Added: 3 years ago
From: 93DngrRngr
Views: 6,773
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (60)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • dakotas are so much better, they offer way more engine packages and can fit more aftermarket mods than a ranger. as someone who has owned both i gotta stick with the dakota.

  • I would like to hook chains with the dakota in my 4.0 geared ranger and haul that ass all the way to the scrapyard where they belong

  • @moutaindewdipper hey dumbass the 3.7 was pre 90 and pre magnum.

    90-2011 have the 3.9 v6 and

    if your gonna talk v8s. 4.2v8 4.7v8 5.2v8 and id also like to mention that just cause a car has more "liter" than another has nothing to do with torque or hp. i bet you didnt know this the 3.7 engine smallest of the truck engines. with the same mods as a 4.7v8 will beat the v8... learn your shit

  • The fucking Dakota has big engine than Ranger

  • @soloyo3equis Acually no it doesnt. the dodge dakota in the video probably only had a V6 engine which is a 3.7 liter. the ranger has a 4.0 liter. no if i am mistaking and the dakota has the V8 magnum then Yes, the dakota has a whole 0.7 liter more

  • The 3.0 produces 11 more horsepower than the 2.3 l4 which produces around 140-180 hp. Get a ranger 4.0 with 250lb torque, then we will see what happens

  • Whoever is saying that Ranger are shitty, you obviously dont know what you are talking about... the only thing these tug of wars prove is which vehicle is heavier or has better tires... I could beat a a 1 ton truck with my ranger if i had good enough tires with weight in the back... fucking morons

  • i love dodge but my 89' comanche would drag both of them lol

  • It weight like 600 lb more than the ranger. Dakota's are better than rangers, but pulls are not a good comparison to see wich truck is better it's just a matter of traction pounds per square inch on the ground. If the dakota had big off road tires it would have lost, but no doubt would be better off road. Monster trucks, Baja rigs, Dragsters, and race cars are all totaly different things. What may work great in one condition doesnt work in another. Its Just a matter of the intended use.

  • dodge can go suck a fat juicy black cock FORD=Found Off-road Rescuing Dodges

  • @racelipo NICE DUDE:)

  • lol comparing a single cab 3.0 liter to a extra cab 3.9 dakota...pretty stupid...put a ranger with ether 4.0 shoc or ohc... it will burn the dakota to the ground

  • Hahahaha, Dakota owned that mo-fo... nice vid.

  • ranger got schooled

  • @Dereks06 Try to find a v6 truck that has that much power. You can't unless you want to buy a brand new one and even then the power ratings will only be close to that of what you say it should be.

  • @RiLow517 rofl... toyota v6 as 240 hp and 260 ft.... that will blow that little dakota to piece, even the new 4.0 v6 from ford as more hp and the dak.....

  • @CedrikTheManiac00 yeah the 4.0 from toyota has more power but it is also 13 years newer than the 3.9 and you're gonna have to pay a lot more to get one too. And the 4.0 from ford that you are talking about is new. The 4.0 from ford at the that time had less power.

  • @RiLow517 even at that time it was still stonger

  • @CedrikTheManiac00 No it was not. The power ratings for the 4.0 around the time of the late 90s was about 160 hp and 225 torque; the 3.9 in the late 90s had a rating of about 175 hp and 225 torque. It was not stronger. They were just about even with dko just ahead.

  • @CedrikTheManiac00 (2010 - Ranger 4.0L 207hp biggest engine) (2010 - Dakota 3.7L 210hp, 4.7L 302hp)

  • @wenis1990 and the dodge is 300 pounds heavier that means ford wins. my dad has a 2010 ranger with dual exhaust. that thing is a beast.

  • @zacheryds Heavier because its built a bit heavier duty, also more weight gave it the advantage in this pulling match.

  • @zacheryds haha ranger is a beast? lol

  • @RiLow517 the ford 3.7 makes way over what I listed and the Chrysler pentastar 3.6 does too. And they're both smaller motors.

  • So, the Dakota is Dodges idea of a "compact" truck? Missed the mark BIG time with that one.

  • The original Dakota was a compact truck. The newer ones are "mid-sized" trucks.

    Chrysler decided there wasn't a large enough market for small trucks which is why Dodge and Jeep don't make a compact truck.

  • my dakota is a 97 sport 2wd 3.9l and it only has 92k miles on it and all original parts except for tires and the battery. it's an auto and if you want to call me a pussy say it to my face instead of cowering behind your computer screen.

  • rangers such

  • why cant you all realize that rangers suck and always will :)

  • you say rangers suck but they got compact truck of the year and so did the f150 got truck of year fords won more than 9 years and a row and gm fails i dont have a problem with dodges though cause they make bad ass trucks

  • @compaqnc6340 thats why they are better off roaders than dodge?

  • haha, i didnt realize it was that time of the month..

  • the ranger was only a regular cab and it still gave a good fight against the longer and heavier dakota

  • Ranger Sucks dodge always built a better truck

  • No, Dodge has been last in quality since the 70s, The tranny in that dakota wont last as long as The tires on the Ford

  • @orbitofdoom16 the 5 speed tranny in my dakota has 214000 miles on it, get your facts straight, only pussies drive autos anyways

  • To bad 85% of the Dakotas ever produced had autos.

  • @orbitofdoom16 85% of dakota drivers are pussies, the other 15 percent drive sticks

  • mine has a 5spd....HELLO 15%

  • thats not true cause they dont produce a certain amount of manuals and automatics they make them when someone desripts it that way

  • dakotas are pretty good everyone says they go out before there tires but my friends dakota has lasted him for a while

  • @2001jeepXJ no. the 2010 ranger is much better.

  • @2001jeepXJ Only thing to ever come from dodge was the cummins.... even tho cummins came to them with the motor so it actually isnt even there product... dodge sucks and is a Chrysler product which makes it even worse

  • Comment removed

  • then why didnt Ranger beat the Dakota?

  • well,

    dakota had

    Softer tires

    a posse

    more weight

    more power and more torque. dose that answer you question.

  • Ford Ragner 3.0L V6 = 150ish hp 180ish ft-lbs torque

    Dodge Dakota 3.9L V6 = 175ish hp 230ft-lbs torque

    I own a 2.5L I4 Ford Ranger 117hp and 150ft-lbs torque. I don't really see much reason for the 3.0L myself. I've been told by a buddy of mine that when he went from a 4.0L to a 3.0 he lost both MPG and HP. My grandfather's 3.0L ran about the same as my 2.5L but his got around the 15mpg mark on the highway at 60mph.

  • Or you can man up, buy a dodge with some real horsepower, and stop bitching about how shitty fords are.

  • or maybe you can kiss my fucking ass. Go talk to some one else who gives a shit about what a kid like you has to say. You don't know jack shit about me and yet you're talking trash over the net? You're the one who needs to man the fuck up.

    As side from that, nothing you said in any of your incoherent rambling had anything to do with what I said. I award you NO points.

    Now go fucker off little boy.

  • sorry all i heard was wa wa wa im a little bitch who drives a ford wa wa wa

  • You didn't hear shit because you were reading it you dip shit. Besides the rangers were/are still pieces of shit. Mazda does a few things to make them better but that's all.

  • ford is the best

  • @Magnuspire that 3.9l is pretty weak compared to the 4.0 SOHC which is pretty much the same size engine. 4.0SOHC gets 210ish hp and 240ish ft-lbs, which is still pretty poor for a 4.0. As a truck engine it should be getting 280ft-lbs and 240hp.

  • you know as well as I do, when it comes to truck engines HP isn't everything. Durability is everything, it could have 500hp but it wouldn't be worth a shit if the motor couldn't stand up to the stress of towing.

  • @Dereks06 4.0 sohc as 180 hp

  • @CedrikTheManiac00 Yea it's close to 180hp if you round up the power at the rear wheels on the 2wd 4.10 ratio ranger. But at the crank its 207hp or 210 in explorer config.

  • of course dakota!

  • woo go dakota

  • Comment removed

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more