Happy Holidays everyone!
I know I came into this thread a bit late. Haven't kept up with emails much
over the past few weeks.
Walt - you are probably right. 87-96 (Gen I) and 97-02 (Gen II) would
prolly' be a more accurate classification. Take Camaros for example... 67-69
Camaros are considered Gen I F-bodies. The 67 and 68 are almost identical (a
few minor changes), whereas the 69 has pronounced cosmetic changes, but is
still called a Gen I. (swept back fender flair's, front end clip and tail
lights) Camaro generations have been designated by major cosmetic changes,
(going from a 69 to a 70 body style) followed by various cosmetic changes
that were put into production until the next major body design. (which is the
same as the 91 Dakota getting moderate changes. (also BTW - a Gen II fender
will bolt up to a Gen I truck, but you have to use an entire front end clip
in order to complete it, I have seen an 89 ragtop with a 96 front clip on
ebay)
Mechanical changes and design implementations (non-cosmetic) are probably not
a good way to designate generations. For example, as you pointed out, the
Gen III 4x4's went from recirc. ball steering to rack-&-pinion - and the Gen
III's also saw the replacement of the 318 with the 4.7.
With all that said, I still pledge my support for the more commonly accepted
generation layout. Owning two 89 Gen I's myself... I am biased. Heehee...
I'm sure Gen II owners wouldn't want their trucks lumped in with us old
premaggers. And (at the serious risk of starting a flame war here -- SORRY!!)
I just don't like Gen II trucks. They remind me too much of Ferd Rangers of
the past. The front end clips are very similar in style. From a distance I
have mistaken a Ranger for a Dakota and vise-versa.
Merry Christmas!
Tom
Silver89 - http://members.aol.com/silvereightynine/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:03:43 EDT