2nd Gen Dakota Tech 1997 - 2004 Dodge Dakota Tech - The ultimate forum for technical help on the 2nd Gen Dakota.

HELP V6 Gas mileage sucks!

  #1  
Old 05-02-2009, 12:48 AM
Ramrod28's Avatar
Ramrod28
Ramrod28 is offline
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default HELP V6 Gas mileage sucks!

I've go a 97 dakota 4x4 with the 3.9 in it.
I get 11.5- 12 mpg city

So far I have a CAI, throttle body spacer, fresh tune up, MSD ingnition blaster coil and a flowmaster super 44 series. I have had the whole fuel system cleaned to. There is no Cat or resonator on the truck. I keep my foot out of the skinny peddle and still get bad gas mileage. What else can I do? I'm afraid that if I replace the O2 sensors it may through a code because there is no cat.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ramrod
 
  #2  
Old 05-02-2009, 03:07 AM
magnethead's Avatar
magnethead
magnethead is offline
Legend
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 7,923
Received 152 Likes on 139 Posts
Default

those are perfectly normal numbers. stock, I'm lucky for 15.5 highway in a 4x2.
 
  #3  
Old 05-02-2009, 03:08 AM
jar1zx's Avatar
jar1zx
jar1zx is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ramrod28
I've go a 97 dakota 4x4 with the 3.9 in it.
I get 11.5- 12 mpg city

So far I have a CAI, throttle body spacer, fresh tune up, MSD ingnition blaster coil and a flowmaster super 44 series. I have had the whole fuel system cleaned to. There is no Cat or resonator on the truck. I keep my foot out of the skinny peddle and still get bad gas mileage. What else can I do? I'm afraid that if I replace the O2 sensors it may through a code because there is no cat.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ramrod
is the 02 sensor behind the cat? if so that might be it.
i had a 94 v6 dakota that went from 17-20mpg to 10-12. lucky at same time i got this 2000 dakota and sold the old one.
 
  #4  
Old 05-02-2009, 12:48 PM
f0x672's Avatar
f0x672
f0x672 is offline
Champion
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: poconos, pa
Posts: 2,530
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

3.9 v6 - small engine in a fat truck... either you love it for the reliable engine or you hate it for the **** poor fuel mileage.. cant love it and hate it at the same time.. id put the resonators and cat back on then replace the o2 sensors... these engine rely on low end torque and with a straight piped exhaust.. well you lost that low end... improves higher end torque though..
 
  #5  
Old 05-02-2009, 03:13 PM
big.bryant's Avatar
big.bryant
big.bryant is offline
Champion
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: University of Colorado-Boulder
Posts: 4,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

yeah straight pipes and/or catless/resenator less exhaust setups don't give the engine enough back pressure.... back pressure is what allows the o2 censors to read correctly, if the truck has straight pipes, then the exhaust is running by the sensor too quickly and causes it to think that its running wrong. the sensor then tells the computer to dump more fuel into the engine, causing it to get bad gas mileage regardless of how nice you are on the skinny pedal.

my buddy has a 4.7 in his durango with true duals. i have a muffler and still have cats. basically if we drive the same way, i get around 15-16 he gets around 10-11. this is due mainly to the o2 sensors going ape-sh*t
 
  #6  
Old 05-02-2009, 03:54 PM
dodgerules86's Avatar
dodgerules86
dodgerules86 is offline
Champion
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sycamore, Illinois (displaced to Arkansas)
Posts: 4,119
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Yup, 12-13 is what my truck would get in the city. Stock '96 4x4.
It's a Dodge truck, everyone knows they aren't good on gas.
 
  #7  
Old 05-03-2009, 02:37 AM
Ramrod28's Avatar
Ramrod28
Ramrod28 is offline
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

so pretty much through the cat and resonator back on it, replace the 02 sensors and i should see better numbers right? now what if I buy a performance cat such as a magnaflow? Would that be better than OEM?
 
  #8  
Old 05-03-2009, 10:45 AM
f0x672's Avatar
f0x672
f0x672 is offline
Champion
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: poconos, pa
Posts: 2,530
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

if i were going to replace my cat, id get a high flow from magnaflow... its more free flowing but still gives some resistance in the system to give you some low end torque
 
  #9  
Old 05-08-2009, 12:06 AM
Jam1982's Avatar
Jam1982
Jam1982 is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I am not sure if this applys to the thread but.. I have 2003 Dakota 3.9l With Stock Engine I want to know if the truck runs with out the CAT?
 
  #10  
Old 05-08-2009, 02:02 AM
dodgerules86's Avatar
dodgerules86
dodgerules86 is offline
Champion
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sycamore, Illinois (displaced to Arkansas)
Posts: 4,119
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jam1982
I am not sure if this applys to the thread but.. I have 2003 Dakota 3.9l With Stock Engine I want to know if the truck runs with out the CAT?
It will run without a catalytic converter. It will probably throw a CEL.
As said above, you can get an aftermarket hi-flow CAT.

It's worth noting that it's illegal to run without a CAT.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: HELP V6 Gas mileage sucks!



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 PM.