Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1712650
12/19/14 10:49 AM
12/19/14 10:49 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,836 Florida
mopar346
Let me tell ya about fat chicks!
|
Let me tell ya about fat chicks!
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,836
Florida
|
I can answer a few of the questions but not all.
Yes, short cab, short box is available but I think maybe only the early years like 97-99 maybe.
I think they are only 360, never seen a 318 R/T that I can remember.
Mileage is gonna be between 11-14 almost regardless how you drive it with 14 being optimistic.
5 speeds are pretty rare and I think I once heard they weren't available on the early ones, find a 5 speec short cab, short box might be next to impossible if they even exist and pray the owner don't know that.
As far as fast, in stock form not really I think they suffer the most down low, but like most things they can be tweaked to be respectable.
As for weight, I would guess 4500-5000 lbs but that is simply a guess, something in my memory is telling me 5500 lbs but I cant say why.
One question you didn't ask was reliability, I have had 3 of the same vintage trucks and Durangos none were R/Ts and all were 318s 4WD, they have been very reliable and get 14 regardless. 1 of them lost the tranny around 215k another at 285k, other than that pretty much untouched other than maintenance with Icant say I was overly religious about. Cant see why an R/T would be any different and I think they are really cool and have kinda wanted one since they came out.
Good luck
Careful, your character's showing!
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1712651
12/19/14 01:14 PM
12/19/14 01:14 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,603 Central Ohio
BMChrysler68
Smarter than the average bear? I think not.
|
Smarter than the average bear? I think not.
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,603
Central Ohio
|
As far as I know, they never made a 5-speed R/T. I'm not saying there aren't conversions, but they didn't come that way. The original R/T was a performance package so no-go on the 318s. There was a later version with a 4.7, but it was just a trim package.
I had one (the first automobile that was ever mine) and it was fast, but it wouldn't hook worth a damn. Even driving conservatively, I remember breaking loose if the tires and pavement were cold. It was definitely a fun truck and I'd like to own another one. I've heard those 46REs can be problematic, but I've not experienced that myself. I really don't think you'd regret it at all. I don't know that I'd give up a 5-speed Mustang for an automatic Dakota (unless I needed a truck), but you'd still have tons of fun if you did. Plus, they look better. I dunno, maybe I would.
1968 Plymouth Fury III 2dr FT, 383-4v, 4 speed
1972 AMC Ambassador SST wagon 360-4v, automatic
2014 Challenger R/T Classic 6-speed
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1712652
12/19/14 03:07 PM
12/19/14 03:07 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
|
No 5 speed in an R/T dakota from the factory. No 5 speed behind a 5.9 from the factory. No 4X4 dakota R/T No long bed R/T ex cab and regular cab, no quad cab R/T 11-16 mpg in my experience The R/T has 3.92 gears, no 3.55 bad for mpg, good for off the line The 46 RE has a few issues that can easily be fixed
I run a 44RE in mine for more TQ off the line HP and mpg. All R/Ts had the bigger one but we have to re-build them a lot more.
A 92-95 5 speed 318 will spank a stock R/T. There is a lot of weight difference, probably 1000 lbs hard to make up for that with 42 CID and a heavy inefficient auto.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: HotRodDave]
#1712653
12/19/14 03:54 PM
12/19/14 03:54 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,177 Park Forest, IL
slantzilla
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,177
Park Forest, IL
|
I had a '00 Club Cab R/T. It averaged 15 driving back and forth to work, and 18 on the highway. In 8 years I put 160K miles on it on top of the 40 K that were on it when I got it. I had very little trouble with it. The only issue I ever had with the trans was a broken boost valve retainer at around 150K. Fixed it myself after the dealer wanted to bang me $3500 for a complete rebuild.
I used the truck for everything. We hauled tons of parts around, towed my race car, pulled a full size Chevy van home, my buddy pulled his '68 Satellite home from Detroit with it, and we even hauled 2 tractors.
I raced it quite a bit the first couple years I had it. When it had the MP PCM in it it would run 14:70's around 92 mph. W/O the PCM it normally ran 15:20's at 90.
The one thing I will tell you, they are worthless in snow unless you put snow tires on them and about 500# of weight in the bed. You also have to be careful in the rain, they will downshift all the way into low at 45 mph and instantly spin the tires and go sideways. I learned that on an entrance ramp onto the expressway one day.
All in all, I loved that truck. I wish I still had it.
It got replaced with an '06 4.7 HO R/T AWD. It was a nice truck, but nowhere near the truck the '00 was.
"Everybody funny, now you funny too."
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: HotRodDave]
#1712654
12/19/14 10:14 PM
12/19/14 10:14 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,896 St. Louis, MO
Blues_Cuda
master
|
master
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,896
St. Louis, MO
|
Quote:
A 92-95 5 speed 318 will spank a stock R/T. There is a lot of weight difference, probably 1000 lbs hard to make up for that with 42 CID and a heavy inefficient auto.
The early trucks ran very well. My '94 318 being stock would totally embarrass my '99.
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1712656
12/19/14 11:33 PM
12/19/14 11:33 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,501 Newfoundland Canada
Larry_Dart_360
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,501
Newfoundland Canada
|
I had a 92 short box 5.2cid A518 with 3.55. Use to get 14.63@94-95MPh Truck was able to outrun a R/T...Truck was a hoot to drive...I still have the Mopar performance computer and a intake improver from RC performance..If anyone here wanted the parts for there truck they could have them...Just pay the shipping ...
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: Larry_Dart_360]
#1712657
12/20/14 12:26 AM
12/20/14 12:26 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,494 Western Colorado High Desert
moparmarks
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,494
Western Colorado High Desert
|
I love my 97 5.2 E-cab 2wd but it is a heavy 4400lbs. I do get 20mpg at 65 mph. Have 260,000 miles on original motor and tranny. Been a great truck. A 72-80 D100 standard cab long bed 318 auto only weighs 3400lbs. Don't know why the 97-up Dakotas weigh so much.
72 Satellite Sebring Plus 440, 72 Dart 5.9 4-spd, 68 Valiant, 73 W200, 78 D100 sb, 78 D200, 98 DAKOTA, . Moparmarks Parts & Restorations Desert Mopar Metal Grand Jct. CO 970-261-7039 http://moparmark.com/motormangj@gmail.com
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: moparmarks]
#1712658
12/20/14 02:10 AM
12/20/14 02:10 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
There are 5.2L 5-spds. I have one-- a reg cab short bed 2wd version. A few bolt ons and it was running mid 14s at a curb weight if 4,000 lbs.
It now has a mild 5.9 and a viper T56. Runs low 14s and gets 16 mpg.
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#1712659
12/20/14 07:18 AM
12/20/14 07:18 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
OP
Swears too much
|
OP
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
There are 5.2L 5-spds. I have one-- a reg cab short bed 2wd version. A few bolt ons and it was running mid 14s at a curb weight if 4,000 lbs.
It now has a mild 5.9 and a viper T56. Runs low 14s and gets 16 mpg.
I was hoping you'd chime in here. You're probably the closest thing to what i was picturing when i posted this. I wouldn't be looking for a hotrod, or a project truck though... i've got a car for that. More or less a new vehicle that is fun and i can stand to look at. Dodge didn't start building cars again till 2005, and i dont want a 4dr. Hell... dont even want a truck really, i just thought these might be fun. I think they look good... especially the short R/T's.
Would the R/T sit any different or have any different suspension or brakes than the same thing in a non-R/T 5.2L 5-speed? or was yours just a 5.9L swap and some decals away from being an R/T?
Found this lil sexy locally... pretty much perfect... except for the automatic.
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1712661
12/20/14 10:04 AM
12/20/14 10:04 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
Yea, they are fat pigs! my truck is "light" at 4,000 because it left the factory with NO options other than the V8 and the Premium audio package. it's got manual windows, mirrors, locks, seats, transmission, no A/C, and No cruise control. I'm impressed the factory even made such a combo! as for brakes, all the Dakota's got the same brakes (for the same model year) 97-99 have the worst brakes--11" rotors up front and drum rears. 00-02 they went to larger pistons in the front calipers, but kept the same size rotor and same rear drums. 03-04 is the only year of the gen 3 trucks that had 4 wheel disc brakes, and they went to a 12" rotor, along with a dual piston front caliper. after just 10 minutes of spirited driving on rural country roads, my factory brakes were soft and fading rapidly. As far as suspension goes, there were a bunch of different combos. 4x4 trucks had front torsion bars and sat higher than stock/sport trucks. some trucks got rear sway bars, others did not. there are multitude of different size sway bars based on V8, 4x4/2wd, cab/bed combo, etc, and as always, no real rhyme or reason for why certain trucks got what they did. I've even seen trucks with rear axles that had the mounting pads for rear sway bars, but no rear sway bar installed. the R/T trucks came with a 1" lower suspension than the 2wd sport trucks, and were the only trucks to receive the 17x9 aluminum alloy rims (until Dodge used up remaining inventory in late 03/04 on some of the 4x4 trucks) If you ever want to modify and tweak your truck's performance, my personal opinion is that the 97-99 trucks are the easiest to modify. in 2000 they went to a one size fits all "california emissions" tune that included additional emissions junk that is difficult to remove without triggering check engine lights. the earlier trucks left the factory with either a california emissions package, or a federal emissions package, and on the federal, its much easier to delete the evap system and get rid of the solenoid and about 15 lbs of vacuum tubing between the manifold and fuel tank. any other questions, let me know. I've learned a lot about these Gen III trucks over the years!
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#1712662
12/20/14 11:09 AM
12/20/14 11:09 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
OP
Swears too much
|
OP
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Yea, they are fat pigs! my truck is "light" at 4,000 because it left the factory with NO options other than the V8 and the Premium audio package. it's got manual windows, mirrors, locks, seats, transmission, no A/C, and No cruise control. I'm impressed the factory even made such a combo!
Thats just bloody depressing... One, that a factory built sleeper is still two full tons, and two, that such a combo would be so exceedingly rare to find (ie: i probably wont).
Quote:
as for brakes, all the Dakota's got the same brakes (for the same model year) 97-99 have the worst brakes--11" rotors up front and drum rears. 00-02 they went to larger pistons in the front calipers, but kept the same size rotor and same rear drums. 03-04 is the only year of the gen 3 trucks that had 4 wheel disc brakes, and they went to a 12" rotor, along with a dual piston front caliper.
after just 10 minutes of spirited driving on rural country roads, my factory brakes were soft and fading rapidly.
As far as suspension goes, there were a bunch of different combos. 4x4 trucks had front torsion bars and sat higher than stock/sport trucks. some trucks got rear sway bars, others did not. there are multitude of different size sway bars based on V8, 4x4/2wd, cab/bed combo, etc, and as always, no real rhyme or reason for why certain trucks got what they did. I've even seen trucks with rear axles that had the mounting pads for rear sway bars, but no rear sway bar installed.
the R/T trucks came with a 1" lower suspension than the 2wd sport trucks, and were the only trucks to receive the 17x9 aluminum alloy rims (until Dodge used up remaining inventory in late 03/04 on some of the 4x4 trucks)
So... might as well just find a sport model then... and upgrade what i need. Sounds like a lot ov this stuff could just be found in yards too.
At some point they went to the 4.7L did they not? Did that engine replace the 5.9L too? or just the 5.2L? Wiki was not terribly detailed on this. If the R/T went to a 4.7L, i wonder if you could also get the stick with it too...
Might be better yet... a 2003-4 R/T (or not) with the smaller more efficient engine, stick and better brakes...
Quote:
If you ever want to modify and tweak your truck's performance, my personal opinion is that the 97-99 trucks are the easiest to modify. in 2000 they went to a one size fits all "california emissions" tune that included additional emissions junk that is difficult to remove without triggering check engine lights. the earlier trucks left the factory with either a california emissions package, or a federal emissions package, and on the federal, its much easier to delete the evap system and get rid of the solenoid and about 15 lbs of vacuum tubing between the manifold and fuel tank.
any other questions, let me know. I've learned a lot about these Gen III trucks over the years!
Hmmm... wonder if that emissions stuff would apply in Canada...
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: DaytonaTurbo]
#1712664
12/20/14 02:09 PM
12/20/14 02:09 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345 Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
Yes a 4.7 stick would beat an RT stock for stock, same bed/cab configuration. I say that because they're so close that a stock reg cab RT might beat a stock club cab 4.7 stick
Rt was available until 03 and was always 5.9/auto.
In 2000 or 2001 whatever year the 4.7 came in, it replaced the 5.2. I would avoid the 4.7. Not as many mods available, and you can't swap a 5.2 or 5.9 into a 4.7 truck without a total wiring and computer overhaul.
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: gtsdude]
#1712666
12/20/14 08:08 PM
12/20/14 08:08 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,267 North, Alabama
D-50
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,267
North, Alabama
|
My buddy has a 2000 R/T with a PowerDyne super charger on it. It is pretty quick for a Dakota. I think it has run a 8.24 @ 86 mph in the 1/8 so far. He was having trouble with how the trans was shifting at full throttle and it is being fixed right now. I think with more control of the shift points it will run faster. He put Bogart wheels and drag radials on it and I think it is down to low 3900 lbs.
1.33 60 ft,6.21 at 110.59 in the 1/8, pump gas small block,2950lbs,drag radials,mufflers and driven to track ...
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: DaytonaTurbo]
#1712667
12/21/14 08:54 AM
12/21/14 08:54 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
OP
Swears too much
|
OP
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Make sure you are distinguishing between the R/T and Sport models. See if you can find one with the 5.2 and the stick. IMO would be more fun for you than a 5.9 with the auto. When the 4.7 came out it replaced the 5.2, the 5.9 carried on and I believed this stayed the same in the sport and rt trucks.
I have been told that the 4.7/stick trucks were quick as or quicker than the 5.9/auto trucks.
I could see that. A friend had an early 2000's ram club cab. If these Dakota's weigh 4000+lbs then that Ram must be over 9000. It was surprisingly quick for a 4.7L auto. Wasn't geared all that well either.
Yeah... i like the R/T looks... but i'll never drive an automatic again. Hell... someday i'm gonna convert my 68 Cadillac to a stick...
|
|
|
Re: 1998 Dakota R/T questions... . . .
[Re: 70Cuda383]
#1712668
12/21/14 08:58 AM
12/21/14 08:58 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
OP
Swears too much
|
OP
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Yes a 4.7 stick would beat an RT stock for stock, same bed/cab configuration. I say that because they're so close that a stock reg cab RT might beat a stock club cab 4.7 stick
Rt was available until 03 and was always 5.9/auto.
In 2000 or 2001 whatever year the 4.7 came in, it replaced the 5.2. I would avoid the 4.7. Not as many mods available, and you can't swap a 5.2 or 5.9 into a 4.7 truck without a total wiring and computer overhaul.
Again, i'm really not looking to build a race truck or hotrod. If i could get some longtubes and a true dual exhaust on there, maybe fix that awful factory tune, i'd be more than happy. I'd prefer the MPG ov a 4.7L over the torque ov the 5.9L any day. After driving a much-lightened big block muscle car, its not like either would be fast to me anyways...
Cool looking, cool sounding, V8 + stick (both mandatory), light as possible, simple as possible, best MPG possible. Thats the target.
Hmmm... sounds like i should just keep the Mustang...
|
|
|
|
|