Tell me about your Dakota

[IndyIan]

2wd or 4wd? If you only want 2wd there are lots of options. I'm curious what a 4 or 5 cyl GM canyon can get for mileage? I'd go on the EPA or environment canada websites and just see what all the trucks are getting in identical tests. Of course you can do better but its a good comparision tool.
Everything I hear about dodge pickups is that they like gas.
I would look at a 2004 F150 3 valve 5.4L 2wd manual trans and tall rear end should get better mileage that a V6 dakota and tow twice as well but it will cost a bit more too if you can find one. Also it will sound quite nice too!
Ian

[MazdaMatt]

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about other trucks. I'm just trying to find out what Dakota owners get. It is looking pretty bad considering the vehicle size (Frank Lee seems to be summing up my research, except that it DOES cover my carrying requirements).

Can someone tell me what your 60mph rpm is (and which tranny/final you've got)?

[Blue07CivicEX]

I have to say... this is kind of a silly thread

PM people with dakota's if that's all you want to know, otherwise stop being a thread hog.

[MazdaMatt]

Thanks for adding that valuable input to my thread. Ever consider that not everyone with a dakota has put their vehicle into the garage? That was rhetorical, so you can just not reply.

[Blue07CivicEX]

I'd love to reply actually, I think you're being a jerk, go find a Dakota forum if that's all you care about rather then jumping down peoples throats when they try to give suggestions or ask questions that don't help your particular cause, your post wasn't a thread it was a demand for information. Threads encourage discussion, not demanding people give you what you want or you'll flame them on what is otherwise a very pleasant site.

Hence, you being a jerk.

[LUVMY02CREW]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

Please, no discussion about other vehicles or outrageous expensive mods I could do, just your experiences and hard numbers, please.

MazdaMatt....I traded in a 1995 or 1996 Dodge Dakota Sport Club Cab for my current s10 crew cab. The dakota was a pretty good little truck for my uses. The children finally outgrew the back seat, hence the trade.

I wasn't keeping good records of mileage at the time, but it seems like I would get about 18-21 mpg with regular non-ecomodding driving(hadn't found this site at that time). I was doing about 60 total miles a day in it, dropping kiddos off, then work commute. It was an automatic and seemed to have plenty of power for what I hauled and towed during those times. The 6' bed was nice to have.

[MazdaMatt]

02Crew, thanks for your input. Your experience seems to be typical of the dakota owners that I've been speaking with. Except those that just love blasting around.

[MechEngVT]

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).

[MazdaMatt]

Great info, thanks a lot!

I think that between this thread and my research elsewhere, i can declare the Dakota a big thumbs-down! Thanks for everyone that gave me valuable input - i think we can let this thread die.

[Frank Lee]

Back when I was truck shopping I started out looking at the smaller trucks, but upon discovering that once I got into the equipment I needed at the time- 4x4, ex cab, long box, more than 4 cyl.- the rated mpg difference between the little ones and the full-sized ones was one, maybe two mpg. I don't regret going full-size because now my usage of trucks is, I NEVER use them unless I'm hauling/towing and I have fully utilized the capability of my full-sizer. However if I was a person that only had one vehicle and this thing would have to be a daily driver/commuter, I would compromise some strength for mpg, as long as it could still get the job done more or less.