------------------------------
>Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 08:42:19 -0500
>From: Richard A Pyburn <rap777@juno.com>
>Subject: Re: DML: Dakota RT vs Tundra
>Make that two of us!
>On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:33:11 EDT NVMYDakota@aol.com writes:
>Wow, I went to the Totyota Dealreship and test drove one of these "New
>
>Tundras", the only thing that I noticed over my old 93 w/318, is the
>extra
>hight, the acceleration was a bit slow, and the steering was mussy as
>hell, I
>don't know about you guys, but I'll never get a flippin rice burner,
>especially a rice burnin truck...
Well guys, better plan on hanging onto your Dakotas for a long, long time.
If Toyota builds the Tundra like it builds it's cars, you're going to see a
lot of Tundras on the road over the next few years.
I just bought a 99 Corolla because nothing built by the Big 2 or Chrysler
could match it in quality of construction, longevity or resale value. It's
got 2,000 km on it now and has not been near the dealer....my Dakota was
back to the dealer half a dozen times within the first 2,000 km. fixing
defects. In fact, 2 1/2 years later the dealer is still fixing defects
that I keep finding. Just check the long list of TSB's for the 97 Dakota.
These can be expensive once the warranty has ended.
Full size Rams are built in Mexico, Toyota Tundra is built in the US.
I love the Dakota and in 97 there was absolutely nothing comparable to it,
but times have changed. If Chrysler can't get it's shzt together as far as
quality is concerned, my next truck will be a Toyota and I've owned 5
Chysler products over the past 25 years.
BTW, the Big 3 (now) in the US is GM, Ford and Toyota.
Rob Agnew
ragnew@islandnet.com
Victoria, B.C.
Canada
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:14:24 EDT