LOL That's when you say "yeah, which means it's got a lot more weight to
it, so it's got more to pull!!!"
Their response... =O
Ken Allgood
97 cc slt 5.2L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stlaurent Mr Steven" <STLAURENTS@mctssa.usmc.mil>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 1:30 PM
Subject: DML: RE: Re: New to List/Dakota rec.
> I agree with exception to the speed limiter that stopped me after 97MPH
> beating up the Tacoma V-6. I laughed because it took him sometime to
catch
> up then pass me.
>
> I drove different truck and Nissan faired the worst truck, Ford ranger was
> OK but was under powered, Chevy S-10 the same problem, and Toyota-well
> overpriced for what it is worth. I wanted a QC 4x2 but was sold out and
> drove the CC and found that power band was exciting (along with the sound
of
> the pedal to metal) to drive. But when I talked to other non-Dak owners,
> the excuse of being beaten is that the Dak is not a small truck but a
> mid-range truck.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven St.Laurent
> Test Engineer
> Test Branch, GSD,MCTSSA
> MARCORSYSCOM, US Marine Corps
> mailto:stlaurents@mctssa.usmc.mil (work)
> mailto:Saint1958@home.com (home)
> Office: (760) 725-2296
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim J Koth [mailto:Tim.J.Koth@aexp.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 9:11 AM
> To: dakota-truck%buffnet.net
> Subject: DML: Re: New to List/Dakota rec.
>
> I don't know what the story is with Consumer Reports, but they only
like
> Toyota products. I'm sick of reading their vehicle reviews. Before I
bought
> my
> 2000 Dak in early December, I did extensive research and test driving of 3
> different small trucks. And that included looking into the Consumer
Reports
> stuff. It was quite interesting. I was also considering the Toyota Tecoma
> 4x4
> and when I looked at the CR writeup, they actually said that the ride was
> 'not
> up to par' but predicted reliability was 'better than average'. Then I
went
> to the back of the magazine where reliability data as reported by their
> readers. The Dak numbers weren't all that great for a few years leading up
> to
> 99. The Toyota numbers were pretty good leading up. Well for 99 the Dak
> numbers were BETTER than the Toy numbers. Dodge was clearly improving
while
> the Toy numbers were falling. They never even drew from their own data for
> the
> article in the same damn publication! So I drove 'em both again, Dak and
> Tacoma, and bought the Dak. I drove 5 Daks and 5 Tacomas.There was
something
> wrong with all but one of the Toyotas. (imballanced tires, pulls to the
> left,
> etc..) The only thing wrong with any of the Daks was one of them stalled
> right
> after startup but re-stated right away and did the 15 minute test drive
> flawlessly. The Dak is the best riding small or midrange 4x4 on the road.
No
> comparison as far as I'm concerned. And I still get Ford, Chevy and Toyota
> bigots that are amazed when they take a ride in my Dak. (cuz they were too
> narrow minded to even test drive or consider one when they bought their
> trucks)
> Sorry for the rant.... I'm ok now.... I'm alright.....
>
> --------- previous post ---------
>
> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:35:44 -0800
> From: "Cal Hyer" <clhyer@hom.net>
> Subject: DML: Re: New to List/Dakota rec.
>
> - snip -
> With the exception of the mini-vans, Consumer Reports has never liked
> anything Chrysler & I think it galls them that they haven't been able to
> recommend a different mini. Haven't they also recently bitched about the
> Durangos? If I am not mistaken Motor Trend just tested the Durango vs
> Explorer and came down solidly for the Durango...
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:49:48 EDT