What is actual gas mileage of Dodge hemi?

trying to decide between 1500 and a Dakota.
Salesman said the hemi gets about the same gas mileage as the Dakota. Hard to believe given the HP difference.
which years and engines are good to stay away from in both?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
2004 Durango Hemi. I get around 11-13 in town and setting at 70 I get around 20.
Encountered stall problem with my hemi at low speed twice and some other stuff like warning lights coming on. That's my experience.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
crb wrote:

The 4.7L could be a great motor if they ever work the bugs out of it.
I get about 18 mpg in my Dodge Dakota Lemon, all around, with the limited slip differential a heavy foot and 15 inch wheels.
JAM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just what 'bugs' are you refering to? I have read about a couple of misconceptions, (such as sludge forming), but understand it to be a very reliable engine. Post some links explaining these 'bugs'.
HD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What bugs does the 4.7 have?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It doesn't have enough cubic inches...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:44:11 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote:

we've had a 4.7L Dakota since 01 and haven't found a bug.. lots of 'em in the grill and radiator screen, though..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most people drive by the seat of the pants, i.e. they expect a certain amount of acceleration and speed and will flog the engine as hard as needed to achieve the desired feel, regardless of engine size. Unless the engine is incapable of meeting their unreasonable expectations, in which case a smaller engine may give better mileage at the cost of high levels of user whine.
From an engineering perspective, the efficiency of all modern internal combustion engines is so similar that displacement is almost irrelevant to mileage. A certain rate of fuel burn makes the same amount of power in any engine, and mileage is a function of acceleration and air and rolling resistance. It is only at the margins of the engines' performance envelopes where there is a significant advantage to a larger or smaller engine in a given application.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ol Duffer" wrote:

The larger the engine the more heat loss as there is increased surface area in the engine and it is the expanding gases cause by heat that delivers the force to power a engine. You also have to factor in engine design and its rpm for peak VE (Volumetric Efficency) because when a engine is running at or near its torque peak (which is also were peak VE is) it will consume the least amount of fuel under a moderate to heavy load for the amount of HP it produces (known as HP hrs per gallon a fuel) If a smaller engine is properly geared (and gearing is the key here) for the load it will deliver better MPG just about every time AND it will use less fuel idling in traffic too because the bigger engine will burn more fuel there not only because of size but also because more energy is require to overcome internal friction and increased cooling requirements of a bigger engine which means more fuel too. Under a very heavy load a big engine will sometime do better than a smaller one MPG wise (again if it is geared correctly) because it will operate at a lower cylinder pressure to deliver the same amount of power output (but this is only true with a very heavy load and bigger engine running near its VE too and not being lugged below it)
--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
yes, what he said...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have a 2004 1500 with the 5.7 liter hemi. My driving is probably 60/40 highway/city. I get right around 17mpg. Long highway trips at 65 I can get a little better than 19mpg. If you have a lead foot you won't get anywhere near this. Heavy acceleration will significantly lower these numbers.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Bromley wrote:

I have a 2004 Dakota Quad Cab with 4.7 4x2 just went past 10,000 miles. Got back last week from a long trip from OK to PA and back, pulling a 4700 lb trailer at 65-70 speeds got 12 MPG average, and the truck performed fine going over the hills in TN. Coming back without the trailer, averaged 19.5 (2 tanks were just over 20 MPG) at an average 70 MPH speed. Not nearly as good as the old Ford Ranger I used to have with the 4 cylinder stick shift (24/28 MPG), but then that one couldn't have pulled the trailer or carried 5 people, either.
Good luck in whichever you choose, but I think I liked the 2002 Dodge 1500 that I used to have a little bit better than the Dakota. (That only had a 3.7 engine, which was fine with stick shift if you don't tow heavy loads)
JPH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

get
anywhere
then where's the fun in having the hemi if you cant turn er loose???? =)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Christopher Thompson" wrote:

In a heavy SUV/Truck it is a LOT more show than go.
--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you mean that there's a reason for the word "Hemi" to be in big, ugly letters on those durangos??
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@splinters.comcast.net says...

It's more to get you distracted, so you won't realize you're looking at one of the ugliest SUVs ever made..;)
BDK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BDK wrote:

Well I have one and ya, the front end is ugly. But it sure drives nice, is comfy inside and tows my trailer far better than my '01 Ram 5.9L gasser. There's nothing else on the market that comes close to it's capabilities for the money (23K for '04 4x4 Durango SLT Hemi).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

letters on

i thought the letters was one of the more appealing features. seriously we have got to get them to do something about those grills!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.