Pat Buthmann wrote:
>
> I would tend to agree with Phil, especially on the choices of engines. The four, no matter what level of fuel economy you get with it, is simply not worth the lack of power. As far as 6 vs 8 goes, I find little difference in the mileage between the two, and therefore would automatically pick the 8. Similar mileage, better horsepower, vastly better torque. The 8, as Phil says, probably has a better reputation, and a longer history of success and reliability. The 8 will also increase the even
>
> Pat Buthmann
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Hyde [SMTP:philh@insync.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 1997 1:45 PM
> To: dakota@ait.fredonia.edu
> Subject: Re: Dakota question
>
> > Wakeman Massie wrote(from the Mopar Mailing List):
> > >
> > > I have previously been looking for an older daily-driver Mopar,
> > > but haven't been able to move on the great leads y'all gave me
> > > because I'm stuck with an import I can't sell (never, $#@@%!!!
> > > ever again).. It seems as though in order to save my wallet
> > > and salvage the down payment I spent just six months ago, I'm
> > > gonna have to go to a dealer and "trade up".
> > >
> > > So, mopar it is, I'm going to look at a new 2wd Dakota tonite.
> > > I know Dakota talk has been passed around the MML, but can someone
> > > address (or Re-address) these topics for me?
> > >
> > > - should I avoid the first model year of ANY car, even a MOPAR?
> >
> Lots of people on the list drive 1997 Dakotas (including myself).
> To the best of my knowlege, noone as experienced problems that I
> would clasify as unique to the new model. In fact, I would venture
> to say that noone has had any significant problems. I myself have
> not had problem one.
> >
> > > - This will be my driver; Can anyone speak of the RELIABLITY /
> > > LONGEVITY of 4 vs. 6. vs. 8cyl?
> >
> I think that a 4 cyl in the Dakota is going to wear out faster than
> a 6 or an 8. This also depends greatly on how you drive it. Most
> reliable mechanically will probably be the 5.2L V8 (which after all
> has been around in current form since 1967).
> >
> > > - Is the 3.90 a good idea for a driver car that probably wont
> > > be hauling often? The sure-grip?
> >
> I would recommend the 3.55 as the maximum. If I could have ordered
> my truck, I would have gotten the 3.21 gears. I have the 3.55, and
> I think my gas mileage suffers as a result. I would _definately_
> recommend the SureGrip (in _any_ car, for that matter). It helps
> in ways that aren't always obvious.
> >
> > > - The price differential among base 2wd Dakotas and Rams really
> > > isn't that significant. Assuming I like both trucks, is
> > > there any glaring mechanically-based reasons for choosing one
> > > over the other?
> >
> When I looked at full-size Rams I couldn't even touch a club cab
> Ram for what I paid for my fully-loaded cc Dakota. The Rams started
> at like $22-23 and I paid $20,500 for a '97 CC Dakota with all the
> options except 4-wheel ABS.
>
> good luck,
> Phil
> '97 Dakota
> '67 Charger
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Part 1.2 Type: application/ms-tnef
> Encoding: base64
one of my dak's has a 2.5....pile of crap...my 3.9 is great...my uncle
has a 89 with a 3.9///160,000 miles and no problems as of yet...
Russ
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Happiness is driving an A$$ kicking Mopar =)* * http://home.earthlink.net/~russblahetka * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:45 EDT