What will replace the Dodge Dakota midsize pickup?

[colodak]

I have 120K on my 2000 Dakota Quad Cab, properly equipped they can tow as much or more than a simlar Ram 1500. My Dakota has the 360, 46RE trans, HD cooling and towing, and a factory class IV hitch. My buddy has a 2000 Ram 1500 with the 318, 5spd, HD cooling and towing, yet my Dakota has a 1,000 lb better towing capacity. There is an elderly couple in my area who tow a 27' 5th trailer with a Dakota quad cab, they have 240,000 + miles, the trans and rear-end have both been rebuilt and the rear springs have been upgraded, I've seen this doing 75 mph pulling that trailer on the interstate many times. Last time I talked to them, they were happy as clams with it. Personally, this news of the Dakota being cancelled is even more reason for me to keep mine as long as it will last, anything, to prove Dodge wrong discontinuing it.

Someone else mentioned the styling, that was the biggest mistake Dodge made. The '97 thru '04 Dakota had an aggressive styling and appearance, they ruined it from '05 til '09 by softening the styling and look, made it too bland, now that they tried to go with a more aggressive style again it was too late. It's really a shame.

 

[wyojoe]

I think the biggest reason for the decline of the "mid-size" truck segment has a lot more to do with the manufacturers than with the buyers. The manufacturers have been developing and improving their full-size line ups regularly for most of the last decade while allowing development of the mid-size segment has languished. Promotions and special offers have been given generously on their full-size offerings, while those on the mid-size offerings have been limited and less frequent. None of the "Big 3" automakers have put any effort into sales of their mid-size trucks, and now all are considering or have already announced discontinuation of them.

I have a Chevy Colorado Z-71 Crew Cab 4x4 and I love it. It gets about the same mileage as the Silverado 4x2 does, while offering an easier to drive and easier to park (IMO) four wheel drive platform that meets my needs quite well. While a full-size truck can tow or carry more, I don't need that capability, and the few times I've needed to use all six seats in my truck, I've been able to do so, even though it was a bit tight. For my day-to-day use, the mid-size truck just makes more sense than a full-size.

One thing I wish the Big 3 would have done is to offer diesel engines in the mid-size category. These trucks would have sold like hotcakes if they were offered with diesel engines and were able to achieve 30 mpg or better, which is very realistic, as that is not uncommon in the rest of the world where such a truck is available. Again, I blame the manufacturers for not supporting or promoting this segment of the market, and for not developing the segment in such a way as to improve sales. Toyota has seen a decline in sales of its Tacoma, but nowhere near the rate of the decline of the rest of the segment. This indicates to me that the market is there for these vehicles, but the manufacturers aren't producing what the market wants.

 

[Tahoe Diesel]

I love my dakota, i'll take on any ram.

With all due respect (I've read your build thread), but your truck is far removed from the Dakota that rolled off the production line - No fair fight :sombrero:

It's probably almost as wide as a Ram, with those flared out fenders...

 

[cwsqbm]

The one problem with the Dakota is that its not (and was never intended to be) a mini pickup truck. My '05 wasn't that much narrower than my last Ram, but was hindered for use as a work truck by the less-than-48" space between the wheel wells. Add in a suspension that no one seems to know how to lift and many quality problems and I'm glad mine is gone.

 

[Hilldweller]

I would love to see chrys make a new dakota, just put it on a jk frame and throw the 4.7 or hemi in it.
thing would sell like hotcakes

Comanche or Gladiator. Cab and a half, short bed, lockers, live axles, swaybar disco, aftermarket support, diesel...
:drool:

 

[WillSucceed]

They need to bring this to production. Great compact pickup with utilitarian and off road capabilities. I know I would buy one...

 

[colodak]

With all due respect (I've read your build thread), but your truck is far removed from the Dakota that rolled off the production line - No fair fight :sombrero:

It's probably almost as wide as a Ram, with those flared out fenders...

alright, mine is pretty close to stock, and I'll definetly 2nd x 1,000,000 Nick's comments

The one problem with the Dakota is that its not (and was never intended to be) a mini pickup truck. My '05 wasn't that much narrower than my last Ram, but was hindered for use as a work truck by the less-than-48" space between the wheel wells. Add in a suspension that no one seems to know how to lift and many quality problems and I'm glad mine is gone.

I will agree with the less than 48" between wheel wells, and yes it was intended to be a mid-size, unfortunately, the press dubbed it a mini-pickup and sadly that stuck. But as for reliability/quality, I have very few complaints. The only build quality issue I have is a known issue with the center console screw mounts, and one of the reason they are difficult to find is Dodge discontinued the piece in '02 when they changed the interior and stopped making replacement pieces. Otherwise, I've not had any quality issues with mine.

 

[Mr Nice Guy]

I have never been a fan of Dakotas, I test drove a few and was unsatisfied, it was cramped the back seat was more of a shelf and the gas mileage was horrendous at like 10.4 in 4x2 it was sad.. Im all for a v8 midsize but there has to be a few more things then just the v8, now a v8 ranger would be amazing! But rangers are good little trucks it's sad that ford is going to discontinue them I woulda thought they sold a ton

 

[colodak]

I have never been a fan of Dakotas, I test drove a few and was unsatisfied, it was cramped the back seat was more of a shelf and the gas mileage was horrendous at like 10.4 in 4x2 it was sad.. Im all for a v8 midsize but there has to be a few more things then just the v8, now a v8 ranger would be amazing! But rangers are good little trucks it's sad that ford is going to discontinue them I woulda thought they sold a ton

The only way a Dakota has a cramped backseat is the ext. cab model, the quad cab model, which is a true 4 dr has the largest back seat room in it's class. That's not my opinion, that was a comment from several magazies that tested the quad cab when it first hit in '00

 

[cwsqbm]

I have never been a fan of Dakotas, I test drove a few and was unsatisfied, it was cramped the back seat was more of a shelf and the gas mileage was horrendous at like 10.4 in 4x2 it was sad.. Im all for a v8 midsize but there has to be a few more things then just the v8, now a v8 ranger would be amazing! But rangers are good little trucks it's sad that ford is going to discontinue them I woulda thought they sold a ton

You complain about cramped, and then bring up a Ranger?

One of the main reasons we got the Dakota compared to any other non-fullsize truck is that the back seat in Quad Cab was large enough for a 6' tall person to sit comfortably behind a 6' tall driver. The back seat was much roomier than my '98 Ram Quad Cab (aka extended cab with extra doors) and even that was ok for adults for shorter trips.

Mileage was ok for the 4.7L V8 4x4 with 31" tires. I got about 15mpg around town, and 18-22mpg on the highway, depending on speed.

 

[Nick02]

As far as 4.7l's go I got horrid milage, stock on 29's 14mpg and I drive like a granny
lifted on 32's 12mpg, 10-11 with 35's and now around 9-10ish (all city for the above figures BTW)

my stepdads 2wd ram 1500 got 10.75 according to the trip computer, all stock phoenix city diving
I love the engine tho, I truly believe it has way more potential then a hemi, now make it DOHC!
-----------------------------------------------------------------


for a truck that's 13 years old:Wow1:
this would be AMAZEING

I know alot of the styleing got put into the second gen durango, but it was horribly super ugly and yuck.

just make it as is; don't design it too big to fit a sheet of plywood in the back; like I said jk chassis, solid axle, 4.7L 5.7L


Sad thing is it aint gonna happen, crowdsourceing and listening to the consumer is something detroit wont do.

 

[haven]

At a Detroit Auto Show press conference in January, Chrysler chairman Sergio Marchionne said that a new midsize Dodge pickup is in the works, and that there's a better than 50% chance that the new truck will use unit body, rather than body on frame, construction.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straigh...hief-confirms-new-dakota-possible-diesel.html

Marchionne said the new truck will probably have diesel power as an option. That raises the question, Will the Dakota get the same 3.0L diesel that the Grand Cherokee will receive in 2013? My guess is no. The 3.0L diesel will produce around 400 ft lb of torque, more than is needed for a midsize lifestyle pickup. I'd imagine that the choice would be a four cylinder Fiat MultiJet turbodiesel of around 2.0L displacement, producing 300 ft-lb of torque, and delivering considerably better fuel economy than the 3.0L diesel. This smaller diesel would be a good fit in any of Chrysler's vehicles that use the 3.6L Pentastar gas engine today.

 

[98dango]

We are the minority of what we want in automobiles though.