Don't get me wrong, I like my Dakota size as well, but for the price, IMO,
you get a lot more with the Ram. Like the 5.7L Hemi option. And for the
Dakotas I looked at, it doesn't take much to push them past $30K MSRP.
What's sad is the price for a base model Ram is actually lower than the
price for a base model Dakota by $2000. Sure it's a RC vs a club/quad cab,
but even then, selecting the quad cab option and some common additional
options and you are still right inline price wise as the Dakota. I just
think Dodge is missing it with the pricing for the Dakota and the limited
options available. I'd be surprised if the Dakota name lasts much longer.
And yes I've seen the new Rams in person and love the styling a hell of a
lot better than the Dakota, and parked side by side, isn't that big of a
difference in size. Parking shouldn't be a problem once you get used to it.
Unless you live in Cali which is the home of the compact car parking spaces
which my Dakota doesn't even comfortably fit into.
brian cropp
> >
>
> I would still want the Dakota for all the reasons I want the Dakota now.
> I get pretty close to the same towing capacity, bed capacity, and
> internal volume, in a package that is just as smooth to drive and 100
> times easier to park. Have you seen the rams lately? The grille is a
> foot away from the radiator just for styling. I don't need that extra
> foot, unless there's a winch mount hidden in there, and by the time you
> get to the meaningful options you are back north of 30k again anyway.
>
> If I am going to spend $30k I am going to get EXACTLY what I want, and I
> like the Dakota size better than the Ram.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3142 - Release Date: 09/18/10
> 01:34:00
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 01 2010 - 10:47:31 EDT