> "only adequate with the gas-guzzling V8"?!?
> "worse with the V6"?!?
> "performance shortcomings"?!?
>
> I admit, the V6+Automatic combo was sluggish, but the manual moved
>it right along...
my thoughts exactly.. what type of milage are folks getting with a maunal
v6 combo (ext cab 4wd)? I was thinking about this as a more economical
option, but auto trans was more a priority with my wife and also because I
do a lot of work on the road (phone calls, driving around town during the week)
so the v8 was also a must in that respect.
> I was under the impression that the Dakota (especially with the
>V8) was one of the fastest trucks on the road! What would be
>faster? The V8 Chevy 454 Sport perhaps, the V6 turbo Syclone definitely,
>and the V6 turbo Typhoon... Not too many, I'll wager.
that's probably about it.. I was impressed with a friends v6 s-10 ext cab
however there is not much room at all (interior wise) when compared to
the Dak.. dated dash and styling or not.
The one thing the Dak has against it is it's weight.. good for towing or
hauling, but compared to curb weight of other small trucks I think
it's quite a bit more..?
I don't understand the crashworthiness.. It would seem to me that
such a heavy truck would fare well in crash tests. Dak's have a higher
resale rating than s-10 or ford rangers.
-tim
tims@synopsys.com
Southwest Area Modeling Specialist
602.834.3837 (Ph) 602.834.4177 (Fax)
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- Bill Gates, 1981
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:19 EDT