 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / January 2008'08 Dakota 4.7
Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? > Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? I have a 2002 4.7. So far 96,000 + miles it has been reliable and can still smoke the tires. It still has the idle problem I filed a Lemon Law suit about. I plan to get that fixed when the power train warranty expires. I had to replace a starter too. It's a German piece of electronic junk like all German electrical products are. JAM I have an 2004, quad cab 4.7, have 52000 on it. Replaced the starter as well at 51,000, i just had 1 with a bad starter. What's the idle problem u mentioned ?? Mine would idler weird, sometimes dropping to 500 r.p.m., put it in neutral, go to 650 or so, then back to drive, idle would hold. Dealer cleaned the trottle body, seemed to help, but would low idler now and then. Now since winter has arrived i haven't noticed the low idler problem. Rog >> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > JAM > I have an 2004, quad cab 4.7, have 52000 on it. Replaced the starter as well > at 51,000, i just had 1 with a bad starter. What's the idle problem u [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rog Yep that is it. Sometime after is warms up, when you stop and light or stop sign, the idle drops below 500rpm. Sometimes if you are shifting gears to park it will stall. The dealer put a datalogger on it. It showed that the computer was calling for the low idle. They said it was not a problem and refused to fix it. That's when I filed the Lemon Law suit. TSBs were issued for the problem up to 2001 but not for the 2002. JAM > Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? As hard on fuel as a fullsize. My brother needed the fifth wheel in my chev 5.3 ext cab z71 for a week with my trailer, and he rented me a truck, it was 2mpg harder than my chev. Nice and peppy though :) Little small inside after getting used to the fullsize. Picasso <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote in news:477a3af2$0$19874 $9a566e8b@news.aliant.net: >> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nice and peppy though :) Little small inside after getting used to the > fullsize. Is this an '08 you're talking about? I'm interested in the '08, as the HP is now up to 302. > Picasso <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote in news:477a3af2$0$19874 > $9a566e8b@news.aliant.net: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Is this an '08 you're talking about? I'm interested in the '08, as the HP > is now up to 302. Yes it was an 08 he gave me, quad cab, 4x4, 4.7L But don't take my opinions as the gospel. I had it for about 9 days, and put about 4 tanks of fuel through it traveling around for christmas. I'm not a big man, 220lbs, 5'11, but i just found the room in the chev better, and the fuel mileage better. My chev has a plow on it as well. I'm a ford man at heart, bought a chev pickup for myself, a honda for the wife, and my brother rented me a dodge... >> Picasso <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote in news:477a3af2$0$19874 >> $9a566e8b@news.aliant.net: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I'm a ford man at heart, bought a chev pickup for myself, a honda for > the wife, and my brother rented me a dodge... My 360 Dak gets around 14 overall, so I'd expect the 4.7 to get at least 15. ;) How many miles were on the 2008 Dakota your brother rented for u to us ??? Rog >> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nice and peppy though :) Little small inside after getting used to the > fullsize. Joe, Yes, I do. It doesn't use diesel. My 3500 dually gets better mileage. Steve > Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? Wow. So what are we talking, 14/15? "Steve Lusardi" <stevenospam@lusardi.de> wrote in news:flea84$l7e$00$1 @news.t-online.com: > Joe, > Yes, I do. It doesn't use diesel. My 3500 dually gets better mileage. > Steve > >> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? > Wow. So what are we talking, 14/15? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? All my tanks ranged from 15-15.5mpg on the dakota i had. It had 18,000kms on it, lot of highway in that travelling for xmas. I get a faithful 17mpg from my chev -- likely with more city than i did with the dakota, only improves slightly with more highway anyway... > Wow. So what are we talking, 14/15? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > >> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? I get 18 to 22 in my 2wd LWB Dakota. JAM I get ave. 20 mpg with my 4.7, 2007 Dakota >> Wow. So what are we talking, 14/15? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > JAM > I get ave. 20 mpg with my 4.7, 2007 Dakota > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> JAM I bet you do. need a picture? >> I get ave. 20 mpg with my 4.7, 2007 Dakota >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I bet you do. > need a picture? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> >> I bet you do. I'd love a picture. You talking US MPG or Imperial MPG 4.4L/GAL or 3.79L/GAL Convert it to a real unit like Litres and Kilometers (L/100KM) or something standard. I can't get you the picture because it's currently at 20.1 mpg. I stated 20 mpg earlier. btw, if it were in metrics I would have stated km/l or something equally as silly. It is a US vehicle, manufactured in the US, for use by someone from the US. It would be wrong to set it to metrics since we don't use metrics in this country - although it is capable. >> need a picture? >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Convert it to a real unit like Litres and Kilometers (L/100KM) or > something standard. > I can't get you the picture because it's currently at 20.1 mpg. I stated 20 > mpg earlier. > btw, if it were in metrics I would have stated km/l or something equally as > silly. It is a US vehicle, manufactured in the US, for use by someone from > the US. It would be wrong to set it to metrics since we don't use metrics > in this country - although it is capable. Actually, the metric standard is L/100KM 30 US MPG = 36 Imp MPG = 7.8 L/100KM 20.1 Imp MPG is 16.8 US MPG Are we talking about the same thing, only US vs Imp gallons? I'm using a 3.79 gallon, what are you using? US, 128 oz, gallon and the mpg rating is US miles (5,280 ft. at 12 US in./ft.) per US gallon. now indicating 20.2 mpg US 100% running cheap QT gas, 100% synthetic lubricants throughout. >> I can't get you the picture because it's currently at 20.1 mpg. I stated >> 20 mpg earlier. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'm using a 3.79 gallon, what are you using? A gallon is a measurement of volume, not weight. A gallon of water weighs 128oz. A gallon of gasoline weighs slightly less. > US, 128 oz, gallon and the mpg rating is US miles (5,280 ft. at 12 US > in./ft.) per US gallon. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > I'm using a 3.79 gallon, what are you using? >A gallon is a measurement of volume, not weight. A gallon of water > weighs 128oz. A gallon of gasoline weighs slightly less. Yes, but a gallon of gasoline occupies 128 oz. An ounce is both a measure of weight and volume (the fluid ounce). 16oz. to 1lb. and 16oz. to 1pint. Gasoline weighs about 25% less than water: water=8.33lb./gallon gasoline=approx. 6.3lb/gallon (varies depending on blend) >> A gallon is a measurement of volume, not weight. A gallon of water >> weighs 128oz. A gallon of gasoline weighs slightly less. Anyone that frequently uses different units of measure may want to download this free conversion utility for Windows. http://joshmadison.com/software/convert It's a small applet that runs from any directory you put it in. It can be downloaded alone or with the installer but that probably isn't necessary for most people.  SignatureKen >>> A gallon is a measurement of volume, not weight. A gallon of water >>> weighs 128oz. A gallon of gasoline weighs slightly less. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be downloaded alone or with the installer but that probably isn't > necessary for most people. But not all of us runs M$ Windows =) how ya been Ken? SignatureChris >>>> A gallon is a measurement of volume, not weight. A gallon of water >>>> weighs 128oz. A gallon of gasoline weighs slightly less. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > how ya been Ken? It'll run on your penguin with wine. I quit working a few months ago so I'm retired again. I felt like I was wasting my time doing DOT inspections. The night shift hours were horrible. With the commute time I was gone from home about 14-1/2 hours a day. You know how the 2-2-3 schedule works. I would have stayed if they could move me to the tractor shop but they wouldn't do it until a position opened up. With the downsizing that wasn't going to happen any time soon. People are leaving but they won't open any positions to replace them. After I left they didn't replaced me either. They had to pull a trailer mechanic from another shop to cover the inspection lanes on my shift. I think they want to close that terminal but they won't tell anyone. Did you ever use the stacks that I gave you? SignatureKen >>>>> A gallon is a measurement of volume, not weight. A gallon of water >>>>> weighs 128oz. A gallon of gasoline weighs slightly less. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Did you ever use the stacks that I gave you? Yes i know how that is, the 2 2 3 schedule can be a killer. glad your retired now ya got time to play. we have discussed a get together on the other forum maybe we can actually get one of those together here this spring maybe. let the holidays get a little further behind us though i think. unfortunately the 05 met a ill fate before that project ever came together, but i now have a 96 f350 that's looking like it'll need some exhaust work sooner or later. if i dont decide to use them on this truck i may just wind up offering them up to someone else that wants them...i'll have to think about it and see how that plays out. SignatureChris >>>>>> A gallon is a measurement of volume, not weight. A gallon of >>>>>> water weighs 128oz. A gallon of gasoline weighs slightly less. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > truck i may just wind up offering them up to someone else that wants > them...i'll have to think about it and see how that plays out. Didn't you move to Kentucky? SignatureKen > Didn't you move to Kentucky? Not as of yet, but that's still in the works. SignatureChris >> Didn't you move to Kentucky? > > Not as of yet, but that's still in the works. We'll have to do the N.GA chapter get-together before you leave. Steve (Full Pull) called me about a week ago. He's still in NH but he keeps talking about moving to Roswell. He's afraid of moving here right now because of the drought. SignatureKen >>> Didn't you move to Kentucky? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > talking about moving to Roswell. He's afraid of moving here right now > because of the drought. tell him to bring the rain along and he'll be alright LOL. well have to figure out a kinda central location for everyone to meet. maybe a ryans or something in atlanta? i dont know, you know that part of the state better than i do. SignatureChris >>>> Didn't you move to Kentucky? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > maybe a ryans or something in atlanta? i dont know, you know that > part of the state better than i do. There's guys in Dalton, Canton, Cartersville, Ellijay, Roswell, and that guy who got rid of his Dodge that lives in Warner Robbins. You can invite him if you want. Everyone is north of Atlanta except him. I don't have the space at my place to host anything. It'll have to be someone else hosting or we could meet at a park somewhere. Red Top Mountian on Lake Allatoona? http://www.gastateparks.org/info/redtop/ SignatureKen >>>>> Didn't you move to Kentucky? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > guy who got rid of his Dodge that lives in Warner Robbins. You can > invite him if you want. OUCH!!! >Everyone is north of Atlanta except him. I don't > have the space at my place to host anything. It'll have to be someone > else hosting or we could meet at a park somewhere. Red Top Mountian on > Lake Allatoona? http://www.gastateparks.org/info/redtop/ That'd be alright with me but isnt Allatoona a mud hole? *cheezy grin* SignatureChris > That'd be alright with me but isnt Allatoona a mud hole? I haven't been over there in a long time. I suspect it's a dust bowl. I think it fills up quick in the warmer months but because the lake is so low the boat ramps are closed. That might make it easier to get reservations. I think it would be a good idea to do it where there is enough space that we won't bother anyone else and have camping available for anyone that wants to stay overnight. I'm open to other suggestions. SignatureKen >> That'd be alright with me but isnt Allatoona a mud hole? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > enough space that we won't bother anyone else and have camping available > for anyone that wants to stay overnight. I'm open to other suggestions. nawww sounds good to me, run it by the others and lets see if we cant find a date open that'll work. im off this weekend so ya know how to figure schedules from there. i need a couple of weeks to get caught back up with the $$$ been out of work for 3 weeks on medical leave and the short term disability pay out was a JOKE. SignatureChris > nawww sounds good to me, run it by the others and lets see if we cant > find a date open that'll work. im off this weekend so ya know how to > figure schedules from there. i need a couple of weeks to get caught > back up with the $$$ been out of work for 3 weeks on medical leave > and the short term disability pay out was a JOKE. Aren't your dog weekends Fri, Sat, and Sun? Mine were Sat, Sun, and Mon. Red Top is having a meet and greet with the rangers next Sunday (20th). I think you are working that day. It sounds like it's going to be like an open house ($3 parking fee). They are supposed to have literature and info for 63 state parks available. It would have been a great opportunity for you to come check out the park and see exactly what they have to offer. I hate trying to make arrangements over the phone without knowing what is being reserved. SignatureKen >> nawww sounds good to me, run it by the others and lets see if we cant >> find a date open that'll work. im off this weekend so ya know how to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have to offer. I hate trying to make arrangements over the phone without > knowing what is being reserved. yes i have to work sunday the 20th and you are right about my long weekends being fri sat sun. SignatureChris >A gallon is a measurement of volume, not weight. A gallon of water > weighs 128oz. A gallon of gasoline weighs slightly less. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> now indicating 20.2 mpg US 100% >> running cheap QT gas, 100% synthetic lubricants throughout. Iman, when folks are talking about miles per gallon, it is typical to talk about distance per volume. The 128oz Abby refered to were "fluid ounces", not Avoirdupois, Apothecaries or Troy ounces. There are 29.573 milliliters to the fluid ounce. FMB (North Mexico) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com there are some folks here with a serious "get a life" deficit. If they were handed a couple of lives they would still need to get one more just to break even. geezz 17 to 20 mpg and that's with a full Banks kit almost 500 HP. The best mileage occurs on rural roads, not on the freeways. The truck is about as aerodynamic as an outhouse. Steve > Wow. So what are we talking, 14/15? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? Got details on the Banks kit? Sounds interesting. > 17 to 20 mpg and that's with a full Banks kit almost 500 HP. The best > mileage occurs on rural roads, not on the freeways. The truck is about [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> >>>> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? Joe, There are more possibilities than Banks as well. I am running the the Six Gun and Speed Loader with the High Ram intake, Turbo waste gate actuator and Banks 4" exhaust system including the 4" straight through stainless glass pack muffler. There are simillar offerings from others that do similar deeds. Basically you advance the timing of the injection events, modify the common rail fuel pressure and modify the air flow into and exhaust gasses from the engine. These changes can be made without causing loss of mileage because diesel engines do not use air controls and therefore do not run under vacuum conditions. If fact, the timing changes can actually increase miles per gallon. Of course when your foot is in it, you can expect to burn the fuel. However the message is that this extra reserve power comes at no sacrifice in efficiency. After driving a high perforfance diesel, I will never drive another gas powered vehicle. The drivability with such low engine speed torque and the smoothness offered from idle to top speed are characteristics simply not available with gasoline engines which run under vacuum conditions unless WOT. I can talk about this forever, but before you commit yourself, drive a Cummins powered truck and see for yourself. Then see if you can find an unhappy owner of one! Steve > Got details on the Banks kit? Sounds interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>>> >>>>> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? I've heard pretty much the same thing from other diesel owners. Sounds like this is the way to go. > Joe, > There are more possibilities than Banks as well. I am running the the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>>>> >>>>>> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? > I've heard pretty much the same thing from other diesel owners. > Sounds like this is the way to go. If you don't want a 3/4 or 1 ton truck just wait another year. The 2009 Ram 1500 gets a 5.6L Cummins V8 diesel. I bet the new 4.2L V6 Cummins will be available for the Dakota/Durango within a few years too. http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/dodge/0612dp_new_cummins_v6_and_v8/index.html http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/2009-ram.html SignatureKen >> I've heard pretty much the same thing from other diesel owners. >> Sounds like this is the way to go. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/dodge/0612dp_new_cummins_v6_and_v8/i > ndex.html http://www.allpar.com/model/ram/2009-ram.html Sweet. Especially with today's technology, it's about time we started seeing more diesels in light-duty trucks. >>> I've heard pretty much the same thing from other diesel owners. >>> Sounds like this is the way to go. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Sweet. Especially with today's technology, it's about time we started > seeing more diesels in light-duty trucks. Like the 3.0L v6 in the ranger in Thailand. Suddenly, without warning, Joe exclaimed (1/2/2008 12:16 PM): > "Steve Lusardi" <stevenospam@lusardi.de> wrote in news:flea84$l7e$00$1 > @news.t-online.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> Anybody have one? Impressions and/or comments? > Wow. So what are we talking, 14/15? My 2001 4.7l 4x4 SLT Dak currently gets about 13.5 city, 17-18 highway. But when it was new, it got closer to 19mpg average, both city and hwy-ish miles. I love my Dak though, wouldn't trade it for twice the mileage. jmc > Suddenly, without warning, Joe exclaimed (1/2/2008 12:16 PM): > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > jmc Did dodge ever put a diesel in any of the dakotas? I thought I saw a Diesel jeep cherokee running around town here... i never did see one on a lot (that i remember) it seems to me it was a 3.0L diesel, with quite impressive power. Surprising North America hasn't made better use of diesel Well, not exactly. An Italian Diesel was introduced in the 3.0L size range in the Jeep and was discontinued for emissions reasons. I actually find that amazing because Mercedes has several engines in that size range that are quite powerful and are emissions compliant, like the engine in the Sprinter. It is however important to note that ALL automotive diesel engines now produced in that range are of the new high speed variety and those engines are lightweight and have a broader speed range, but suffer poorer brake mean specific fuel consumption BMSFC. They have a BSMFC in the range of 4.1 lbs per hp hour, as opposed to the conventional industrial diesel of 3.7/3.8 lbs per hp hour. These more modern diesels trade off efficiency for reduced noise, particulate and NO emissions. Although I regret the efficiency and mileage loss this change represents, the decrease in weight and noise makes their use quite appealing. They do not have the same brute low speed torque the industrial engine has either. This has been sacrificed for the higher engine speed range. However, a lot of these detractions are smothered by the fuel energy advantage, as diesel has 25% greater thermal energy by volume over gasoline, which means a 25% increase in mileage and range even if the BMSFC is the same as a gasoline motor. This is pretty hard to beat. Especially when you can drive the thing on waste cooking oil. Steve >> Suddenly, without warning, Joe exclaimed (1/2/2008 12:16 PM): >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Surprising North America hasn't made better use of diesel |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.