On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:37, Jason Bleazard <jason.dml@bleazard.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 11:56 pm, Barry Oliver wrote:
>>
>> And that, my friend is the problem. I don't want to deal with parking a
>> full size, sometimes even the Dakota is too big. I don;t need the extra
>> size. All of the reasons I originally chose the Dak are still valid
>> and lead me to the same conclusion now...
>
> And the gen IV/V models are even bigger, which just makes THE problem even
> worse. Combine the size overlap with the price overlap without the power
> overlap, and do we really need to ask why the Daks are just sitting on
> lots? I'm guessing that most people looking for smaller size trucks are
> ending up with Rangers. Even Tacomas are too big to be called "compact."
Actually (comparing club/quad cabs), the wheelbase on the 2005+ models
is less than 0.5" longer than the GenIII (131 vs. 131.3), and IIRC the
overall length increase (about 4 inches) is primarily in the front
bumper for crash rating performance. Inside, there's actually LESS
head & shoulder in the newer models. The beds (if anyone uses their
trucks as trucks anymore) are ever so slightly larger in the newer
models. Source data linked below.
Daks haven't really grown since '97 (and even then, it was really just
the cab & ground clearance that got bigger), but the price tags sure
have.
Meanwhile, Dodge dealers are offering ridiculous cash back & discounts
on Rams, or at least they were a few months ago, bringing the prices
on decently-equipped Rams into the mid-$20K range if you qualified for
everything (which would be difficult to do, looking at the names of
some of those programs).
http://www.allpar.com/trucks/dakota-tech.html (poorly-scanned
dimension listing at the bottom)
http://buyersguide.caranddriver.com/dodge/dakota/2010/dodge-dakota/specs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 01 2011 - 12:13:05 EDT