Just a thought. The hardbody I mentioned earlier in this thread got a real 30 mpg and the Dakotas are in the high teens. Why? Also consider that I parked my 72 longbed next to a dakota once, they are the same size. Small truck my butt!
1
2
3
-
Sept. 11, 2011 6:31 p.m. tuna55 SuperDork
-
Sept. 11, 2011 6:58 p.m. Teh E36 M3 HalfDork
Yeah, tell me about it. I had high hopes for the mahindra diesel, but their EPA rating came out at 20/21 for their 120hp engine. No thanks.
I guess the "more" we expect out of small trucks (comfort, handling, power, etc) comes at the cost of MPG's. That's the "more" we haven't asked for.
-
Sept. 12, 2011 1:16 a.m. Vigo Dork
Anyone wanna rebuild my dakota project trucks trans?
I can email you the ATSG rebuild book for it if you want to read up. Do you already know what is wrong with it?
Just a thought. The hardbody I mentioned earlier in this thread got a real 30 mpg and the Dakotas are in the high teens. Why?
If i had to guess it would be something along the lines of matching the engine's power at an ideal cruise rpm (size and ve @ X rpm) to the power required to move the truck at that speed and then gear to that 'ideal' cruise rpm. Certainly some cars do this better than others. For example, on a 2.5 tbi/5spd dakota (analogous to the nissan equivalent) the ideal rpm to cruise down the highway is somewhere between 4th and 5th gears, so you end up with higher throttle openings in 5th, and only 25mpg hwy usually.
However, i'd point out that one of our GRM'ers here with a 3.9 dakota says he has seen 26mpg out of it (62% more displacement, 20% more weight, and only 14% less mpg? not bad..), and i just read about a guy with an old 2.2 carb dakota getting 40mpg yesterday. So much of it depends on things that are impossible to determine over the internet (driving technique, conditions, etc) that it basically becomes a meaningless pissing contest.
