OMG! I didn't realize the Gen III beds were changed that much from the
older Daks. I love the styling on the Gen III's but if they can't remember
that the Dakota is a TRUCK and start putting some practical truck features
back into it; I may have to run my Gen II forever.
I guess I'd add the $40 overloads to it then. Unless you can make Gen II
springs fit under it.
Aaron Wyse
----- Original Message -----
From: <Tubamirbls@aol.com>
To: <dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: DML: Old subject.. Helper Springs..
>
> Aaron
> Yes, my reference was to Gen III. I assume the design engineers had in
mind
> this limitation that includes of course riding qualities but also looks to
the
> fact of the size of the cargo bed. They chose to design the bed with
rather
> low sides, the 47.6" width between wheelshouses so you can't lay
sheetrock
> or plywood flat (and the required additional width had they given it to us
> would not interfere with wheel/tire clearance given the existing rear
axle) and
> the 6.5' interior length having dropped after a year or so of Gen III the
"long
> bed" (which was still not a full 8' inside. I've also wondered why we do
not
> get four corner post openings for better mounting of over bed/cab racks.
It's
> these factors that evidence the engineering of the Gen III to be clearly
in
> the small/mid size truck mkt however so much of the rest of the vehicle is
more
> than that. Try to figure this out!
>
> Paul Sahlin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:47:02 EST