Howdy, Stranger!

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

Dodge Dakota Future Models



  • 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: 2,931 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.

  • 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: 2,931
    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,
  • 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.

  • 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.
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,931
    Regarding the transmission availability with the 287 (4.7) HO motor, I would guess that the lack of a manual transmission is due to emissions certification. I believe the HO version 287 is not available with manual transmission in any platform that uses it.

    Best regards,
  • The lack of the manual on the HO is a bummer. but I can live with the auto.

    I would have liked to see a diesel version of the new Dak. With a six speed... and more ground clearance :-)

    ...and congratulations to Dodge for having the creative vision of finally putting back doors on the club cab. The only reason I now have a quad cab instead of the club cab (for the longer box) is because of that lack of vision on Dodge's part. Even a third door would have been good, but... required too much plant retooling, I guess...

    ...OK, I'm done grumbling about Dodge designers and engineers... for now.

    Somebody out there start developing a 6 inch suspension lift for that thing :-)
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,931
    You know that's one thing I can't say I've ever seen is a lifted Dakota. Hard to believe someone doesn't make a kit for them.

    But, there is a local Dakota around here with something in it that is very, very, very fast. I've been told that it's a 318 with a blower, a hyper 360, and one report it was a 383 (which I doubt).

  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Posts: 487
    I've actually gotten stuck riding in a government issue 4wd Dakota when the vehicle went into some deep muddy ruts and it bottomed out, with all 4 wheels spinning. Seeing that ground clearance has dropped is troubling.

    I could have steered around and made it through the mud bog, but I had a woman driver, which is another story....
  • There are a couple lift kits... or sorry, lift systems available out there, but they're a little involved which = fairly expensive ( too many $$ for me to justify to the spouse, anyway).

    Speaking of fast Dakotas... there's a guy in my hometown who took the 340 (with Predator carb, NOS, etc, etc...) out of his 4X4 race truck and dropped it (with tranny/transfer case) into his '01 club cab. That's one stock looking Dakota you don't want to challenge for pink slips, on or off the road.

    ...and atlgaxt, now be honest, was it the truck, the driver, or the navigator ;-)
  • atlgaxtatlgaxt Posts: 487
    I had a highly attractive, highly intelligent and highly educated U.S. Forest Service Rangerette touring me through the property.

    However, driving (especially off road) was not one of her fortes. The funny part was after we were stuck as soon as she called in on the radio and before she even told why she was calling, the guy on the other end started laughing and said "all right (Name deleted to protect the innocent) - where do I have to go to come get you?"
  • nothing like a highly attractive, highly intelligent and highly educated U.S. Forest Service Rangerette helplessly stuck in the mud... buddy was probably a little disappointed you were there with her. ;-)

    ... enough about that now.

    Hopefully the new Dakota just "sounds" low to the ground... like I mentioned before, I think the Toyota Tacoma Prerunner is a good idea. It would sure be nice if they had a "Rubicon Edition" of the new Dakota... I know, it ain't a Jeep, but it's the concept. Maybe call it the "Appalachian Edition"
  • roblrobl Posts: 1
    Gives good detail on upcoming model. See link: 2004&aff=national

    Select "2005 Dodge Dakota" from list
  • sunburnsunburn Posts: 319
    I was reading an article on the Mercedes E320 turbo diesel today. It has a 3.2L, 24 valve, 6 cylinder diesel. It produces 201 HP and 369 Ft-Lb torque. Something like that would be great in the Dakota. Maybe some of the diesel technology from DC's parts bin on the other side of the Atlantic will make it over here some day. Of course, DC would probably charge an extra $3K for it.
  • ford_biiford_bii Posts: 120
    Any idea what kind of mileage that diesel would get in the Dakota? I definitely be interested in that configuration.
This discussion has been closed.