2004 Dakota 3.7 or 4.7??

From : daguytreytrey

Q: on sun 14 dec 2003 181009 gmt gary glaenzer nobulltrans@mchsi.com wrote thank you to all the troops i will second that. and add my wishes for a safe return of all of our troops. .

Replies:

From : xcr chris

trey wrote i have a 99 dak right now with the 5.2 v8 and a supposed 220hp and 3.55 gears. here is the question. would trading it in for a 3.7 v6 with 3.92 gears 210 hp be a dramatic mistake what is the gas mileage difference between the 3.7 and the 4.7 there is a 20hp diff and a 55 ft-lb diff. i do not tow anything. i do a lot of city driving and freeway traffic driving. i know you dont buy a truck for fuel economy but i am thinking the v8 just might be worse mpg for extra power that i really dont need. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. theres your answer. chris .

From : mac davis

on sun 14 dec 2003 195102 gmt trey treydog90spam@hotmail.com wrote i have a 99 dak right now with the 5.2 v8 and a supposed 220hp and 3.55 gears. here is the question. would trading it in for a 3.7 v6 with 3.92 gears 210 hp be a dramatic mistake what is the gas mileage difference between the 3.7 and the 4.7 there is a 20hp diff and a 55 ft-lb diff. i do not tow anything. i do a lot of city driving and freeway traffic driving. i know you dont buy a truck for fuel economy but i am thinking the v8 just might be worse mpg for extra power that i really dont need. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. dont do it!!! the 4.7 is the replacement engine for the 5.2... i have one and imho its a very good engine... ours has 230 hp and is very strong... i just cant see giving up 2 cylinders.. from what i understand the 4.7 gets about 1 mpg than the older 3.9 in real life and my guess is thats only on level ground... it would seem that a 6 is going to use more gas going up a grade than the v-8 because it has to work harder to pull the truck up the hill... also id want to know at what rpm each engine got those hp/torque figures... bottom line there is no replacement for displacement... .

From : trey

very true there is only so much you can do to a small engine the big tq comes from the displacement. i did some digging here are some numbers for you. just hope the formatting doesnt get fubared 3.7 4x4 with manual trans. 4.7 is a $590 option on the 04 dak hp rpm | tq rpm | redline | mpg 3.7l v6 210 5200 | 235 4000 | 6000 | 16-22 4.7l v8 230 4600 | 290 3600 | 6000 | cant find on kbb ------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 600 | 55 400 | differences for reference according to www.kbb.com specs for a 1999 dak 4x4 auto trans. hp rpm | tq rpm | redline | mpg 3.9l v6 175 4800 | 225 3200 | 5250 | 14-18 5.2l v8 230 4400 | 300 3200 | 5250 | 13-16 5.9l v8 250 4400 | 345 3200 | 5250 | not posted 2002 dak 4x4 auto trans 4.7l v8 230 4800 | 295 3200 | 6000 | 13-18 what was changed from 2002 to 2004 the 02 has more tq 2001 dak 4x4 auto trans 4.7l v8 235 4800 | 295 3200 | 6000 | 14-19 more hp tq and better mpg wtf --- just for kicks 1991 dak 4x4 auto trans 5.2l v8 165 4000 | 250 2400 | n/p | n/p i have a feeling the dealership will have mainly the 4.7s anyways. plus its technically just $590 more then the v6. i am not going to fret over a matter of 2 mpg if thats what it comes down to that. after looking at the specs for the different years what has dodge been changing from year to year in the engine to be changing the output are they just changing as the smog regulations are changing i would have to agree with you on the 4.7 and hill climbing. i am afraid i would be kicking myself if i got a v6. especially when it comes to using that torque. bottom line there is no replacement for displacement... i love that quote! dont do it!!! the 4.7 is the replacement engine for the 5.2... i have one and imho its a very good engine... ours has 230 hp and is very strong... i just cant see giving up 2 cylinders.. from what i understand the 4.7 gets about 1 mpg than the older 3.9 in real life and my guess is thats only on level ground... it would seem that a 6 is going to use more gas going up a grade than the v-8 because it has to work harder to pull the truck up the hill... also id want to know at what rpm each engine got those hp/torque figures... bottom line there is no replacement for displacement... .

From : paul jensen

i have a 99 dak right now with the 5.2 v8 and a supposed 220hp and 3.55 gears. here is the question. would trading it in for a 3.7 v6 with 3.92 gears 210 hp be a dramatic mistake what is the gas mileage difference between the 3.7 and the 4.7 there is a 20hp diff and a 55 ft-lb diff. i do not tow anything. i do a lot of city driving and freeway traffic driving. i know you dont buy a truck for fuel economy but i am thinking the v8 just might be worse mpg for extra power that i really dont need. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. i have a 2001 3.9 six and love it! i do about a 50/50 mix of city/highway driving and average about 18.5 mpg. i dont do any towing and the 3.9 has enough power for passing on 2-lanes which comprises only a small portion of my driving. unless you are towing or suffering from penis envy the six may very well be for you but if you have an opportunity to test drive both by all means do so. everybody is different - thats why theres different models and options. .

From : trey

how much driving do you do in the hills do you have a manual or auto i really love the power of the v8 but the budget is screaming v6! at me. i have been going back and forth on the two engines for a while now. its raining today so i dont think i will be doing any test driving today maybe tomorrow i get off early i will stop past the dealership on my way home if its stopped raining. the new 3.7l v6 looks rather appealing but am afraid i will be kicking myself for not getting the v8. i plan on having this truck for a while and plan on touring california nevada arizona utah and colorado with it. for the most part though. the v6 can pull me through daily gridlock traffic just as well at the v8. my truck is empty most the time. but is still used a lot for hauling crud for fixing up the house or hauling camping gear. im sure the v6 would be fine i just wont be the first one up the hill. - i have a 99 dak right now with the 5.2 v8 and a supposed 220hp and 3.55 gears. here is the question. would trading it in for a 3.7 v6 with 3.92 gears 210 hp be a dramatic mistake what is the gas mileage difference between the 3.7 and the 4.7 there is a 20hp diff and a 55 ft-lb diff. i do not tow anything. i do a lot of city driving and freeway traffic driving. i know you dont buy a truck for fuel economy but i am thinking the v8 just might be worse mpg for extra power that i really dont need. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. i have a 2001 3.9 six and love it! i do about a 50/50 mix of city/highway driving and average about 18.5 mpg. i dont do any towing and the 3.9 has enough power for passing on 2-lanes which comprises only a small portion of my driving. unless you are towing or suffering from penis envy the six may very well be for you but if you have an opportunity to test drive both by all means do so. everybody is different - thats why theres different models and options. .

From : mac davis

on sun 14 dec 2003 234218 gmt trey treydog90spam@hotmail.com wrote thanks trey... im surprised by 2 things on the hp/rpm band not too much difference 600 rpm for peak hp and less difference for torque... that the redline on a v-6 and v-8 would be the same... usually the less cylinders the higher the redline.. very true there is only so much you can do to a small engine the big tq comes from the displacement. i did some digging here are some numbers for you. just hope the formatting doesnt get fubared 3.7 4x4 with manual trans. 4.7 is a $590 option on the 04 dak hp rpm | tq rpm | redline | mpg 3.7l v6 210 5200 | 235 4000 | 6000 | 16-22 4.7l v8 230 4600 | 290 3600 | 6000 | cant find on kbb ------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 600 | 55 400 | differences for reference according to www.kbb.com specs for a 1999 dak 4x4 auto trans. hp rpm | tq rpm | redline | mpg 3.9l v6 175 4800 | 225 3200 | 5250 | 14-18 5.2l v8 230 4400 | 300 3200 | 5250 | 13-16 5.9l v8 250 4400 | 345 3200 | 5250 | not posted 2002 dak 4x4 auto trans 4.7l v8 230 4800 | 295 3200 | 6000 | 13-18 what was changed from 2002 to 2004 the 02 has more tq 2001 dak 4x4 auto trans 4.7l v8 235 4800 | 295 3200 | 6000 | 14-19 more hp tq and better mpg wtf --- just for kicks 1991 dak 4x4 auto trans 5.2l v8 165 4000 | 250 2400 | n/p | n/p i have a feeling the dealership will have mainly the 4.7s anyways. plus its technically just $590 more then the v6. i am not going to fret over a matter of 2 mpg if thats what it comes down to that. after looking at the specs for the different years what has dodge been changing from year to year in the engine to be changing the output are they just changing as the smog regulations are changing i would have to agree with you on the 4.7 and hill climbing. i am afraid i would be kicking myself if i got a v6. especially when it comes to using that torque. bottom line there is no replacement for displacement... i love that quote! dont do it!!! the 4.7 is the replacement engine for the 5.2... i have one and imho its a very good engine... ours has 230 hp and is very strong... i just cant see giving up 2 cylinders.. from what i understand the 4.7 gets about 1 mpg than the older 3.9 in real life and my guess is thats only on level ground... it would seem that a 6 is going to use more gas going up a grade than the v-8 because it has to work harder to pull the truck up the hill... also id want to know at what rpm each engine got those hp/torque figures... bottom line there is no replacement for displacement... mac .

From : mac davis

on mon 15 dec 2003 000252 gmt trey treydog90spam@hotmail.com wrote how much driving do you do in the hills do you have a manual or auto i really love the power of the v8 but the budget is screaming v6! at me. i have been going back and forth on the two engines for a while now. its raining today so i dont think i will be doing any test driving today maybe tomorrow i get off early i will stop past the dealership on my way home if its stopped raining. the new 3.7l v6 looks rather appealing but am afraid i will be kicking myself for not getting the v8. i plan on having this truck for a while and plan on touring california nevada arizona utah and colorado with it. for the most part though. the v6 can pull me through daily gridlock traffic just as well at the v8. my truck is empty most the time. but is still used a lot for hauling crud for fixing up the house or hauling camping gear. im sure the v6 would be fine i just wont be the first one up the hill. - but you dont want to be going up a hill thinking i could have had a v-8! either... id say the decision for me would be the added cost of the larger engine... fuel usage should be about the same.. i got my 01 dak club cab with a 4.7 by blind luck... it was in a ford dealers lot we could afford it and it just happened to have most of the options on it that i would have wanted if i had researched it.... i know that with a downshift now and them it would get me where i want to go with the v-6 but the v-8 gives my options go the same speed the v-6 would and be easy on the truck or give it a little more gas and pass folks... yeah im the one doing the passing *g* power and a/c have one thing in common... its always better to have more than you think youll need.... i have a 99 dak right now with the 5.2 v8 and a supposed 220hp and 3.55 gears. here is the question. would trading it in for a 3.7 v6 with 3.92 gears 210 hp be a dramatic mistake what is the gas mileage difference between the 3.7 and the 4.7 there is a 20hp diff and a 55 ft-lb diff. i do not tow anything. i do a lot of city driving and freeway traffic driving. i know you dont buy a truck for fuel economy but i am thinking the v8 just might be worse mpg for extra power that i really dont need. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. i have a 2001 3.9 six and love it! i do about a 50/50 mix of city/highway driving and average about 18.5 mpg. i dont do any towing and the 3.9 has enough power for passing on 2-lanes which comprises only a small portion of my driving. unless you are towing or suffering from penis envy the six may very well be for you but if you have an opportunity to test drive both by all means do so. everybody is different - thats why theres different models and options. mac .

From : Annonymous

on sun 14 dec 2003 173350 -0600 paul jensen pjensennospam@gnt.net wrote i have a 99 dak right now with the 5.2 v8 and a supposed 220hp and 3.55 gears. here is the question. would trading it in for a 3.7 v6 with 3.92 gears 210 hp be a dramatic mistake what is the gas mileage difference between the 3.7 and the 4.7 there is a 20hp diff and a 55 ft-lb diff. i do not tow anything. i do a lot of city driving and freeway traffic driving. i know you dont buy a truck for fuel economy but i am thinking the v8 just might be worse mpg for extra power that i really dont need. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. i have a 2001 3.9 six and love it! i do about a 50/50 mix of city/highway driving and average about 18.5 mpg. i dont do any towing and the 3.9 has enough power for passing on 2-lanes which comprises only a small portion of my driving. unless you are towing or suffering from penis envy the six may very well be for you but if you have an opportunity to test drive both by all means do so. everybody is different - thats why theres different models and options. i have a 2003 3.9 and hate it! wifes truck actually its about the doggiest think i have ever driven. its embarrassing to be passed on back roads by little old ladies in volvos. the milage sucks. i baby the crap out of the thing and get about 14mpg. if i tow something or get on it a bit it drops from there. dont get the 6. its a piece of crap. .

From : jason purcell

the 2004 has the 3.7 v6 which is the only v6 worth having. the old 3.9 v6 was a joke. 170hp. the new v6 is very much improved. 215 hp... you will never find a 3.7v6 with a 3.92 rear axle ratio unless you are very lucky. if you dont tow get the v6. i have a 99 dak right now with the 5.2 v8 and a supposed 220hp and 3.55 gears. here is the question. would trading it in for a 3.7 v6 with 3.92 gears 210 hp be a dramatic mistake what is the gas mileage difference between the 3.7 and the 4.7 there is a 20hp diff and a 55 ft-lb diff. i do not tow anything. i do a lot of city driving and freeway traffic driving. i know you dont buy a truck for fuel economy but i am thinking the v8 just might be worse mpg for extra power that i really dont need. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. .

From : bdk

jepneonrtnospam@earthlink.net says... the 2004 has the 3.7 v6 which is the only v6 worth having. the old 3.9 v6 was a joke. 170hp. the new v6 is very much improved. 215 hp... you will never find a 3.7v6 with a 3.92 rear axle ratio unless you are very lucky. if you dont tow get the v6. i have a 99 dak right now with the 5.2 v8 and a supposed 220hp and 3.55 gears. here is the question. would trading it in for a 3.7 v6 with 3.92 gears 210 hp be a dramatic mistake what is the gas mileage difference between the 3.7 and the 4.7 there is a 20hp diff and a 55 ft-lb diff. i do not tow anything. i do a lot of city driving and freeway traffic driving. i know you dont buy a truck for fuel economy but i am thinking the v8 just might be worse mpg for extra power that i really dont need. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. i disagree the milage bonus isnt all that great and the 4.7 makes it a much better driver. bdk .

From : haggerty

i have the 3.7 in my 2002 dodge ram. its a much better motor than the 3.9 that they used in the dakota through 2003. unless you do heavy towing or carry heavy loads i think youll be satisfied with the 3.7. the test report at http//auto.consumerguide.com/auto/new/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/37536 indicates that the 3.7 with 4 speed automatic gets about 3 mpg better than the 4.7 with 5 speed automatic epa estimate. my mileage around town in the ram with the 3.7 and 5 speed manual is a shade over 17 and just a shade over 20 on a long trip with no towing. acceleration is just fine with the 3.7 although cruising at 75 with a 40 knot headwind while going uphill forces me to downshift to 4th gear to maintain speed up the hill. -- j p haggerty jepneonrtnospam@earthlink.net says... the 2004 has the 3.7 v6 which is the only v6 worth having. the old 3.9 v6 was a joke. 170hp. the new v6 is very much improved. 215 hp... you will never find a 3.7v6 with a 3.92 rear axle ratio unless you are very lucky. if you dont tow get the v6. i have a 99 dak right now with the 5.2 v8 and a supposed 220hp and 3.55 gears. here is the question. would trading it in for a 3.7 v6 with 3.92 gears 210 hp be a dramatic mistake what is the gas mileage difference between the 3.7 and the 4.7 there is a 20hp diff and a 55 ft-lb diff. i do not tow anything. i do a lot of city driving and freeway traffic driving. i know you dont buy a truck for fuel economy but i am thinking the v8 just might be worse mpg for extra power that i really dont need. i will have to test drive both of them and find out. i disagree the milage bonus isnt all that great and the 4.7 makes it a much better driver. bdk .