|
|
|
|
||
|
||
| From | Message |
| John in Oregon Unregistered  1/04/2001 22:54:51 |
 Subject: 3.9 vs. the competitionIP: Logged Message: Hi, I'm a newbie here but have been around (had 13 sec. "stock" 440 Challengers, built a 340 & put it in my van for towing, have an '88 Daytona Shelby with 219,000 miles & going strong, all self-maintained...) and just read all the archives... and I have a question: Did I miss something, or is having a great looking pickup that handles great, runs as reliably as a battleship, and performs just fine as built by Ma Mopar a problem for some people? Sure, we always like to have a little extra at the bottom of the loud pedal. But I like to have some extra $$$ for buying stuff other than gas! Bernd has obviously put a lot of time & thought into getting the most out of the 3.9, and knowing its heritage comes straight from the LA block family, there is plenty of room to improve it if one wants to. Surprise?!?! It IS a MOPAR. Until Daimler runs CC into the ground, THAT will mean something to those of us who want reliability AND performance at a reasonable cost. I hear/read a little whining going on... but in our experience the 3.9 has been awesome! And for those of you who haven't tried the "competition" (Ranger? S-10??) on for size, the word *SUCK* comes to mind. We rented a brand-new Ranger on our honeymoon (April 2000) and it was a PIG. The V8 could not get out of its own way, barely got us up the 35mph residential area hill outside the airport at Kona, and had the worst shifting auto I've ever driven. The older one my new step-daughter had rattled so bad & shifted so soft, it's a wonder it moved. The son-in-law's S-10 got so bent by tapping bumpers with a Ram that it won't drive!! (And if it'd had the guts to move, it wouldn't have got hit!) Let's not even get me started on the rice-burners! Our '98 Dak Sport 3.9 with reg. cab and a nice canopy does everything we could want... except we did think about upgrading to a Quad with a 5.9 so it could haul friends & our 3 horse trailer up into the mountains. Now I see there won't be any 2002 5.9s, and I'm wondering if it would be ridiculous to think of getting the torque we need out of that 3.9? Finances being what they are, and that 340 sitting on a stand in the garage (what a GREAT tow rig engine!) it would be tempting to just drop it in. But I hate to tear into a perfectly satisfactory engine bay! (My favorite saying with the 440 at the dragstrip used to be "I don't mind building it... ONCE.") I have a spare 727 auto, but don't see it fitting under the Dak. So what engine will be the next-generation ideal all-around town-cruising-towing choice? Do we know what DC is going to offer?? Will a HD 4.7 be coming out? We really don't want to go through another season using the wife's old tow rig: an '85 F350 with the 351 (gutless, but at least runs OK since rebuilding the 4bbl Holley.) Ever since getting experienced with the turbo 2.2 I have preferred FI, and the Holley is only going to be reliable for awhile (used to carry a full kit when running the 4779 in the 440s.) The idea of the extra comfort & security of the potential new Quad really appeals to us, but the LARGE $$$s don't! Besides, if we go that way, we'll have to sell the '98, and take a bath (although we did get a great deal on it.) I see y'all bragging about your 4.7s, but I didn't feel the auto was quite up to snuff. Has it been OK? Wifey says "if we're getting a new truck for towing, it HAS to be an auto." I agree. That darn sure means it will be a Dodge. 'Nuff said. But which Dodge? A Dakota, for sure. A Quad would be nice... Any real-world experience out there towing with these various configurations?? All feedback & input will be respectfully appreciated. Thanks! |
| commish Unregistered 1/05/2001 02:23:06 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: im putting a 360 into my 91 dakota but we have to make mounts due to the fact the new castings have different mount style . its more work but hey if your up to it good luck |
| Bernd GenIII  1/05/2001 08:36:59 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: My "Bone Stock" V6 (a few year ago) ran a 17.80 @ 76mph. The new Nissan Frontier V6 Supercharged runs a 17.9 @ 76mph. Me? Worried about the competetion? Bahahahahah I had originally looked at the S10, T100, Ranger, and the Dakota before finally picking the Dak. Price, performace, quality of construction...the others didn't come close (and don't even get me started on the T100's...what a joke). Ok...and it is a Mopar. ;) On the final question: 3.92:1 Gears, Automatic, 4.7L (or 5.9L) they're both just about equal on towing. You're choice. Bernd D. Ratsch 1997 Dodge Dakota SLT Supercharged w/Nitrous |
| Zed Unregistered 1/05/2001 11:41:35 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: My stupid 99 3.9 is getting 13 to 14 miles per gallon right now so don't think you're saving big bucks in gas when you get a V-6 (at least a dodge V-6). I'm still pissed at myself for not getting the 318. |
| Bob Dakota Enthusiast 1/05/2001 14:04:33 | RE: 3.9 vs. The competition IP: Logged Message: John-being a die hard Ford man and owning two very good Rangers...the 4.0 the best,I sure would like to know where you rented a V8 Ranger.Ford never made a V8 Ranger!Yes I own a 4.7L Dakota and I love it...it hauls ass.The only stock truck I would not run would be a new Lighting or a all wheel drive blown GM V6. I am with you on building the stuffing out of a V6,but what ever trips someones trigger is ok with me.I know a lot of people will be pissed at me...but there is only one sound for me and that is the sound of a good running V8.That is only my opinion. PS Like Bernd said not ever one has a V8...run what you got. Bob 2000 DakotaCC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto. |
| chris GenIII 1/05/2001 14:18:23 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Bob, I have to agree...you cannot beat the sound of a V8...still love my 6 banger though...hehe Chris DeCrease 97 Dak 3.9 Sport 5-sp 3"Body Lift 33"BFG TA ko's |
| Daniel D Unregistered 1/05/2001 14:59:29 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Bernd you ran a 17.8 stock? my 95 X-Cab Auto went a best of 17.182 at 79 mph stock. Is the new bodystyle that much heavier? I know what it's like to get 12-12 mpg on a V6. This truck has plently of power. It went sideways when i punched it the other night. not alot sideways but enough. The back tires are 255/70/15 and i'll spin em' thru the intersection. I have yet to clock it with the current mods but it should run some mid 16's. I'll race any s-10 or ranger. i did get beat by 3 lengths by and s-10. he had a RC lowered, 4-Cylinder, 5-speed. 4.11 gears, and he is setup to run nitrous. he is probably about 1000-1500 pounds lighter than me though. anyway, i just might race him again. :-) |
| John i. O. Unregistered 1/05/2001 20:34:33 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Thanks for the feedback, guys! OK, it's possible I mistook that Ranger for a V8 when it wasn't... the *%#@! engine bay was so cramped (had to get in there because it was low on tranny fluid & I didn't want to get stuck for the bill if it toasted!) I might've miscounted. It was a 2000, and we rented it in Kona (Big Island, Hawaii.) Sorry, no offense to Blue Oval believers... (first time I went over 140 was in a built 289 muskRat - too mean to call it a horse)... but that Ranger was STILL gutless, & it's scary to drive something that weak. And compared to it, the engine bay in the Dak is downright roomy. So in surfing all around & seeing 1/4 times posted for Daks, it makes me wonder... why was the LRT (Little Red Truck) 360 so quick that we can't get *stock* 5.9 Daks to do better? Emissions? Wet weight? Weight distribution? Cam profiles tuned for a different torque curve? It just seems like the new engine management systems should allow a better result (although I admit this is coming from someone very happy with the overall package as built on the 3.9.) If I DO drop that 340 into the Dak I will use MPI EFI, & I guarantee it WILL blow away the majority of 360/5.9s out there - especially pulling a loaded trailer up a big hill! (But I've been saving it in case I find a 60s 'A body' convertible missing its 340... THAT's when the V8 rumble really is a thrill! ) I wonder if anyone has purpose-built a 3.9 for torque/towing, rather than HP/acceleration? Is it a forged crank? Will it take being built-up for pulling hard 20 hours a day? (We want to tow the horses to Texas when we go home to visit, too) Or is the whole idea just too far from what it's design was! What kinds of real problems do they have (not 'the lifters tick' but do they maybe burn pistons or break cams, etc. I didn't know 2.2s were 'notorious' on cams until mine went at a very inopportune time.) Does anyone have experience towing (heavier than an outboard boat) with current Daks & engines/trannies? Steve StLaurent reports "272SAE HP and 353 SAE TQ with just a Z-Tube, 180 thermostat, Bosch Spark Plugs (for hemi design combustion chamber), and Jet Chip." That sounds like plenty; but I'm still a bit sceptical of the 4.7's multispeed auto, any feedback? Anyone else heard about a HD 6 speed auto for 2003?? Should I be looking real quick for a 2001 5.9 before it's too late, or count my blessings & wait for the new replacements? I admit the age of the 360/5.9 design gave me some hesitation when we were ready to order, but what's going to outperform it?? Thanks again! John |
| greg k. Unregistered 1/06/2001 00:01:18 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: hi fellas,this is my first post and im happy to say i just purchased a 01 dak.quad cab 4.7 loaded with all the goodies.after test driving toyota double cab,ford sportrack,nissan quad cab, there was no comparison.nothing is a smooth,as strong and as quiet as this truck.im actually embarrassed to say i cant wait to drive to work in the morning!!! |
| Joseph Unregistered 1/06/2001 23:53:06 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: I have a 1991 Dakota with a blown up 4 cylinder and I am thinking about converting it to a 3.9L, but I do not know what it entails. Is there anybody with expertise in this engine swap? Oh, by the way it has to pass California smog requirements! Joseph - 831-443-2107. or JoBogalo@aol.com |
| Bernd GenIII   1/08/2001 10:20:26 |  RE: 3.9 vs. the competitionIP: Logged Message: Joseph, as long as the engine configuration was a available for that year of vehicle, swapping in a 3.9L (or even a 5.2L) is "smog legal". What you will need though is the front springs for the specific engine configuration (spring rates are different from 4/6/8cyl), engine mounts, bellhousing (if applicable), etc. Once the swap is done, you can then run down to your local BAR office and schedule an appointment to have them inspect the vehicle. Once the vehicle has passed, they'll assist you in getting a new VIN# as well. That is from my experience as an (ex) BAR-90 CA Smog Licensed Mechanic. The rules/guidelines have changed a little bit on the engine swaps so check with your local BAR first...you may even be able to swap in a 5.9L...hehehehe. ;) Bernd D. Ratsch 1997 Dodge Dakota SLT Supercharged w/Nitrous |
| Joseph Unregistered 1/08/2001 23:21:54 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Bernd thanks thank for the info. |
| Jim Nolin GenIII 1/09/2001 07:37:55 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: I don't know how everyones doing towing with the Dak auto but I've heard a lot of complaints about towing with the auto and the trans going. Even when I bought my v8 slt Regcab 4x4 5spd the dealer said if I was planning on towing (which at the time I wasn't) stay with the stick and the v8, that the 6 wasn't that good when towing loads. I am planning on towing a race car this yr so I'm glad my truck has the 5 spd HD package. How has everyone else made out towing with the dak? Anything to look out for? I've also heard some complaints about the brakes going real fast. |
| Dan Gruber Unregistered 1/11/2001 12:32:03 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: John in Oregon, One of your questions in your original post was a concern about the new multi-speed auto paired with the 4.7. I have heard of no problems with the transmission itself, but people tend to question it, I'm guessing because of the engineered-in slip. Comparing the old 4-speed auto to the new multi-speed, the new one seems to shift slower and allow more slip, and some don't like that feel. Here is my take on it: the slip has been engineered in to provide a smoother feel in normal driving and to take advantage of the "revvier" nature of the 4.7, and to hedge the reliability bet, Dodge fits a transmission cooler standard. Those concerned about the slip need only drive the Ram with the 5.9 Cummins and 4 speed auto...slip city, yet no concerns over reliability there. My take: don't overload it, and you'll be fine. If you're still not comfortable with the tranny, opt for a quad cab, since you can get the 5.9 and the old 4 speed auto only in the quad cab. Regardless of which one you choose, GET THE 3.92 GEARS!! Much better for towing and all-around driving as well. The only reason to go with the 3.9 would be to save $$$ on initial purchase, but unless you love the V6 and want to spend a lot on modifications, go for a V8. The previous post expresses concerns over brakes going fast...no offense to anyone here, but in general, Dodge brakes are pretty lousy, except perhaps in the Viper. Now that would be a combo...Viper V10, 6 speed manual, and viper brakes on a quad cab. Pardon me while I wipe the drool off my keyboard... |
| Bob DakotaEnthusiast 1/11/2001 20:42:48 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Dan very good...you explained it very will.Thanks for that answer, Bob 2000 DakotaCC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto. |
| mtk Unregistered 2/20/2001 22:38:30 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: I have a 1999 Dakota with the 3.9 V6. This is the greatest thing since sliced bread. My brother's pissed cause I smoke his Grand Am GT. (sucks to be him.) I was wondering even with the Automatic I get a lot of wheelspin coming out of the hole. Is there anything I can do outside of invest in a lighter right foot to aleviate this problem |
| Zed Unregistered 2/20/2001 22:44:49 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: What??!!! I drove a 2001 Grand am GT V-6 as a loaner car that would blow the doors off my 99 3.9 dakota.....just about anything would blow the doors off my 99 3.9 dakota......but that was a fast car, small as it was.... |
| Bernd GenIII 2/20/2001 23:44:05 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: You're also comparing a 3400lb car to a 4200lb. truck. Big difference. Bernd D. Ratsch 1997 Dodge Dakota SLT Supercharged w/Nitrous |
| Bob DakotaEnthusiast 2/21/2001 04:09:22 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Zed you must be on crack,I drove a Viper,It was faster than my wifes 3.8 Van.HeHeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHeHeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDa Bob 00 Dak.CC SLT Plus 4.7L 235hp 355 L-Slip Auto. #9 |
| hojo Unregistered 2/21/2001 09:13:35 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Well, I just test drove both engines and the V-8 is definitley a nicer engine. For the 600 bucks, why wouldnt you get it? |
| ddpianoman Unregistered JOIN HERE 5/21/2001 14:16:01 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Is there anything I could do, buy and/ or put on to make my 3.9 sound like a V-8? I just got an 01 club cab sport, and I really love it, even with the 3.9, but I'd love to hear it sound better. |
| MPJunkie Unregistered JOIN HERE 5/21/2001 16:26:24 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Slap yourself on the forehead and repeat after me - "I coulda' had a V8". High Jeffster. Guess who. |
| bb2 Unregistered JOIN HERE 5/21/2001 16:32:57 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: I have been pulling a Boy Scout Trailer with my '01 QC 4.7l /5-Speed/3.55 LSlip with no Trouble. It is a 6 x 12 (Tall) Single Axle Trailer. When Pulling this trailer packed FULL of gear it is Very Heavy. I also had my bed with a Truck Cap packed full of Scout Gear, and had 5 people in the Quad Cab. The Rear of the Truck sat noticably lower with this load, but the heavy duty suspension rode great, and the engine had no trouble pulling the trailer down the road. While pulling this load, I limited myself to about 65 mph pulling in 4th gear. The fun part was pulling the trailer up some of the steep narrow roads near the campground. The 4.7l engine performed flawlessly, and delivered 13.5 mpg driving on county highways and country roads. I love this truck ! |
| Swampdak Gen III  5/21/2001 17:54:15 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: I am pulling the same boat I used to pull with a 98 ram 318 4x4 and I can honestly say my Dak pulls it easier.We are talking about 2000 lbs.I am at 30,000 MI,and no problems yet. 2000 CC 4.7 AUTO 4X4 3.55 TRAC-LOK SLT |
| Ralphp Unregistered JOIN HERE 5/21/2001 23:58:55 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: According to my local dealer, Dodge is going to be replacing the 318 and current auto trans. with the 4.7 V-8 and new multi-speed auto that is in 2000 and up Dakota's. I personally have had no problems with the new auto in my 2001 Club Cab. |
| Ralphp Unregistered JOIN HERE 5/22/2001 00:00:42 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: Whoops! Forgot to add that the 4.7/multispeed auto will be going in the full-size Ram pickups. |
| Dale Dodge Dakota JOIN HERE 3/27/2002 18:47:31 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: What everyone is forgeting, concerning the 3.9 vs. 5.2 with the power/mpg issues is: The 3.9 won't ping as easy as the 5.2 .. and it's lighter.. less weight rolling down the road. Easier on brakes.. suspension.. etc. It's cheaper to change spark plugs too :) Dale |
| amberfire01 Dodge Dakota JOIN HERE 4/05/2002 15:28:48 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: I love my 2001 Dakota Sport 4x4 RC 5-speed. It has plenty of tourque that I most always start in 2nd gear. I got the 3.55 gears, 31x10.5R15 tires, my mileage gets no lower the 18 mpg, that's in 4-lo. On average I get 20 in the winter mostly in 4 wheel drive and 23 in the summer. |
| sandman Dodge Dakota JOIN HERE 4/06/2002 14:19:27 | RE: 3.9 vs. the competition IP: Logged Message: My $.02 The 4.7 and it's automatic is strong enough for the full size Ram! The transmission is strong enough for the new hemi! While the 4.7 is not a torq. monster down low I would suspect that if you are not excedeing the Dak's tow rateing that you should be just fine with the 4.7, 45RFE, Tow Pakage,HD Group and 3.92:1. I think we will see that this 45RFE is going to be the best transmission dodge has had since the old 727. I think you will be fine with a dak with the 4.7. The 3.9 has been a little anemic in the power and torq. department. It is alot more durable then the Chevy 4.3 or the Ford 4.0 V6's. I do not think they offer the 3.9 anymore. I have not had a chance to drive anything with the 3.7 but I would imagine it is going to be low on low end torq. |
| P 1 Next Page>> |
