I don't see why you think it would be more expensive than a Viper. The
Rams have V-10's and they are not more expensive. A lot of people used
to think that a truck w/ a powerfull engine, tight suspension and 17"
wheels would never appeal to anyone either. There was the
Syclone/Typhoon, 454 SS, Lightning, Ram SS/T (Indy Ram included in that)
Now there is the Dakota R/T. None of these trucks would be practical in
theory (and maybe they aren't) but they were produced, people snatched
them up, and now they will go down in History for what they are. Most of
these trucks weren't made to bring in money directly. They were made so
that they would get free advertising from people talking about them,
magazine articles, and so fourth. From what I understand, these trucks
actually cost more money to produce (including R&D, emmisions, etc.)
than they ever made. The manufactures also taught people what could be
done to normal trucks to make them perform (and therefore, they would
sell more). Dakotas don't need a 318 or 360, they aren't practical (I
honestly feel that the 3.9 V6 can tow anything the rest of the Dak is up
to), but for the most part they aren't bought for practical purposes. I
own a V8 Dak, but if I was being practical I would have a 4 banger or a
rice burner. OK I'm done. Next!
Erich 98 ext. cab V8 5spd. (never had anything on that hitch yet, but
good thing I've got the V8!)
BlKV8Dkota@aol.com wrote:
>
> A V10 Durango would be stupid. Who would by these trucks? Probably less
> people than the Viper. This truck would not be as fast as the Viper and
> probably more expensive so who is the target market? Plus considering it
> probably is the truck V10 and not the vipers it gets about 9 mpg. Who want
> that if you don't need the towing capabilities of the engine. It sounds great
> in theory but than so does communism. This is a totally impractical truck.
> Chrysler should just stick with the SP Durango if the rumor is even true.
>
> Josh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:30 EDT