on 3/9/01 7:22 PM, Davidson, Kevin at ked@iti-oh.com wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've been considering getting a new dak (currently have a 97 V6), and I might
> have to do it sooner than originally planned due to reasons beyond my control.
>
> Anyways... I test drove a 5.9L 4x4 QC this evening, and while I wipe the drool
> off my face, I want to toss a couple questions out there and see what you all
> have to say. I apologize if I am rehashing things that have already been
> overdiscussed in here, but I haven't had the time to stay current with every
> post...
>
> (1) For you 4x4 owners out there - do any of you wish you had opted for the
> 4x2
> instead? If so - why? I am concerned about a couple things - namely, the
> added effort for maintenance such as fluid changes, clutch replacement, oil
> pan gasket, CV boots & joints (I assume the 4x4 dak has these?), stuff like
> that.
> How much extra maintenance work is necessary with 4x4? And does this affect
> the
> procedure for replacing front brake discs?
Actually, I went in the other direction. After putting together an identical
option package for a 4X2 and a 4X4, I went with the 4X4. Why? it was "only"
$2k more than the 4X2 (I've usually seen the difference at $4k or more).
Seemed like a worthwhile investment at the time. Can't say too much about
the maintenance yet.
>
> My other concern is whether or not I can even justify having 4 wheel drive.
> Any
> time it rains out, all I do is sit and spin in my current dak (2 wheel), and
> for the entire winter I haul around close to 500lbs of sand. This becomes a
> very
> tedious thing to deal with. I won't be doing any hardcore offroading, but I
> will
> be driving in people's wet soggy backyards (got stuck once...) occasionally
> and
> also towing a 14' boat. I know that whenever I have to do something extra
> (like
> dealing with sandbags all winter... or getting stuck in a FLAT yard!!!)
> because I
> have 2 wheel drive, I end up cussing myself for not getting 4x4 when I bought
> my 97.
> Any input?
Depends on how and where you drive. If you drive mostly pavement that is
well plowed in the winter, then 4WD may be overkill. I know I got along well
with 2WD through some of the worst snows here in NY without a hitch (needed
weight in the back, though). I'm looking at 4WD as "insurance" that will
allow me to get out and about whenever I need to.
Another thing to keep in mind: Dodge now has the AWD transfer
case like the Grand Cherokees. I've got this on my truck, and it's already
pulled me out of a couple of situations where I would have been spinning in
2WD.
>
>
> (2) Is the 5sp that comes with the 4.7 a decent unit? The tranny in my V6
> shifts
> beautifully; the shifter and gate feels good and solid. However, I test drove
> a Ram with the manual tranny (can't remember which engine, it was a V8 though)
> and
> I was extremely dissappointed with the way the tranny felt. The shifter felt
> real
> cheap and rough, like I was going to break something just putting it in gear.
> I
> am just wondering how the dakota's 4.7L manual tranny compares (and if it's a
> different unit or not). Unfortunately, my local dealer doesn't have a 4.7L
> 5sp on
> his lot, so I couldn't test drive one. Are the 4.7L manual owners satisfied?
Don't have the manual, but I've got the 4.7 auto. Still waiting for it to
break in, but so far I love this combo (I had forgotten how wonderful a V8
sounds, until I got this truck :-).
>
>
> (3) If I end up disliking the 4.7L manual tranny, then I'm looking at either a
> 5.9L
> auto or a 4.7L auto. Which is recommended? (based primarily on
> transmissions...)
> I've heard a variety of stories about chrysler automatic transmissions,
> ranging
> anywhere from good and trouble-free, to horrible and beyond.
I don't do much towing, but I've always heard that autos are better for
towing.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any input you can provide, and I apologize for the long
> post.
> (...and for potentially rehashing any recent discussions!)
>
> -kevin d
> 97 cc V6 5sp
> homebrew k&n, 3923's, superconductor 8.5mm, 180tstat
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:00:06 EDT