Well, I don't know what you consider to be "bad" gas mileage. On my '97 4x4
RC, with 5.2L V8, 230 HP, 5-speed, 275-70-16 tires, Borla cat-back, drop-in
K&N, and a hard tonneau cover, I average 16.5 mpg, 50%/50% city/highway.
Compare this to my old '94 Ranger 4.0L V6, 160HP, similarly equipped,
similarly driven, that averaged 17.5 mpg. Compare it to a '90 S15, 2.8L (?
low HP), similarly equipped that I got around 17 MPG with. Neither one of
those wimpy V6 powered trucks were as big, as heavy, or had as much POWER as
the Dakota. I know people with 4-cylinder Toyotas and Nissans 4x4s that
don't do much better, too. I'll trade 1-2 mpg for all that POWER any
day! -Bill
>Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 07:22:07 -0500
>From: Garret W Lewis <ladysmithgwl@juno.com>
>Subject: DML: Bad Gas Mileage
>
>My only complaint with my 1997 Dakota 4x4 wth the 318 is the gas
>mileage.
>My experience and talking to others is that the Dakota is not gas
>mileage "friendly".
>
>Just my 2 cents worth,
>
>Garret
>- ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Garret:
>
>Most of us didn't purchase 4,000lb trucks with 230hp V8's because we
>were looking for good gas mileage....I was looking for towing power.
>
>The Dak gave me 50hp more than my 78 3/4 ton plus a 50% improvement
>in gas mileage. Guess it's all how you look at it.
>
>If fuel economy is your thing, suggest you trade the Dak for a
>econobox pickup.
>
>
>Rob Agnew
>ragnew@islandnet.com
>Victoria, B.C.
>Canada
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:30 EDT