OT technical question about carburetors

[JIPJOBXX]

My little 86 Dodge Dakota four cylinder runs like a champ up to about 55 or 60 and then it just doesn't seem to have a more poop! By this I mean if I'm starting up an incline on the freeway I really haft to stick my foot down on the gas pedal and then if that doesn't get it I haft to shift down and maybe my speed will drop down a few miles an hour until the hill flattens out. Now for some reason the previous owner took oft all of the smog controls or whatever and I was told today that my carburetor is set up to use this stuff and that could be why I do not have any power up on the top end of my speed range or is it just that these old four bangers do not have power to accelerate at the top ends speeds.

Does make since to anyone here?

Oh yes one more question? Can anyone here give me what kind of miliage I should be getting with this slug? Just located this but I think it BS.1987 Dodge Dakota 2WD 4 cylinder 2.2 liter R (M5) Manual 22 27

Edited February 21, 2010 by JIPJOBXX

[JIPJOBXX]

I might have found my own answer-what do you think?

Scavenged from the front-drive K-Car, the 2.2-liter four was inadequate for lugging even the lightest, nearly 3,000-pound Dakota around with much confidence. The V6 was essentially Chrysler's 5.2-liter (318-cubic-inch) V8 with two cylinders lopped off, and at the beginning of its development, was neither particularly smooth nor particularly powerful. "With the fewest horses available," wrote Popular Science when comparing the '87 Dakota to six-cylinder versions of the full-size Ford and Chevy pickups and Jeep's Comanche, "it was no surprise that the Dakota finished dead last in the acceleration trials. And frankly, we had to wonder about the 5,500-pound tow claim for the 3.9-equipped Dakota." How slow was the Dakota? Pop Sci's 13.1-second, 0-60-mph clocking was downright turtlelike.

[JIPJOBXX]

Buying tomorrow a Ford truck powered by a new rebuilt 460 engine. Now its power time and no gas milage!

[Young Ed]

You just need a little newer dakota. My 94 is unstopable. Has towed many a car on a car dolly. 3.9v6 5spd

[JIPJOBXX]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/1942dodge/DSC03006.jpgYea mine is a peice of junk-it looks nice-runs fairly well-but lacks power. Good car to sell to a young driver or someone who only needs a little truck to go here and there and but not across country. Edited February 21, 2010 by JIPJOBXX

[JBNeal]

I had a '89 Dakota 2.5L short bed for almost 8 years, got it at 39K, sold it at 119K. It got 25 around town, 28-32 on the highway, and the only speeding ticket I got was doing 45 in a 40...yeah, it was slow. That motor was just as powerful as the 2.2L I had in my '86 Omni, but ran smoother, especially in cold weather.

I traded up to a '92 Dakota 3.9L longbed, and it had waaay more power. It didn't handle as precise as the shortbed going around corners, but that was about the only complaint I had. It ran super smooth in town & on the highway, averaging 22mpg on the highway, 18mpg runnin' around town. I traded that for a '92 Ram 250 only because I needed more payload capacity...I had a tendency to load that longbed Dakota so full with stuff doing chores & whutnot that I'd bottom out the rear axle.

IMO durn near all of the motors set up with carburetors + smog equipment or single-point fuel injection + smog pumps are PITA. They're detuned gas hogs that are the product of well-intentioned goverment regulations & hastily cobbled automotive band-aids. Yards of vacuum hoses, weak vacuum switches, scabbed on EGR valves, power-robbing smog pumps...BLAH Properly maintained multi-point fuel injection systems crank out waaay more power...heck, that new Camaro has a V6 that cranks out over 300hp...YOWZA. Anyhow, I tell people who'll listen to avoid this problematic era in automotive history. A simple carburetor system or a good MPI will get ya down the road for many a mile without too many headaches.

[P-12 Tommy]

You just need a little newer dakota. My 94 is unstopable. Has towed many a car on a car dolly. 3.9v6 5spd

I had a brand new Flame Red '97 (new body style) Dakota. 3.9 Auto. It was a good runner.

Tom

[randroid]

JIPJOBXX,

It could be the torque curve, too. Don't know what your engine speed but my '84 SAAB 2.0 (n\a) has no torque below about 2200 rpm but get it above that speed and it will accelerate rather nicely to over 125 mph @ 5500 rpm (or so I'm told) regardless of terrain.

Torque can be manipulated a little by timing, and timing isn't something checked very often anymore since ignition points went away, but you're probably right in that it's just a dog of an engine. Too bad so many car manufacturers chose to use a band-aid when surgery was needed, but if they'd taken that route what would we have done with all that left-over bail-out money?

-Randy

[builtfercomfort]

Try doing the mildest of hop-ups on the motor and see if it helps. Put a few cans of fuel injector cleaner in the gas tank. Put in a new fuel filter in case it's getting starved for gas, and low-restriction air filter (K&N type) in case it's getting starved for air. An extra few HP and minor added torque gained this way may be all it needs to make you happy.

You can do more hop-up stuff like headers, intake, etc. - that's all more involved. Do the easy stuff first.

[Young Ed]

Boy i wish my 94 was still as solid as that 87! Up here in MN mine has gotten eaten away. Front fenders practically gone rockers are going fast too.