Talk:Dodge Durango

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

'Rumors' section removed from main article

The following appeared as a top-level section — see permalink for version prior to removal. My feeling is that a 'rumors' section really doesn't belong in Wikipedia, at least not without a reference to support it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors

In 2008, DaimlerChrysler is expected to introduce a hybrid version of the Durango which uses the shared GM/DaimlerChrysler Advanced Hybrid System 2. It is expected to use the 5.7 L Hemi V8.

Added, came and went in just a few months.Telecine Guy (talk)

The 2005 Update

I think there needs to me more clarification on the 2005 Update. When I first came to this page, I was confused out of my mind why there was a third version showing up on the side bar. So, I tried to put a side by side comparison on the 2004 subsection. I think the way it is now is way too confusing because there's this red herring/outlier of an image at the top, with no explanatory text for the images at all. My attempt to revise was reverted, perhaps someone can suggest a better way to show this?-146.115.115.184 (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This as been fixed, there are third-generations, thank you. Telecine Guy (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redundant pictures

Why are Image:2004-06 Dodge Durango.jpg and Image:07-Dodge-Durango.jpg used both in the body and side-bars? ataricom (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why put two cars on the same image per Wikipedia standards? -- Bull-Doser (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BullDoser, it took a while, and a few reversions. But you're finally here. I'll catch you up to speed: [1], [2], [3]. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to IFCAR about the Dodge Durango image. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' understand. You've addressed none of the issues I've raised in the three links I've provided, and you've given me a non sequitur about IFCAR. IFCAR has nothing to do with anything. I am puzzled. Please elaborate beyond one sentence. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to read edit summaries in the future before calling edits "unexplained." I should think they were very well explained, while yours have not been. Please stop inserting photos of multiple vehicles into one infobox, and please stop putting a lower-quality image in the head infobox. IFCAR (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple pages in one infobox are the norm. Consult: Russian_American, Usa, China, Jewish_American, African_american, Russia. Low quality info box images are the norm. consult: Aston_Martin_DB9, Aston_Martin_V8_Vantage_(2005), Ford Taurus. Moreover, you continue to revert without addressing a single concern I've listed above. Please do so and let's work out a comprimise! I'm more than happy to comprimise. I'm more than willing to make this a cooperative effort instead of a reversion war. I have attempted to modify this page over a course of four months and dozens of reversions. No one has addressed a single issue I've raised in the past 4 months. The page remains flawed with the issues I've raised in Nov 2007. Again: I am very willing to comprimise, but we cannot comprimise and collaborate if you do not address my concerns as I have done to yours. Please, let's neogtiate and comprimise instead of revert. Thanx. You are welcome to come to the talk page to discuss instead of using edit summaries which I cannot reply to and which are not easily archived.-72.93.80.5 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've seen a coherent explanation for why, unlike every other auto article, Dodge Durango should have two photos in the second-generation infobox rather than the exact same images elsewhere in the article in an arrangement more consistent with other auto articles that also puts a higher-quality image at the top (also consistent with WikiProject Autos precedent). I've laid out many reasons why the image placement should not be the way you seem to prefer. Every single auto article has an image representing the line at the head infobox when an image is available. If you disagree, the place to do that would be on the project talk page where broad standards are discussed, not on the Dodge Durango talk page. Stop reverting. IFCAR (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you've ignored every single one of my points and ignored my pleas for cooperation and collaboration. I am more than happy to compromise. Please, let's compromise!. It would serve you well to read what I've written above. [4], [5], [6]. [7]-72.93.80.5 —Preceding comment was added at 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the new image. Now, for my other concerns: [8], [9], [10]. [11] -72.93.80.5 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this revision: [12]. This addresses all my current concerns. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are going against the standard of every other auto article in insisting that there be two images in one infobox. This is something you should be debating at the policy level, not at the level of the individual article. Here is the link to WikiProject Autos talk. I will be reverting this page to the standard of every other article unless/until you find users willing to implement a widespread policy shift towards dual-image infoboxes. Do not revert without getting feedback from other users on that page. IFCAR (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed a single concern of mine. Please do so: [13], [14], [15]. [16] I am more than happy to place only one image on the infobox: only if the differences between the 2nd generation Durango models are recognized. You are welcome to reedit the page so that one image remains, but the difference between the pre 2007 and post 2007 models is evident. I await your image rearrangement proposal in accordance with the policy, but will accept only if the pre 2007 and post 2007 differences are plain and evident. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this version: [17] -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered the fundamental question of why Dodge Durango is different from every other article. I offered you the medium to do so. This is not it. IFCAR (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Again, I am very willing to compromise. Please see here: [18] I look forward to working with you, not against you.-72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your suggestion to the appropriate location. Put up a message at WikiProject Autos, and I won't revert the edits I strongly disagree with for going against obvious precedent until a consensus is reached there. None of your "compromises" have addressed my fundamental objection to two images in one infobox. IFCAR (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about the info box. I do not. DO NOT. DO NOT. DO NOT. wish to change policy. Also, I do not believe you that it is "policy" that info boxes should be one way or another . The only policy that is citable is this one: [19]. Unless you can cite the Wikipedia page that states auto info boxes may only have one image, I will not assume that there is any such policy. However, I do acknowledge that there is a sensible custom to have only one image per info box because it is easier to understand. Therefore I will not object to that. I can see where you're coming from. I wish to merely display the difference between pre 2007 and post 2007 differences. I stacked the images because it was the best way I could see how to do it. Perhaps you can offer a solution that complies with the policy, yet also makes explicit the difference between pre 07 and post 07 models. I look forward to collaborating and cooperating with you in the future. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images do not need to be immediately next to each other for changes to be visible. Captions explain clearly what each image is, and the text explains the changes. My question is why you feel Dodge Durango should have two images stacked in an infobox, while users have set a precedent for similar situations in other articles that does not put the images in the same infobox, for the reason you yourself addressed.

Two options for compromise: 1) provide a convincing reason why Dodge Durango should be different from every other auto article, or 2) request and respond to feedback on the WikiProject Autos talk page. Kindly do one or both, or I will continue to revert to the version that uses no inferior-quality images and follow the precedent of not cluttering infoboxes with multiple images. IFCAR (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about the info box. I do not. DO NOT. DO NOT. DO NOT. wish to change policy. Also, I do not believe you that it is "policy" that info boxes should be one way or another . The only policy that is citable is this one: [20]. Unless you can cite the Wikipedia page that states auto info boxes may only have one image, I will not assume that there is any such policy. However, I do acknowledge that there is a sensible custom to have only one image per info box because it is easier to understand. Therefore I will not object to that. I can see where you're coming from. I wish to merely display the difference between pre 2007 and post 2007 differences. I stacked the images because it was the best way I could see how to do it. Perhaps you can offer a solution that complies with the policy, yet also makes explicit the difference between pre 07 and post 07 models. I look forward to collaborating and cooperating with you in the future. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the images do not need to be immediately next to each other. Captions explain clearly what each image is. In the reversion you propose here [21]. There are no captions to explain the change. Herein lies the problem I encountered in Nov 2007 when I first came upon this page. It was very very confusing why there were two versions. Hover captions are insufficient. Moreover, [22] is an inaccurate depiction of a 2nd Generation Dodge Durango. It does not illustrate a 2nd Generation Dodge Durango made from 2004 - 2006. Thus making it 'erroneous. Plain and simple. 2) My question is why you feel Dodge Durango should have two images stacked in an infobox I don't [23]. provide a convincing reason why Dodge Durango should be different from every other auto article That is not my proposal. Please read this: [24]. And this: [25] -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The captions explain what the vehicles are. The article explains the text in the 2007 Facelift section. Just like in EVERY. OTHER. AUTO ARTICLE.

Either you are saying that every other article is wrong (ie large-scale policy shift) or you are saying that the Dodge Durango article has different circumstances. You are not addressing what I am saying, just giving links to what you already said on this page. I am putting up a notice on WikiProject Autos to let someone else deal with this, I don't have the inclination or the energy to run around in circles all night. IFCAR (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about the info box. I do not. DO NOT. DO NOT. DO NOT. wish to change policy. Also, I do not believe you that it is "policy" that info boxes should be one way or another . The only policy that is citable is this one: [26]. Unless you can cite the Wikipedia page that states auto info boxes may only have one image, I will not assume that there is any such policy. However, I do acknowledge that there is a sensible custom to have only one image per info box because it is easier to understand. Therefore I will not object to that. I can see where you're coming from. I wish to merely display the difference between pre 2007 and post 2007 differences. I stacked the images because it was the best way I could see how to do it. Perhaps you can offer a solution that complies with the policy, yet also makes explicit the difference between pre 07 and post 07 models. I look forward to collaborating and cooperating with you in the future. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think we're running in circles. I think we're collaborating. Again: [27] is an inaccurate depiction of a 2nd Generation Dodge Durango. It does not illustrate a 2nd Generation Dodge Durango made from 2004 - 2006. Thus making it erroneous and misleading. I am very willing to cooperate and collaborate all night long. -72.93.80.5 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension Issues

This article should have a section about the suspension issues about the 1998-2003 Dodge Durangos having ball joint problems that caused the tires to break off. --PJ Pete October 18, 2009 2:58

If you would like this added you would need to provide a good reliable sources. This was a normal safety recall, in that excessive wear of the upper ball joint could cause the front wheel fall off. Reall was for some 2000-2003 Dodge Dakota and Durango 4WD models (not all Durangos), see 04V-596 / D47 Recall. Telecine Guy (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

Made minor updates.... 4.7 is called the Magnum V8 in the 2000-2003 Durango, and side curtain airbags were optional, not standard starting in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.154.155 (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

45RFE/545RFE in 98-03 Section

Could someone update the side box to include the 45RFE/545RFE transmissions for the 00-03 years that have the 4.7? I can't exactly remember what year the 4.7 went to the 545RFE... but I believe it was 2001 or 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.235.79 (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC) 70.61.235.79 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the First generation transmission section.

42RE 4-speed TorqueFlite automatic - 3.9 L V6 45RFE 4-speed RFE automatic (2000–2002) - 4.7 L V8 545RFE 5-speed RFE automatic (2003) - 4.7 L V8 44RE 4-speed TorqueFlite automatic - 5.2 L V8 46RE 4-speed TorqueFlite automatic - 5.9 L V8

Thank you.Telecine Guy (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What years? They've all been changed.

This change from an IP from Santiago, Chile, made hash out of the article's years. Can someone with expert topic knowledge make the required corrections?

Note that the IP fits into a pattern of IPs known for disruption with regard to years. See the ANI discussion at "Request for rangeblock of 190.96.32.0/20". Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was fixed. Thank you. Telecine Guy (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change Manufacturer to Fiat Chrysler

Needs update of new corporate name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.179.146 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dodge Durango. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dodge Durango. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150212115524/http://www.chrysler.com/en/2008/aspen/driving_dynamics/drive_options/ to http://www.chrysler.com/en/2008/aspen/driving_dynamics/drive_options/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodge Durango. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027210744/http://www.insideline.com/chrysler/aspen/2009/chrysler-kills-durango-and-aspen-hybrids.html to http://www.insideline.com/chrysler/aspen/2009/chrysler-kills-durango-and-aspen-hybrids.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodge Durango. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120110023127/http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2012/01/chrysler-sales-shoot-up-37-26-for-2011 to http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2012/01/chrysler-sales-shoot-up-37-26-for-2011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SUV or CUV?

Many like to compare the Durango to the Chevy Traverse and Ford Explorer, formerly Ford Flex. When in reality, it's much more like the Chevy Tahoe/Suburban and Ford Expedition. If anything, the Journey, in addition to being like the Chevy Blazer and Ford Edge, is also like the Traverse and Explorer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey is like the Blazer, Edge, and Explorer, while the Durango is like the Traverse and formerly the Flex. Also, the Durango offers seating up to 7 as opposed to the Tahoe/Suburban which offer up to 9. Ee2mba (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, the Durango competes more directly with the Tahoe/Suburban and Expedition, whilst the Journey takes on the Traverse and Explorer, in addition to the Blazer and Edge. 104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it’s a crossover. The Journey takes on the every vehicle but the Traverse. There’s rumors of a new Ramcharger to serve as the Dodge full-size SUV. Ee2mba (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never have, and never will, see the Durango as a CUV. And I think that Ramcharger'll be a RAM version of the Jeep Wrangler. Also, in 2009, when both the Journey and Traverse came out, there were many comparisons drawn between the two. 104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Durango still has Crossover capabilities. I don’t know why people call it a full-size SUV. Ee2mba (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what it is. That's like calling the Expedition a CUV, it's incorrect, regardless of what capabilities it may have. 104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Crossover. Many people state it is one. Ee2mba (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common misconception. The Durango doesn't cross over any more than your average Expedition does. 104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Durango was built on a separate frame for the first two generations, and was thus a "proper" SUV. The current (third) generation is a unit-body construction, an enlarged version of the Jeep Grand Cherokee. To some people, being unit-body makes it a cross-over, but, as with the Grand Cherokee, I believe that it is completely fair to call it an SUV. Full-size is more dubious; one can find support for any view imaginable. The EPA calls it a "Standard Sport Utility Vehicle" as there is officially no such thing as a full-size SUV. The EPA also do not release interior volume figures for trucks, so we can't really make up the classifications ourselves. FWIW, there is talk of the fourth generation returning to body-on-frame construction. Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth generation has not yet been announced. Ee2mba (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Cherokee (and the XJ Cherokee before it) were always of unibody construction but were not considered crossovers. The other litmus test for a crossover is being built on a "car platform," although with the demise of most conventional cars that definition is going to become difficult eventually. However, the Grand Cherokee and Durango have longitudinally-mounted engines, which I believe tip them firmly into the "truck-based" category. --Sable232 (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been comparison between the Ford Explorer ST and Dodge Durango SRT by TFL. Ee2mba (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, The Durango has far more in common with the Expedition than it does the Explorer, that's the Journey. 104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Durango and Traverse are both the same style Ee2mba (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Expedition and Traverse, this is more similar to the former than the latter. 104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 07 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey and Grand Caravan are both being retired. The Durango will now also serve as Dodge’s Ford Explorer and Edge competitor and Chevrolet Blazer, as well as a Traverse competitor. Ee2mba (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should really write to Dodge to not retire them. The Durango cannot, and I mean cannot, compete with the Edge, Explorer, Blazer, nor Traverse, only the Expediton and Suburban/Tahoe. Oh, and while they're at it, tell them to bring back the Dodge Nitro as a rebadged Jeep Cherokee to compete with the Ford Escape and Chevy Equinox. You know, they could easily rebadge the Chrysler Pacifica as the Grand Caravan opposed to retiring it? That's lazy. Also, the next-generation Journey could be a Challenger-based wagon with third row seating, effectively filling the void left by the Flex, not unlike how the Charger fills the void left by the Chevy Impala and Ford Taurus. Can someone, anyone, please convince FCA to do that? 104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Caravan is being replaced. As for the Journey, it shouldn't be retired, and the Nitro should actually be a rebaged KL Cherokee. But who will write to Dodge? Ee2mba (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People like us. 104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is Dodge's address? How can I find it? Ee2mba (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is different about the Traverse and Expedition? Which is the Durango more like?104.57.183.127 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Durango is a Crossover. It is based of the Mercedes-Benz ML Class third generation platform while competitors are based off of truck platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.163.155.150 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is unibody like the Traverse, that does not, however, mean it is a CUV. It has a longitudinally-mounted engine, not unlike the Expedition. (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not because it is unibody but because of size, seating, and capabilites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.163.155.150 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is bigger than most CUV's, such as the Ford Explorer, Subaru Outback, Toyota Highlander, Honda Pilot, Nissan Pathfinder, Hyundai Santa Fe, and even Dodge's own Journey. (talk • contribs) 07:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all mid-size crossovers. The Durango is a full-size Crossover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.163.155.150 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is more like the Expedition. I mean just look at them and tell me they don't look alike. (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot like it but more like the Traverse and Flex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.163.155.150 (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always compared it to the Expedition more.

It can be comparable to the Expedition in some ways but in other ways to the Flex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.163.155.150 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ee2mba: @104.57.183.127: Just a reminder, keep the discussion about the article itself and not your feelings about the Durango or related cars -- WP:NOTFORUM. --Vossanova ^o< 20:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-size or full-size

I've been trying to find enough sources to back up the claim that the 2nd gen Durango is full-size, as opposed to mid-size like the 1st and 3rd. Picking model year 2009, I got one saying it's mid-size [28] and two saying it's in between mid-size and full-size [29] [30], which doesn't help much. There are at least enough included sources that we can keep 3rd gen as "mid-size crossover SUV". --Vossanova ^o< 18:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Generation is absolutely full sized. Daimler Chrysler at the time claimed that the Durango is a full size SUV and it also has the dimensions of a full size SUV, even competing with other full size SUVS at the time like the Armada and Expedition. For the 2nd Gen article, it should be changed from midsize to Full Size SUV. Hank J.B (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely midsize, also not a crossover. Crossovers are usually FWD/full-time AWD. The only RWD crossovers are European SUVs like the offerings from the German Big 3 and even those are borderline 'true SUVs'. The Durango and GC are too rugged to be crossovers even if they are unibodied and thus can be considered a 4Runner and Explorer competitor. I don't even think the Explorer is a crossover. 71.94.157.155 (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full-size, full-size indeed. Not just the second generation, but the third generation, too. The third generation is noticeably bigger than the first generation to boot. I'd say it, along with the unrelated, but very identical Jeep Wagoneer, compete with the Sequoia, Armada, Expedition, Suburban/Tahoe, and Yukon. Not the Highlander, Pathfinder, Explorer, Traverse, or Acadia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:D70C:D300:1BE:9E65:8133:791E (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add 5.7 Litre Hemi V8 to the list of motors. The Durango came with a 5.7 Litre Hemi after 2003, this motor is not listed on the page. 207.81.23.62 (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Please provide reliable sources to support your edit request. MBihun (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This as been fixed, the 5.7 L is listed. Telecine Guy (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to non-disruptively edit this page.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 09:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]