rICK;
I do not think you "pissed off" alot of people, mostly I think you got a
contrary opinion from the actual owners, with a little (very little)
concern that they spent $20,000+ for a vehicle that some think is
sub-standard.
Come on over and I will let you first drive my Explorer, then my '94 Cobra,
then my Hemi RR, then my '95 Neon (not fair it was totaled twice) and then
the '97 Dak.
Bet you chose the Dak for an everyday driver, after you feel the handling,
solidness, quietness (at road speed, FIPK is kinda loud), ease of shifting
(actually shifts much better than the Cobra), and its ride feel (much
better than the Explorer, stiff but not harsh).
Not pissed-off
L. John Morris<ljohn@alltel.net>
!!!!! ... your local *HEMI* owner ...!!!!!
'97 SLT+ CC 4x4
5.2L, 5spd, 3.92SG
----------
> From: mahoneyr@syr.lmco.com
> To: dakota@ait.fredonia.edu
> Subject: Re: 97 dakota:Wrecked
> Date: Thursday, April 10, 1997 7:54 AM
>
> I don't want to seem morbid in my curiosity, but did you get broadsided?
> The reason I ask is because I listed one of the reasons for not buying
> a new Dak *yet* was that it didn't meet the 1999 Side impact standards.
> there were other reasons but I will not go into them here because last
> time...I know, I know, I pissed off alot of people even mentioning them
> (but all I was doing was repeating what the Edmunds people said was one
> of the reason that the 1997 Dak was not as good as it could have been),
> but if it stands up to broad side impact and the driver escapes ok, then
> the true life testimonial is better than the Edmunds 'from the book
info'.
>
> (maybe i'm reconsiderinthe97...)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:37 EDT