On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:33:52 -0400, kenneth@berntsen.cc ("Kenneth
Berntsen") wrote:
>
>>
>> If Daks came with a small 4-cylinder Cummins and a manual trans, I'd be on
>> that like an alto on a twinkie. I'd bet that the capabilities and price
>> of
>> such a Dak would be close to that of some of the Rams, and thus cut into
>> sales of those, however.
>
>I don't totally agree. A Dak with a 4.7 or 5.9 does have a different
>market. I didn't chose my Dak over a Ram because of price, it was because
>of size. I didn't want to drive a full size pickup every day. (I'm down
>in Houston, TX BTW) Just cuz there's a diesel in the Dak doesn't mean
>they have to make it any more than the 1/2 Ton truck it already is. They
>would probably offer the smaller engine in the 1/2 & maybe 3/4 Ton Rams at
>the same time so as to not steer people after the diesel away from the
>Ram.
I agree -- I bought my Dakota because it was the ONLY "mid-sized"
(read: compact) pickup that had a V8 option and thus a higher towing
capacity.
Almost all of my driving is around town, to/from school and work, so
it's nice to have a smaller truck that's easier to squeeze into
parking spaces, parallel park, etc., but still has enough power to
tackle the weekend jobs.
I like to drool over the prospect of a new diesel Ram, but I'd only
actually buy one if I had a car to drive when I needed the extra
maneuverability. In reality, a Cummins Dakota would be the best of
both worlds for me, and a vehicle that I would really buy.
At this point in the game, I think Dodge needs to do everything they
can to keep marketshare and having a diesel option would bring huge
torque into the compact market which (to me, anyway) seems like a very
positive thing.
-Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 12:00:17 EDT