13 overall? That could be with 4x4. I have the 5.9 2wd and if I behave
with the gas pedal, I get 11-13 average (computed by the overhead computer).
However it's always better when I do the math with pen and paper. When I
first got the truck (May 2000), I would get somewhere between 325-350 miles
per tank. Then I started realizing the power underhood and I could only
travel about 290-300 miles per tank. Now that I behave more, my last trip
(mixed hwy,city but mostly city) was 335 miles. It has a 24 gallon tank and
I had to work hard to stuff 22.5 gallons in it.
I would agree wit some of the stuff CR said especially the brakes. Once
some Jack*** driving a ford ranger pulled in front of me and I slammed the
brakes hard (knee-jerk reaction) The brakes locked up (you could smell the
rubber burning) but I swear I never felt like I was slowing down. Maybe a
different set of tires would help that.
As far as reliability, I haven't had any problems with mine. (knock on wood)
I first looked at the Ford Stupidcrew when I bought the Dak. I liked the
fact that it was a full size truck with a higher ride and slightly bigger
bed. I DID NOT however like the price. What I paid for my Dak with TT&L,
the Ford was just starting off in price. And the Dak had a bigger more
powerful engine (at the time). As far as the others below go, they all
seemed too small for me. The Sport Trax was the only thing comparable but
had a V6 engine ONLY and I planned to do some towing and though more, much
more torque would come in handy. Hard to believe the mileage is so
similiar.
> CR's Aug. issue rates the Ford Explorer Sport Trax (210hp, 4.0L,V6, 4,410
lb),
> Dodge Dakota Quad Cab (230hp, 4.7L, 4,765 lb), Toyota Tacoma Double Cab
SR-5
> (190hp, 3.4L, V6, 3,875 lb), Chevolet S-10 Crew Cab L5 (190hp, 4.3L, V6,
> 4,145 lb),
> and Nissan Frontier Crew Cab SC (270hp, 3.3L SC V6, 4,285 lb) in that
order.
> They liked the Dak's roomy, comfortable cabin, strong V8, longer bed,
> full-time 4wd. Ride and handling was rated as not bad for this class.
> Gave a thumbs down on the fuel economy (while acknowledging the
> strong V8 and heavier body), below par brakes (where have we heard
> this before), and worst than average reliability.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:05 EDT