Last post on Sep 03, 2006 at 8:58 AM
You are in the Dodge Dakota-2010 and older
What is this discussion about?
Dodge Dakota, Truck
Discuss future Dakota Models here!
Find other future makes/models in Edmunds.com Future Vehicles
#77 of 142 Re: isn't plunking one of their V8s into their next gen trucks? [atlgaxt]
Sep 15, 2004 (3:10 pm)
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.
#78 of 142 I noticed that too dusty
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!
#79 of 142 Re: I noticed that too dusty [mopar67]
Sep 16, 2004 (2:51 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.
#80 of 142 RE: Loss of Gauges
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.
#81 of 142 RE: Loss of Gauges [sunburn]
Sep 17, 2004 (3:30 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.
#82 of 142 Now that I have purchased
Sep 28, 2004 (11:09 am)
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
#83 of 142 More Questions
Sep 29, 2004 (6:00 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?
#84 of 142 2005 Payload Less?!
Sep 29, 2004 (8:00 pm)
My stock '01 ClubCab w/ 4.7 4x4 3.92 AT factory 2.65x70x16 tires has published payload of 1800#. Looking forward to same 2005 w/ new 4.7HO, but published payload is 260# less (1560). Anybody know why? Regularly haul close to a ton on rough roads & trails here out West, and my '01 squats only an inch or so and handles great. What's up w/ lighter max P/L for '05? LUV MY TRUCK -- not a single problem 50K mi., lots of them tough!
#85 of 142 Re: More Questions [atlgaxt]
Sep 29, 2004 (8:21 pm)
I waited about 10 years in Jeeps w/ QuadraTrac for Dakota w long-promised full time 4WD/AWD, and when they finally did in '01, I jumped for it. In sum, out here in UT in all kinds of weather, on/off all kinds of roads, it had been a GREAT drive system! Not a single problem, good mileage & I don't have to remember to unlock hubs, get out of 4WD, fumble for the switch when hitting icy stretches, etc. It's so good, I don't know why anyone who ever drives on snow and ice or slick grades would ever have anything else!
DRIVE ON! GO DAK! GO AWD!
#86 of 142 RE: 2005 Payload Less
Sep 30, 2004 (2:52 am)
It's probably because the truck weighs more, but the GVWR did not increase. So, less payload capacity. I was hoping that a larger, stronger frame would mean an increase in GVWR. It didn't (at least not for the QCs).