This is long folks, skippit if you aren't interested... ^_^
>A lot of people on this list have V6's in their Dakota's. What V8 fight=
?
I'm going to be fairly brutally honest here. There are only two real
reasons for not getting a V8 in your Dak. #1: Cost (More expensive, Wors=
e
MPG, etc.) and #2: It's unnecessary for your useage. To buy a V6 and com=
plain
that the competition has a 20hp advantage is like saying, "Waaahhh, his
Snickers bar is bigger than my Baby Ruth" when the King Size was availabl=
e in
the ol' Baby Ruth bar. All the 20hp's mean is that in this year GM has p=
ut
more "mods" on the engine. Next year the Magnum V6 may be more powerful =
than
the competition, who knows how the numbers will fall. I don't forsee Dod=
ge as
wanting to take a backseat to anyone anymore in the truck race, and I thi=
nk
anyone who gets suckered in by the "Back and Forth" power war is doomed t=
o
toss a ton of money away on buying a new car or truck every year.
>That's funny. they're about the same size. If you're bumping your head=
in
>a Ranger, you'll bump your head in a new Dakota every time you go over a
>manhole.
Well, you're arguing with the distance between my head and the roof here.
Whether the Fords seats were higher (and they couldn't lower them BTW) or
what, I only had the thickness of my hand between my head and the roof. =
In my
Dak I can fit the width of my hand, so I'll take that. In combination wi=
th
the rock hard seats in the Ranger, the Dak felt like I was getting into a
recliner.
>What I meant was that Dodge should quickly improve its trucks - especial=
ly
>the Rams - in order to keep growing its market share. It is going to ge=
t
>more difficult fro Dodge to do so now, in light of the new and improved
>Chevy's, and Ford's shocking rip-offs (more below). Motor Trend has for=
at
>least 4 years been sympathetic to Chrysler (at least as compared to some
>other consumer press), but, in a recent comparison of the full-sized tru=
cks
>of the Big Three, even MT could not give Dodge the high marks.
There are 3 sources of Auto info that I refuse to trust: #1 Motor Trend=
, #2
Consumer Reports, #3 Motor Week (or whatever that TV show is). #1 & #3 s=
ell
their reviews to the heighest bidder. Whomever pays for the most adspace
miraculously gets good reviews. I find this is bogus. #2 rely's on poor=
ly
(or improperly) done tests and tries to convince the public that they are=
the
foremost authority on testing.
Ford and Chevy MUST catch up to Dodge, they've had no choice. They've
watched their market share evaporate because they sat around with the sta=
tus
quo. Dodge is re-vamping the Ram in 2000 (if they are sticking with thei=
r
every 7 year plan). Towards the end of a certain models life it will not=
be
the hottest thing around anymore, but it's at the time when it's making t=
he
most money for the manufacturer, so they coast a bit. this is normal and=
Ford
and Chevy know this will be their only chance to try and come back so the=
y are
fighting hard. Ford gave in and copied, Chevy just added power.
@
=A3 @ K@@=C6 @ =A5 @ @ @ k@=C3 =A5=A8@ =A4=A2=A3@ @=
=A6 >I believe the ab
ove statement to be true only in the most superficial way.
>I recommend that you take a look at the thoughts of another sincere Mopa=
r
>fan on this subject:
>
>http://www.flash.net/~bigmopar/
Mopar fan or not, reality is not subject to someone's personal opinions=
. I
have direct links into Chrysler Corporations operational news. If someth=
ing
new is going on in the company, I'll likely hear about it. So far it's f=
airly
quiet and business as usual. Daimler doesn't seem to have any intention =
of
screwing around with Chrysler. They just seem to want everything that
Chrysler can do for them and vice versa. It's a great match-up with no
overlap. Most Chrysler folks are excited about it.
>But the Ford F-series (or, as I think it should now be called, the F---
>series) is the highest volume selling model in North America. GM and Fo=
rd
>each continue to have larger market shares than Chrysler in every catego=
ry,
>despite Chrysler's superior offerings throughout this decade.
This is why Chrysler is #3 of the big three. Now, Chrysler must overc=
ome
past perceptions of their vehicles by producing vastly superior vehicles =
for
many years. They have done so for only a few years now. Every Ford I se=
e on
the road with a busted tranny, or Chevy with a blown engine demonstrates =
that
the quality of both these companies has degraded rapidly. I'm surrounded=
by
people who are switching to either foreign or Chrysler products because t=
heir
"ol reliable" Ford or Chevy isn't reliable anymore.
The Ford Taurus was the #1 selling car in America, is it because tons o=
f
people bought them? No, it's because Ford was selling the things at near=
loss
to operate as fleet cars for companies. It's the same with Ford and Chev=
y
trucks, you can get the stripped models much cheaper than the Dodges, but=
you
get what you pay for. Companies look at the botton line cost, individual=
s
tend to look at the bigger picture or just don't care and buy what make t=
hey
always buy.
>But it doesnt matter. They continue to lead in sales, and their product=
(at
>least in the full-sized truck category) has now improved to the point wh=
ere
>it really does eclipse Dodge's comparable product. And, even if you don=
t
>like the looks of the Chevy, you must admit, it is not an attempt at
>ripping-off Dodge's looks. It is original. Besides, looks are secondar=
y to
>performance and reliability.
Eclipse is a big word. I'd like to see some hard data to support that.
Forget it if you're gonna quote me 20HP ratings and such, that's normal s=
tuff.
Eclipse is what Dodge did to Ford and Chevy with the introduction of the=
new
Ram. I don't see any eclipsing being done by either Ford or Chevy, they'=
ve
just taken 6 years to catch up in my book.
If looks were secondary then why did the American public RUN to Dodge R=
am in
it's first year of it's new configuration. No reliability had been set,
preformance wasn't really proven yet. However, in that first year, Dodge=
went
=66rom a pitiful 5% to a whopping 25%. Looks wise, the Ram was a missle =
and it
sent shockwaves through the truck market. Looks counted so much that the
re-skin job on the Ford's killed (following the new Ram) them cause it wa=
s
soooo ugly. Chevy and Dodge profited from that. Ford finally gave up an=
d
copied the Ram. Chevy still looks like a box with a bed (to me).
All in all, I guess I just don't agree with your assertion that Chrysle=
r is
sitting around. I think they are saving up their bullets for another rou=
nd of
"The Rules have Changed" in the year 2000 or shortly there after (not jus=
t
wasting dollars trying to find the quick fix). I don't think Ford and Ch=
evy
have still caught Dodge in some areas of manufacture or design. The new
Dakota's are eating into the compact AND fullsize markets. Until Ford an=
d
Chevy start making mid-size trucks, they will never be able to truely mat=
ch
the power and versatility of Dodge's lineup, in my opinion.
Shaun H.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:09:54 EDT