Dodge Dakota Future Models

141 messages, Last post on Sep 03, 2006 at 9:58 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

#74 of 141 Re: isn't plunking one of their V8s into their next gen trucks? [iowabigguy] by dustyk Aug 28, 2004 (9:29 am)
Replying to: iowabigguy (Aug 27, 2004 6:54 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 9:46 am) dustyk (Sep 15, 2004 4:10 pm)
#75 of 141 Re: isn't plunking one of their V8s into their next gen trucks? [dustyk] by atlgaxt Aug 30, 2004 (9:46 am)
Replying to: dustyk (Aug 28, 2004 9:29 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 4:10 pm)
#76 of 141 C & D by atlgaxt Sep 15, 2004 (8:49 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 (4:10 pm)
Replying to: atlgaxt (Aug 30, 2004 9:46 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 (6:29 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 3:51 pm)
#79 of 141 Re: I noticed that too dusty [mopar67] by dustyk Sep 16, 2004 (3:51 pm)
Replying to: mopar67 (Sep 15, 2004 6:29 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 (4:27 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 4:30 pm)
#81 of 141 RE: Loss of Gauges [sunburn] by dustyk Sep 17, 2004 (4:30 pm)
Replying to: sunburn (Sep 16, 2004 4:27 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
#82 of 141 Now that I have purchased by marsha7 Sep 28, 2004 (12:09 pm)
a road car for me (2004 Crown Vic), the next vehicle is a pickup truck for the wife...the lease on our Intrepid is up in Jan 2005, so we are strating to seriously truck-hunt now...considering new 2005 F150, maybe a 2003 F150 King Ranch (take advantage of 2 yr depreciation and pre-2004 is actually a smaller F150, weighing 500 lbs less than the new F150, according to Edmunds) and also considering a 2005 Frontier and 2005 Dakota (yes, I am in the right topic)...I have been pleased with my Intrepid, so Chrysler quality seems OK to me...reading the advance reports, I am somewhat disappointed that last year's 4WD Dakota had 4-wheel disc brakes, but they de-contented 2005 and returned to rear drum brakes...having had 4 wheel disc brakes on numerous vehicles, I find they stop better than disc/drum, and the 2000 Sable I just traded only served to confirm my opinions...if disc/drum is worth considering, I will examine the new Dakota, but I do have my usual requirements, and maybe you can answer...does the new Dakota, in its most top-of-the-line form, have adjustable lumbar supports for passenger and driver??? (I know the F150 does, but I do not know about Frontier)... also, in the 4 door crew cab, does it have the option of power seats for driver???...for passenger???...anyone know the various bed lengths for the new Dakota???...thanks Replies to this message: dustyk (Oct 02, 2004 1:29 pm)
#83 of 141 More Questions by atlgaxt Sep 29, 2004 (7:00 am)
I do not have answers for Marsha 7 but I have some more questions. 1. I understand that AWD is an option. Does this system give you a choice of 2wd, AWD, 4 HI and 4 LO? I have part time 4wd on my Mazda, and while it is a good system for off road, I often find myself slipping around in the rain in 2wd. At the same time, a full time AWD system burns fuel and tires. A full compliment of choices would be great. 2. I'm getting over the fact that there is no HEMI. Sigh... Does anyone know what fuel is recommended for the 4.7 High Output? Replies to this message: fishkiller (Sep 29, 2004 9:21 pm) demoncleaner (Sep 30, 2004 7:40 am) fishkiller (Oct 12, 2004 9:24 pm)