Dodge Durango Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

2003 SLT vs 2002 R/T

Jump to Latest
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

Copper

· Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Hey folks, once upon a time and a previous life, I ‘had‘ a 2000 Durango, SLT leather, running boards, with a 4.7 L engine in it.

Currently looking for a 1st Gen Durango, to be used on weekends and to drive around grandkids and their teammates; May occasionally tow a motorcycle trailer.

Best 2 Durangos near me are as follows: First one is at a used car lot, a 2003 SLT 4.7 L, cloth seats, running boards, two and four-wheel-drive with 65,000 miles on it, one owner, clean Carfax… Second one appears to be a private sale, is a 2002 R/T, 5.9 L with all wheel drive, leather seats, chrome 17” rims, no running boards, damage to the rear bumper, and almost doubled the mileage of the first one at 135,000 miles. Both are priced exactly the same, $7000 Canadian, (approx $6000 USD) and are the same color, so that’s a push.

I’m leaning towards the 2003, mostly because of the 4 wheel disc brakes, the option to run in 2wd, the lower miles and the clean Carfax.
Going to look at the first one tomorrow.

Anyone have any thing to mention between the two that I may not have considered?

Thanks in advance,
Copper
 
#2 ·
2003 all the way...wouldn't even consider the 2002 mostly due to older design trans.
The 545rfe a better trans that will last longer. Personally I prefer the 4.7L to the 5.9L...but both good engines and reliability probably a wash between them.
That's my .02.
 
#5 ·
Copper:
Welcome to DDN. With '03 being the last year for the Gen 1 Durango, Dodge did a fair amount of decontenting that year.
The point re the '03's transmission being the 5 speed 545RFE vs the R/T's old school 4 speed 46RE is worth noting as the 46RE has clutches that should be adjusted every 30-40k, whereas the 545RFE does not. Both though are stout pieces of hardware if properly maintained.

Will you be towing at all? Does either one have the oem tow group? If so, another plus. The extra power/torque of the 02's 5.9L along wit its shorter gears are a big plus there.

While the '03 does have rear discs, the drum brakes on the '02 are still pretty good. I would not let the discs on the '03 sway me, because there is so much more equipment on the '02.
Also, the AWD system on the '02 is a beast. You will see maybe 1 mpg difference between the part time on the 4.7 and the full time on the 5.9. Neither D is a fuel sipper. They are both 4800+ pounds of steel, and have the aerodynamics of a barn door.

The R/T came standard with leather, larger/wider 17 inch wheels, and the 3.92 gears/ 9.25 inch rear end. I believe the R/T also came standard with 4W ABS which was a rare option for the Gen 1 D's.

See below what Motorweek had to say about the '02 R/T.


"They’ve given the 2002 Dodge Durango R/T the biggest engine in any mid-size SUV. Under the hood resides Chrysler’s venerable 5.9-liter Magnum V8. This big-bore pushrod pumper cranks out 245 horsepower and 335 pound-feet of torque. The engine control module has been tweaked, and a more aggressive 3.92 limited slip differential fitted, to provide more off-the-line punch. The standard Durango exhaust has been replaced with a freer-flowing, chromed tipped system that adds hot-rod sounds to go with the hardware. The ponies gallop through a 4-speed automatic transmission and into a full-time 4X4 system with tough going low range. This Jeep Select-Trac system has a fixed torque split of 48% front and 52% rear for secure traction on dirt and tarmac.
The R/T also gets a firmer, sport-tuned version of its front torsion bar, rear live axle leaf spring suspension and a set of larger, 17-inch aluminum wheels, wearing stickier 275/60 Goodyear Wrangler all-season tires. To top it all off, the Durango’s exterior has been given a few little mods as well, namely larger body-colored wheel flares and running boards.
Inside, the R/T is mostly standard Durango, meaning warm, roomy and efficient. But the seats are sporty high-back embroidered buckets trimmed in suede and leather, the latter also used on the door panels. Behind that is the same roomy, but not terribly supportive, second row split bench, and on the R/T a standard third-row folding bench. Total cargo space with all the seats folded? 88.0-cubic-feet, proving that performance can also be very practical.
But what about that performance? Well, we rushed our Durango R/T to our test track, and were rewarded with a 0 to 60 time of 8.3 seconds. Good for any SUV and a half second quicker than the 4.7-liter Durango we tested in ‘98. The 1/4 mile took 16.4 seconds, at 85 miles-per-hour. The R/T feels even livelier, with near instant throttle response and that great exhaust note.
On our handling course, the R/T turns in with added precision, yet confirmed that it is still very much a truck. There is still lots of front push and body roll. But there’s also a lot more grip than you have a right to expect from any SUV, even if the steering stays numb. Braking is by way of the same front discs and rear drums as all Durangos. With optional ABS, our test vehicle stopped from 60 in an average distance of 133 feet. The pedal was soft but stability was excellent. So, overall, the R/T does out sport other Durangos, even if it’s still more show than go."

Then, there is the issue of the lower miles on the '03. As long as the '02 does not look abused or like it was lived in by farm animals, it would be my choice hands down.

As Chase says, having your choice inspected by an independent party never hurts.

Good luck with your decision.


Don
 
  • Like
Reactions: Copper
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #6 · (Edited)
Don Fox said:
Copper:
Welcome to DDN. With '03 being the last year for the Gen 1 Durango, Dodge did a fair amount of decontenting that year.
The point re the '03's transmission being the 5 speed 545RFE vs the R/T's old school 4 speed 46RE is worth noting as the 46RE has clutches that should be adjusted every 30-40k, whereas the 545RFE does not. Both though are stout pieces of hardware if properly maintained.

Will you be towing at all? Does either one have the oem tow group? If so, another plus. The extra power/torque of the 02's 5.9L along wit its shorter gears are a big plus there.

While the '03 does have rear discs, the drum brakes on the '02 are still pretty good. I would not let the discs on the '03 sway me, because there is so much more equipment on the '02.
Also, the AWD system on the '02 is a beast. You will see maybe 1 mpg difference between the part time on the 4.7 and the full time on the 5.9. Neither D is a fuel sipper. They are both 4800+ pounds of steel, and have the aerodynamics of a barn door.

The R/T came standard with leather, larger/wider 17 inch wheels, and the 3.92 gears/ 9.25 inch rear end. I believe the R/T also came standard with 4W ABS which was a rare option for the Gen 1 D's.

See below what Motorweek had to say about the '02 R/T.


"They’ve given the 2002 Dodge Durango R/T the biggest engine in any mid-size SUV. Under the hood resides Chrysler’s venerable 5.9-liter Magnum V8. This big-bore pushrod pumper cranks out 245 horsepower and 335 pound-feet of torque. The engine control module has been tweaked, and a more aggressive 3.92 limited slip differential fitted, to provide more off-the-line punch. The standard Durango exhaust has been replaced with a freer-flowing, chromed tipped system that adds hot-rod sounds to go with the hardware. The ponies gallop through a 4-speed automatic transmission and into a full-time 4X4 system with tough going low range. This Jeep Select-Trac system has a fixed torque split of 48% front and 52% rear for secure traction on dirt and tarmac.
The R/T also gets a firmer, sport-tuned version of its front torsion bar, rear live axle leaf spring suspension and a set of larger, 17-inch aluminum wheels, wearing stickier 275/60 Goodyear Wrangler all-season tires. To top it all off, the Durango’s exterior has been given a few little mods as well, namely larger body-colored wheel flares and running boards.
Inside, the R/T is mostly standard Durango, meaning warm, roomy and efficient. But the seats are sporty high-back embroidered buckets trimmed in suede and leather, the latter also used on the door panels. Behind that is the same roomy, but not terribly supportive, second row split bench, and on the R/T a standard third-row folding bench. Total cargo space with all the seats folded? 88.0-cubic-feet, proving that performance can also be very practical.
But what about that performance? Well, we rushed our Durango R/T to our test track, and were rewarded with a 0 to 60 time of 8.3 seconds. Good for any SUV and a half second quicker than the 4.7-liter Durango we tested in ‘98. The 1/4 mile took 16.4 seconds, at 85 miles-per-hour. The R/T feels even livelier, with near instant throttle response and that great exhaust note.
On our handling course, the R/T turns in with added precision, yet confirmed that it is still very much a truck. There is still lots of front push and body roll. But there’s also a lot more grip than you have a right to expect from any SUV, even if the steering stays numb. Braking is by way of the same front discs and rear drums as all Durangos. With optional ABS, our test vehicle stopped from 60 in an average distance of 133 feet. The pedal was soft but stability was excellent. So, overall, the R/T does out sport other Durangos, even if it’s still more show than go."

Then, there is the issue of the lower miles on the '03. As long as the '02 does not look abused or like it was lived in by farm animals, it would be my choice hands down.

As Chase says, having your choice inspected by an independent party never hurts.

Good luck with your decision.


Don
Click to expand...
Thanks for input, Don, most appreciated. Towing will be minimal, maybe a uhaul rental trailer or a motorcycle trailer on occasion. Both are similarly equipped for towing, with full size trailer hitch and surge brake controller under dash. I’m keeping an open mind at this point, considering that I haven’t actually seen either of them, and your comments remind me that I really should go, see the R/T, in spite of how good the SLT might be. Thanks!
 
#7 ·
Reality is real world there isn't any performance gain with the R/T over the 4.7 due to the poorer geared trans along with the super heavy 17x9 wheels compared to the light 16X8 wheels on the SLT. I have weighed both wheel/tire sets and the R/T wheel/tires are 69 LBS heavier than the SLT standard wheel/tire. That's 69 more lbs of rotational weight that the 5.9L has to deal with on acceleration. That doesn't hurt highway mileage much at all, but it does City mpg and acceleration.
That said, it was a neat package from a looks perspective...but again, in the end its how each vehicle was taken care of by the previous owner that can make the difference here.
 
#8 ·
Something that just occurred to me. If Copper wanted to modify/upgrade the engine at some point, the 5.9 lends itself well there, whereas the 4.7L does not.

Don
 
  • Like
Reactions: Copper
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#12 ·
Basically equal condition? Id go 5.9 no contest

I did just buy an 03 with a 4.7, only because I couldn't find one with a 5.2 or 5.9 that wasn't swiss cheese. And 130ish k miles ain't shit on that 5.9. I would expect either to need "some" maintenance due to age. I bought my 1st Durango an 01 with the 360 (I hate "liter" designation) 10 years ago with already 214k miles on it. I replaced that 360 with another at 258k
It's now at 314k, and now the trans has died. It will live again, as soon as I get the funds for the trans parts. Yeah I rebuild my own. Cheaper than a questionable junkyard replacement that way and I know what I have.
I only bought the 4.7 powered one because it was really clean, that one only had 127k on it, now at 130k..... So far so good, I've done a couple of things on it, nothing huge. Just got new tires on it yesterday. Ones I bought it with were 8 years old and lots of dry rot. And no traction on even slightly wet roads. Much better now

Biggest issue so far was the IAC motor went bad on me. Cost about $60 to fix.
3 more things to do with it,
It came to me with a cracked windshield.
I gotta figure out why the 4wd is inop. Comes up "no communication" on my scanner, I'm thinking it's the TCCM (transfer case control module) in the dash. I had the same problem when I bought my 01. And (hopefully I can wait til spring) I gotta fix the exhaust leak at the driver manifold.
I bought the parts for a tune up, and all the belts and hoses "just because" not in a huge hurry on those but I bought them while I was getting other goodies from rock auto.
Looks like the ball joints and tie rods have already been done, brakes are near new so I won't have to mess with those for a while.
I had to do the ball joints on the 01 within the first week I owned it. So glad I don't have to do that on the 03.
My wife wanted another " just like" the 01 she's had these last 10 years. The "decontenting" of 03s is definitely true. I don't even have all the gauges on the dash in the 03 as the 01 has.
I kept the originals intact and functional while adding an aftermarket temp (water) gauge, an aftermarket trans temp gauge and also an oil pressure gauge. I "have to" on the 03 as it don't even have a volt gauge or an oil pressure gauge.
 
#13 ·
I think I'm up to speed now. They called that "update" the death flash. From what I recall, many folks went to great lengths to avoid it.

Don
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chase300
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#14 ·
dodge trucker said:
It's now at 314k, and now the trans has died
Click to expand...
So just as a counter, I just checked my 2001 4.7L my son uses for school and its at 373,000 with the OEM transmission and the engine has not been opened up either. Other than 100K filter/oil changes the trans has had a $100 rebuilt solenoid block replaced. So a properly taken care of 4.7L will last as long if not longer than a 5.2/5.9.
Also for those thinking the 5.9L is the king in the Durango, I've been to the dyno with mine along with a co-worker who had his 5.9 Dakota. He was almost 20HP less wheel HP than me. I put down 203 to his 185. All my 4.7L had was a K&N drop in filter.
The real performance king in the 1st gen Durango is a 2WD 4.7L w/3.92 rear diff gear.
 
#15 ·
Well I'll tell ya what.
I have a 2012 1/2 ton with the "new and improved" 4.7. dual spark plugs, supposedly 300 HP, which is more than anything I've ever owned.
It's a DOG until it gets to 3000 rpm, then takes off like a shot. It pulls my camper alright, does the job. But before the trans died, the Durango with it's 360 pulled the same camper better, even with supposedly less HP. I felt it back there more behind the 1/2 ton than I did behind the Durango.
I will say that I've not had the 4.7 Durango long enough to have a chance to tow anything ( it does have a class III hitch, and a wiring plug already) when not towing the 03 Durango seems "ballsier" ( is that a word) than the 1/2 ton.
The 1/2 ton is 2wd, both my Durangos are 4wd.
One difference between the 1/2 ton and my "new" Durango is the truck is "drive by wire" and the Durango has a cable from gas pedal to throttle body. Both are 3.55 gears, both stock size tires, though the truck's are a little taller.
I'm wondering if the computer on the truck is somehow "dumbing down" the speed the TB opens compared to how hard I'm on the gas ...

I'll take a 318 or a 360 any day of the week. Personal experience with the 4.7 is less than personal experience with the other 2, so the jury is still out on whether it will treat me as well as the old engines did.
Unless I want a rust bucket I don't have the choice of buying something with the engines I'd rather have anymore......
 
#16 ·
I first vehicle I had for college was a Plymouth w/318, great engine, had 220,000 miles on it before rust claimed the body, sold to a friend who stuck the engine in his van and continued to run it. I did strip the timing gear at 150,000 as it was nylon coated which of course failed over time...leaned how to rebuild top end due to that episode.
So, IMO...having run a 318 and 4.7L, I prefer the 4.7L. Its just a much smoother more refined engine, with good power. Only downside compared to the 318/360 is the TQ curve is higher in the rpm range, so if towing it really benefits from the 3.92 gears as peak TQ is around 3200 and that is where the engine sits at 70mph when towing w/OD off.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
About this Discussion
15 Replies
5 Participants
Last post:
Chase300
Dodge Durango Forum
posts
509K
members
60K
Since
2004
Welcome to the best Dodge Durango Forum around, where you can find a great Dodge Durango Wiki and discuss the reliability of the different trim levels including the GT and SRT!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Durango Discussions 2014+ Durango Discussions 1998-03 Durango Discussions Dodge Durango 2018+ SRT and Hellcat Durango Purchasing