Last dance of the Dakota?

There's a new car review for you to check out...so...umm...check it out.

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/new-cars/2010-58-dakota-crew-cab-trx4-4x4/

It's an automakers way of killing off a vehicle without having a big hubbub about it. For less $$, you can get a Ram 1500.

Brian

I find the current Daks too cramped.

I find that when I drive most new mid-size trucks, I want them to be smaller and more practical. Like the old Nissan, Mazda, Isuzu trucks of 10+ years ago. It's like they want the mid-size market to be as profitable as the full-size market by making them more expensive, instead of offering smaller, lighter, simpler, and cheaper alternatives.

i've never quite understood the point of a mid sized pickup. i get small pickups and big pickups, but not the mid sized pickup.

and the article was wrong- you couldn't get a V8 powered Dakota until 91 or 92- only the 4 and 6 cylinders. and even then, the only V8 was the 318. they didn't offer the 360 until the first redesign in the mid 90's.

In reply to novaderrik:

And the only 360 was the RWD R/T sport truck

I've owned a couple of Dakotas. I like them, but they are kind of an answer to a question nobody asked. On the other hand, new full size trucks are just about 40% too damn big.

I commented my full thoughts under the review there.

I love our 96 Dakota and plan to keep it going as long as possible (which has been VERY easy so far, 236k and kicking).

Honestly, after having had the benefit of being around this Dakota so long, i almost feel that the true compacts are the answer to the question no one asked! My personal opinion is that the only step down from the size/ability/mpg quotient of this 96 dakota that makes any sense to me would not be to the true compacts sold in usa (ranger, colorado) but to one of the fwd mini-trucklets sold elsewhere around the world, like the Chevy Tornados im always seeing down here in S. Texas (from mexico).

To me, even 15 years later, the Ranger and Colorado give up space and ability vs the 96 dakota for almost no improvement in MPG, and the other so-called compacts (tacoma, frontier) are the same size as the 96 dakota anyway!

The reason I bought my 2000 Dakota. . . .V8 + five speed. It get pretty decent gas mileage (much better than the Ram I had before it), I can park it downtown without worrying about Cellphone Suzie, it tows almost as much as a fullsize truck, and makes the perfect hoon-mobile

neon4891 wrote: In reply to novaderrik: And the only 360 was the RWD R/T sport truck

no....My neighbor has a 4 door, 4wd with the 360

novaderrik wrote: and the article was wrong- you couldn't get a V8 powered Dakota until 91 or 92- only the 4 and 6 cylinders. and even then, the only V8 was the 318. they didn't offer the 360 until the first redesign in the mid 90's.

Shelby put the 318 in a Dakota in '89.

Grtechguy wrote:

neon4891 wrote: In reply to novaderrik: And the only 360 was the RWD R/T sport truck

no....My neighbor has a 4 door, 4wd with the 360

Thats right, I forgot it was available in 4x4 when the released the crew cab

When they first arrived they offered more capacity and capability than the compacts for a similar, if not lower price. Same story when the durango arrived - bigger than the explorer/S-10 suvs, and with a v8, but cost about the same of less. Somewhere in the development, or with competition, the value proposition got lost when everyone wanted to sell a big fat truck at a big fat price.

Mid-size are what pickups used to be . In the late 40's early 50's Willys built a Jeep p/u that today would be called a compact but it would haul a ton, albeit slowly. Then they went "midsize" with the J series.

I believe that these days, the Dakota and Ram 1500 share a chassis, even.

I've never seen the point of a "truck" with a sub-6' bed, four doors or not.

I'm sad to see the Dakota go away, but the last couple generations are too far removed from the original for my taste.

I've had 4 Dakotas all of the '87-96 generation. Ordered my '96 new. Still have it and the window sticker with my name on it. My father-in-law also has a '96. His is pushing 220K. I really like the proportions of that generation truck. Didn't like the restyle in '97. Got too wide and the windshield posts created some blind spots. Never drove any of the newer ones.

I agree with the comments about the Ram being too big. My '04 CTD can tow anything I ask, but it isn't fun to drive to work.

For giggles a little while back I tried to build a current Dak online similar to my '96. You can't get a standard cab V8 5-speed 4x4 anymore. My '96 stickered for $19K, came home for $16K. The thing online stickered deep into the 30's.

Someday I may just pick up another '90-96 but in an extended cab and build up a tow rig out of it.

JFX001 wrote:

novaderrik wrote: and the article was wrong- you couldn't get a V8 powered Dakota until 91 or 92- only the 4 and 6 cylinders. and even then, the only V8 was the 318. they didn't offer the 360 until the first redesign in the mid 90's.

Shelby put the 318 in a Dakota in '89.

yeah, but that wasn't a factory install and was a limited edition- i think those were also convertibles, another idea that was also an answer to a question nobody asked..

novaderrik wrote:

JFX001 wrote:

novaderrik wrote: and the article was wrong- you couldn't get a V8 powered Dakota until 91 or 92- only the 4 and 6 cylinders. and even then, the only V8 was the 318. they didn't offer the 360 until the first redesign in the mid 90's.

Shelby put the 318 in a Dakota in '89.

yeah, but that wasn't a factory install and was a limited edition- i think those were also convertibles, another idea that was also an answer to a question nobody asked..

Shelbys were all hartops. Convertibles were all V6's.

A convertible Dak is just like a Miata with a bigger trunk.

novaderrik wrote:

JFX001 wrote:

novaderrik wrote: and the article was wrong- you couldn't get a V8 powered Dakota until 91 or 92- only the 4 and 6 cylinders. and even then, the only V8 was the 318. they didn't offer the 360 until the first redesign in the mid 90's.

Shelby put the 318 in a Dakota in '89.

yeah, but that wasn't a factory install and was a limited edition- i think those were also convertibles, another idea that was also an answer to a question nobody asked..

The fact remains that you could, if so inclined, order one of 1500 (in either red or white) V8 Dodge Dakota's in 1989.

The Dakota is another case of Chrysler letting a good thing slip away. Remember when they owned the mini van market? Well there really was no competitor to the Dakota when it first came out. It was larger than the mini pickups and smaller than the full-size. The T100 Toyota came close, but was billed as full-size, which it wasn't. Now the Tacoma is a near match to the Dakota, size-wise and is superior in almost every way.

I have a 2003 4WD and other than gas piginess and a fragile tranny, it's a pretty damn good truck.

Now the Tacoma is a near match to the Dakota, size-wise and is superior in almost every way.

I dont like how shallow the bed is on new Tacomas. Just a random point i wanted to make

I'm on my 2nd Daktoa now, which is an '01 Quad Cab 2wd 4.7/auto and I freaking love it. Fits the whole family, tows the race car all over creation, is small enough that I can drive it in DC without any trouble and big enough that I can pick up anything I need form Home Depot without any trouble. Just last year, it took 4 adults, a Challenge car hanging off the back of it and a bed full of Challenge car parts to Gainesville. That truck rocks.

I'm sad to see the Dakota's go. They were a nice truck that filled a neat middle of the road niche.

novaderrik wrote: i've never quite understood the point of a mid sized pickup. i get small pickups and big pickups, but not the mid sized pickup.

It wouldn't be so bad if current "small" pickups weren't larger than the original Dakota.

iceracer wrote: Mid-size are what pickups used to be . In the late 40's early 50's Willys built a Jeep p/u that today would be called a compact but it would haul a ton, albeit slowly. Then they went "midsize" with the J series.

I can't find the picture right now, but somewhere out there there is a picture of a newer F-150 next to a mid 80's-ish F-250. Both were similar (i.e. regular bed and cab, 2WD) and the F-150 was HUGE compared to the F-250. The things have gotten on steroids.

In reply to mtn:

Hmm, I was next to a new standard cab/long bed F-150 2 hours ago, and i liked that it didn't seem massive.

Honestly my dream truck is an F-150, standard cab/long bed/4x4 and a small diesel.