At 07:54 AM 4/10/97 EDT, you wrote:
<snip>
>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'.
>
>Once again... I'm glad your ok....
>rICK
>'90 4x4 3.9L Auto(A500)
>(maybe i'm reconsiderinthe97...)
>
>
Rick:
I don't think you 'pissed off' a lot a people earlier, I think you got a
balanced response to what appeared to be a one-sided (ie. negative)
evaluation of the '97 Dakota.
Rob Agnew
ragnew@islandnet.com
Victoria, British Columbia
Canada
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:37 EDT