On Thu, November 5, 2009 8:24 pm, Ray Block wrote:
>
> As an owner of both a '92 Dak (body on frame) and a 2000 Grand Cherokee
> (unibody) I can tell you first hand that a unibody doesn't necessarily
> mean wimpy.
No, of course not. Certainly Jeep knows a lot about building awesome
hardware, and I still think the XJ is one of the best vehicles ever.
(BTW, if you're towing 6000 lbs with a short wheelbase vehicle, you're
braver than I am, but that's a different post. :-)
What worries me about their plans for the Dakota is they keep using words
like "light duty" and "lifestyle." Which is marketing speak for
"recreational use only" and "don't plan on carrying anything heavier than
camping equipment." It sounds like they intend to take it down a couple
of notches in capability in order to make it cheaper and more fuel
efficient.
I guess it makes sense to have a product in the personal "weekend warrior"
segment, I just wish they'd call it something else to show that it's a new
model. Maybe they will. It sounds like this part of the plan isn't fully
decided yet, they just show it as "under consideration."
> FWIW, if I had a need for a new truck, it too would be a Ram simply
> because
> of the relative size of the Dak vs the Ram and I personally don't like the
> styling of the current Dak.
Not to mention the new Rams are fantastic looking trucks, inside and out.
-- Jason Bleazard http://drazaelb.blogspot.com Burlington, Ontario his: '95 Dakota Sport 4x4, 3.9 V6, 5spd, Reg. Cab, white hers: '01 Dakota Sport 4x4, 4.7 V8, Auto, Quad Cab, black
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 18:23:04 EST