Hehehe...they're getting pounded by us. ;)
- Bernd
Forwarded Message:
> To: "'bernd@texas.net '" <bernd@texas.net>, "Wagner, Linda"
<wagnli@consumer.org>
> From: "Wagner, Linda" <wagnli@consumer.org>
> Subject: RE: Dodge Dakota V6 Article
> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:57:49 -0400
> -----
> You've reached the office that handle inquiries from the news media. We'll
> forward your message to the appropriate people in our Customer Relations
> office, as well as our Technical and Editorial offices.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bernd@texas.net
> To: wagnli@consumer.org
> Cc: shecje@consumer.org
> Sent: 10/3/00 10:21 AM
> Subject: Dodge Dakota V6 Article
>
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> I have had a chance to review your article (Used Car & Truck - Fall
> 2000) and
> noticed that you stated "THE V6 WAS ANEMIC". I don't know who your
> testers are
> but they are VERY mistaken.
>
> I own a 1997 Dodge Dakota V6, which has been very strong in performance
> from
> day one and hasn't let me down on power...ever.
>
> As a member of the Dakota Mailing List (850+ Members), you will be
> finding out
> that you have printed information, which is totally against what our
> members
> have personally witnessed. The fact that you even printed this, without
>
> consulting with the true Dakota enthusiasts, is rather shocking as well.
> The
> information that we collect from Dakota owners (1989 - 2001) is rather
> extensive and is likely to be more detailed than your data.
> (http://www.dakota-
> truck.net) Our members range from your average driver, weekend bracket
> racers,
> professional mechanics, and even a few technical people direct from
> Daimler/Chrysler and Mopar Performance.
>
> I would highly suggest that you print a retraction since I, as well as
> the rest
> of the members personally feel that your information is sadly, not
> reliable
> anymore.
>
> Bernd D. Ratsch
> Pflugerville, TX
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:55:46 EDT