Old and New MPG Estimates


or mabe the 2wd with the 4.7L V8
Compare Old and New MPG Estimates

haa i take that back....there was a Hybrid model in 2009 that had a highway rating of 22 mpg much better then 12/13
they just had to use the bigger engine.......

[MosersMopars]

Originally Posted by GRU

wow, don't get me wrong and take this another way but that's just terrible. I would have thought at least 20mpg for a Durango. I had a 2003 Escape (but it did have a smaller motor than your's) and i would get about 25mpg on the highway, that's a huge difference

Are you willing to trade the Durango for something more economical?

Don't forget, an Escape is a front wheel drive car-based SUV and a compact at that, while the Durango weighs in at nearly 5000 lbs, seeats 7, and is a mid-size truck underneath, complete with an available 7000 lb tow rating. Plus mine has the 5.9L V8, not the 4.7. Also, a large majority of this past trip was at 70 MPH, not 55.

As for trading it, the only other vehicle that I looked at was the Chrysler Pacifica AWD, and to get one of those that's as nice as my Durango with 55,000 miles on it would be well out of my price range. Don't tell my credit union that I could afford a more expensive vehicle if I reduced my fuel bill by half.

[LeanBurn]

Unfortunately I don't think they had fuel economy in mind when they built that line of vehicles. Every full sized Ram that I know of gets the same or better fuel economy than the smaller Dakota even though they have the same engine. Its strange but they just don't get good economy for some reason.

If you were to consider trading...go for a Suburban...you'll get better mileage, have much more space and seating. I know this because I have one, & its a 1997...

[MosersMopars]

Originally Posted by LeanBurn

If you were to consider trading...go for a Suburban...you'll get better mileage, have much more space and seating. I know this because I have one, & its a 1997...

according to fueleconomy.gov, the 2001 5.9 Durango is rated 1 mpg above the 1997 5.7 Suburban, both being 4wd. Plus I know I can easily mod my Dodge for improvement, it's more difficult with the Chevrolet.

[GRU]

My escape was a 4x4 model but either way, it was smaller than a durango

[t vago]

Originally Posted by LeanBurn

Unfortunately I don't think they had fuel economy in mind when they built that line of vehicles. Every full sized Ram that I know of gets the same or better fuel economy than the smaller Dakota even though they have the same engine. Its strange but they just don't get good economy for some reason.

I'm tending to think that a Dakota is too light for its engine. As in, the Dakota, by itself, is not really putting a load on its engine. I tend to find that my fuel economy goes up slightly when I am carrying a load, or if I crank up the A/C. Counterintuitive, but it happens.

[LeanBurn]

Originally Posted by MosersMopars

according to fueleconomy.gov, the 2001 5.9 Durango is rated 1 mpg above the 1997 5.7 Suburban, both being 4wd. Plus I know I can easily mod my Dodge for improvement, it's more difficult with the Chevrolet.

Rated 1 mpg higher, since it is ~1000lbs lighter that would seem logical.

By my real world experience and after 283 fills 114K miles of ownership, my lifetime average is 16.358 mpg, with a max tank of 25.174mpg. I usually jump from 16-21ish mpgs while I am not towing 3500-5500lbs 2-3x a month all summer/fall. I have done a partial front grill block and run 235 width tires& synthetics thoughout the drivetrain. Without towing I can easily and consistently hit the lower 20s and I live in a very windy mountainous climate.

Not sure what makes the Dodge any different for modding than any other SUV, large wagon or truck with a topper.

Not here to argue, but the EPA sticker and on fueleconomy.gov reads that the Dakota had the same city & highway numbers as the full size Ram truck did and I have many friends confirm this in real world driving. Not sure if its the gearing or what as one would think that the Dakota would be better due to siz,. but I found it strange. Compare Side-by-Side

[MosersMopars]

Originally Posted by LeanBurn

Not here to argue,

Then don't. You and the other overly negative, compact car driving buttholes can go away. I joined this forum looking for support and help, instead I get flak and static. I ain't trading my truck for anything else. Period. I'm here to do what I can with what I have, which I thought was the whole point of modding. I guess I'm wrong.