Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Dodge Dakota Future Models

Karen_CMKaren_CM Posts: 5,032
edited March 20 in Dodge
Click on the "2004 Dodge Dakota" link in the sidebar and come back here to offer your comments.

KarenS
Host
Owners Clubs

Community Manager If you have any questions or concerns about the Forums, send me an email, karen@edmunds.com, or click on my screen name to send a personal message.

«1345

Comments

  • jhorljhorl Posts: 89
    Not too much to go by yet but I'm interested to see what it looks like. Would like to see a Diesel available for the truck....maybe a baby cummins.
    John
  • mailman54mailman54 Posts: 111
    This is a dream come true. 5.7 Hemi V-8 in a Regular Cab. You gotta love it!

    Mailman
  • kwanderikwanderi Posts: 33
    I was leaning towards the Ram RC once the 5.7 was available, but if I can get it in the Dakota..

    Put mine on order today..
  • wetwilliewetwillie Posts: 129
    Me Too, Me Too!
  • slr9589slr9589 Posts: 121
    I know it will never happen but i'd like them to put an almost full size bed in the dak...
    but you asked
    stephen
  • Another of my Ace Buzz Patrollers reports that the SRT-8 badge will not be used on the Ram. Instead it will be used for the next generation of the Dakota R/T. The HEMI powered Dakota SRT-8 will probably make its debut in 2005.

    http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b100102.htm
  • bookittybookitty Posts: 1,303
    Rick, thanks for the "heads up" and subsequent links. Looks like some exciting stuff is forthcoming.

    Bookitty
  • Has anyone heard the latest speculation/rumour that DC may offer the HO 4.7L (260-270HP) engine in Dakotas later this year(mid-2003 model year)? This engine is ONLY available currently in 2 models of the Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited Edition and Overland models? I've asked many dealerships and the customer assistance centre reps and no one has any official information.
    Thanks.
  • mtrialsmmtrialsm Posts: 159
    Does this mean it's NOT gonna be downsized?
    I like to have a diesel option.
    mm
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    Well, I was told by a friend at work that he's waiting to buy a Dakota in 2004 because they're going to put the 5.7 Hemi in it. Said he heard that from a Dodge saleman.

    Regards,
    Dusty
  • I have 3 Dakotas, 1993, 1996, 1997, and all purchased new . These trucks are very good trucks and I was disappointed to hear that the new 2004 Dakota was to be downsized. Is this true? or is that comment based on the fact that the Durango which is based on the Dakota chassis going up size next year, and the Dakota will remain, "smaller"? Dodge started the mid size idea, and it would be a sin to get rid of the Dakota as we know it.
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    The way I understand it, the new Durango will be much larger. When the platform designers came up with the new Dakota based on the new Durango platform, they realized that the Dakota would only be slightly smaller than the RAM.

    So, the Durango will be increased in size but the new Dakota will be roughly the same size as the current version.

    Dusty
  • 16/12/2003 - DCX announced that both Dodge and Mitsubishi will sell versions of the Dodge Dakota, both to be made at Chrysler's Warren, Michigan assembly plant. They will be similar in engineering but have different sheet metal and looks. It is hard to say how much input each of the companies has had, though Dodge appears to be largely responsible for the Dakota's engineering. Styling for each model was done by the respective company, independently, though bound by engineering constraints.
  • I'd be very comfortable with a Dakota using the current 4.7, so Hemi news doesn't get me too excited.
    Show me the interior design, tell me about the suspension - I am wary of control arms on wheels in independent suspensions, they look like a failure waiting to happen the first time you test a rock while off road - and tell me that the cabin is updated. Ram styling leaves me worse then cold, but if the mechanicals are good, I'll put up with bloated styling.
  • If the mechanicals prove good, maybe Mitsubishi's version will offer a more appealing choice of sheet metal. The Ram looks to me like someone stuck a hose up the truck's [non-permissible content removed] and inflated it. The new F-150 looks a lot nicer, but it's half again the truck I need, and gas consumption - uuuuuughhhh.
  • sunburnsunburn Posts: 319
    There are some pictures of the 2005 Dakota at www.carspyshots.tk. Got to New Cars 2004/2005 then to 2005 Dodge Dakota.
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    I saw some pre-release stuff a few weeks ago about design changes and specs. I must say that I think the Dakota may be better appealing to my eye than the Durango. I'll have to wait until I see it in the flesh. I thought the Titan would be a lot better looking than it is in person, but when I first saw a real example I was really disappointed.

    Thanks for the heads-up, Sunburn.

    Best regards,
    Dusty
  • jimqjimq Posts: 14
    Dodge has just posted exterior & interior pictures of the new dakota. They are located under
    dodge life >events > auto shows >2005 Dakota. jimq
  • Karen_CMKaren_CM Posts: 5,032

    Community Manager If you have any questions or concerns about the Forums, send me an email, karen@edmunds.com, or click on my screen name to send a personal message.

  • mtrialsmmtrialsm Posts: 159
    The new sheet metal design looks great. Flared fenders to fit larger tire/wheel package without
    those outdated add-on fender flares!
    I hope the seats have been redesigned! Only real
    grip about my Quad are the front seats. They are
    OK but could be much improved! I'll be looking at the
    year 2006 as a replacement? Maybe? I think Toyota,Nissan and even Honda will be on my truck list.
    mm
  • gregp5gregp5 Posts: 51
    Yeah, I like it too. Only bad thing is it makes my 01 QC look old. I wonder what the prices will start at ? At the Dodge site I built my 01 over again at the 04 prices and it come to just under 31K. Scares me to think of the 05 prices.
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    ...is the front end. It just doesn't adjust to my eyes, or vice-versa.

    I still like the looks of my '03 and I've had a number of comments that others like it too. In fact, the current generation scupture looks the best on the Durango, in my opinion.

    Bests,
    Dusty
  • gregp5gregp5 Posts: 51
    Just reading my new Truck Trend magazine and displayed prominently on the cover is the new Dakota with the title as...Not Much Change for "New" Dodge Dakota."
    So I'm pretty dissapointed and start reading the article...Hmm the 4.7 is a good engine and they go on to say "many of the same developement and design technologies from the new Durango have made their way over to the Dakota." a new hydroformed and welded frame is the foundation for a lengthened and widened pickup....and I'm thinking that sounds kinda new to me ?
    The pictures show a totally new front end and equally new taillights, brand new dash, seventeen inch wheels, wider opening doors, rear seats flip a different way for increased storage and new hydroformed longer and wider frame, but.....that isnt "new"?
    Hey I dont know, maybe its me, but I just had the feeling after reading it that if the Dakota had 500 horsepower, got 40 mpg and sold for 17,500. it still would have said Not Much New.

    Oh and one more VERY IMPORTANT thing, They did like the improved fender flares on the Nissan Frontier.

    Now is is more to the article but.....Am I missing something here ?
    Well thats all the time I have to rant today, Bye.
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    Keep in mind that the only difference between the opinions of automotive magazine writers and editors and the rest of us is that they are paid for having an opinion. Since they are "opinions," by definition they are no more or no less valuable than anybody else's. Maybe even less so.

    Career opinionists would have most of us believe that they have a monopoly on the correct world view. Unfortunately, people still have a right to buy or like any particular automobile based on the individuals likes and dislikes, even if to you and me it seems devoid of logic. This has a tendency to make the "professional" opinionists a little insecure.

    Your account is so blatantly obvious for its lack of intelligence, objectivity -- or both -- that I think you might consider another reading vehicle or spending your money on something a little more useful, like putting the $5.00 away each month and taking the family out to dinner.

    "Truck Trend," huh? "Not much change?"

    And some people wonder why they're called morons.

    Best regards,
    Dusty
  • gregp5gregp5 Posts: 51
    I think you hit the nail on the head. I thought a magazine with TRUCK in the title would be interesting reading, being were truck owners.
    Guess I'll just look at the pictures while the subscription runs out.

    Greg
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Posts: 487
    I think whoever wrote the "Not much change" caption on the cover did not speak to whoever wrote the article. Based on my quick glance through last night, the article actually seems favorable.
  • Maybe it's the redneck in me, but what's up with the 4X4 being the same height as the 2WD (actually the 4X4 is .1" lower). I realize not everybody requires extra ground clearance on their 4X4, but there's a great many that do.

    The rocker panels won't last very long come the first Spring thaw when some gravel roads turn into "'sippy holes".

    While overall there seem to be a lot of improvements, I'm pretty sure they're going to lose a lot of return 4X4 Dak customers unless they introduce an off-road suspension package or something (something like the Toyota Tacoma Prerunner, only on the 4X4 maybe).
  • ford_biiford_bii Posts: 120
    I agree with you. The 2004 lists its ground clearance at 7.9" vs 9.1" for the 2003. That's a big drop. Even the Ford Explorer has 8.6" of ground clearance. I really don't know what Dodge is thinking on this one. They must really need the cost savings of having only one suspension.

    I'm still trying to figure out why they are going to a 6-speed manual in the 2004. I can only figure the driving factor is the 3.7L engine, since the 4.7 with the 5-speed seem to mate very well. I checked out the gear ratios for the 5 vs 6 speed trannies and the 6 speed's 6th gear is taller then the 5th gear on the five speed. The closer ratios should allow you to shift faster, which is good, but they decided to drop the rear end ratio from 3.55 to 3.25 to save the gas mileage hit due to the taller 6th gear. I know that the final ratio is what matters, but are there durability issues with using a lower ratio in the rear? I've never heard of any serious towing rig having lower then a 3.55 rear. 3.73 or 4.10 is more common. 3.25 sounds like something you'd put on a passenger car.

    Though nobody has it listed yet, I figure the new truck must be heavier then the old one, due to the wider/longer body. Not good for power or gas mileage, since the standard 4.7 is the same output as the last generation, and the HO 4.7 needs premium fuel (heck with that). Also, what is the deal with no manual tranny on the HO 4.7?? Are you telling me the new Getrag trans can't handle the extra 20 HP and 10 lb-ft of torque of the HO motor??? It should be bolt-and-go as far as I can tell.

    The only feature that I'm somewhat interested in is the new all wheel drive system. We bought my wife a new Explorer last year, and I am extremely impressed with the control-trac system that Ford puts standard on all 4x4 Explorers. If the system on the new Dakota is similar, I would probably get my next one with it.

    As it is, I don't think the new Dakota has a lot going for it.
  • yup, and I don't get how they figure better gas mileage with higher gears. Theoretically, yes, higher gears mean better gas mileage, but realistically, when the tranny has to downshift once or twice to try to maintain a consistent speed up a hill it does not help the fuel mileage... not in this neck of the woods, anyway.

    When I first heard of them revamping the Dakota, I had visions of... well, sort of what they did, but with 10 - 12 inches of ground clearance (I can still dream), and... um... I hate to say it, but basically a better looking Nissan Titan.
  • ford_biiford_bii Posts: 120
    Here is some info on transmissions/gear ratios that might be interesting:

    2004 Dakota
    NV3500 5-speed:
    1st 4.01
    2nd 2.32
    3rd 1.40
    4th 1.00
    5th 0.73

    2005 Dakota
    Getrag 238 6-speed:
    1st 4.23
    2nd 2.53
    3rd 1.67
    4th 1.23
    5th 1.00
    6th 0.79

    The standard rear on the 2004 Dakota was a 3.55, with a 3.92 option. So the final drive ratio (I think it's the final drive, or is the final drive ratio the ratio of just the rear?) would be 0.73*3.55=2.59. The 2005 Dakota has a standard rear of 3.21 with the 3.55 as the optional rear, so it would have 0.79*3.21=2.53 . So, the better gas mileage comes from a reduced overall drive ratio (trans*rear).

    The alternate rear ratios result in 3.92*0.73=2.86 / 3.55*0.79=2.80.

    So in any case, the mileage will be better due to the lower final drive ratios of the new trans/rear combo.

    If you do the above calculations for the first gear for each trans, you will see that the 2005 has a final ratio of 13.57:1 vs 14.2:1 for the 2004. (with 3.55 vs 3.21 rears)

    So, in summary, the new dakota will have less grunt off the line and will be even more of a pig in top gear on the highway. But, it will get better gas mileage.

    As somebody who tows quite a bit with my 2001 QC, I like the idea of the closer ratios in the 6-speed trans, but I would probably get the 3.55 rear to compensate for the drop in the overall drive ratio due to the 3.21 rear.
«1345
This discussion has been closed.