Dodge Dakota Future Models

bigrock · July 2004

i was looking through that article in truck trend about the upcoming 2005 dodge dakota, and i was shocked to see in the specs page that it lists that premium unleaded is required in the new truck. i know that motor trend has typos and that the 4.7 in the current dakota runs on regular, but does anyone know if this is true? if it is, that would totally suck. that's what keeps me from getting a ram w/ a hemi, i couldn't stand pumping midgrade into a truck. i would save that for those crap audi's.

hasel · July 2004

I believe there will be two versions of the 4.7liter V8 in 2005, one will need premium fuel.

iowabigguy · July 2004

The Ram 1500 with the Hemi does not require premium grade gas. The owners manual suggests 89 octane mid grade for optimal performance but says 87 octane can be used. I have just turned over 15,000 miles on my 2003 Ram 1500 Hemi and other than a couple of tanks trying to see if there was an advantage using 89 octane (there wasn't) it has lived on a steady diet of 87 octane with no ill effects. My average MPG over the 15,000 miles is 14.2. Rick

ron35 · July 2004

Hasel is correct there are two versions of the 4.7, regular and High Output. The High Output has about 15 more horsepower and requires premium. I believe that I also read that if you get the HO version you can only get an automatic transmission with it and don't have the option of a manual transmission.

Ron

atlgaxt · August 2004

Here it is already in August. Has anyone heard a due date for the 2005 Dakota?

Also, has anyone heard any reliable info regarding towing?

glzr2 · August 2004

http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_new_dakota_four/index.htm

sunburn · August 2004

The Detroit News had an article on the 2005 Dakota today. Here's the link for those that are interested:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosconsumer/0408/04/f01-231870.htm

glzr2 · August 2004

Good articles. Has anyone ordered an '05 model? I didn't see any info on the Dodge web site? October isn't that far away, and I didn't know if the dealers were taking orders.

iowabigguy · August 2004

Chrysler Adds Even More Horsepower to HEMI® with New 2005 Chrysler 300C SRT-8

Additional 85 horses - 25 percent more power - builds more momentum for HEMI® and Chrysler 300

Chrysler reveals 425-horsepower Chrysler 300C SRT-8, powered by new 6.1-liter HEMI V-8

Now I want one of these shoehorned into a 2005 Dakota Quad Cab. <grin> Rick

dustyk · August 2004

Iowa,

A year-and-a-half ago it was revealed that Chrysler was working on TWO larger displacements versions of the 5.7 Hemi engine. That may now be down to one with two or more horsepower versions instead. I thought that it would be a 6.0 liter engine, but I guess they decided to go 6.1.

I'm pretty sure you'll see a 6.1 in the RAM series at '05 announcement or just after, but I don't think it'll be 425 HP. Unfortunately, I don't believe you'll ever see the 353 Hemi block in a Dakota.

Best regards,
Dusty

sunburn · August 2004

Two things struck me when I was reading the two posted articles on the 2005 Dakota. First, the max GVWR stays at 6010. So, if the truck is heavier (likely since the truck is larger), the payload will go down. Not an improvement. Second, I can't believe DC reverted back to rear drum brakes. It seems like they could have saved a few pounds somewhere else if that was their justification.

atlgaxt · August 2004

One of the stories mentioned a payload of 1,800 lbs. That seems adequate to me for the Dakota, and if you need more, you should be buying a full sized (or heavy duty) truck.

What may be a bigger issue for Dodge is that the 4.0 V6 in the Frontier will offer more HP and similar torque to the Dakota V8. The Tacoma will likely be right up there also. Realistically, the V8 in the Dakota offers enough power, but I think folks will question why the V8 does not offer a sizeable power advantage over the Nissan and Toyota.

sunburn · August 2004

Considering my 02 QC 4x4 weighs in a just over 5000 lbs with a full tank of gas and driver, that gives me less than a 1000 lb payload before I hit the 6010 GVWR. That's generally not an issue, but I would of liked to have seen the GVWR of the new Dakota in the 6500 lb range.

As for power improvements, I recently read where the 4.7L in the Toyota Tundra will use variable valve timing for 2005. Power will be something like 285 hp/325 ft-lbs torque. How many years will the Dodge 4.7L (non-HO version) be stuck at 230-235 hp and 290-295 ft-lbs torque? The HO version is nice, but the need for premium fuel isn't. The domestic manufacturers always seem to be behind the imports when it comes to squeezing as much power out of their engines as they can.

dustyk · August 2004

Sunburn,

I think rear discs on a pick-up is significantly underutilizing the capability of the design. In this case, and even more so on lighter PUs like the Dakota or Ranger, rear drums make sense. They are a less costly design and less complicated for service. And since disc brakes require more service, in the long term issues of hard spots, rust formation, and warping are significanty reduced by using a rear drum.

Now on a Dakota R/T I can see the justification.

Bests,
Dusty

dustyk · August 2004

I think the Dakota is being treated unfairly in this regard.

Anytime you have an engine making the same horsepower with two less cyninders you will find a higher RPM horsepower and torque band. This type of design is not conducive to a vehicle that's designed to carry various weights.

Since small trucks are less often used as day-to-day work trucks, Nissan and Toyota can be successful in building these little speed demons. But a good portion of Dakota sales comes from commercial and fleet buyers who still require a average everyday work truck.

In this respect the very thing that has made the Dakota shine by being a true in-between model, also hurts. The Dakota is too big to be relying on a power plant that makes its real power in the upper RPM ranges. For hauling and towing, low RPM is what it's all about and the Dakota engineering staff, in my opinion at least, are living true to the reason trucks were invented in the first place.

But since my '03 287 (4.7) motor is worth what the 5.4 is in the Ford and the 6.0 is in the fullsize Chevy, when it comes to speed I'm far from dissatisfied. If a 220 HP Frontier V-6 can beat my Dakota in a race, great. But I'll never be able to get my ATV on the back of one and that's just one of the more practical reasons I bought a Dakota.

Best regards,
Dusty

atlgaxt · August 2004

Please know that I am reading and posting on this board because I am interested in the new Dakota, and I am not on here to bash the Dakota.

The point is that Dodge used to have it's own niche with the mid-sized Dakota. However, as the compact truck segment has languished, the 2005 Nissan Frontier and Toyota Tacoma will grow in size and invade the Dakota's turf, bringing new competition to this segment.

From what I have heard the new Nissan 4.0 V6 will offer 260+/- HP and 280 +/- lb ft of torque. The Toyota 4.0 V6 will offer 240+/- hp and a similar 280 lb ft of torque. While the Dodge V8 will likely have a broader torque curve, the new Toyota and Nissan will be worthy competitors.

So, in order to keep a competitive advantage, Dodge needs to figure a way to get more power out of the 4.7 V8. And to me, it makes no sense that the hemi is being offered in the 300C, Magnum, Durango and new Grand Cherokee, but they did not design the Dakota to use this motor. IMHO, this is a big mistake. With the cylinder deactivation, the Hemi actually offers similar (or better) fuel economy than the 4.7 V8 in vehicles that offer both. Unfortunately, this technology is actually much more difficult in an OHC design (the 4.7) as compared to a push rod (the Hemi).

With the Hemi and the cylinder deactivation, my choice for a new pickup would very likely have been the Dakota. Now I am weighing my options between three what appear to be very good choices from Dodge, Nissan and Toyota.

dustyk · August 2004

Well, first, the Dakota platform will not except the 5.7 Hemi engine. The engine is too big to fit under the hood. Chrysler did play with the idea of building the Dakota around the Hemi, but then the Dakota would've been only slightly less in size than the RAM, which doesn't make any sense.

I don't know a thing about the new Nissan and Toyota offerings. Assuming that those new platforms are exactly the same in size and capacity to the next generation Dakota, rated horsepower does not always tell the story. And if they're V6s it is doubtful that the low end torque will compare to the current 4.7.

The 4.7 is a very smooth and balanced power plant. It seems equally responsive across a wide RPM range. It has plenty of low-end torque and seems more gutsy than the 360 wedge V8 that was used previously.

Performance of the Nissan and Toyota are at this juncture still speculation. I think you need to take a wait-and-see. Nissan and Toyota usually...I say usually... do their homework well, so maybe they'll both be Dakota beaters. Who knows. There's usually a price to pay for increased horsepower somewhere. In the final analysis it all depends on what your criteria for judgement is. There are people (like me) that don't consider rated horsepower to be the singlemost important thing.

Best regards,
Dusty

atlgaxt · August 2004

You are missing my point. I know that the Hemi will not fit. However, it fits in two existing passenger cars (the 300C and the Magnum) and will probably be added to other passenger cars. It fits in the new Grand Cherokee. But it was not designed to fit a 217" long 2 plus ton truck. It makes no sense. A truck the size of the Dakota should be able to accept that size engine, if smaller cars and SUVs can. The Dakota used to offer a 5.9 litre engine, which has greater displacement than the current Hemi. My point is that Dodge screwed up by not designing the Dakota to fit the Hemi.

Especially when you consider that a Hemi with cylinder deactivation will offer similar or maybe even better fuel economy to the 4.7, which probably cannot be engineered for a similar system.

Also, while I agree with you that typically a DOHC V6 will offer inferior torque to a V8, the new V6s in the Tacoma and Frontier offer similar amounts of torque and more horsepower, and with variable valve timing may even offer similarly broad power bands.

dustyk · August 2004

I understand the point you're making. But in order to make the next generation Dakota big enough to fit around the 5.7 Hemi would've made the Dakota too close in size to the RAM. As we see with the Tundra a slightly lesser version of a full size pick-up does not generate sales. I think in this respect the Dodge truck development staff did a good thing.

If your point is horsepower then I give you that. It would be nice to market some more. I'm sure that the next-gen Dakota platform team had some idea what the competition was doing in the development area, and like everyone else they've done their market research. We should not assume, however, that just because the Hemi won't be available that something else won't be.

We do not know exactly what the new offerings from Nissan and Toyota will be like in their final form. The GM Canyon, for example, has been criticized for being still smaller than the existing Dakota while being only marginally larger than the current S10 platform, and GM lovers cannot understand why GM didn't introduce a "Dakota beater" when they had a chance with a fresh sheet of paper.

Cylinder deactivation would be easily adaptable to the 4.7, but I think that with a motor that size the cost-benefit ratio is not as favorable as it is with the larger, more thirsty Hemi.

As to the comment about more horsepower in the Nissan and Toyotas, I think you missed my point. In a 4.0 liter V6 the power band will never be optimum for pick-up truck usage compared to the likes of the 4.7 Chrysler V8. In order to produce that kind of power in a normally aspirated engine, on 87 octane fuel no less, the power band will have to move upwards with a corresponding loss of low-end torque...variable timing or not. In order to be truly competitive the platform will have to make up for this in other areas in order to match the performance of the current 4.7 Dakota. The most logical approach would be reducing weight.

It's easy to second guess manufacturers if one is asking a narrow question. In reality Dakota platform developers are trying to appeal to a wider range of buyer. If the Dakota is to be criticized for not having the new Hemi, then why wouldn't we be asking why Nissan and Toyota are dickering with a current V6 and isn't plunking one of their V8s into their next gen trucks? I suspect they have a reason, too.

Best regards,
Dusty

iowabigguy · August 2004

I suspect that as competition heats up for the existing crude oil output. It will cause an ever increasing spiral in prices at the pump.

At some point our illustrious politicians will see fit to include our gas guzzling trucks in the automobile CAFE requirements to stem the flow of our dollars into the Middle East.

Then you will start hearing people asking why are the manufacturers not putting more efficient motors into the trucks.

I suspect the Asian manufacturers are a little better at seeing future trends than maybe we give them credit for.

I have read that the sales of SUVs have already softened with the modest increase in gas prices we have already seen.

I don't think diesel motors are going to help much because as the demand for diesel increases the price will skyrocket.

We will be competing for the fuel with our trucking industry, our Farmers and the people who heat their homes with heating oil as well as the Europeans.

One of the reasons our gas prices have been low in recent years is the surplus of gasoline from European refineries as they refine and sell larger percentages of diesel. I have read that about half the cars purchases in Europe are powered by diesel motors.

But then again demand will drop for gas and we should see a reduction in the price of gas. Do you suppose Dodge could put that new 6.1 Hemi in the Dakota. <grin>

dustyk · August 2004

>>>At some point our illustrious politicians will see fit to include our gas guzzling trucks in the automobile CAFE requirements to stem the flow of our dollars into the Middle East. Then you will start hearing people asking why are the manufacturers not putting more efficient motors into the trucks. <<<

Iowa, if this is true then maybe Dodge is ahead on this one by not (at the moment) fueling the horsepower race.

There are already a population of politicians who treat horsepower as a dirty word and wanting to crush horsepower with taxes and penalties. SUVs have taken some heat away from LD pick-ups by steering the over emotional SUV-haters away...for the moment. But some are looking at why most LD trucks are owned by civilians without a business case. Watch California's Barbra Boxer or Diane Feinstein.

By the way, I'm finding a number of guys are now complaining about the fuel consumption on the new F150 with the 5.4 engines. I've heard several say that their older 5.4s gave them 15-16 consistently, but the new ones are 12-13 MPG. The brother of my son-in-law bought a new F150 regular cab and, according to my son-in-law he can beat it with his 2002 F150 Quad 4x4!

Bests,
Dusty

atlgaxt · August 2004

Regarding the F-150, my guess is that part of the reason fuel economy is lower than the previous generation is that the new one is just so darn heavy.

I agree that we need to increase fuel efficiency in this country, and burning less fuel is another reason I am steering away from a full sized truck. However, technology in the form of mild hybrids, cylinder deactivation and direct fuel injection promises to provide substantial fuel economy increases, even for V8 powered trucks over the next several years. I also think that as the fuel is cleaned up, diesels will become more common. Regarding the Tacoma, my guess is that a V8 is not initially available because Toyota does not want the new larger Tacoma to steal sales from the Tundra. When the Tundra gets bigger (in 2006?), my guess is that we will see a direct injection V8 with VVT in the Tacoma that will get better fuel economy than the V6 in the current version.

I'll quit my yappin about the lack of a hemi in the Dakota if I hear that Daimler Chrysler decides to put one of their excellent diesels in that truck. In my mind, that would trump the competition.

atlgaxt · September 2004

FYI - There is a brief "preview" article on the new Dakota in the new Car & Driver. Just some basic info and discussion of why no hemi (I'm staying away from that topic) and only a brief analysis.

dustyk · September 2004

For 2005 the Dakota will have the option of a high output 4.7 motor, which is being advertised as faster that the 5.9 Dakota R/T.

Saw a 2005 dakota for the first time today at Marina Dodge in Webster, New York. Can't say I take to the appearance of the front end, but the rest of it looks pretty good. It appears that the oil pressure and voltmeter are no longer part of the instrumentation. That's too bad. I will say that the fit and finish was as good as any car or truck I've ever seen.

Regards,
Dusty

mopar67 · September 2004

to me, omission of gauges consitutes a serious design gaffe. Perhaps its space or cost, regardless, Chrysler was noted for YEARS in having full instrumentation on their cars and trucks. I know I certainly appreciated a full gauge set on my Dak.
Alas, no oil pressure and voltmeter means Dodge is trying a bit to hard to make the Dakota into more of a loser cruiser (ie minivan) or something other than what it really is.......a pickup truck.

Shame on you DOdge!

dustyk · September 2004

Mopar, Yep. I agree. Dumping the gauges is especially sinful on a truck. It looks as if there's not even an option package for increased instrumentation.

They probably saved $50.00 in component cost. But to me many truck buyers will notice the absence of those gauges.

Bests,
Dusty

sunburn · September 2004

Toyota did the same thing when the Tacoma replaced the 2nd generation pick-up. The oil pressure and voltage gauges went away. So, DC isn't the only one being cheap.

dustyk · September 2004

Sunburn, I know. But isn't Dodge supposed to be "different?"

I stopped and took my first close look at the new Dakota. One thing I noticed right away is the increase in the frame dimensions. Good Lord, the frame rail between the upper A-frames and the firewall has got to be almost double the height as my 2003! The new Dakota frame appears to rival that of some full-size PUs.

And I think the current (now older) generation Dakota frames were very stiff -- much better than adequate.

The rear doors on the Club Cab are nice, although the rear seating looked no better than my '03. I think I like the rear seats better in mine, though.

Although I like the white face gauges, much about the new interior was far from spell-binding. The interior designers tried to take some of the starkness away from it (this one was a beige interior) by making the door panel insert a contrasting color. But I think my '03 has more pizzazz, and mine's dark charcoal inside.

Fit and finish was flawless inside and out. The rear doors are extremely solid and close like the Panama Canal locks -- very securely.

I don't know what last year's 3.9 engine sports for fuel consumption, but this automatic V6 was rated 15-22 EPA. I think that's a slight increase if I remember correctly.

Still don't like the front end, but the rest of it was done quite nicely. The rear tailights are sharp.

Bests,
Dusty

marsha7 · September 2004

a road car for me (2004 Crown Vic), the next vehicle is a pickup truck for the wife...the lease on our Intrepid is up in Jan 2005, so we are strating to seriously truck-hunt now...considering new 2005 F150, maybe a 2003 F150 King Ranch (take advantage of 2 yr depreciation and pre-2004 is actually a smaller F150, weighing 500 lbs less than the new F150, according to Edmunds) and also considering a 2005 Frontier and 2005 Dakota (yes, I am in the right topic)...I have been pleased with my Intrepid, so Chrysler quality seems OK to me...reading the advance reports, I am somewhat disappointed that last year's 4WD Dakota had 4-wheel disc brakes, but they de-contented 2005 and returned to rear drum brakes...having had 4 wheel disc brakes on numerous vehicles, I find they stop better than disc/drum, and the 2000 Sable I just traded only served to confirm my opinions...if disc/drum is worth considering, I will examine the new Dakota, but I do have my usual requirements, and maybe you can answer...does the new Dakota, in its most top-of-the-line form, have adjustable lumbar supports for passenger and driver??? (I know the F150 does, but I do not know about Frontier)... also, in the 4 door crew cab, does it have the option of power seats for driver???...for passenger???...anyone know the various bed lengths for the new Dakota???...thanks

atlgaxt · September 2004

I do not have answers for Marsha 7 but I have some more questions.

1. I understand that AWD is an option. Does this system give you a choice of 2wd, AWD, 4 HI and 4 LO? I have part time 4wd on my Mazda, and while it is a good system for off road, I often find myself slipping around in the rain in 2wd. At the same time, a full time AWD system burns fuel and tires. A full compliment of choices would be great.

2. I'm getting over the fact that there is no HEMI. Sigh... Does anyone know what fuel is recommended for the 4.7 High Output?

fishkiller · September 2004

My stock '01 ClubCab w/ 4.7 4x4 3.92 AT factory 2.65x70x16 tires has published payload of 1800#. Looking forward to same 2005 w/ new 4.7HO, but published payload is 260# less (1560). Anybody know why? Regularly haul close to a ton on rough roads & trails here out West, and my '01 squats only an inch or so and handles great. What's up w/ lighter max P/L for '05? LUV MY TRUCK -- not a single problem @ 50K mi., lots of them tough! :-)

fishkiller · September 2004

I waited about 10 years in Jeeps w/ QuadraTrac for Dakota w long-promised full time 4WD/AWD, and when they finally did in '01, I jumped for it. In sum, out here in UT in all kinds of weather, on/off all kinds of roads, it had been a GREAT drive system! Not a single problem, good mileage & I don't have to remember to unlock hubs, get out of 4WD, fumble for the switch when hitting icy stretches, etc. It's so good, I don't know why anyone who ever drives on snow and ice or slick grades would ever have anything else!
DRIVE ON! GO DAK! GO AWD!

sunburn · September 2004

It's probably because the truck weighs more, but the GVWR did not increase. So, less payload capacity. I was hoping that a larger, stronger frame would mean an increase in GVWR. It didn't (at least not for the QCs).

demoncleaner · September 2004

Fishkiller, wondering what mileage you get with the full-time 4wd, was wondering if it drops a few compared mpg all the time to the regular part-time 4wd.
Also, for anyone, what are the chances of ACTUALLY finding a 6-spd manual V-8 Quad cab? Dodge offers a manual, but never stocks in Up Upstate NY. I searched they simply dont exist. A buddy of mine has an 03 and had to special order (waited a over a month)his to get a manual, ridiculous. Any EPA estimates on the V-8 6spd vs the auto (15/20). Thanks

ron35 · September 2004

atlgxt - The 4.7 high output requires premium fuel.

Ron35

dustyk · October 2004

Ron, does it REQUIRE premuim fuel, or is it optional, producing less horsepower when run on regular like many other engines?

Bests,
Dusty

dustyk · October 2004

Marsha,

For 2005 the box lengths are 64.9 inches (Quad Cab) and 78.8 inches (Club Cab). Payload is 1740 pounds with a 7000 GVW tow rating.

Following a trend in the industry, the '05 Dakota is heavier by about 250 lbs. The 4x2 Club Cabs are 4275(A) and 4286(M), with the SLT coming in at 4295(A).

The Quad Cabs are 4397(A) and 4408(M), with the ST being slightly heavier at 4411(A).

As far as I can tell power seats are available for the Quad Cab.

As far as no rear disc brakes, I'm probably one of the few in here that believes that they're not a necessity on a light duty pick-up. This would be especially true if you will be doing most of your driving empty. The rear drum brakes on the Dakota are more than adequate, and are as large as some full-size LD pick-ups were ten years ago.

Bests,
Dusty

dustyk · October 2004

Basically because the '05 Dakota is approximately 250 lbs. heavier than the previous generation.

Best regards,
Dusty

ron35 · October 2004

Dusty - The spec sheets I have seen list the 4.7 HO as requiring premium fuel. I have heard of some having sucess with the mid-level grade.

Ron

captjohn · October 2004

My old 1988 Dakota just went to the junk yard, so I'm in the market for a new truck. I drove the new 2005 Dakota last week, and I was impressed with the overall quality, and how it handled. This truck represents a significant improvement at least in the seat and dash materials over recent Dodge models. Since my old 3.9L V6 never gave me any problems, I am looking for anyone's experiences with the newer 3.7/4.7 family of engines. My experiences with older Chrysler engines that have a iron block with aluminum heads has made me very cautious of this engine family. I've had to pay for head gaskets twice on the old 3.0L Mitsubishi built V6 and their old 2.2L 4cy. Can anyone summarize the recent experiences with this new engine family?

dustyk · October 2004

Capt,

So far the 4.7 has proven to be bullet proof. The 3.7 hasn't been out quite as long, but should be just as reliable. I have not heard of one head gasket problem yet, and some 4.7s are over the 100K mark.

I'm familiar with the older 2.2 Chrysler-built 4-cylinder engines and head gasket problems. But keep in mind that towards the end of that engines life head gasket failures became much less of a problem. My wife had a 2.5 Plymouth Acclaim that got to 130K on the engine with no engine repairs...ever.

With respect to the Mitz-built engines, yeah. Those appear to be a problem.

Best regards,
Dusty

mopar67 · October 2004

6 bangers were also notorious for dropping the valve guides. Follow any Chryco minivan, Dynasty, or Acclaim and if its spewing blue smoke, it has the mitsu 6 cyl engine.
Not to mention the dist cap wiring was a nightmare as was water pump replacement. From what I reall, the pump was driven by the timing belt of all things! Certainly not a sturdy design!

fishkiller · October 2004

Empty, 17+ on hwy @ 70-80; 15+ in town. W/ 1300# cabover camper + small boat, 12-13 on flat roads @ 70mph.

goboilers · November 2004

Captjohn,

I have an 01 quad,4X4,4.7 with 97,000 miles. I have had no problems (knock on wood)with the engine and it runs as good today as when I bought it. I have done nothing but change the plugs, oil and put gas in it. The one complaint is gas mileage, I get about 14 miles per gallon with mix city/highway driving and about 10mpg towing my 3200# boat. But with the performance of the engine it's hard not to have a heavy foot.

dustyk · November 2004

John,

At what mileage did you think that 4.7 was finally broken in?

Best regards,
Dusty

amoreano · December 2004

I almost bought a '05 Toyota Tacoma this afternoon (extended cab/long bed). The biggest drawback to this truck is the old style on-demand 4 wheel drive system. You have to choose bewteen locking rear diff/open diff when unlocked, or a limited slip diff. Each has its pros and cons. I'm very excited about the Dakota'a full 4 wheel system. I also like the fact that the Dak's short bed is almost 5" longer than the Taco's short bed.

This truck will be on the streets 90% of the time/10% in the woods. I am NOT a true 4 wheeler, that is, no boulder hopping, tree stump climbing stuff. My wife and I are avid hikers and we often travel long distances on some pretty rough Forest Service roads to get to trailheads.

The one thing that I find disturbing about the Dakota is the 7.9" ground clearance. I'm accustomed to the 8.1" ground clearance in our '97 Pathfinder SE (prior to that we had a really crummy '84 Jeep Cherokee- don't know what it's ground clearance was). I noted that some of you have actually BEEN in the F.S. so you're intimately familiar with the kinds of roads I frequent.

Do you think that this '05 Dakota will meet my needs??? Thanks loads for your experienced opinions!

dustyk · December 2004

I think the new Dakota is a very good contender when compared to any of the less-than-full-size trucks. Considering power alone, it is even competitive with some full-size entries.

The 7.9 inch ground clearance may be an issue for you if you think ground clearance is of vital importance. For most 4-wheel drive work that I've seen it would be fine. Then again, I am not a died-in-the-wool four-wheeler. For the average use of a 4-wheel drive I think the new Dakota will be okay, but for the more serious off-roading it will not be.

Maybe in a few months someone will offer a lift kit for those that like all the virtues of the new design but need extra height.

Good luck with your decision.

Best regards,

Dusty

spike50 · December 2004

After 4 yrs, I'm still waiting for Energy Suspension to offer alternatives for those "squeakers" Mopar used on the sway bar and rear leaf springs. I guess it's a volume thing so don't hold your breath on many lift kit offerings.

goboilers · December 2004

Has anybody bought a new 05 Dakota yet? I've only seen one on the road (2wd ext cab) and there doesn't seemed to be much action on this board. Looks like all the action is on the frontier and tacoma boards.

spike50 · December 2004

We're all current owners of '00-'04 models. Back in "The Old Days" ('99-'03), we were breaking new frontiers and figuring out everything about the new design (4 door body, the IFS front suspension, etc.). Just look at all of the forums that we filled up back then and are now archived. Now we all have what we want and most have between 40K-70K of mostly good experiences. Some moved up to Rams or off into other brands but most come back to the forums to contribute. This was the most civil (to one another) forum I've ever participated in.

I don't know where the newbies hang out but we're just old fuddy-duddies around here.

Dodge Dakota Future Models

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles