I think one big reason DC will consider the option is for the CAFE
numbers. While they might not offer a smaller diesel in a 2500 I could
see them offering it in the 1/2 ton. I know my only reason, okay one of
my two reasons, for buying a Ram 2500 would be the diesel and the solid
front axel on the 4x4.
I'm assuming NVH you're talking about the trany and I'm sure they have or
would develop a trany to mate up to whatever engine they were to go with.
>
> Good points. I hadn't thought of 'size', only 'capability'. A Ram 2500
> 2wd
> standard cab might barely fit in the garage, but I'd have to come out the
> window. I know that new Rams are expensive with the $4000-$5000 Cummins
> option, and used CTD Rams hold value exceptionally well. I wonder what a
> diesel option would cost for a Dakota-specific app. I can't believe that
> it
> would be a good thing economically for DC to make too many different
> engine
> options available. They are expensive to develop aren't they? I think DC
> would have to re-structure it's marketing of Rams to accommodate a new
> heavy-duty-but-small truck, not to mention the pansy-a$$ NVH requirements.
> I would assume that the marketing folks at DC would want people to buy the
> Ram 1500 with the biggest engine available if one wanted to tow seriously
> in
> the 1/2 ton class. If fuel economy becomes a serious driving force in the
> marketing of consumer-level light-duty trucks, I think that DC may have to
> look at this diesel idea as a viable option in Daks. I'd buy one. I guess
> my
> Big Question is this: Do you think that a diesel Dak might be slicing the
> market segments a bit thin at this time?
>
> Tim
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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