On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 03:46:53 -0400, Michael Maskalans <dml@tepidcola.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 1, 2004, at 18:51, droo wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:26:39 -0500, Aaron Wyse <awyse@sw.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I had started a thread on Car & Drivers web site about the 2005
>>> Dakota..
>>> Primarily commenting on lack of Diesel or Hemi power in them.
>>> Apparently
>>> they've never driven an R/T or even an old Mopar.
>>> Thier attitude was mainly that it's looks are just terrible, a 4.7L is
>>> plenty of motor for it, nobody would buy a diesel Dak and the Hemi
>>> isn't
>>> needed.
>
>>
>> I just don't think there is a market there. The dakota is a powerful
>> truck for its size. But it certainly isn't designed or marketed to be a
>> heavy hauler. I'm no expert, but is hauling 16,000 lbs with dakota even
>> a good idea?
>
> of course not! who ever said anything about 16000#??? Tow ratings for
> the Dakota are no up to a max of 7150 (from 6400 if I'm not mistaken),
> so where's the power to back up that number? If I was buying a truck to
> tow - and at over 7000# rated, that's not out of the question - I'd want
> big block or deisel power. without a HEMI or baby Cummins that isn't
> there.
I know the dakota isn't rated for that. I was replying to a post about
putting diesels into the daks. And I think the tow rating for the Cummins
Ram is around 16,000 lbs. So that's where my comments came from/are about.
-- -Droo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 10:47:42 EST