Dodge Dakota Future Models
Click on the "2004 Dodge Dakota" link in the sidebar and come back here to offer your comments.
KarenS
Host
Owners Clubs
KarenS
Host
Owners Clubs
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
John
Mailman
Put mine on order today..
but you asked
stephen
http://www.car-truck.com/chryed/buzz/b100102.htm
Bookitty
Thanks.
I like to have a diesel option.
mm
Regards,
Dusty
So, the Durango will be increased in size but the new Dakota will be roughly the same size as the current version.
Dusty
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.
Thanks for the heads-up, Sunburn.
Best regards,
Dusty
dodge life >events > auto shows >2005 Dakota. jimq
those outdated add-on fender flares!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
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
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.
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
Guess I'll just look at the pictures while the subscription runs out.
Greg
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).
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.
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.
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.
Best regards,
Dusty
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 :-)
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).
Dusty
I could have steered around and made it through the mud bog, but I had a woman driver, which is another story....
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 ;-)
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?"
... 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"
Select "2005 Dodge Dakota" from list
A friend of mine had a Ram 1500, traded it for a F150 crew cab, and recently traded it for a diesel Ram 2500 (I think) so he could pull a trailer of 4-wheelers. Although the diesel part is OK, the rest of the truck is so heavy-duty that it is uncomfortable as a daily driver (unloaded). I'm just remembering how other Dak owners have complained about a harsh ride.
My rambling is coming around to the point that maybe we wouldn't like the end product (too rough). I'm sure that a more pleasant (mama bear) version could be produced but DC would only do it if the sales were there. I also think that diesels are restricted to fewer models than in the old days for environmental reasons, which is another hurdle. DC would probably prefer you buy their Ram 2500 / 3500 versus all that extra work.
BUT, with rising gas prices and emissions, you have to wonder if more manufacturers won't try a diesel soon. If Ford/GM/Honda/Toyota are willing to invest research in Hybrid vehicles, why not diesels?
Why do people pick hybrids? Usually it's gas mileage (I think). I think most people like myself are turned off on hybrids when we think of the cost to repair and the fact that they've pretty much only been small vehicles (and are not as powerful as their gas equivalents). I found an article on the E320 diesel and it gets 30 mpg in the Benz. That translates to low to mid 20's in a Dakota. So, if you were told that you could get 30% better gas mileage using proven reliable technology, with the only caveat being you have to pump from a different pump, would you do it? I sure would. Not to mention I get 68 more lb-ft of torque to boot.
A pipe dream, certainly, but I think smaller diesels are going to become an interim step to hybrid technology in the future as gas prices continue to rise and emissions become stricter.
The thing to remember is every diesel being brought to the market right now is a gamble that somehow the manufacturers will figure out a way to meet the new tougher 2007 pollution requirements, or that these requirments will be softened. If either is the case, you will see a much larger investment in diesels. If it is not the case, diesel usage will retreat back to being only for heavy duty pick-ups.
Personally, I wish Dakota had a diesel option but remembering back to the fall/winter/spring or 1999/2000, gas was only $0.85/gal. Ahhh the good old days.
One thing I'm certain of is that the ol' girl's Cherokee is gonna get traded in for a Liberty CRD, asap.
...um, while in dreamland, can we have a 6" suspension lift in the new Dak too? :-)
http://trucktrend.com/roadtests/pickup/163_0406_fro/index.html
Bookitty
Also, will it feature full box hyrdroformed sections?
I also read that the torsion bar setup will be gone on the 2005 models. Not sure on this one but I caught wind of it somewhere.
It will incorporate a full box hydroformed frame, be lighter than the current Dakota backbone, and approximately 35% stiffer in multiaxis. There's nothing wrong with the current Dakota frame, by the way, which is stiffer torsionally than the current GM versions.
I do not know who will be manufacturing the Dakota frame.
Yeah, I think they are using coils to replace the torsion bars, too.
Best regards,
Dusty
Oh well, suffice it to say its much easier identifying who makes what for Dodge than it is Suzuki.