I would hate to have my "Gen II" lumped together with the INFERIOR "Gen I"
style like you have. ;-)
I think it has been argued enough and accepted that up to 90 is Gen I, 91 to
96 is Gen II, and 97 to 02 is Gen III. We don't drive Chivvies and Furds, so
we don't need to follow the same rules as they do. Rarely has Chrysler ever
continued a vehicle line as long as the Dakota, so there needs to be some
way of differentiating the different series.
And as for "Gen II's" looking like a Ranger, I think you need to go see an
optometrist as the all the oil your "premag" is spitting out its seals is
starting to get into your eyes and is affecting your vision. ;-]
Mark Kuzia
flyboy01@mediaone.net
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/flyboy01/home.html
1995 Dakota 13.79 @ 102.45 mph "Fastdak"
~360ci, 5-spd, 8 3/4 rear / 3.90-SG
1994 Dakota 15.36 @ 91.56 mph
~318ci, 5-spd, 3.90 LS (bone stock, no mods)
----- Original Message -----
From: <SilverEightynine@aol.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:13 AM
Subject: DML: Gen. Differences (Attn: Walt)
> 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