Well.........
I'm kind of coming from the position that the "industry" has labelled the
Dakota a "compact truck". And also that (as i'm sure you know Jason) the
1/2 ton, 3/4 ton etc. ratings are the weights that the truck can handle over
it's life time. Ya know, you could drive a Ram 1500 around all day with
1000 pounds in the bed, and the truck should wear just fine. Could you say
that about the Dakota?? I personally don't think so.
They are a tough truck, i should know that better than anyone...
<insert evil grin>
But, i still wouldn't say they are strong enough to be a true 1/2 ton.....
The Adam Blaster
Two words, figure it out.....
>
>
>On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:28:46 -0400, Mr. Plow wrote:
>
> > Hey Bill, i think technically, the Daks are only 1/4 ton trucks...
>
>Hmmm... I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I always thought the Daks
>were classified as 1/2 tons. The payload and towing specs are pretty
>close to the 1/2 ton Rams. I'm not sure if this is still true, but they
>used to be manufactured on the same line as the 1/2 ton Rams, off a
>shortened version of the same platform. The Dakota is sure a lot
>stronger than any of the other mini trucks on the market.
>
>I know that down-sized trucks aren't taken seriously by anyone who uses
>trucks as workhorses, but none of these people take 1/2 ton full-sizes
>seriously either.
>
>Now I'm curious... anyone know what Chrysler's official position is?
>All I've ever heard from them is that the Dak is a "mid-sized" truck.
>Clearly this was a term invented by marketing to point out that it's not
>a compact, but it doesn't tell us anything regarding the tonnage.
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------
>Jason Bleazard
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:05:07 EDT