1990 Dakota opinions

[tvanlant]

I saw a 1990 dakota for sale for cheap the other day and I have been tossing around the idea of getting one to replace my 92 spirit. Let me know what you think of this idea.
I would only want a 2.5L manual trans truck. I'm thinking 1989-1990 would be the best year because they look the lightest (correct me if I'm wrong), so I would assume better fuel mileage.
My main goal is to get a very fuel efficient vehicle that is reliable and cheap. My spirit is very reliable, but since it's an auto, mileage isn't the best.

I would also like the truck because I could use it to haul engines/trans/whatever where my spirit can't. I don't need to pull anything.

So what do you think about these trucks?
What is the transmission name in these things?
Any common problems with them?

As far as fuel mileage, what would be better?
1992 Spirit, Auto, 2.5L, apx weight 2860
1990 Dakota, Manual, 2.5L, apx weight 3042*

This is the weight given from consumerautoguide.com I have heard that the mid 90s dakotas were over 4000 pounds, is that correct?

THANKS!

Here is a sample pic:

[Mopar318]

My 96 dakota, with a V8, automatic, and a big supercharger wieghed in at 3600 with me in it. So about 3400 pounds.

[Birddog]

Our 01 is over 4500 with me in it and a full tank..

If it's clean and cheap go for it..

[BadAssPerformance]

My '92 318/auto Dak is 3550 w/o me in it and no spare tire.

You can shed more weight too if you want. The inner fenders unbolt, like 40-50lbs? engine gets splashed tho... replace the rear bumper with a roll pan, maybe another 40-50lb?

For gas mileage... before I replaced the 3.55 with a 3.92 I got 20mpg highway. That was stock plus headers, underdrive pulleys, K&N, MSD 6AL, full 3" single exhaust.

[2.5L_Turbo_Sundance]

thats not too bad of a little truck....


i got an 88 with the 3.9.... not too sure how much it weigh... but it gets good gas mileage... not too sure how much though....


the 3.9 is great in it.

only thing i have heard bad about the 4cyl. dakota's was that they couldn't get out of their own way...... but thats what i heard over on www.dodgetruckworld.com which the people that told me were used to their V8 full size.... but i have never driven one so i cant tell you if thats true or not.


Personally, i love the little truck, and that 3.9 surprised me.


try it out and let us know though:thumb:


Alex

[Turbodave]

The 4cyl Dakotas are pretty good little trucks. I had a friend that owned a 95.

Hwy mpg was about 25, around town was around 20. It wasn't a fast truck, but had enough power to get it around. On the highway it didn't have much guts, so on hills you would have to downshift to 4th to keep speed. Still it loved to work, and I know there were many times the truck hauled a 4x8 trailer full of firewood for a couple hundred miles. I loaded it and the trailer full of car parts (mostly body parts, fenders, doors etc.) once for a 500 mile trek and it got the job done.

[tvanlant]

Thanks for the info guys.

Is there any benefit to sticking with a 90-91 model instead of a 91-94(?) model? The only reason I would think is for a lighter truck, but that is just an assumption.

If I got one, I had planned on trying to get it up to around 30 mpg highway. I would probably get new exhaust, gut the converter, do some moderate head work and manifold work, and maybe (depending on what gears come in it from the factory) put a little higher gear in the back.
Think this would be enough to get 30?

As for power, my auto Spirit is gutless, so I'm sure a truck like this wouldn't be any worse.

Dave, what RPM did your friends truck run on the highway? Surely it would be less than the 413, correct?

[tvanlant]

Also, what kind of electronics do these have? Are they similar to the ones in the cars?

If I were to put a 2.2L into either a dakota or my current 2.5 spirit, would I run in to any problems? Would the 2.5 computer get along well with the smaller 2.2?

[Juggy]

i just traded my 87 CSX for a 91 dakota w/318. I was looking for something to use for towing, rather than gas milage as I already have a 97 2.4L stratus (the future 2.4 swap for my TD when that car sees its lasts days!)

as long as its a clean truck..id say go 4 it

BTW if you could find a 2.5L man truck that is clean, id definately scoop it up! dont see 2 many of those around!

anywho i dont think your going to get any better gas mileage swapping from a 2.5L auto spirit, to a 2.5L manual truck.....

[Turbodave]

Thanks for the info guys.

Is there any benefit to sticking with a 90-91 model instead of a 91-94(?) model? The only reason I would think is for a lighter truck, but that is just an assumption.

If I got one, I had planned on trying to get it up to around 30 mpg highway. I would probably get new exhaust, gut the converter, do some moderate head work and manifold work, and maybe (depending on what gears come in it from the factory) put a little higher gear in the back.
Think this would be enough to get 30?

As for power, my auto Spirit is gutless, so I'm sure a truck like this wouldn't be any worse.

Dave, what RPM did your friends truck run on the highway? Surely it would be less than the 413, correct?


I can't remember if his truck even had a tach in it. The RPM was less than an A413 car though from wat I remember. Not sure of any weight differences between the years, but I don't think that they would be that significant from the front end restyle that happened in 91.

A higher gear may not help much if the engine is strained with the stock gears so I would put that on a back burner.

Some porting certainly wouldn't hurt to help efficiency. Not sure if a 2.2 would give you much gain, with the weight of the truck the torque of the 2.5 is probably better suited to it.

May be able to gain some mileage by adding a tonneau cover and lowering the truck a bit too.

[rich tideswell]

anywho i dont think your going to get any better gas mileage swapping from a 2.5L auto spirit, to a 2.5L manual truck.....


ditto this. the truck weights more, is a larger vehicle, and is less aerodynamic. there are practical reasons for buying this truck (if the price is right) but better fuel economy isn't one of them. Heck, I think it would be fun to toss a spare turbo on it and run it.

[bfarroo]

I can't remember if his truck even had a tach in it. The RPM was less than an A413 car though from wat I remember. Not sure of any weight differences between the years, but I don't think that they would be that significant from the front end restyle that happened in 91.

A higher gear may not help much if the engine is strained with the stock gears so I would put that on a back burner.

Some porting certainly wouldn't hurt to help efficiency. Not sure if a 2.2 would give you much gain, with the weight of the truck the torque of the 2.5 is probably better suited to it.

May be able to gain some mileage by adding a tonneau cover and lowering the truck a bit too.

If the truck I have now is the same truck then it's at a little over 2200 IIRC in fifth at 60. It doesn't have a tach but I had my scanner hooked up and that's what it was showing. it's at about 2600 in 4th at 55-60. If I get a chance I'll hook the scanner back up and take it for a ride.

[moparzrule]

Tyler, sorry I didn't see this until now! I have a 90' dakota 2.5 TBI 5 speed. It is a fun little truck, plenty of power to get around on a normal basis. As someone already mentioned, I get 20 MPG city and 25 highway, so whoever said that earlier was dead on. I'm also no granny driver, so if I really tried I could defintely get better mileage. Oh and mine is a extended cab short bed, but since I have so much crap in cab it probably weighs a good bit more.
It's not all about the mileage, it's about being able to haul stuff and carry stuff in the bed that you can't in a car, all while maintaining great mileage. It comes in handy to have a pickup, you can't haul a fridge in a spirit.
Mine is a 90', and it shares a typical 90' TBI SBEC like any other car. Only difference is the ECU case is shaped different, it's on the passenger side, and of course the wiring harness is shaped way different to accomodate that. But the SBEC plug is the same. It's actually the largest reason I don't want to make it turbo, the wiring would be such a PITA because of this. Every single wire would have to be either lengthened or shortened.
Anyway, the gearing on these trucks is very high. It doesn't have a tach, but turns decently low RPM's on the highway because I have to downshift into 4th to go up large hills if I'm not going atleast 75 MPH.
Perhaps the only thing I don't like about the truck is that they do NOT have power steering. But really since the truck is so light, and if you have good tires on the front, it's not bad at all. I just recently got new front tires, and what a world of difference.

As for the tranny, it's kinda a hit or miss whether you will get a good one. Sometimes they blow up for no reason, and some will hold fine. You are suppose to run an extra quart more than it call's for. Calls for 2 quarts, but I jacked my truck way up on the one side at a good angle and got 3 in it. There was a guy awhile ago that put a turbo 2.2 in his dakota and dyno'd over 300 WHP with a holset turbo! He went with standalone electronics instead of modding the stock harness, I don't blame him. Anyway I asked him what tranny he was running, he just said whatever came is the stock 89' (I think it was an 89' anyway). He had spec clutch build him a custom one I believe. I just had TU build me a 6 puck with blue plate for mine, just keeping my options open for any future plans.
If you have any more questions just let me know, more than happy to answer.
BTW, a 4 cylinder under that hood looks really funny because there's so much open space. It's so easy to work on, all except the bell housing bolts because they are so tight to the firewall. Oh and I'm not really sure if there are any timing marks to set the ignition timing, so I just advanced the distributor until it started pinging on 87 octane and then backed it off a hair LOL.

[88_pacifica]

....My main goal is to get a very fuel efficient vehicle that is reliable and cheap. My spirit is very reliable, but since it's an auto, mileage isn't the best.

I would also like the truck because I could use it to haul engines/trans/whatever where my spirit can't. I don't need to pull anything....

You need a rampage. It is the same thing and would be just as solid and better on gas....

[Turbodave]

You need a rampage. It is the same thing and would be just as solid and better on gas....

:amen: I've got two of them, really hoping to get one going as daily driver this year.

[tvanlant]

Thanks for the input guys.

I didn't really want to go with a rampage because I wanted something injected. That would be ideal, though.

[Turbodave]

Thanks for the input guys.

I didn't really want to go with a rampage because I wanted something injected. That would be ideal, though.

My Rampage will be injected and turbocharged before I make a daily driver out of it. My goal is 13's, 35mpg hwy, and able to haul parts around, I think that's acheivable.

[moparzrule]

What kind of mileage do you get with the spirit?

[tvanlant]

With my spirit, I usually get 21/26.

I really wanted something better for fuel mileage, so I was looking into a TBI 2.2 shadow with a stick. Then I seen the truck and thought that it would be really nice to have something I can haul tranys and other large or dirty objects in. I was hoping that I could get the best of both worlds by having a truck that got better mileage, but it doesn't seem like that is going to happen. I thought the truck having a stick, and only rated at 200lbs heavier than my spirit, it would be a touch better. Then with some exhaust and head/manifold work, be up in the 30 range on the highway.

[moparzrule]

The best I've gotten is 27 MPG, at like 60 MPH on the highway. Like I said if you granny drive it, you'd probably get much better mileage like 23/27. But if you do a few things to it like you are saying, 30 is not at all out of the question.
Plus like I said, mine is an extended cab, I think it weighs more.

[Turbodave]

With my spirit, I usually get 21/26.

I really wanted something better for fuel mileage, so I was looking into a TBI 2.2 shadow with a stick. Then I seen the truck and thought that it would be really nice to have something I can haul tranys and other large or dirty objects in. I was hoping that I could get the best of both worlds by having a truck that got better mileage, but it doesn't seem like that is going to happen. I thought the truck having a stick, and only rated at 200lbs heavier than my spirit, it would be a touch better. Then with some exhaust and head/manifold work, be up in the 30 range on the highway.

The old EPA ratings are
21city 28hwy for a 90 4cyl Dakota.
23city 27hwy for a 95 4cyl Dakota.
22city 28hwy for a 95 Spirit 2.5/Auto
22city 27hwy for a 90 Sprit 2.5/Auto

So pretty much all in the same ballpark.

30mpg on the highway sounds like a possibility with a few mpg mods and the truck driven lightly, but it's more likely that your every day mpg will be in the low to mid 20's.

[moparzrule]

While doing the head work have the head milled a decent bit to up the compression. Then run an adjustable gear and advance the cam a good bit. That would give the truck a lot more bottom end power, combined with the head porting for more a around power I think those mods alone would net 2-3 MPG gain atleast right there.
Maybe get an underdrive pulley, boost it 1 more MPG possibly. 30 mpg, easy and 25 around town with the increased compression and cam advanced.
I should get a tach because even now I doubt I go over 4500 rpm ever. I probably shift below 3000, and it accelerates just fine. With a ported head, increased compression, and cam timing tweaked I would bet you wouldn't have to go over 2500 rpm which means better fuel mileage.
Plus, with more low end power you wouldn't ever have to downshift to 4th on the highway so the means better highway mileage as well. I think 25/30 is easily obtained if you do it right.

[tvanlant]

Sweet, thanks for all the good opinions guys.

I guess the 91-95 dakotas aren't any heavier as it appears they get pretty much the same mileage.

Dave, where did you get those EPA ratings?

[BadAssPerformance]

1992 V8 Dakota FTW!!!! :thumb:

[Turbodave]

Dave, where did you get those EPA ratings?

Fueleconomy.gov has the ratings for everything 85 and newer. they changed the ratings recently and revised all the old ones, but I usually refer to the old ratings anyhow since my real world numbers are often consistent with them.

[ScottD]

I owned Shelby Dakota #894 for 8 years and currently own a 90 Dakota Sport convertible. I've found the first generation Dakotas to be very reliable. My Dakota Sport has needed some work since I got it, but mainly that was due to its mileage (approaching 200k).

One thing to watch for is I believe 95 was the last year of the Mopar 2.5 4 cyl. I think in 96 they went with the Jeep 2.5 4 cylinder.

87 Dakotas were carb'd and used a fuel pump. 88s went to TBI. 88-91 were non-magnum engines, the V6 was 125 hp. In 91 the V8 became available. In 92 the Magnum V6 and V8 became available. The V6 went from 125 hp to 175 and the V8 went from 170 to 220.

If I were you I would get a 92-96 Dakota Sport with the 3.9 magnum V6 and 5speed. You will get close to the MPG of a 4 cylinder but with a lot more power. The Magnum 3.9 is rated at 175hp. Put a Class III hitch on and you can tow with it as well.

[moparzrule]

According to the fueleconomy.gov the 2wd V6 5 speed dakota in 92' gets 14 city and 20 highway. Thats 5+ MPG less than the 4 cylinder. The V8 dakota says 12/17.
The 95' V6 says 15/21.

[2.5L_Turbo_Sundance]

That was a good website turbodave!!! Thanks:thumb:


Alex

[ScottD]

Combined mpg for 3.9 5spd 2wd is 17 and for the 2.5 5spd 2wd was 21. Having driven both models when they were brand new back in the day, the 3.9 is definitely worth the sacrifice in gas mileage in my opinion.

[moparzrule]

Combined mpg for 3.9 5spd 2wd is 17 and for the 2.5 5spd 2wd was 21. Having driven both models when they were brand new back in the day, the 3.9 is definitely worth the sacrifice in gas mileage in my opinion.

How exactly do you figure that? Yeah the 17 is right, but 21 isn't. 14+20=34 divided by 2 is 17. Thats the V6, now the 4 cylinder- 20+28=48 divided by 2 is 24. I get 23 average with my truck, and I have a heavy foot. So I'd say they are dead on with their fuel mileage specs. But how you got 21 is beyond me.
For 7 MPG better mileage, I think the 4 cylinder is worth it. My truck gets around just fine, and I had a stove and a double wide fridge in the back one time, hauled it just fine.
I just did the math, if you drive 12,000 miles a year, at 3.50 a gallon of gas the V6 would use $2,138.50 and the 4 cylinder $1510.60 using the 17 and 24 MPG figures. Not to mention Tyler is talking about doing some stuff to gain MPG thats not even doable with the V6 and/or a lot harder to do.

[ScottD]

The 17 and 21 combined came right off fueleconomy.gov.
That's what most people see, I don't know too many people whose driving is all highway all the time. EPA changed how they do ratings and the 4 cyl Dakota (at least the 92 model I looked up) has a revised rating of 19city 24hwy, hence the 21mpg combined.

You're acting like I'm slamming your 4 cylinder Dakota. I'm not. The 1st gen Daks are great no matter what engine is in them.

All I'm saying is my personal opinion is if one is going to get a Dakota get the 3.9V6, it is worth it. If MPG is the ultimate concern then my opinion would be to get a Rampage OR get a 2000-2002 Neon 5spd cheap, put a hitch on it, and get a utility trailer. I had a Neon SXT that got 32mpg, I got a hitch from JC Whitney for like $110, and it did fine with a 5x8 utility trailer that I paid $250 for.

[moparzrule]

You are being extremely biast toward the 6 cylinder as far as fuel mileage, I was being fair. You took the best case scenario 6 cylinder to the worst case 4 cylinder. And 21 is not even the average between 19 and 24. So yeah if there's only a 4 MPG difference, maybe but even then thats $350 a year if you drive 12,000 miles at 3.50 a gallon. But realistically it's a 7 MPG difference which is over $600 a year. Plus, gas is not going to get cheaper so you might as well figure $4 a gallon in which case it's $800 a year difference.
I've already said, I get 23 average with mine with 75% city driving and a heavy foot.
As for the rampage, he's already stated he didn't want to do the conversion to TBI not to mention a rampage has a rare factor so it's hard to find one in good condition for cheap like a dakota.
On the Neon, now thats not a bad idea with the trailer and such but you have to license a trailer, have a place to keep it, extra maintenance, etc.

[ScottD]

You are being extremely biast toward the 6 cylinder as far as fuel mileage, I was being fair. etc.

I wasn't being biased, last I saw he was asking for opinions and I gave mine. It just didn't happen to be the same as yours :-)

[moparzrule]

Opinions and facts are 2 different things. I was questioning the fact part of your opinion, the fuel mileage you quoted was inaccurate. It had nothing to do with your opinion about it, thats why I say you were being biased about the fuel mileage part, not biased completely.

[ScottD]

The 17 and 21 combined MPGs came right from fueleconomy.gov. Here is the info:

1992 Dodge Dakota Pickup 2WD
Manual 5-spd
6 Cylinders
3.9 Liters
Regular Gasoline
New EPA MPG
14 city
20 highway
17 combined

1992 Dodge Dakota Pickup 2WD
Manual 5-spd
4 Cylinders
2.5 Liters
Regular Gasoline
New EPA MPG
19 city
24 highway
21 combined

Secondly, I have two Dakotas, a 90 and an 06. The 90 is rated 14/18. It gets 14.5-15 almost all the time. The 06 is rated 13/19 and it gets 15-16 in city driving and 17-17.5 if I mix some highway driving in. I had an 01 Impala 3.4 that was rated 19/29 and that got 25-26 in town and consistently got 32-34 on the highway, which was better than the EPA ratings.

Based on the above facts, your assumption that all other Dakota 4 cylinders get 23mpg combined because yours does seems to be much less based in fact than the information I've provided, not to mention your sample size of one is statistically insignificant :-)

[moparzrule]

I understand your point. But the truck in question is a 90' anyway, so if you have a 90', and we're looking at a 90', why would you look up a 92'?
And your sample size of the V6 1st gen dakota is what? Thanks for helping my case by stating 15 MPG though. I've heard that alot, the 6 cylinder doesn't get any better mileage than the 318, so why get the 6? Might as well have the power of the 8! The only thing I've ever heard about the 4 cylinders is I've never seen one dip below 20 MPG even with 100% city driving. You're hard pressed to get 20 mpg on 100% highway with a V6 or 8.
You say sacrifice fuel mileage for power, and I say (which corresponds with what the thread starter wants) to sacrifice power for fuel mileage. Besides, I've already stated that my truck has plenty of power anyway. Accelerating on an on-ramp to get on the highway is no problem, and like I said I've had a large side by side fridge with a stove in the bed at the same time and hauled it no problem. Barely noticed they were there. In fact, I was thinking about getting a pop-up camper and towing it with my dakota, and I don't think that will be a problem at all.

[ScottD]

I looked up a 92 because in a previous post I suggested he get a 92-96 1st gen with 3.9 V6 because it has 175hp and I felt that addtional power was worth the trade-off. The 87-91 pre-magnum V6s have 125hp. He was asking about a 90 and while 87-91s are good engines they are no powerhouses. 17mpg combined for a Magnum V6, 21mpg combined for a 4 cylinder, the V6 in my opinion is more fun to drive plus you can tow a car with it, and that trade off in MPG to me is worth it.

He's asking for opinions and that's what this forum is about. Our opinions are different and that's fine and I said before the 90 Dak with a 4 cylinder is a fine truck. But I am at a loss as to why you insist on continuing to degrade every opinion I've offered on this topic and have gone so far as to accuse me of posting factually incorrect information. I don't appreciate that in the least.

[moparzrule]

I'm arguing because 17 and 21 is BS. Not just going by our 2 trucks, but I've heard the V6 gets crappy mileage a ton of times in the past. So, 17 is optimistic for the V6, and 21 is pessimistic for the 4 cylinder and not just going by my account only. There was already another poster than posted up that he gets the exact same mileage as me. Plus, looking at the ''MPG Estimates from Drivers Like You'' section, the only one that someone put in was a 95' (which is the same engine and HP specs as a 90' 2.5 anyway) in which he gets over 28 MPG with 90% highway driving even though it's rated at 20/25.
So, my whole point was that you keep saying it's worth mileage difference, but you are only saying there's 4 MPG difference. I keep pointing out that it's more like 7+ MPG difference, possibly even 10 MPG if mostly highway. If it was only 4 MPG, I'd possible agree with you that it would be worth it for the 6 cylinder. But a 7 MPG difference is huge, and saving $600 a year if you drive 12,000 miles, and more than that if more mileage and even more savings if gas prices go up. The truck would pay for itself in fuel mileage savings in a short time.
You know thats fine if you have plenty of money to blow on gas, some people don't. The whole point of this thread was max fuel mileage savings, which the V6 is not good at all. We were also talking about doing stuff to the 4 cylinder to help fuel mileage and possibly get 25/30 mileage, which you can't do with the 6 as easily or cheap or if at all.

[ScottD]

According to the fueleconomy.gov the 2wd V6 5 speed dakota in 92' gets 14 city and 20 highway. Thats 5+ MPG less than the 4 cylinder. The V8 dakota says 12/17.
The 95' V6 says 15/21.

You previously quoted fueleconomy.gov. Now their figures that I'm using in regard to the 92 models are BS?

You have no empirical evidence to support it is 7mpg difference other than your claims and one other poster's claims of the mpg. The EPA tests many vehicles and takes the average of those vehicles. As I showed with my previous examples, my Dakotas did worse than the average, my Impala did better. To assume that because your Dakota beats the average that all Dakotas will beat the average is completely unreasonable.

The whole point of this thread was to give opinions. And that was all I did in trying to help the poster make a decision. You chose to call me biased and accuse me of posting factually incorrect information. I have tried to be nice about the difference of opinion but at this point through your posts you have demonstrated you have no respect for anyone's opinion other than your own. I am done wasting keystrokes with you.

[moparzrule]

The EPA doesn't test many vehicles and take an average. They test one of each vehicle, and btw they don't even test them in the real world it's on rollers like a dyno than similate wind resistance etc.
At first when I first started looking at fueleconomy.gov I saw fuel mileages that corresponded with the results I was getting so I thought at the time they were pretty darn accurate. But, now that I've been looking more into it, the more I find many cars that don't have accurate mileage. Like your impala, there was like 10 other people that had the same fuel mileage as you and nobody had the low fuel mileage that the EPA recorded.
Also, I've heard MANY times that the V6 dakota struggles to get 16 MPG just like you've stated with your truck. I've heard that atleast 6 other cases. I've talked to 3 other people with 4 cylinder dakota's, and I get the LOWEST mileage out of them all. Probably because I have a heavy foot, and I have the extended cab with a bunch of stuff in there. But thats fine, I know on the highway I get about 27 or so at 60 MPH and 25-26 at 65-70 MPH.
Like I said I plan to haul a pop-up camper with mine. Even if the pedal is flat too the floor the whole time, I bet I won't get below 20 MPG.
BTW, your use of the word ''empirical'' makes me laugh, because empirical evidence is exactly what I have LOL. Look it up.

[BadAssPerformance]

Any guesses what a bone stock 1992 Dodge Dakota 318/auto gets on the highway? :D

[moparzrule]

Yeah I remember you said about 20, but you had headers, 3" exhaust, MSD box, K&N, and underdrive pulleys at the time.
What was it bone stock? I'm guessing like 18?
Also remember, your truck is a short box standard cab, just about as light as they come!
I'm not sure about my truck's gearing, I think it had 3:21's. I know yours should have come 3:55's from the factory. I really need to get a tach on there to find out, it seems to bog a lot in fifth on the highway below 65 MPG. As long as I'm above 65, the RPM's are high enough that I don't need to downshift no matter what size the hill.
JT what rear end is in your dakota? Is it an 8.25? I'm not sure if mine has the 8.25 or the 7.25. It would be nice if it had the 8.25, but somehow I doubt it.

If you guys want to know a truck with no power, you should drive my brother's 84 diesel ranger. I think it has 63 HP or something like that, but it does get 40+ MPG.

EDIT-I just checked and my truck does have an 8.25 rear. But I still don't know what gearing, the diff didn't have a tag that I could see. I do have to change the outer axle seals on the rear so I have to pull the axles. If I can see well enough I can count the teeth. If they are 3:21's, JT, do you still have your original 3:55's? I might be interested!

[BadAssPerformance]

Well, my '92 Dakota had a 3.55 when I got it and got 20mpg , but you're right, it had K&N, MSD, headers, full 3", March pulleys, on 26" tires. I put the 3.92 in and it tows a crapload better but lost a couple mpg.

My new Dakota, same regular cab short bed '92 318/A518/3.55 but bone stock except the factory 3" muffler and tail pipe was replaced with a 2.5" muffler back, just got 18.85mpg in 300 miles 80% highway and a few spirited runs :)

Spare 3.55's? I might have a spare set depending on if whoever buys the first truck wants them. ;)

[moparzrule]

Hehe, well let me know on those, seriously. I have to find out what mine has, but I really suspect 3:21's.
I need a tach...wonder why the 4 cylinder didn't get one???

[Vigo]

my dads had a 96 3.9/auto 2wd ext cab short bed dakota since about 98 and its up to 215k right now. tranny made it to 204k before it started acting up when cold, i rebuilt that jan of last year and all is well. it gets 20-21 on the highway and about 17 in town. when it was younger the power was decent, but now its pretty weak. i sometimes have to floor it in 1st if i want to make it up a steep hill with a car behind it. ive towed a lot with my dolley and occasionally with a 16ft tandem axle. heaviest thing i put on it was a ford tractor with a loader on the front.. that whole thing musta been over 10k lbs with the trailer. its been truly fantastic as far as reliability and the mileage really isnt bad.

BUT.. ive driven the small 2.5/5spd short cab short bed dakotas of that generation and as far as being fun to drive, i really dont think you give up much from 6/auto to 4/man.. of course the 6/man in short cab short bed is actually pretty dang quick and leaves them both in the dust.

i would love a 2.5/5spd short cab short bed 2wd 92-95 dakota. i think the 92-96 dakotas are some of my favorite trucks ever made.

[ScottD]

Besides, I've already stated that my truck has plenty of power anyway. Accelerating on an on-ramp to get on the highway is no problem, and like I said I've had a large side by side fridge with a stove in the bed at the same time and hauled it no problem. Barely noticed they were there. In fact, I was thinking about getting a pop-up camper and towing it with my dakota, and I don't think that will be a problem at all.


I really need to get a tach on there to find out, it seems to bog a lot in fifth on the highway below 65 MPG. As long as I'm above 65, the RPM's are high enough that I don't need to downshift no matter what size the hill. .

Which is it, does it have lots of power or can't it make it up a hill on the highway without downshifting?

[BadAssPerformance]

My new Dakota, same regular cab short bed '92 318/A518/3.55 but bone stock except the factory 3" muffler and tail pipe was replaced with a 2.5" muffler back, just got 18.85mpg in 300 miles 80% highway and a few spirited runs :)


Just changed the oil and fille dthe tires, they were only at 24-25psi! :eek:

[moparzrule]

Which is it, does it have lots of power or can't it make it up a hill on the highway without downshifting?

What do you mean which is it? I don't care if you have 500 HP, if the engine is bogging enough because of the gearing it still won't make it up a hill.
So can you not read? I said as long as I'm above 65 I can make it up any hill without downshifting. It's all about what RPM you are at.

Oh and BTW I just went up the largest hill on the interstate yesterday, did not have to downshift because I was going ample speed to start out.

[ScottD]

I don't think anything with 500 hp needs to downshift to make it up a hill.

Anything that needs to get a running start to make it up a hill is clearly not making "plenty of power".

[Turbodave]

Oh and BTW I just went up the largest hill on the interstate yesterday, did not have to downshift because I was going ample speed to start out.

Where is the largest hill on the interstate at? I've been through some big ones out west, so I would have guessed Colorado over PA.

But yout right the gearing is the key. my buddie's old Dakota (Benji's current one) got in a better powerband around 75mph, and would pull up the hills fine at that speed, but once you got down around 60 it needed a downshift to keep speed.

[moparzrule]

I don't think anything with 500 hp needs to downshift to make it up a hill.

Anything that needs to get a running start to make it up a hill is clearly not making "plenty of power".

OMG this is ridiculous. How can you call yourself a car guy? Are you playing dumb on purpose?

I did not say running start, I say I was going ample speed. Proving yet again you cannot read.
I've already stated that if I'm going 65 MPH already I don't have to downshift. Below 65, the engine bogs because the gearing is so high (That means the RPM's are very low, just in case you didn't know that).
Here's engine class 101 for you, since you obviously need to know this. An engine makes more power at certain RPM ranges, so your gearing needs to correspond with your engines power range. What I'm saying is 5th gear puts the engine below it's power range, but over 65 MPH it's back in it's ''zone''. Over 65 it has plenty of power for any hill because I'm at a good RPM range. It's OK on the flats and mild hills under 65 though.
You can have a 4 cylinder engine making 500 HP, but not make it until 8000 RPM which means you have no power down low. Now if your gearing makes you cruise at 2000 RPM or less, going up a steep hill you may not make it at that RPM depending on how heavy your car is because the engine is not in it's power zone.
This is what I'm saying, Dodge did not gear my truck properly for the application.
Certainly you understand how an automatic transmission works too right? Maybe you need this explained too. If cruising at 50 MPH with light throttle, and you hit a hill and give a little more throttle, the transmission will downshift to put your engine in the better RPM range where it makes more power to help you up the hill.
If that is not a simple enough explaination for you than you are a lost cause, which may be anyway since you are arguing this ridiculous point.

[moparzrule]

Where is the largest hill on the interstate at? I've been through some big ones out west, so I would have guessed Colorado over PA.

But yout right the gearing is the key. my buddie's old Dakota (Benji's current one) got in a better powerband around 75mph, and would pull up the hills fine at that speed, but once you got down around 60 it needed a downshift to keep speed.

Well I just meant the most local large hill on Interstate-83. There's not very many hills on the highways around here that have an extra lane for the truckers to get all the way over, but this is one of them.
It is all about the gearing, because at 60 MPH where 5th won't go to well and I have to shift into 4th, once I shift into 4th I can accelerate up to 65-70 and then shift into 5th again and keep accelerating up the hill fine. Like I said the truck has plenty of power, it just needs to be in the correct RPM range.
I suppose they geared the 4 cylinders so high because they are meant for max fuel economy. I suppose if you lived somewhere that was all flat it would be fine, but with so many hills having to downshift unless you aren't excessively speeding it's going to use more fuel that way.

[Turbodave]

Matt please chill a little, there is no need to argue about this or go calling people stupid when the point of the thread was just to give Tyler a little advice on shopping for a dakota. Lets get back on topic or just let it die.

[moparzrule]

I didn't call anybody stupid :confused:

[Turbodave]

I didn't call anybody stupid :confused:


OMG this is ridiculous. How can you call yourself a car guy? Are you playing dumb on purpose?

I did not say running start, I say I was going ample speed. Proving yet again you cannot read.
I've already stated that if I'm going 65 MPH already I don't have to downshift. Below 65, the engine bogs because the gearing is so high (That means the RPM's are very low, just in case you didn't know that).
Here's engine class 101 for you, since you obviously need to know this. An engine makes more power at certain RPM ranges, so your gearing needs to correspond with your engines power range. What I'm saying is 5th gear puts the engine below it's power range, but over 65 MPH it's back in it's ''zone''. Over 65 it has plenty of power for any hill because I'm at a good RPM range. It's OK on the flats and mild hills under 65 though.
You can have a 4 cylinder engine making 500 HP, but not make it until 8000 RPM which means you have no power down low. Now if your gearing makes you cruise at 2000 RPM or less, going up a steep hill you may not make it at that RPM depending on how heavy your car is because the engine is not in it's power zone.
This is what I'm saying, Dodge did not gear my truck properly for the application.
Certainly you understand how an automatic transmission works too right? Maybe you need this explained too. If cruising at 50 MPH with light throttle, and you hit a hill and give a little more throttle, the transmission will downshift to put your engine in the better RPM range where it makes more power to help you up the hill.
If that is not a simple enough explaination for you than you are a lost cause, which may be anyway since you are arguing this ridiculous point.

I guess you are right Matt, you never called anyone "stupid". Regardless, I think your getting a little too worked up over this discussion and I request that you tone it down a little.

[moparzrule]

OK Dave, point taken!

[sdac guy]

Any guesses what a bone stock 1992 Dodge Dakota 318/auto gets on the highway? :D
When my 92 4x4 Club Cab 5.2L/Auto with 3.91 gears was fairly new, I drove it to Chicago for a company class. It was late in the fall and the temps were about 50 or so each way. I got better than 17 mpg on the way out driving about 75. With a heavy tail wind I got just over 19 on the way back. When I fill the tank it is full, topped off, it don't do short fills.

When I towed my Omni to Topeka in 1996 on a car dolly I averaged over 15mpg for the entire trip. We didn't drive much under 75-80 the whole way. But Dakota brakes are their weak point, and I did have to panic stop from about 80 once. I got it stopped with a little room to spare, and it stopped straight as an arrow with no wiggling. I was lucky. :)

Barry

[moparzrule]

+1 to the brakes being not the greatest.

[ScottD]

Regarding the gearing, 1990 Dakotas came with 3.21s, 3.55s, and 3.90s. However, you couldn't get the 3.21 from the factory with the 4 cylinder. You could only get the 3.55 and 3.90. And from the factory 90 Dakota brochure I have in front of me, the 3.90 rear came standard with the 4 cylinder club cab, which is what you said you have. It does not appear that from the factory your truck was improperly geared for the application.

The problem is and I tried to say this before, it is just underpowered from the factory. And to be quite honest, the 90 3.9 V6 (which I have in my own 90 Dakota Sport) is also underpowered from the factory. That doesn't make either of them bad trucks. But this was the point I was trying to make when recommending a 92-96 short bed 175hp 3.9 V6 5spd that the additional power of those later trucks was worth the tradeoff in gas mpg. And that was the point of the thread, to offer opinions to the poster who asked the question.

[BadAssPerformance]

When my 92 4x4 Club Cab 5.2L/Auto with 3.91 gears was fairly new, I drove it to Chicago for a company class. It was late in the fall and the temps were about 50 or so each way. I got better than 17 mpg on the way out driving about 75. With a heavy tail wind I got just over 19 on the way back. When I fill the tank it is full, topped off, it don't do short fills.

When I towed my Omni to Topeka in 1996 on a car dolly I averaged over 15mpg for the entire trip. We didn't drive much under 75-80 the whole way. But Dakota brakes are their weak point, and I did have to panic stop from about 80 once. I got it stopped with a little room to spare, and it stopped straight as an arrow with no wiggling. I was lucky. :)

Barry

My best towing MPG was with the 3.55's drafting Paul Smith's dually/trailered Minivan to Memphis for SDAC-12... got 14mpg with the Shadow on a trailer and Dak bed FULL to the brim as usual.

Brakes do suck for towing... Almost died on the way to SDAC-13... Trailer brakes FTW!

[Turbodave]

Brakes do suck for towing... Almost died on the way to SDAC-13... Trailer brakes FTW!

Almost had a Dakota on my trailer on that trip :wow1: The weight distribution has a lot to do with it, and towing a trailer with a light truck that has the majority of the weight in the rear when loaded can get hairy.

My brother in law has a V6 auto 92 Dakota, it's as slow as a 4cyl stick one, but has the mpg of V8. I drove and almost purchased a V6 5speed truck a long time ago and it had a lot more punch, but again what Tyler was looking for is something for mpg.

My opinion is that a 4cyl Dakota is pretty comparable to 4cyl spirit auto in mpg, and personally I think the Dakota is more fun to drive and it adds the versatility factor for hauling parts around. It sounds like it would suit his needs pretty well.

[moparzrule]

Regarding the gearing, 1990 Dakotas came with 3.21s, 3.55s, and 3.90s. However, you couldn't get the 3.21 from the factory with the 4 cylinder. You could only get the 3.55 and 3.90. And from the factory 90 Dakota brochure I have in front of me, the 3.90 rear came standard with the 4 cylinder club cab, which is what you said you have. It does not appear that from the factory your truck was improperly geared for the application.

The problem is and I tried to say this before, it is just underpowered from the factory. And to be quite honest, the 90 3.9 V6 (which I have in my own 90 Dakota Sport) is also underpowered from the factory. That doesn't make either of them bad trucks. But this was the point I was trying to make when recommending a 92-96 short bed 175hp 3.9 V6 5spd that the additional power of those later trucks was worth the tradeoff in gas mpg. And that was the point of the thread, to offer opinions to the poster who asked the question.


Well I dunno but if it had 3:90's you would think it would be revving plenty high on the highway with such tiny tires that it has on it. But I said already, I can accelerate up any hill in 4th when in 5th it bogs and slows down. That is not underpowered, just wrong gearing. If it was underpowered it wouldn't accelerate up a hill at that speed no matter what RPM I was at. I can't see how 3.90 gears would put it in low RPM's even in 5th gear. I have a shortbed club cab, does that make a difference?
Well, it seems I cannot find the gearing of the A535/np2500 tranny. Anybody know what the gear ratios are for the trans? I need to know if 4th gear is 1:1 so when I get a tach I can figure out what rear end gearing I have by the RPM's.

[ScottD]

Well, it seems I cannot find the gearing of the A535/np2500 tranny. Anybody know what the gear ratios are for the trans?

Yes I have them.

[moparzrule]

Yes I have them.

:confused2: Could you please share?

[ScottD]

:confused2: Could you please share?

So after this ...


Opinions and facts are 2 different things. I was questioning the fact part of your opinion, the fuel mileage you quoted was inaccurate. It had nothing to do with your opinion about it, thats why I say you were being biased about the fuel mileage part, not biased completely.

this ...


OMG this is ridiculous. How can you call yourself a car guy? Are you playing dumb on purpose?

and this ...


If that is not a simple enough explaination for you than you are a lost cause, which may be anyway since you are arguing this ridiculous point.

...... you want me to share? As they say in the Guiness commercial "Son, you have got some brass."

However, if you acknowledge you were in the wrong and were to sincerely apologize for how you've acted in this thread I'd consider posting the information.

[moparzrule]

So after this ...
this ...
and this ...
...... you want me to share?


I figured that was your intent when you said that you had the information but didn't post it. I thought you would rise above that. I was humble in asking for the info. But now I find I was not wrong in anything I said, and now I believe it even more!
So, you should know what you can do with your info buddy. You aren't the only one with this info, so why are you so ----y about it?

[88_pacifica]

damm boys... gettin a bit far isn't it?

[moparzrule]

Well I suppose it's done now.

[Turbodave]

Well I suppose it's done now.

It had better be....

Anymore bickering and I'm going to get out the cane.

[turbojerk]

Fight in the parking lot after school today..... It'll be a match to the DEATH!!!:thumb:

[moparman76_69]

http://www.geocities.com/moparman76_69/argue.jpg