Ram quad cab 4x4 vs dakota quad cab 4x4

[2.8broncoII]

i have a dakota qc 4x4 with the tow package. its got a hitch, tranny cooler, 7 plug lights, and an extra set of leafs. its the 4.7 auto. dodge tranny's got way better when they ditched the 5.2/5.9 motors. i will be getting a shift kit soon just for piece of mind, but i tow a bed full of crap and an 18 foot utility trailer with the explorer on it and a cab full of people and average about 13 mpg. it gets over 19 on the highway not towing anything. if you take care of any kind of truck it should last you unless you got a lemmon imho. i have owned multiple ford and dodge trucks and have not had any major issues with any of them. last bad thing that happened with my family is that my dads 98 f150 blew a head gasket at 120k miles. i hear the 4.6 and 5.4 have a ton of head problems when they get high mileage.

btw 90 percent of people on a ford forum will hate on you for owning anything but a ford. i have a 86 thunderbird too and they always talk crap if i mention i dd a dodge lol

 

[Hahnsb2]

The dakotas get the same gas mileage as a full size according to everyone I know who owns one. That's why I never understood why the dakota even existed... If they get the same mileage as a 1/2 ton, but barely hold any more in the bed than a ranger (you still can't put a sheet of plywood between the wheel wells), what's the point?

I know a lot of people who love the size and wouldn't get anything else, I just don't see the point. And I've owned one and driven 3 others quite a bit back in the day.

Other than the new MDS Rams, there isn't a Gas powered Ram that will touch the gas mileage of my Dakota. The bed is 3 inches wider and 6 inches longer than a ranger and I can put a ton in it and it'll tow 6000LBS..

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Other than the new MDS Rams, there isn't a Gas powered Ram that will touch the gas mileage of my Dakota. The bed is 3 inches wider and 6 inches longer than a ranger and I can put a ton in it and it'll tow 6000LBS..

I know the bed is bigger, but it's not enough to make any real difference. The only object that I wish would fit in my ranger but doesn't is a 4x8 sheet of plywood. I know from experience that a 4x8 sheet of plywood won't fit in the bed of a dakota either. Therefore the extra 3 and 6 inches make no difference for me. A full-size quadrunner also fits in the bed of a ranger just fine. I can see no advantage to the extra 3-6 inches.

As far as the gas mileage, all I can say is that there must be something in the air out in WA that makes mopar 318's (but only ones installed in dakotas) get insanely good gas mileage. Like I said, I've owned 1 dakota, and driven 3 more regularly. I've also known at least a dozen other people who own dakotas, and while they all love them, not one of them get's better than 15 mpg, according to the owners.

So just going by numbers, I've known of 15 dakotas that can barely muster 15 mpg on a good day, compared with 1 dakota (yours) that you claim does 20 mpg. So by the numbers, based on my experience with them, one has a 1/16 (that's 6.25%) chance of getting one that gets better than 15. The odd's against are 93.75%.

I've got nothing against dakotas. I drove one myself and liked it. It was a good solid truck (though no more solid than any ford). But that was back when gas was a buck a gallon and I could afford to drive it. With the gas mileage, I just don't see the point. My F-150 gets significantly better gas mileage (than even the underpowered non-magnum 3.9 dakotas), has a bed that will fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood, and will pull a lot more. It was a no-brainer for me.

 

[Hahnsb2]

Unlike 90% of V8 Dakota's, mine has a 5 speed, thats the big difference. If you want good gas mileage I can't understand why you'd get a V8 and then add an automatic on top of that... There's plenty of other people with 5 speed V8 Dakotas getting near or as good as my mileage..

The extra 6" allows me to get my motorcycle in the bed and close the tailgate, I can't do that with a Ranger, I can also sleep in the bed more comfortably. And the tail latches are 1000% better than any Ranger.

 

[jaymegriffiths]

Unlike 90% of V8 Dakota's, mine has a 5 speed, thats the big difference. If you want good gas mileage I can't understand why you'd get a V8 and then add an automatic on top of that... There's plenty of other people with 5 speed V8 Dakotas getting near or as good as my mileage..

The extra 6" allows me to get my motorcycle in the bed and close the tailgate, I can't do that with a Ranger, I can also sleep in the bed more comfortably. And the tail latches are 1000% better than any Ranger.

this seems like a silly arguement. fords are great dakotas are great.too each their own.
the crewcab dakotas have tonnes of interior room and bigger engine then ranger. also cheaper than f150
and i know a few guys with 4.7 dakotas touching 18 city 19 highway when driven realistically soo

 

[Grunizzle]

this seems like a silly arguement. fords are great dakotas are great.too each their own.
the crewcab dakotas have tonnes of interior room and bigger engine then ranger. also cheaper than f150
and i know a few guys with 4.7 dakotas touching 18 city 19 highway when driven realistically soo

After riding in hahns dakota to yellowstone and back, and numerous other outtings in it, some even in the back seat, I will say the ranger has a better back seat lol. Easier to get in and its just awkward to sit the way the rear seat faces in a dak. Not to mention that annoying ass couple holder my friggin knee hits all the time, granted im 6'3'' lol. But anyway you guys can continue your debate.

 

[Hahnsb2]

After riding in hahns dakota to yellowstone and back, and numerous other outtings in it, some even in the back seat, I will say the ranger has a better back seat lol. Easier to get in and its just awkward to sit the way the rear seat faces in a dak. Not to mention that annoying ass couple holder my friggin knee hits all the time, granted im 6'3'' lol. But anyway you guys can continue your debate.

Better than your cupholder that launches your drink out the window

The back seats suck equally bad for adults, the seats are nicer in the Dakota but lack leg room, the seats suck in the Ranger but there's more leg room.. Neither are good for adults IMO. But there is more room in the Dakota to put stuff and the seats fold up leaving a flat surface to set stuff on and there's 2 compartments to store stuff in.


Oh and Sevensecondsuv, they did make long bed Dakotas, the beds were made specifically to fit a 4X8 sheet with the tailgate closed..

 

[Grunizzle]

Better than your cupholder that launches your drink out the window

Or that one time into my lap

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

Oh and Sevensecondsuv, they did make long bed Dakotas, the beds were made specifically to fit a 4X8 sheet with the tailgate closed..

That was exactly the truck I had. A 1990 2wd Regular Cab Longbed 3.9L V6 with the 4-spd auto. My first truck and I loved it (all except the 12 mpg anyways...). Yes the bed was exactly 8' long. But there still wasn't enough width between the wheel wells to lay the plywood flat. You still end up with it cocked at an angle on top of the wheel well on one side. To me, that's as good as having it cocked at an angle on top of the wheel well on one side with the tailgate down in a ranger (I used to do this all the time before I bought the F-150). In my F-150, you can pile sheets 2' deep and still have a level surface on top. But anyways....

I did like the ext. cab Dakotas better. At least an adult could actually squeeze into the back seat in a pinch. I don't think it's even possible for better than an 8-year old to sit in one of the ranger's jump seats.

Tailgate latches I'm with you all the way. Ford's tailgate latches suck!! But once you figure out exactly where to whack them while prying up on the handle, they're pretty easy to live with.

Did you ever get around to turbocharging your Dakota? I was following your build thread and then lost track of it. That will be so sweet if you do it. Too bad you're all the way in WA, we'd have to race our old turbocharged compact pickups

 

[Hahnsb2]

That was exactly the truck I had. A 1990 2wd Regular Cab Longbed 3.9L V6 with the 4-spd auto. My first truck and I loved it (all except the 12 mpg anyways...). Yes the bed was exactly 8' long. But there still wasn't enough width between the wheel wells to lay the plywood flat. You still end up with it cocked at an angle on top of the wheel well on one side. To me, that's as good as having it cocked at an angle on top of the wheel well on one side with the tailgate down in a ranger (I used to do this all the time before I bought the F-150). In my F-150, you can pile sheets 2' deep and still have a level surface on top. But anyways....

I did like the ext. cab Dakotas better. At least an adult could actually squeeze into the back seat in a pinch. I don't think it's even possible for better than an 8-year old to sit in one of the ranger's jump seats.

Tailgate latches I'm with you all the way. Ford's tailgate latches suck!! But once you figure out exactly where to whack them while prying up on the handle, they're pretty easy to live with.

Did you ever get around to turbocharging your Dakota? I was following your build thread and then lost track of it. That will be so sweet if you do it. Too bad you're all the way in WA, we'd have to race our old turbocharged compact pickups

I'm hoping to get back around to it this summer, the motor needs to be pulled too, there's a freeze plug in the bellhousing that's leaking ( I stop-leaked it for now) and I'm gonna do some felpro headgaskets and ARP head bolts, I'd also like to change out the valve springs and push rods, I keep floating the valves with the non existent rev limiter with the Mopar PCM. I have most of the parts, hopefully another $500 and some labor will get it done..

 

[Will]

I know you cant really compair a midsize to a fullsize, but maybe you guys can help me decide on what i should get to fit my needs...

First off i love my ranger, but im having a kid soon and the size of the extendedcab ranger is just to small, i need to have a actual back seat..Second off i tow a 4000lb (car + trailer)..but may get a 18" enclosed trailer, come spring time. So lets just roughly say 5000lb's to just be safe..I also will start to pull this trailer out of state to the different race tracks on the northern east coast. Id like to get the best mpg i could ..ANd i dont need a very big bed,

So either trucks will both have v8's, 4x4 and 4 fullsize doors.....can i make due with the dakota? or do i need the xtra power of the ram?

My dad has a 2008 (I think) 1500 Ram crew cab with a 3.7 V6 and a 6-speed. You know what--it's enough power. I've driven it a number of times and didn't even know it was a V6, or that that small of an engine was even an option. He pulls an enclosed trailer--I have to put my hands about a foot over my head to touch the ceiling standing inside--that holds 2 Nomad motorcycles end-to-end. Empty it has gotten 21mpg highway. I don't know what it gets towing the trailer--worse than you would get because of the frontal area.

By the way, you don't need that much power to tow. 150hp is a huge amount of power to be consuming. If you were using a constant 150hp your engine would engulf 12 gallons per hour--5-6 mpg, about what an old box of a Winnebago uses to shove itself along. You will use about 60hp average to tow your trailer. Any more power than that will be burned off accelerating too hard and trying to maintain speed on hills. A 200hp 3.7 gives a lot of margin--especially with that nicely spaced 6-speed tranny. It does not have a granny-low that you can't use, it has a nice range of gears.

It takes a LOT of power to go a little bit faster at the drag strip, and the same applies to trailer towing. A 365hp Hemi will beat the doors off of the 3.7 pulling a trailer onto the interstate. But he'll still be up there where you can see him when you get up to speed--if he's 20 seconds quicker getting to 65mph he's 500 yards ahead of you on the highway--he'll get there 20 seconds sooner. By downshifting and letting the engine spin up to develop its power you can keep your speed on any hill. My 18,000# skoolie gets by on 185hp--it rarely needs to downshift to maintain 60mph. Your combined load will be half of that and you will have more power no matter which way you go--and you only need 60hp when you are at cruisng speed with your trailer.

 

[EERNGER]

If it were me making the choice, here are a few things i would consider:

The full size ram will have the extra girth and breaking power to comfortably tow and STOP the trailers you are hauling, that extra size makes a major difference when you want to control the load. sure the Dakota in theory could PULL the load, but to CONTROL the load is a whole different can of worms.

Your gas mileage with a v-8 Dakota and V-8 ram will be so close it isn't worth calculating. so the idea of smaller = better economy and easier on the wallet can be thrown out. Also the Ram drive-train will be a stronger setup.

The extra bed size is worth its weight in gold if you ever need to put anything in back.

And last but not least the Interior size and comfort of a full-size is something you will be kicking yourself for if you do not take the jump to a full-size. Plus that whole secure feeling of that extra steel between the outside and your family (most important cargo of all).

Its one of those choices that if you go for the smaller of the two, you will always wish you didn't. If your going to buy a dodge...buy the ram.

 

[Hahnsb2]

Your gas mileage with a v-8 Dakota and V-8 ram will be so close it isn't worth calculating. so the idea of smaller = better economy and easier on the wallet can be thrown out. Also the Ram drive-train will be a stronger setup.

The Dakota and 1500 Ram have the same drivetrain And my Dakota still gets better mileage than all but the MDS V8 Rams. Get a 2nd gen Ram V8 or a non MDS 3rd gen V8, have fun with your 10-13MPG..

Interior space, cargo space and extra girth are a given but a true midsize truck has it's place too.

 

[EERNGER]

The Dakota and 1500 Ram have the same drivetrain And my Dakota still gets better mileage than all but the MDS V8 Rams. Get a 2nd gen Ram V8 or a non MDS 3rd gen V8, have fun with your 10-13MPG..

Interior space, cargo space and extra girth are a given but a true midsize truck has it's place too.

I was more or less talking brand new though, and the pointer here is in the front end of the truck. but hey if your running a solid front axle, than congrats to ya! The newer hemi's run right around 20 highway, so your only calculating about 1mpg difference. The older 360's do suck the gas though if thats what you are talking about! my buddy has 4.10's on his 1500 and he only pulls about 11 with his 360. The whole MPG thing rely heavily on the era trucks that are in consideration.

I think the key word here is if your going to WORK it, then go fullsize, if the towing is only something that you do from time to time...then you can probably squeak by with a mid size.


And hey! on the mid-size part i agree with ya! where i live, all the trails are real narrow and a pain to get a larger truck through (if you care anything about your paint job) When i go cut down trees, i take the ranger because it gets through the woods the best, the only time i wish i had my bro's full-size is when i have to load up the logs, or hook onto a trailer...

 

[RYANM]

The hemis are hard on gas too. not as bad as the 360 or 318, but still bad unless you get the ones that shut 4 cylinders down on the high way.


If the truck will only be towing a flat bed with a car on it I would get the dakota, but if you are going to be geting a enclosed trailer I would go with the ram.



and as far as a dakota bed not being big enugh to bother over a ranger. I have a 01' dakota now and went from a short box ranger, and I can put my fathers big bear in my dakota and shut the tail gate. I can load my 250R in the dakota with out going over the wheel wells unlike my old ranger. dont get me wrong I like the ranger dollar for dollar I dont think you can find a mini truck that will take a beating like the ranger. I like my dakota but i will get another ranger some day.