Matt Beazer <teseract@moparhowto.com> wrote:
> SilverEightynine@aol.com wrote:
>> http://autos.aol.com/article/chrysler-business-plan-2009
>>
>> Not happy with what I am seeing...
>>
>>
> "Unibody" and "Truck" don't really go hand in hand in my opinion. I
> have no great love for the styling of the post-2004 Dakota, but at least
> they're TRUCKS, not some city-boy poser-mobile.
> It'll be a watered down Honda-Ridgeline like thing with a V6 as it's top
> option and won't tow more than 3500lbs probably. I always had the
> opinion that the Dakota was intentionally under-rated for towing as to
> not compete with the full size trucks. That won't be true much longer.
Yep! Heh - "Ridgeline" was the first thing I thought when I saw
that too. :-) Better to just let the Dakota name die than to tack it
onto such an abomination. The idea of splitting the "Ram" name into
some sort of separate brand seems stupid to me too.
The whole thing gives me the mental image of a bunch of marketing
type eggheads sitting around a table, trying to think of ways to fool
the public. Just change things around, make them shiny and different
and hope people fall for it. IMHO, if they want to get anywhere, they
need to push the marketing folks overboard and let engineering steer
the ship. A quality product will basically market itself.
--
-Jon-
.- Jon Steiger -- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com -.
| '96 Kolb Firefly, '96 Suzuki Intruder, Miscellaneous Mopars |
`-------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 18:23:04 EST