2000 Dodge Durango Article at Automotive.com

»Locate a Dealer»Find a Used Car»Get Financing

Most Popular: Hybrid Cars|Lexus IS350|Dodge Charger

HOME

Off-Road Torture Test: Do You Really Need Four-Wheel Drive? - American SUV - Quarter Mile Times

Below is an enthusiast article written by the automotive experts at Motor Trend. Dodge Durango SLT 4x4 vs. Ford Explorer XLT 4x2

QUICK PRICE QUOTE

DEALER LOCATOR

User Rating

N/A

Rating:

Value Rating

N/A

LEARN WHY

IntelliChoice Value Rating

The chart above shows the purchase price versus ownership cost for each car from a specific vehicle class. The cars with better than average ownership cost/purchase price correlations are the best values, and these best value cars are represented by the dots below the curve. (i.e. the cars that have a lower ownership cost compared to its purchase price.) Those cars, which are worse than average or poor values, appear above the curve.

One way to view the graph is to draw a vertical line through any purchase price. You may see several dots that fall on this line - each of which is a car with a similar purchase price. However, notice the difference in ownership costs of each car represented by the vertical position of the dot. Two cars with the same purchase price can have thousands of dollars difference in ownership costs. This is what separates "good value" cars from "poor value" cars.

What is a good car value?

A "good car value" is one whose cost to own and operate is less than expected. The lower the cost to own and operate a car compared to what is expected, the better the value of that car.

But how do we know a car's "expected cost"?

For each car in the class, IntelliChoice plots the car's purchase price against the total five-year cost to own and operate it as determined by IntelliChoice research. Each dot on the above chart represents a specific car. Generally, we find that as the purchase price of the car increases, the cost to own and operate that car increases. This is why the dots on the graph tend to rise upward and to the right. This phenomenon also makes intuitive sense - as the purchase price rises, financing costs tend to rise, as do insurance, depreciation, taxes, and most other car ownership costs.

This is an important concept. It's normal for car ownership costs to rise as purchase price rises. Therefore, we can't just establish one "average" ownership cost number for each class, since cars in the class have different purchase prices. (This is why the "Relative" shown on each chart is different for cars in the same car class.)

Using statistical techniques, IntelliChoice "connects the dots" to form a curve that defines, for this car class, the relationship between the car's purchase price and car's ownership costs. This curve is our "expected cost" curve. The curve defines, for any car in the class, the five-year ownership cost that we would expect to see at each possible purchase price. If every car in the class were an average value, then all the dots would fall exactly on the curve. However, it's rare that any dot is exactly on the curve. Some dots are a little higher or lower, and some are a lot higher or lower. The dots that are a little lower are better than average car values, while the dots that are a lot lower are excellent car values (A dot that is a lot lower than the curve has ownership costs much lower than expected for a car of its purchase price). Conversely, a dot a little higher than the curve is a poorer than average car value, while a dot that is much higher than the curve is a poor car value.

Value is a relative term, not an absolute term. It is performing better than the logical expectation.

So is a Mercedes-Benz E320 expensive to own and operate? Certainly in an absolute sense. Most other cars cost less. But, when its cost to own and operate is plotted against cars with comparable invoice prices, the E320 costs less. So the E320 is not expensive to own and operate - it is a good car value. The Mercedes does not have low ownership costs, but it has low ownership costs for its invoice price.

Change Submodel

CHANGE VEHICLE

Article From Motor Trend Magazine

Off-Road Torture Test: Do You Really Need Four-Wheel Drive?

Article provided by: Motor Trend Magazine

After driving the two around town for several days, the differences in ride quality, sound intrusion, and comfort began to surface. Despite its popularity in the marketplace, the Explorer is at a disadvantage in the ride department. It had an unpleasant, oversprung, underdamped ride that (on some of our concrete freeways) tosses the driver's head around a little like one of those springy-headed football player figurines. Additionally, the smallest road irregularities made their way to the driver's fingertips and eardrums, making every drive a quest for the smoothest lane choice available.

With 5 inches more wheelbase and a similar torsion bar/leaf spring setup, the Durango's road manners were noticeably more immune to surface textures, bumps, and expansion joints. The seats were more comfortable and the ride quality smoother and more benign, whatever the type of road. At the test track, the more firmly sprung Explorer clung a bit more tenaciously to the pavement with a 0.72g run around our skidpad (0.69 g for the Durango), but this suspension setup was less favorable in the slalom, where the Durango's more compliant chassis ran a 58.2-mph best to the Explorer's 56.7 mph-negligible differences, neither one a sports car in sport/utility clothing.

Both trucks accelerated admirably, with the Durango a nose ahead at 60 mph for a 8.2-second run (to the 8.4-second Explorer), however the Explorer caught and passed the Durango at the quarter-mile mark (both with 16.4 second-runs) and opened up a 0.2-second lead by 80 mph. Out of the blocks, the Durango makes the best of its maximum torque rating of 295 pound-feet at 3200 rpm (the Explorer generates 288 pound-feet at 3300 rpm) by fitting a deep 3.00:1 first-gear ratio to get the heavier rig moving faster, where the Explorer pushes a 2.84:1 first gear. The Durango is equipped with a neat feature borrowed from Jeep, the nifty 45RFE so-called "Multi-Speed" four-speed automatic transmission that has two second gears. The dual second-gear ratio utilizes a higher ratio from launch for better acceleration, and a lower ratio is used in the kick-down mode to deliver second-gear power and performance over a broader range.

When it came time to stop from these speeds, both trucks surprised us-the Explorer for its commendable 126-foot halt from 60 mph, and the Durango for its lack of front-wheel ABS. Said DeMere right after locking the front wheels during the brake test, "Imagine my surprise!" In this era of standard four-wheel ABS on everything from light pickups to minivans, we can't imagine what the cost advantages could be to offer front ABS as an option. Upon consulting the specs, we learned it's a $495 option on the Durango, and our best stop from 60 mph was an old-world 162 feet. Do yourself a favor, buy the ABS-especially with rear drum brakes and a 4600-pound vehicle.

The third, and perhaps most entertaining portion of our test was performed at our favorite SoCal off-road vehicle facility. A portion of this park was designed and built by the "Jeep 101" driver training program and Petersen's 4-Wheel and Off-Road magazine and is a well-rounded, thorough, and challenging series of stations deliberately intended to reveal a vehicle's off-road limits. (We regularly utilize this course for our Sport/Utility of the Year testing.) From the "Sluice Box" (the worst 50 yards of loose, watermelon-size rocks you've ever seen) and the "Frame Twister" (a narrow and curved ditch with 4-foot-deep offset trenches in just the wrong places) to the "Stair Steps Boulder Climb" (a particularly steep hill with rocks cemented permanently in place), the variety of tougher-than-you'll-likely-find tests we could perform in one place was decidedly attractive.

...>>next page