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 10 of 15: 1; ...; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; ...; 15; Prev; Next; Last

#82 of 141 Now that I have purchased by marsha7 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 Replies to this message: dustyk (Oct 02, 2004 12:29 pm)
#83 of 141 More Questions by atlgaxt 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? Replies to this message: fishkiller (Sep 29, 2004 8:21 pm) demoncleaner (Sep 30, 2004 6:40 am) fishkiller (Oct 12, 2004 8:24 pm)
#84 of 141 2005 Payload Less?! by fishkiller 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! Replies to this message: dustyk (Oct 02, 2004 12:32 pm)
#85 of 141 Re: More Questions [atlgaxt] by fishkiller Sep 29, 2004 (8:21 pm)
Replying to: atlgaxt (Sep 29, 2004 6:00 am) 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! Replies to this message: demoncleaner (Sep 30, 2004 6:40 am) fishkiller (Oct 12, 2004 8:24 pm)
#86 of 141 RE: 2005 Payload Less by sunburn 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).
#87 of 141 Re: More Questions [fishkiller] by demoncleaner Sep 30, 2004 (6:40 am)
Replying to: fishkiller (Sep 29, 2004 8:21 pm) Fishkiller, wondering what mileage you get with the full-time 4wd, was wondering if it drops a few compared mpg all the time to the regular part-time 4wd. Also, for anyone, what are the chances of ACTUALLY finding a 6-spd manual V-8 Quad cab? Dodge offers a manual, but never stocks in Up Upstate NY. I searched they simply dont exist. A buddy of mine has an 03 and had to special order (waited a over a month)his to get a manual, ridiculous. Any EPA estimates on the V-8 6spd vs the auto (15/20). Thanks Replies to this message: fishkiller (Oct 12, 2004 8:24 pm)
#88 of 141 More Questions by ron35 Sep 30, 2004 (8:03 am)
atlgxt - The 4.7 high output requires premium fuel. Ron35 Replies to this message: dustyk (Oct 02, 2004 11:53 am)
#89 of 141 Re: More Questions [ron35] by dustyk Oct 02, 2004 (11:53 am)
Replying to: ron35 (Sep 30, 2004 8:03 am) Ron, does it REQUIRE premuim fuel, or is it optional, producing less horsepower when run on regular like many other engines? Bests, Dusty
#90 of 141 Re: Now that I have purchased [marsha7] by dustyk Oct 02, 2004 (12:29 pm)
Replying to: marsha7 (Sep 28, 2004 11:09 am) Marsha, For 2005 the box lengths are 64.9 inches (Quad Cab) and 78.8 inches (Club Cab). Payload is 1740 pounds with a 7000 GVW tow rating. Following a trend in the industry, the '05 Dakota is heavier by about 250 lbs. The 4x2 Club Cabs are 4275(A) and 4286(M), with the SLT coming in at 4295(A). The Quad Cabs are 4397(A) and 4408(M), with the ST being slightly heavier at 4411(A). As far as I can tell power seats are available for the Quad Cab. As far as no rear disc brakes, I'm probably one of the few in here that believes that they're not a necessity on a light duty pick-up. This would be especially true if you will be doing most of your driving empty. The rear drum brakes on the Dakota are more than adequate, and are as large as some full-size LD pick-ups were ten years ago. Bests, Dusty
#91 of 141 Re: 2005 Payload Less?! [fishkiller] by dustyk Oct 02, 2004 (12:32 pm)
Replying to: fishkiller (Sep 29, 2004 8:00 pm) Basically because the '05 Dakota is approximately 250 lbs. heavier than the previous generation. Best regards, Dusty