Dodge Dakota Future Models

141 messages, Last post on Sep 03, 2006 at 8:58 AM

You are in the Dodge Dakota Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Dodge Dakota, Truck

Discuss future Dakota Models here!

Find other future makes/models in Edmunds.com Future Vehicles

Outline

Messages Page 9 of 15: 1; ...; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; ...; 15; Prev; Next; Last

#72 of 141 Re: Treating the Dakota Unfairly [atlgaxt] by dustyk Aug 27, 2004 (3:26 pm)
Replying to: atlgaxt (Aug 25, 2004 8:07 am) I understand the point you're making. But in order to make the next generation Dakota big enough to fit around the 5.7 Hemi would've made the Dakota too close in size to the RAM. As we see with the Tundra a slightly lesser version of a full size pick-up does not generate sales. I think in this respect the Dodge truck development staff did a good thing. If your point is horsepower then I give you that. It would be nice to market some more. I'm sure that the next-gen Dakota platform team had some idea what the competition was doing in the development area, and like everyone else they've done their market research. We should not assume, however, that just because the Hemi won't be available that something else won't be. We do not know exactly what the new offerings from Nissan and Toyota will be like in their final form. The GM Canyon, for example, has been criticized for being still smaller than the existing Dakota while being only marginally larger than the current S10 platform, and GM lovers cannot understand why GM didn't introduce a "Dakota beater" when they had a chance with a fresh sheet of paper. Cylinder deactivation would be easily adaptable to the 4.7, but I think that with a motor that size the cost-benefit ratio is not as favorable as it is with the larger, more thirsty Hemi. As to the comment about more horsepower in the Nissan and Toyotas, I think you missed my point. In a 4.0 liter V6 the power band will never be optimum for pick-up truck usage compared to the likes of the 4.7 Chrysler V8. In order to produce that kind of power in a normally aspirated engine, on 87 octane fuel no less, the power band will have to move upwards with a corresponding loss of low-end torque...variable timing or not. In order to be truly competitive the platform will have to make up for this in other areas in order to match the performance of the current 4.7 Dakota. The most logical approach would be reducing weight. It's easy to second guess manufacturers if one is asking a narrow question. In reality Dakota platform developers are trying to appeal to a wider range of buyer. If the Dakota is to be criticized for not having the new Hemi, then why wouldn't we be asking why Nissan and Toyota are dickering with a current V6 and isn't plunking one of their V8s into their next gen trucks? I suspect they have a reason, too. Best regards, Dusty
#73 of 141 isn't plunking one of their V8s into their next gen trucks? by iowabigguy Aug 27, 2004 (5:54 pm)
I suspect that as competition heats up for the existing crude oil output. It will cause an ever increasing spiral in prices at the pump. At some point our illustrious politicians will see fit to include our gas guzzling trucks in the automobile CAFE requirements to stem the flow of our dollars into the Middle East. Then you will start hearing people asking why are the manufacturers not putting more efficient motors into the trucks. I suspect the Asian manufacturers are a little better at seeing future trends than maybe we give them credit for. I have read that the sales of SUVs have already softened with the modest increase in gas prices we have already seen. I don't think diesel motors are going to help much because as the demand for diesel increases the price will skyrocket. We will be competing for the fuel with our trucking industry, our Farmers and the people who heat their homes with heating oil as well as the Europeans. One of the reasons our gas prices have been low in recent years is the surplus of gasoline from European refineries as they refine and sell larger percentages of diesel. I have read that about half the cars purchases in Europe are powered by diesel motors. But then again demand will drop for gas and we should see a reduction in the price of gas. Do you suppose Dodge could put that new 6.1 Hemi in the Dakota. <grin> Replies to this message: dustyk (Aug 28, 2004 8:29 am) atlgaxt (Aug 30, 2004 8:46 am) dustyk (Sep 15, 2004 3:10 pm)
#74 of 141 Re: isn't plunking one of their V8s into their next gen trucks? [iowabigguy] by dustyk Aug 28, 2004 (8:29 am)
Replying to: iowabigguy (Aug 27, 2004 5:54 pm) >>>At some point our illustrious politicians will see fit to include our gas guzzling trucks in the automobile CAFE requirements to stem the flow of our dollars into the Middle East. Then you will start hearing people asking why are the manufacturers not putting more efficient motors into the trucks. <<< Iowa, if this is true then maybe Dodge is ahead on this one by not (at the moment) fueling the horsepower race. There are already a population of politicians who treat horsepower as a dirty word and wanting to crush horsepower with taxes and penalties. SUVs have taken some heat away from LD pick-ups by steering the over emotional SUV-haters away...for the moment. But some are looking at why most LD trucks are owned by civilians without a business case. Watch California's Barbra Boxer or Diane Feinstein. By the way, I'm finding a number of guys are now complaining about the fuel consumption on the new F150 with the 5.4 engines. I've heard several say that their older 5.4s gave them 15-16 consistently, but the new ones are 12-13 MPG. The brother of my son-in-law bought a new F150 regular cab and, according to my son-in-law he can beat it with his 2002 F150 Quad 4x4! Bests, Dusty Replies to this message: atlgaxt (Aug 30, 2004 8:46 am) dustyk (Sep 15, 2004 3:10 pm)
#75 of 141 Re: isn't plunking one of their V8s into their next gen trucks? [dustyk] by atlgaxt Aug 30, 2004 (8:46 am)
Replying to: dustyk (Aug 28, 2004 8:29 am) Regarding the F-150, my guess is that part of the reason fuel economy is lower than the previous generation is that the new one is just so darn heavy. I agree that we need to increase fuel efficiency in this country, and burning less fuel is another reason I am steering away from a full sized truck. However, technology in the form of mild hybrids, cylinder deactivation and direct fuel injection promises to provide substantial fuel economy increases, even for V8 powered trucks over the next several years. I also think that as the fuel is cleaned up, diesels will become more common. Regarding the Tacoma, my guess is that a V8 is not initially available because Toyota does not want the new larger Tacoma to steal sales from the Tundra. When the Tundra gets bigger (in 2006?), my guess is that we will see a direct injection V8 with VVT in the Tacoma that will get better fuel economy than the V6 in the current version. I'll quit my yappin about the lack of a hemi in the Dakota if I hear that Daimler Chrysler decides to put one of their excellent diesels in that truck. In my mind, that would trump the competition. Replies to this message: dustyk (Sep 15, 2004 3:10 pm)
#76 of 141 C & D by atlgaxt Sep 15, 2004 (7:49 am)
FYI - There is a brief "preview" article on the new Dakota in the new Car & Driver. Just some basic info and discussion of why no hemi (I'm staying away from that topic) and only a brief analysis.
#77 of 141 Re: isn't plunking one of their V8s into their next gen trucks? [atlgaxt] by dustyk Sep 15, 2004 (3:10 pm)
Replying to: atlgaxt (Aug 30, 2004 8:46 am) For 2005 the Dakota will have the option of a high output 4.7 motor, which is being advertised as faster that the 5.9 Dakota R/T. Saw a 2005 dakota for the first time today at Marina Dodge in Webster, New York. Can't say I take to the appearance of the front end, but the rest of it looks pretty good. It appears that the oil pressure and voltmeter are no longer part of the instrumentation. That's too bad. I will say that the fit and finish was as good as any car or truck I've ever seen. Regards, Dusty
#78 of 141 I noticed that too dusty by mopar67 Sep 15, 2004 (5:29 pm)
to me, omission of gauges consitutes a serious design gaffe. Perhaps its space or cost, regardless, Chrysler was noted for YEARS in having full instrumentation on their cars and trucks. I know I certainly appreciated a full gauge set on my Dak. Alas, no oil pressure and voltmeter means Dodge is trying a bit to hard to make the Dakota into more of a loser cruiser (ie minivan) or something other than what it really is.......a pickup truck. Shame on you DOdge! Replies to this message: dustyk (Sep 16, 2004 2:51 pm)
#79 of 141 Re: I noticed that too dusty [mopar67] by dustyk Sep 16, 2004 (2:51 pm)
Replying to: mopar67 (Sep 15, 2004 5:29 pm) Mopar, Yep. I agree. Dumping the gauges is especially sinful on a truck. It looks as if there's not even an option package for increased instrumentation. They probably saved $50.00 in component cost. But to me many truck buyers will notice the absence of those gauges. Bests, Dusty
#80 of 141 RE: Loss of Gauges by sunburn Sep 16, 2004 (3:27 pm)
Toyota did the same thing when the Tacoma replaced the 2nd generation pick-up. The oil pressure and voltage gauges went away. So, DC isn't the only one being cheap. Replies to this message: dustyk (Sep 17, 2004 3:30 pm)
#81 of 141 RE: Loss of Gauges [sunburn] by dustyk Sep 17, 2004 (3:30 pm)
Replying to: sunburn (Sep 16, 2004 3:27 pm) Sunburn, I know. But isn't Dodge supposed to be "different?" I stopped and took my first close look at the new Dakota. One thing I noticed right away is the increase in the frame dimensions. Good Lord, the frame rail between the upper A-frames and the firewall has got to be almost double the height as my 2003! The new Dakota frame appears to rival that of some full-size PUs. And I think the current (now older) generation Dakota frames were very stiff -- much better than adequate. The rear doors on the Club Cab are nice, although the rear seating looked no better than my '03. I think I like the rear seats better in mine, though. Although I like the white face gauges, much about the new interior was far from spell-binding. The interior designers tried to take some of the starkness away from it (this one was a beige interior) by making the door panel insert a contrasting color. But I think my '03 has more pizzazz, and mine's dark charcoal inside. Fit and finish was flawless inside and out. The rear doors are extremely solid and close like the Panama Canal locks -- very securely. I don't know what last year's 3.9 engine sports for fuel consumption, but this automatic V6 was rated 15-22 EPA. I think that's a slight increase if I remember correctly. Still don't like the front end, but the rest of it was done quite nicely. The rear tailights are sharp. Bests, Dusty