dodge50dodge50 Member Posts: 14
edited March 2014 in Dodge


  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    is that the Dakota is clearly dead meat in this
    comparison. Qualit issues alone will put the
    Dakota to shame. nice try bud, but you really
    should just climb back up into your treehouse and
    continue reading sad sack or whatever other comic
    books you were getting bored with.

  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,124
    NO, problem, check again the Dakota has won multiple awards also for initial and long term quality. Search the net and search other rooms. Dakota is not unreliable as you may hope to think, Also check JD powers.
    It really cracks me up on how the Tundra being only 2 years old can just suddenly be a high quality vehicle with NO track record to prove it. I have read multiple stories of electrical to transmission problems to even an engine fire on a Tundra along with wheel vibration.
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    Hark! Methinks I hear the sound of venom bubbling over. Perhaps we are in the wrong forum. Opinions are just that; opinions. Play nice.

  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    relax guy, it was just some ribbin' at 'ol dodge
    50 or 20 whichever one he decides to be. AKA ford
    30. i could care less which one is better. and
    just to let you know how i feel about the way
    vehicles get rated, let's just say i totally
    agree with you. the japeneese must pay some big
    bucks to get the high ratings on some of their
    products that hav'nt even had time to have track
    records. ex; wife wanted a new car. choice was
    between the olds Alero or the toyota celica.
    guess what, crash test are available for alero
    but celica shows up as "not tested". give me a
    break. i know this is off topic but here goes, my
    son bought a new sony playstation that now has to
    be in the turned upside down to play properly.
    sony acknowledged that the first ones have a
    problem that they will fix for $$$$. another
    crock. as for the tundra being rated as high as
    it is that's another crock. this is USA allright
    but sometimes i think we've been sold out by our
    own government. sorry for the long post, i just
    did'nt want to get a opinion war goin' between

  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    ...The Tindra in a comparison where the right class it should be in...Dakota

    - Tim
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    Dont think this be fair now. Them Dakota ones got more haul in em than them limited ones now! Remember now, them tundras be sharin parts with them little tacomas for sure. Comparin a truck that be mid-size with a tundra chock full of litte parts not be even now. Good luck on this one now!
  • towcrazy2towcrazy2 Member Posts: 337
    All of this is rather entertaining!

    I've experienced both the Tundra and the Dakota... And frankly, they're BOTH impressive trucks! Were it not for the work capacity I needed, I might well be driving a Tundra rather than a Dakota!

    Seems to me it's simply a matter of purchasing what you NEED... Different strokes for different folks!

    Quality ratings are relative... Sure, they tend to reveal certain "trends" regarding problems with certain components. But their greater purpose is to alert the makers to things that may be refined or corrected (and usually are).

    Ah well... ENJOY your Tundras and Dakotas!
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    Tow, thank you for putting things into a proper prospective. I can see where this particular topic may be going, and I don't want to go there.

  • quark99quark99 Member Posts: 136
    isn't the Tundra way more expensive? How about comparing a Geo and a Jag?
  • towcrazy2towcrazy2 Member Posts: 337
    FIRST (BOO):
    Isn't it great to be able to select from such a wide range of trucks!!?? I mean, 10-12 years ago it just wasn't this way!!!

    (My personal opinion from Detroit)... Global competition has done nothing but IMPROVE the quality of our domestic trucks. I deal day-in and day-out with the "big three," and they're ALL accutely aware of what's going on with foreign manufacturers... Which has made them ALL a bit sharper in the ways they engineer, design and build our U.S. products!

    Fact is (and I'll probably get some flack from the UAW on this), we're not in a domestic economic situation anymore... We're looking at producing cars and trucks that can compete well in a GLOBAL market.

    Tundra vs. Dakota???

    JEEZ! I don't know!

    But isn't it GREAT that we're "on the globe??!!"
  • towcrazy2towcrazy2 Member Posts: 337
    Getting a bit worn out after a day of work, then installing "goodies" on the QC... But inclined to pontificate on your "Geo vs. Jag" coment...

    Funny... Finished designing a training program for Jaguar (Ford) for Parts and Service personnel... And Astounded at the sort of "we are we" attitude of the Jaguar folks. They don't wish to be associated with Ford (though they're bought by them)... Jaguar dealerships, in general, are accustommed to charging at least $1,000 per service visit, and having a hard time recognizing that product quality (under Ford) has taken a sharp upward turn, and that they need to think in terms of Long-Term P&S sales as they relate to customer satisfaction and loyalty on the next buy.

    Conversely... We've had a GEO in the family since 1992. Its maintenance and service requirements have probably netted the dealership $200 per service visit.

    I HATE the GEO, but it's done well as a "spare car" for well over 70K miles! The service folks are friendly... Probably thinking that we'll "step-up" to a Cavalier or some such nonsense!

    Ahh well... Point well-taken on the "Geo vs. Jag"... And I would conjecture again that it's what you NEED and what you're willing to pay to satisfy that need...

    Good luck to ALL!
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    It is indeed a pleasure to be not only able to select, it is also great to be able to have a truck built to your exact specifications (within
    the engineering mantel). When I first searched for a four door compact class truck, the only one was the Nissan Frontier Crew Cab. It was small, underpowered, and the truck was not in stock somewhere, you took what you could get. The dealers told me that the factory would not build a truck to individual specifications. When I test drove the Nissan, there was no room for my big feet between the service brake pedal and the clutch pedal. I kept tying up my size 12's with each other. The Quad suits me exactly. This posting is not an attempt to demean offshore cars and trucks, because I have owned them and for the most part received value. Thats my .02 worth.

  • quark99quark99 Member Posts: 136
    No really! The old Festiva was a dear car-great mileage, well built, probably the best Ford (Korean built car) I ever owned...(amongst the 3 Escorts, 3 Rangers, 2 5.0 'stang sedans, etc., etc., ....once you got used to it's diminutive outside size, it was a reliable, surprisingly strong little car...much superior to it's progeny, the gutless and doomed Aspire....every time I see a Festiva on the road, I'm reminded of how I squeezed an 8 foot stepladder into that car, with the hatch closed.....sadly, the Festiva's product run was short and sweet, and it's demise occurred due to the fact it had no airbags....I'm going to grab the best Festiva I can find (1993 with low miles can be found for $2500) and put it into use as a commuter, to save the miles on the QC...ran that car out of gas once, and literally strolled about a 1/4 mile to the nearest gas station with one hand reacching into the car and pushing/steering the little 1750 lb car. I remember the attendant asking "hey buddy, why don't you carry a gas can?" My reply? "I'm driving one." Back on the subject....the Tundra is exceedingly expensive, but IS a nice truck. Much like our little V8 in the QC, that Tundra V8 is quite a machine......
  • iowabigguyiowabigguy Member Posts: 552
    I'm sure the Toyota crowd won't agree but I do feel the Dakota Tundra comparison is much closer than comparing it to a Silverado/F150/Ram1500. The performance specifications are much closer when comparing similar equipped vehicles. I took a close look at the Tundra when I was shopping vehicles. The 2wd and 4wd Tundras have the same ride height, too high for older folks to climb into and out of easily. The seat back in the Tundra is too vertical to be comfortable for anything longer than a trip to the mall. Other than that and not being available with a 5 speed I really liked the vehicle. One of the other complaints I have about Toyotas is the dealerships. I have visited several over the years and I found their most of their attitudes sucks, Kinda treat you like you just walked into a 4 star restaurant wearing sneakers and blue jeans. I really liked the 4runner when it first came out and inquired about the price of one. The dealer had one coming in with the chrome and some other desirable package. He informed me it was being sold for $3500 over retail. He said it really didn't matter if I liked the price or not, someone would buy it!. My mom and dad have had Toyotas for years and swear they are the best vehicles on earth until they need service, which is just as often as the "other brands". Routine maintenance and parts are higher than what I pay for my Dodges and Nissan and I don't have to put up with condecending attitudes. There is a perception, right or wrong that Toyota makes a higher quality vehicle than most other brands but if you check the sticker price you are paying dearly for it. My .02 cents Rick
  • dodge50dodge50 Member Posts: 14
  • tundradudetundradude Member Posts: 588
    Tundra has 5 speeds because I have one.

    It is shame that some Toyota dealers are extremely moronic. I have come across some of these. We have nice dealers here in NC where I live. The same is true about service and the cost of service. It all depends on where you live. The same is also true for any automaker.

    Unless you buy a Saturn, no one should pay sticker price. I never have and never will. Here again, it all depends where you live. Places that have more competition will spur better prices and an easier way to haggle over prices.
  • tundradudetundradude Member Posts: 588
    On Edmunds, the Tundra is compared to the F-150 in one topic, the Silverado in another, the Ram in yet another, and now to a Dakota. This all makes interesting reading which has been quite amusing at times to read in the past year.

    The Dakota is no question a midsize truck. Dodge thinks its a compact and anyone can see in most automotive magazines that is compared as such. Even Dodge in its advertising says its a compact. There are two Dakota's in my neighborhood. One is an 89 and the other is a 92. Both of my neighbors have been trying to sell them for the past year but no one wants them. They are perfect for the midsize classification but they have towing and hauling capacties of a compact. I know the newer Dakotas have addressed this issue in the towing area with now a V8 option but not in the hauling capcity. In conclusion, this truck is not a true comparsion with the Tundra.

    Next size up is the Tundra.

    The next size up is the Ford and the Dodge. The Tundra would be comparable if it was a few inches wider and a few inches longer. Although, I would like to say the only difference in the length is the hood length. The Tundra stands with the crowd in towing and hauling capacity for like trucks. This means Ford and Dodge produce heavy duty versions and this is not comparable to the Tundras.

    The biggest of the crowd is the new Chevy. Its bigger mainly because of its big back seat. There is a 93 Chevy in the neighberhood, too. Its been a good truck and the two Dakotas pale in comparison in reliability. The same is true about the Tundra here too in comparing these two trucks.

    I like what Motor Trend said about the Tundra in this aspect: The Tundra is 7/8 the Ford, Chevy, or Dodge. Its truly 24/25 the size. The Dakota is 23/25. A true compact like the Ford Ranger is 20/25. It puts all the trucks in perspective.

    In conclusion, the Tundra is more full size than midsize if their had to be a decison. Personally, the tundra is between the two and should be noted as such. So what is the fair comparison. There is no direct competition in size but there is competition between the Big 3 in hauling and towing capacities. The Tundra used to be the correct size in full size terms. The big 3 trucks just got bigger. Its all related to those extended cabs getting bigger and bigger with each redesign. Quad cab designs will continue this pattern.

    Finally; one more point, its not the big 3, its the big 2. Dodge is owned by Damiler-Benz and guess who gets the profit out of those Dodge trucks. Plymouth will die soon, Dodge will see some changes and maybe some changes in their trucks by Damiler-Benz corporate headquarters. Dodge owners should be wary.
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    Ya said:

    ... but there is competition between the Big 3 in hauling and towing capacities.

    tundra max haul 7200 LBS
    Silverado max haul 9600 LBS

    That be competive now? That Chevy be towin 2400 LBS more than "da runt"! Yet "da runt" just tow 1000 LBS more than Dakota. Lookin like "da runt" be more the mid than a "full size" now. Let that smoke clear from ya eyes now! Good luck on this one now!
  • themacguythemacguy Member Posts: 417
    Agree totally with the comparison re: Motor Trend. The 'people' in these Topics that spit on each other about the 'size matters' issues are a lot like kids in the sandlot in school days gone by. It's totally irrelevant; what matters are the quality and longevity issues that = the total value for whatever you buy. A bone stock std. 4 banger Ranger is one heckuva good value for someone who remembers having to drive the old Luvs and such (I sure do). The same for the larger trucks, etc. It's just that now, NOW we FINALLY have lots & lots of choices to fit the little 'niche needs' in our individual lives - the way car choices have been for a long, long time. We are absolutely getting spoiled rotten, and some of us are starting to act like those little brats (from our obviously distant memories) that we abhor.

    Let me let everyone in on a little secret here: the 'majors' in every industry (I'm in the oil business and it's exactly the same) absolutely LOVE all this bickering - they sell more 'stuff,' trucks, cars, dishwashers - whatever. In the case of high profit margin trucks, they fall all over themselves laughing their way to the bank. And so should we. WE own the stock. In essence we are laughing at ourselves and don't even know NOT to take it seriously. This is exactly what our politicians (prey on and) do to us every damned day. And we still fall for it. Amazing.

    These are just trucks, folks. Can you imagine how much amusement and perspective our (real) U.S. enemies get from watching and listening to this 'sandlot' stuff? This is the Internet age u-know.

    To the subject: I wanted the Tundra desperately - heck I wanted the T-100, still a great truck that the big three tried to kill with an unwarranted 20-25% tax. I like it a bunch. I like the Chevy and Ford trucks, just a little too big for MY needs. I do not like the Dodge Rams or the @$%# dealers. But I drove everything in sight, and the 3/4 ton Dakota Quad was perfect for me (and apparently about 65,000 others). The Tundra, highest in my sights up to that point, lost me on price, step-in height and rear seat space. If they'd done the true Quad thing, I'd be driving one now, overlooking the price and height snafus. -- Others like the size of the Tundra and conversely won't buy the smaller Dakota. Still others think that all of these are 'little toys' and have to have a 1 or 2-ton 4 door 'big rig gas pig' in their driveways that never get used like farmers and ranchers use em. Etc. Etc. But that's OK too, it's a free country (if we don't run out of gas)-- I don't think Toyota made a mistake (or Dodge with the Dakota Quad) because they absolutely can't keep em on the lots. And I had a couple of Toyota work trucks and a Ford F-150 in the past and still have an 85 Dodge Prospector and a 71 Chevy Super Cheyenne. All are built very, very well. But then again so are most trucks today whose makers are not out of business (I hear U.S. Nissan's in BIG financial trouble). Maintenance from new has a LOT to do with longevity as well. Aren't we lucky to be able to [non-permissible content removed] and gossip in so MANY directions these days, for really no reason other than to say that 'my truck is ______ than your truck!'

    Heck, I consider it a real privilege just to be able to afford a new vehicle - of any kind - after what's happened to employment and wages in my industry (nearly dead) over the past 15 years! I hope you all have fared better than us. :-)

  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    I've got a great idea! Just go out and buy the truck that you like, want, meets your needs, and can afford. If I can remember correctly, that's why my grandparents came to America around the turn of the century. It's called freedom of choice. Embrace it and invoke it. That's all.

  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    Ya said:

    I don't think Toyota made a mistake (or Dodge with the Dakota Quad) because they absolutely can't keep em on the lots.

    Here be the top 10 sales now:

    #1 Ford F series
    #2 Chevy Silverado
    #3 Dodge ram
    #4 Ford Ranger
    #5 Chevy S10
    #6 GMC Sierra
    #7 Dodge Dakota
    #8 Tacoma
    #9 Frontier
    #10 Tundra

    Reckin they aint sellin too many of them limited ones now, as they be at the bottom in sales. Heard all this hype with them "full size" t100 ones a few years back, now where they be? Them tunras just be this years t100 now. Good luck on this one now!
  • steve234steve234 Member Posts: 460
    I have nothing against Toyota. They make an OK vehicle, but to my taste, for that money I would rather have an F150 SuperCrew. What I don't like about the Toys and Nissans is the attitude so many of the yuppie wannabe cool owners. To many of them sound like an ad for Consumer Reports. Kind of "What sort of man reads Consumer Reports-He drives his Toyota Tundra to Starbucks while studying GQ magazine for the latest trends". The reality is that Ford sells more trucks in two months than Toyota does all year. In the global market today, this is not a fluke. Every vehicle and manufacturer has its good and bad points. If you look at the market and decide a vehicle is best for your life style, great. If you have a long trouble free experience with it, I am happy for you. If you give me that crap of how superior your manufacturer is, then may the bird of paradise shove up your tailpipe. If you really want to start an argument, lets talk Apple OS vs Windows 95/98. Bad morning guys. What I love about the Dakota Quad people is that they don't want to argue at the drop of a hat. That alone is worth the price of admission.
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    When comparing the status of production figures in number of units, one must also be aware of "production capability." D/C really had no idea
    of the popularity and demand of the Quad Cab in their maiden voyage year. They were overwhelmed with the acceptance of and subsequent demand for the product. Hence the many material restrictions
    encountered. In that sense, I totally agree with
    themacguy. He is not saying that they produce or sell the most units, only that they sell the units that they build.

  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    ...yeah..Tundra owners say that size doesn't matter....they consider it a full size...even though it's "a few inches shorter"

    You think to be considered one of the big boys "a few inches doesn't matter" ...

    yeah right....tell that to your honey..see what she says..

    - Tim
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    some of those "big rigs" actually get good mileage. I know people who have crew cab duallies with diesel engines that get 15-17 MPG. My Y2K 1/2 ton 4X4 ext. cab consistantly gets 15 or more (5.3L). What's funny is the Dakota Quad Cab and Tundra with the smaller 4.7L engines are rated lower than my bigger Silverado. Something else to think about...
  • iowabigguyiowabigguy Member Posts: 552
    I guess I wasn't clear enough in my statement. If you have a 5 speed then you have a v6. I was refering to a 5 speed not being available with the v8. Rick
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    Aint quite gettin what ya be tellin on that one in #23 now. Was ya meanin that them tundras be sellin poor now? Guessin that be why they be huggin the basement on them sales now. Good luck on this one now!
  • tundradudetundradude Member Posts: 588
    I wish Toyota would address that issue. It would also make the V8 models cheaper.

    I have always had manual transmissions. I know that only 10% of all drivers actually get it these days, but they should always be available on any vehicle except for the Cadillac Fleetwood type cars.
  • 2drive2drive Member Posts: 90
    Tundradude: I agree that the midsize/fullsize size debate is a matter of inches and somewhat arbitrary. We have fullsize shortbeds that are smaller and lighter than the LWB midsize vehicles.

    But some of your statements about the Dakota are not entirely accurate. Dodge doesn't think that the Dakota is a compact. Rather, they were relatively unsuccessful at advertising the first generation Dakota as a midsize(no competition except the T100). Actually, they marketed the Dakota as a downsized fullsize truck (the Dakota had a payload capacity of 2,500 lbs., and Dodge discontinued the entry level Ram so as not to overlap products).

    So when they introduced the second generation Dakota (in fact larger, heavier and more powerful), they changed their approach and marketed the Dakota as a compact against the competition's smaller trucks.

    I think Toyota learned from Dodge's "midsize" marketing experience and took a similar approach in marketing the Tundra against the major competition, and did not try to market the Tundra "alone" as a "midsize" truck.

    BTW you mentioned that there was no comparison in towing/hauling between the Tundra and the Dakota.
    Compare max. specs with the 4x4 extended cabs:

    Dakota Tundra
    Payload 1,800 1,532
    GVWR 6,050 6,050
    Towing 6,200 7,100
  • trucksrmetrucksrme Member Posts: 381
    Looks like that "mid size" Dakota be whippin up on them "full size" limited ones now. Guessin that be why that factory name em "Da Runt" now. Good luck on this one now!
  • bamatundrabamatundra Member Posts: 1,583
    Wow! That Dodge of yours will out haul a
    Shakerado also! Man, those Shakerados are wimpy.
    Must be made for housewives to haul groceries with.
    If you want a working truck, you need a Toyota.

    You were right about the V8 only having 1532 lbs.
    haul. The funny thing is, this still beats that
    wimpy Shakerado! The Shakerado with a 5.3L and
    airconditioning weighs 4920 lbs. If you take the
    6400 lb GVWR and subtract 4920 you get 1480lbs.
    Wimpy! Maybe Chevy will build a real "full size"
    truck someday. Just no competition for the Toyota.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    your desperate attempt just seems to fall flat on your face..

    I would guess a yuppy like you...has never even had his hands under the hood...much less knows a damn thing about trucks or cars.

    The good old Toiletta....such a work horse that nobody seems to use them in construction/farms/roofing/or any line of work?

    Nope...just plain old grocery getters seem to be the only use for Toiletta's.

    And geez...My Silverado has a payload of 3200 lbs...just about enough for a Tundra!?

    Keep spewing your nonsense...sip your cappuccino..and make us all laugh. I can't buy entertainment like you if I tried.

    - Tim
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    this is the dakota vs. da-runt forum. why are you
    throwing stones at the chevy's? if you wanna
    start sumthin' well you're headin' in the right
  • towcrazy2towcrazy2 Member Posts: 337
    JEEZ, guys!

    Have a friend with a T-100 who owns a painting business... He's been hauling tons of paint and racking ladders on the poor thing for 5 years, and he swears by it!

    Point is, if we don't have the offshore competition, we're going NOWHERE domestically.

    I look back to 1989 and the S-10... Chevy was getting VERY nervous about overseas competition, and beginning to wake up and smell the coffee! It was a great truck, it served me well for 5 years and fetched a good resale price.

    As we move into 2000, I sense that the same thing is happening with the trucks... Each maker has its own targets. But each maker ALSO has a sense for what it takes in terms of QUALITY to earn and retain customers... That's what "getting better" is all about!
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,124
    I totally agree!! Without competition GM/Ford/Dodge would have continued on the same path, offering us garbage, low quality vehicles. My point is, these Toyota/Honda/Nissan fans feel GM/Dodge/Ford have in no way improved whatsover over the last 10-15years! They are gravely mistaken and if they would take the time and surf the net they will find many Toyota/Honda/Nissan owners that are unhappy.
  • steve234steve234 Member Posts: 460
    While I agree that the ownership of some makes is more Asian than US, lets face it. Look how much Ford and Chevy have invested in asian manufacturers. Good grief they are planning on building Mazdas in Germany. I looked at reviews fo the Tundra and one of the Nissans. The Tundra was built in some country I think they called Indiana(near india?) and the Nissan was built in some third world location called Tennessee. Reality check; fact - either Ford or Chevy outsells all the [non-permissible content removed] competion. Fact - More competition is better for us in lower prices, better efficiency, better quality and more innovation. These idiots who think Toyota is the end all of trucks are brain locked and have lost the key.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    yeah...they are built in some foreign place called indiana and tenn......but I guess their tactic has worked like a charm for you.
    Put the plants here...emplpy some US workers..and people will accept that it's here to "help" America...

    Too bad the real money goes overseas to never be seen here again....but yet a lot of people..including yourself...seem to think it's OK...because the factory is here.

    perhaps YOU need to wake up and smell the coffee?

    - Tim
  • iowabigguyiowabigguy Member Posts: 552
    "manual transmissions should always be available on any vehicle except for the Cadillac Fleetwood type cars."

    I got a big grin when you wrote that. Imagined a strech caddy limo with a Hurst shifter going through the gears..........................
  • iowabigguyiowabigguy Member Posts: 552
    Sure, sounds good. Buy American, don't buy any of that foreign crap. By the way, is your computer union made, how about that TV and stereo. Check your silverware and dishes. How about your clothes and shoes. Other than probably most of the food in your refrigerator I doubt that more 5% of your household is "American Made". Unions were and probably still are good things to keep the big business from craping on the little guy. Unions are still good for the union members.
    If a foreign company invests in America and employs American workers to build his quality product what is the problem with that? Is it because they aren't union members and your union honchos don't get enough of your members hard earned cash to support themselves in the luxury they are accustomed? Ford Crown Victorias and Chevy Camaros are made in Canada. Dodge Rams and Chrysler PT Cruisers are made in Mexico. How is that better, at least Nissan and Toyota are building their vehicles where American Workers get some benefit. Those Dodges some of us buy are still made in Michigan (my Dodge Quad) and by union members too, but the parent company is now German, is that OK? I bought an American union made truck but the profits from that sale are enroute to Germany. Open your eyes, it is a world economy and its only gonna get worse for those companies and employees who make products perceived to be substandard. Rick
  • iowabigguyiowabigguy Member Posts: 552
    "perhaps YOU need to wake up and smell the coffee"

    by the way, that coffee probably comes from Central or South America and its certainly not union made. think about it!
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    Give me a break. I can honestly say that more than 50% of my household things (including my house) are American made..how??because I check each label. Some people (like me) are careful shoppers and check this stuff.

    Toyota/Honda/Nissan make American trucks better? Don't think so - there's never been a challenge to Ford/Chevy/Dodge trucks - they compete more with each other than imports...
  • swobigswobig Member Posts: 634
    ...watch out Meredith is listening...
  • redsilveradoredsilverado Member Posts: 1,000
    ALL just get along? towcrazy has surmized things up
    pretty well here. it's great that we have foriegn comp. just look what it did for harley davidson back in the early 80's. even household goods have improved. like towcrazy said "buy what you like and need".
  • barlitzbarlitz Member Posts: 752
    Did Chrysler buy Mercedes or vice versa I thought it was american.You can blame Nafta for some american auto parts being assemblied in Mexico or Cananda,If you read the sticker on any auto it should tell you the percentage of american built plus foreign content.I personally am a big union or american made person and I do check labels on almost all my purchases it only helps people like you and me and our families,Competition is a great thing and maybe its helped the american made products but what really ticks me off are these Toyota owners who think there in an upper class and consistantly degrade american vehicles.BTW the workers at the Tundra plant in Ind make 1/3 less than any UAW worker, Why? The Tundra is having problems like any other truck on this site if not more, but you know an owner won't fess up to it.Maybe the underpaid worker is catching on the to Japanese strategy of sweatshops.
  • mgdvhmanmgdvhman Member Posts: 4,157
    ..as usual...you have the "is everything in your house American made" response....

    No place did I ever say it all was...BUT..a Vehicle is the most important American purchase you can make as far as impact on the economy.

    ...and I agree with Swobig....about 50% or more in this house is American.....but ALL 4 cars are American...which is the most important issue..

    - Tim
  • tundradudetundradude Member Posts: 588
  • tundradudetundradude Member Posts: 588
    I liked your responses about how the Dakota was marketed. When the Dakota came out in 1989 it was between the Dodge 50 and the 18 year old Dodge Ram. It offered a fresh approach. Dodge made great strides in 92 with an extended cab and the new 5.2 Magnum V6. It was a strange marketing position especially with the Toyota T100 coming out in 93 advertised as a full-size truck. We all know the T100 was not that status in hauling or towing but it was close in size. I parked my 94 T100 up to any fullsize truck at the time and it was close. My truck was slightly larger than that first generation Dakota because I compared it to my uncles. Comparing with the Dakota, the 2.7 was a better engine over the 2.5 and the 3.9, while the 5.2 in the Dakota reigned over the 3.4 in the Tundra.

    The current Dakota is no question living in the shadow of styling of its sibiling the Ram. Thats not a bad thing. The Dakota is considerable more upmarket than its predecessor. I have not seen those hauling figures you posted, but it could be from the sites that I have referenced.

    The Dakota has the towing capacity and very near hauling capacity. Its still a smaller truck. This could be used for the same argument as the Tundra compared to the other three full size trucks.

    The Dakota as you said is competing over the market it can easily win. Its a good marketing strategy.

    Another issue I like to bring up is the difference of weight. The Dakota and Tundra both use lighter chassis to pull off better towing figures and hauling figures compared to the three bigger trucks.
  • tundradudetundradude Member Posts: 588
    I read in autoweek that Nissan is planning on making two full size trucks. The extended cab version and the crew cab version which means no regular cab long bed version. It also means that there you will be no long bed.
  • 2drive2drive Member Posts: 90
    I was thinking about your comment on the Big 3 full size trucks getting bigger with each new truck redesign. That sure is happening with the Dodge Ram. I checked out some old specifications on the previous generation Ram, the truck built prior to 1994, and compared it to the current Dakota.

    Comparing the extended cab models we get:

    Dakota Ram
    Wheelbase 131" 133"
    Length 215" 211"
    Weight 3,760 3,730
    Fuel tank 22gal 22gal

    And they both use the 3.9L, 5.2L and 5.9L engines.

    I was surprised to see the similarity between the two trucks.
  • 2drive2drive Member Posts: 90
    Even the T100 came within 2" in length and 200 lbs
    in weight of the previous generation Ram. Of course, as products are redesigned and improved with each new generation, they represent a moving target for the competition to stay with.
This discussion has been closed.