We are aware of the login problems affecting the forums, and appreciate your patience as we work on a fix.
Did you recently purchase a new Tesla, Rivian or Lucid vehicle directly from the manufacturer and willing to share how your experience compared to previous vehicle purchases made through a traditional dealer? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 2/19 for details.

Dodge Dakota - General Topic

11112131517

Comments

  • badass_bobbadass_bob Member Posts: 6
    Wjile im here, i thought i would cross post the message i left in the quad group..i normally dont do this, but the question is appicable to any 4.7L dakota

     

    ----snip------

    Hi guys

      

    I'm back in the group after a +/- 3-year hiatus.

      

    Bpeeples--> Glad to say you are still on the board

      

    anyway just thought i would pass this on in case anyone was interrested. My '00 Quad just turned 52,000 miles and it was time to replace the OEM Gdy Wrangler RT/S 31x10.5's. I probably could have got another 3-5k out of them but the winter months are here and i didnt want to be running on bald tires.

      

     I just put on 32x11.5x15 BFG AT/TA(KO)'s on my 2000 FullTime 4x4 Quad's stock 15x8 rims...Im sure someone out there has already done this. This tire is a great fit and only scrubs a corner of the front inner fender at full lock(nothing a dremel wont take care of.

      

    Question----> I now need to let the truck's PCM in on the tire swap. i know the dealer can do this for me but i figured, since i was going to spend $30-$40 to have this done, i would spens $300-$400 and buy a PCM upgrade from JetChip/SuperChip/Hypertech since most of these allow you to do this (at least on the GM/ford models)...

      

    Does anyone have any experience(good/bad) with these reprogramming modules from any manufacturer?

      

    Thanks Guys

      

    Chad(NorthCarolina)
  • spike50spike50 Member Posts: 481
    Hard to put a price on experience. Has to be worth more than 2 cents. Thanks again.

     

    The AWD vs. 4WD debate needed the opinion and data from an experienced AWD Dakota driver. It sounds like each system (AWD, 4WD, and 2WD) has its virtues, weakness, and sins perpetuated by the marketing department. Thanks for helping us sort this out a bit more.
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    Yes, thanks very much for for sharing. AWD and 4wd are expensive options, and buyers need the benefit of experience (in addition to marketing) to make an informed choice.
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Member Posts: 4,085
    The lesson here is that "Full time Four Wheel Drive" on the Dakota is not the same as "AWD" on some other vehicle.

     

    For example, the "AWD" on a Jeep is perhaps the best in the buisness. You could have ONLY ONE WHEEL TOUCHING THE GROUND and you would have full tourque deliverd to that one wheel. The system is amazing. (and Jeep holds the patent)

     

    The Subaru system uses viscous couplings and some other clever components to provide a very usable "AWD" system for use on slippery road serfaces. (not for hardcore 4-wheeling)

     

    The Porsche system uses syphticated electronics to deliver supurb traction and handling on DRY road surfaces.

     

    The Dakota is a cheep open-differental in the xfer case. DC does NOT call it "AWD" for a reason. It is called "full time four wheel drive".

     

    Check this website against the xfer case in YOUR dakota to see what you have.

    http://www.newventuregear.com/tcases.html

     (I suspect it is the NV244HD 4WD Full Time/Part Time Transfer case or the NV242HD)
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Information from the 2003 Dakota service manual --

     

    NV233

     

    The NV233 is an electronically controlled part-time transfer case with a low-range gear reduction system. There are three ranges, plus a neutral position: two-wheel drive, 4 low and 4 high. The 4LO and 4HI ranges are for off-road use only and not for hard surfaces. The exception is when the road surface is wet or slippery or covered with ice or snow. The gear reduction system is engaged in 4LO only and provides a 2.72:1 reduction ratio.

     

    NV244

     

    The NV244 is an electronically controlled full or part-time transfer case with no two-wheel drive provision. A differential in the transfer case is used to control torque transfer to the front and rear axles. A low range gear reduction system provides increased low-speed torque capability for off-road operation with a 2.72:1 reduction ratio.

     

    The NV244 has three operating ranges plus a neutral position: AWD (All-wheel Drive, 4HI (Part-time), and 4LO. The AWD position can be used on any surface condition. The 4HI and 4LO positions can only be used when the road surface is covered with snow, ice, or other slippery material.
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Member Posts: 4,085
    Thanks DUSTYK!! You have confirmed what we have been saying all along.

     

    There is the answer right there. Just a differential in the xfer case. Nothing more.

     

    The NV244 is an electronically controlled full or part-time transfer case with no two-wheel drive provision. A differential in the transfer case is used to control torque transfer to the front and rear axles.

     

    The wheel with the LEAST traction is where all the torque goes.

    In other words, if ANY ONE WHEEL is off the ground (no traction) you are stuck.
  • badass_bobbadass_bob Member Posts: 6
    You are correct, you are stuck UNLESS you have the antispin option. then you "might" be stuck(L.O.L.).

     

    I havent looked in the B.O.B. but my service manager swears that the antispin option includes antispin clutches for the front end as well as the rear end...(bpeoples can probably vreify since my B.O.B. is M.I.A. currently)...hopefully this is the case.

     

    The dakota AWD is definitley NOT the jeep Quadratrac setup. If anyone thinks or tells you that the dakota AWD is the "same thing" as the quadratrac, find yourself another dealer.

     

    Chad (North Carolina)
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Member Posts: 4,085
    Your service manager is incorrect.

     

    There is no vehicle manufacturer who would install a LSD in the front of a vehicle due to the liability risk.

     

    It is dangerous to have the "trac loc" LSD (Limited Slip DIfferential) in the FRONT of any vehicle. It causes loss of steering control under some conditions. (both front wheels slide sideways instead of ROLL.)

     

    BTW: Adding LSD to the rear end of a "Full Time Four Wheel Drive" actually makes matters WORSE. Since the open differential in the xfer case will send the torque to the driveshaft with the LEAST resistance, the LSD in the rear will virtually GUARANTEE that the torque will always be sent to the front under slippery conditions.

    Thus, one of the FRONT wheels will always spin first. (One front wheel will ALWAYS have less traction than BOTH rear wheels)
  • evaddaveevaddave Member Posts: 156
    I thought that all Dakotas have antispin clutches installed--one at each wheel, controlled by the pedal to the left of the accelerator.

    :)

     

    But seriously, I've heard of people using the brakes to help get out of situations where you've got excessive wheelspin. (I've not done or seen it, so it's only hearsay.)

     

    I've started to see more & more manufacturers putting LSDs into front- and all-wheel-drive cars lately, too. Typically it's the Asian pocket-rocket cars. I don't know how they get around that whole loss-of-control issue. That would be interesting to find out.
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    Bob, as Bruce implied, your service manager is not correct. Beside the liability issues, there is a mechanical issue. With limited slip front and rear axles, it would take about 10 acres to turn the truck around, and it would be fighting you all of the way.

     

    Bookitty
  • badass_bobbadass_bob Member Posts: 6
    makes sense to me

     

    like i said.....some dealerships will just tell you what they think you want to hear,
  • mopar67mopar67 Member Posts: 728
    from Auburn or Detroit and be done with it!

     

    Of course, on road drivability might suffer but I digress.............:)
  • sunburnsunburn Member Posts: 319
    Actually, back in the mid 90s, the Nissan Sentra SER had a limited slip diff on a front wheel drive vehicle. It was supposedly the first time it had ever been done. I don't know the specifics of how they did it, though.

     

    The Subaru AWD system varied depending on what type of transmission you had. For manual trannys, I believe it was a viscous type coupling that normally split the torque 50/50 front/rear. The automatic trannys used an electronically controlled multi-stage clutch that normally split the torque 90/10 front/rear.
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    Todd, when I was with Lull, they did actually have the limited slip differential on the front axle. The reason for this, was that a reach (boom) type rough terrain forklift is usually traveling with the load on the forks, thus the machine is nose heavy. When I was with Pettibone, they tried the limited slip on both axles using steering axles (4WD and steer) as well on articulated (hinged with fixed drive axles) type units (log skidders). The results were the same. Plenty of traction, but with the loss of tight turn radius.

     

    Bookitty
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Member Posts: 4,085
    Actually your humorous comment is more accurate than you may have thought.

     

    The "electronically controlled LSD" on front wheel drive vehicles is not clutches in the differential. Instead, the ABS sensors at each of the front wheels sense wheelspin and gently apply the brake at that wheel. (thus sending the torque to the other front wheel.)

     

    My wifes VW Jetta has this feature. It also has the ability to cut engine power too. Coupled together, this makes for a very usable traction control for a front wheel drive vehicle. I can mash the throttle on a snow-covered road and the vehicle will controllably accellerate as fast as traciton permits with very little wheelspin.

     

    Her VW also has ESP (Electronic Stability control) which virtually eliminates lateral slippage. (sideways skidding) This is the most advanced safety system available today. It was pioneered by Mercedies Benz several years ago.

    I hesitate to explain how this ESP system works here because the 'lowly' Dakota can only dream of having such a system.... and this is, after all, a Dakota forum. All I will tell you is that is is UNCANNY how her VW can handle on a snow-covered empty parkinglot... I cannot even MAKE it slide sideways when I try.
  • iowabigguyiowabigguy Member Posts: 552
    The 2004 and up Neon SRT4 has a limited slip differential. Rick
  • ron35ron35 Member Posts: 134
    I have ordered some Edelbrock IAS shocks for my 2K Dak 4x4 and know that several of you out there have installed them. I have installed shocks before but was just wondering if any of you out there have any tips or information that would facilitate installation.

     

    Thanks,

    Ron
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Member Posts: 4,085
    Dont forget that the Edelbrock IAS shocks are installed "upside down" as compared to normal absorbers.

     

    The rears simply bolt right up. I just laied under my Dak to install them. The upper nuts have 'tangs' welded to them so you do not have to put a wrench on them.

     

    The front install is slightly more complicated. You have to jack up each wheel and remove them. To install the fronts, you have to compress the absorber then allow the internal spring to press it into place.

     

    Do not forget to use a torque wrench to verify proper fastener tightness.
  • spike50spike50 Member Posts: 481
    The fronts are more work because you need to take the wheels / tires off. You'll need a little jack to move A-arms up and down a little so stuff lines up before bolting it down. Same with the back. Overall, it's no big deal, no tricks, or special equip.
  • dodgetrukndodgetrukn Member Posts: 116
    Just got my Bridgestone Dueler AT Revo's from costco last night.. $134.99 each + $10 mount/balance-lifetime rotation, balance and air adjustment,and new stem. Thought that was fair price..as I seen $132 from tirerack.com without shipping and other costs. Typical installers and counter person as both recanted different tire pressures were set when I asked if set to 41 pounds. Installer said all were set to 35lbs. Counter guy reads my receipt and says 30lbs in front and 35 in back. Told em s/b 41...got the typical "dummy look" as counter person pretended to look up something on chart.. till I told em I'll take care of it! Go home see 30 lbs in FR and LR tire, and 32 lbs in FL and RR tire. See max of 44 lbs on web http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Spec.jsp?make=Bridgestone&model- =Dueler+A%2FT+Revo and set to 41lbs..May let some pressure our if think I could get a bit better traction in heavier snow..We'll see..otherwise the new tires at 57k miles are making me smile.. New shocks and I'll be set for a bit.. Anyone beat those prices?

    Also go jan24 for my ball joint replacement..and C35 wire harness recall check.. Wonder what the flemington NJ truck dealer is gonna do about the "re-alignment" check.. Hoping the do full check but since I won't be there to watch, who knows..unless I mark up the front end a bit to see if any adjustment was made.. Otherwise, truck running fine.. Ger
  • spike50spike50 Member Posts: 481
    I did a little bit better. In Nov 2003, I replaced all 5 w/ the Revos ('00 QC @ 52K) and I purchased them from a local Firestone / Bridgestone tire dealer. I got all 5 for $650 (first 4 covered as a package deal and the 5th at a different price). So $650/5=$130 ea. all the stems, balancing, etc. was included but I did take my old GY RT/Ss (31x10.5-15) home and avoided the disposal fee of $2/ea. plus $0.60 of state sale tax ($10*6%). I came to my senses and gave the RT/Ss away instead of saving them for the following summer. If disposal was included, the bill would have been $661/5=$132+ea.

     

    They have been great in every situation I've gotten in to. This will be the second Pennsylvania winter for them. I noticed about a 1-2 mpg drop, probably because there was so much more "meat" on these tires versus those worn-out GY's that still looked good but were dangerous in the wet / snow.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Has anyone noticed if Chrysler is replacing the entire upper control arm or just the ball joint assembly?

     

    The Dakota service manual specifies that the upper and lower joints are spared with the control arms as a complete unit. But I'm suspicious that under warranty they are just replacing the joint itself.

     

    Thanks in advance.

     

    Regards,

    Dusty
  • dodgetrukndodgetrukn Member Posts: 116
    Spike50,

      Sounds good with those prices. We have STS tire(s) stores in central NJ,,they quoted me $190 per tire!! Went 200 yards down the road on route 22 in greenbrook nj and was quoted $160/tire. Our local bridgewater Costco had that beat for the $134/tire+$10 lifetime balance-rotation..plus I killed (2) birds with (1) stone there as my wife picked up a whole chicken for dinner! Paid the $1 disposal fee/tire.... well take care..get ready for tomorrows (sat) snow storm! Ger
  • bpeeblesbpeebles Member Posts: 4,085
    Your service manual was correct when printed.

     

    The UBJ used to be spare-parted as part of the upper-control-arm.... They would make more $$ selling complete upper-control-arms.

     

    But when they were forced to start footing the bill for the UBJs, they changed the way it is spare-parted and now offer just the UBJ as a seperate item.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Bpeebles,

     

    Hey, thanks! Yeah, that makes sense to me, too. Aftermarket companies typically spare the joint separate, but factories often do not. I'm not sure why. As you pointed out it raises the price of replacing ball joints. Maybe somebody thought they'd make more money, but on the other hand they could lose a lot of business that way as well.

     

    Someone here wrote that the new replacement uppers are "shiny." I noticed a 2004 Dakota a while back that had a shiny ball joint, although I'm sure this one was factory and hadn't been replaced. Maybe that's why the 2004s weren't part of the recall.

     

    Bests,

    Dusty
  • spike50spike50 Member Posts: 481
    Guilty as charged (shiny). I just put a picture of the new joint on my webpage (page "Pics 5" with a side by side comparison). The dealers are only replacing the UBJ (3 nut/bolts on the upper A-arm and the 1 in to the spindle). The original UBJ picture (65K miles) gives you the impression that it was shiny at one time too. Maybe Mopar is using up the NOS and figuring that we'll all be long gone by the time the UBJs need replaced again.
  • spike50spike50 Member Posts: 481
    I really wanted to go with the Bridgestone Revos because of the jeep trails, occasional blizzard, and the layered tread compound design. The original GY RT/Ss (31x10.5-15 on a 4x4) were bad to begin with in heavy rain (hydroplanning) and got progressively worse each year. They were OK on dry pavement and produced a high of 20-21 mpg but scary otherwise.

     

    Supposedly, as these Revos wear down, a softer tread compound will be exposed to compensate for the reduction of sips, etc. to maintain a safe level of traction in its "old age". So I was game after feeling like I was throwing away good rubber with the GYs. Pricing was a second-tier concern but GY ATs $ and others were right up there and the labor, stems, balancing, disposal, tax costs are the same no matter what tire you put on. I looked and researched all sorts of tires and ways to buy them (too much time on my hands as a "young" retired person) and then made the decision just before hunting season (2003).

     

    So far, so good.
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    From 5/29 to 9/27, my summertime fuel mileage average was 18.05.

     

    With the sudden cold weather the MPG has dropped drastically, with the last five tanks all being under 16.0 MPG. My last fill-up (today) the MPG was 12.79, an all-time low.

     

    Regards,

    Dusty
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    ADDENDUM:

     

    I should add that this last tank took me through four of the coldest days we've had around here, +4, -2, -4, and -11 over night lows. It's two degrees above zero here at the moment. In addition I let the Dak sit and idle for very long periods of time just to dry the inside out and driving never got over 50 MPH and was stop-and-go.

     

    Regards,

    Dusty
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
  • spike50spike50 Member Posts: 481
    The subject comes up enough but I don't think that everyone will "color inside the lines". None of the other topics like Accessories, etc. are really "pure" but that's life. This would work if Edmunds had a spreadsheet format that asked for certain info (engine, trans, tire size, general terrain traveled, etc.) and didn't allow for anything else. I think that that format would be worthwhile.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    Well..good question. Would a specific topic like this get much activity?
  • spike50spike50 Member Posts: 481
    The "diehards" would surely post. The problem is the general essay format. We usually start out on one subject and transition on to something else.

     

    Does Edmunds have the capability to start a MPG topic and limit the data entry to mpg-appropriate data?

     

    An alternative would be to make the Dakota folder a big database so we could sort for mpg-related entries and disregard the rest?
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Well, a while back there was a lot of discussion about Dakota MPG. It's tapered off some lately, but I think the category deserves a spot in the Dakota forum like it has for F150, Titan, etc. There are potential first time buyers that might appreciate quickly finding that info for Dakota. I for one am curious about the new Dakota and how the fuel consumption compares to the older series.

     

    Just my opinion. We could continue to talk about MPG in the general forum. It's worked in the past.

     

    Bests,

    Dusty
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    I think "real world" mileage could be very helpful reference information, particularly for any car or truck buyer who is considering the out-of-pocket costs of various option packages. (4wd vs. awd vs. 2wd, 6 vs. 8 vs. hi perf 8, manual vs. auto, axle ratios ...) The topic seems a little nerdy, but I paid $1.85 a gallon for 87 today, so the difference between a power train that would deliver 20+ mpg and one that would only get 12 mpg would be enough to get the attention of my inner nerd.
  • bookittybookitty Member Posts: 1,303
    To all, mileage is very subjective, as it involves weather, terrain and most of all, driving habits. Granted that various configurations of engine transmission, axle ratios and drive type impact greatly on MPG, but there will be a tremendous discrepency even then because we all drive differently. Tough to get a level playing field.

     

    Bookitty
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    >>mileage is very subjective<<

     

    Well, the following is probably my inner nerd speaking -- But is there a way to lessen the subjectivity and assorted variables? For example, the board could establish a thread in the summer in which posters could pick a week, check their tire pressure, fill the tank with decent juice, and drive in a way that would produce their best possible actual mileage. At the end of the week, participants report their mileage, plus drive train info and anything else that seems semi-pertinent.
  • spike50spike50 Member Posts: 481
    I agree that the numbers would need some qualifications to provide the context by which they were achieved. But we are talking "real-world" too, so I think we'll be all over the place, number-wise and I imagine that's what people are interested in - not the window sticker numbers.

     

    Again, a set presentation format would provide the best service to those interested in the subject.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    I took a look around and see there are some "MPG: Real World Numbers: topics for a few various models. However, I'm getting a sense that you want to break it down into other variables and each one would have a separate discussion? This may mean a sub-folder and I would need to check with management for approval

     

    I can categorize the discussion this way: Dodge/Dakota/Fuel System/Fuel. But that is specific as it gets.
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    I don't think you need to slice it too fine. You could do it the way you describe, folks could check mileage after their next fill up, and give the mpg number along with pertinent qualifying info like drive train, usage and whether the ATV was in the back. This would give a real world mpg range. Granted, there would be individual variation.

     

    FWIW I'll be in the market this spring. I think I'll end up with a Dakota quad cab. But meanwhile local Ford dealers are selling new, V6, 4wd Rangers with MSRPs of $27K for $20. At first glance, that looks decidedly bargainish. But the folks I know who drive Rangers typically avg only 15-16 mpg in easy suburban use.

     

    Saabgirl, my missus, could be hard to live with if I brought home a bargain that: a) rode like a Ranger, and b) got that kind of mileage. I might have a bad case of buyer's remorse myself. (Though the Ranger owers I know generally like 'em.)

     

    Owners' actual experience is much more persuasive to me than window stickers and four-color brochures.
  • eharri3eharri3 Member Posts: 640
    I owned a RAnger and now own a Quad CAb Dakota. The Ranger was a nice compact truck. The Dakota is a nice vehicle.
  • ssteveksstevek Member Posts: 45
    Last night my son's '95 Dakota's tail lights & license plate lights quit. Sure enough fuse #8 was blown, the replacement fuse blew as well. This morning I tried to isolate the trouble by disconnecting various connectors to each tail light, license plate light etc. I thought I had it isolated to one side, but it's not consistent, as soon as the parking light position is selected the fuse pop can be heard. (Next time will use a 12v lamp to troubleshoot). I wonder could it be the front parking lights. The other item on that fuse is "radio display intensity". We replaced the factory radio a few weeks ago and everything was fine until last night. My son's girlfriend happened to be following him on the highway & she saw he lights just quit. The brake and turn signal lights still do work. Thanks for any ideas ...

     

    Steve
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    Okay, guys, I created this topic here in the Owners Club. Let me know if this fits your needs.

     

    Dodge Dakota Owners: MPG-Real World Numbers
  • popdaddypopdaddy Member Posts: 22
    I've owned a Ranger Club - decent gas mileage,too small; an F-150 Club - nice and big, horrible gas mileage; and now a Dakota Club - nice size and gas mileage. Kind of like Goldilocks and the Three Bears - One bed was too small, one bed was too big, but one bed was just right.
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    Finally saw my first 2005 Dakota on the road here in central Connecticut. Black 4WD Laramie Quad cab. At least I think it was black under the February coat of salt and road dirt. From the rear 3/4 angle I got, it didn't look much different than its predecessors. After a trip through Mr. Sparkle, it would probably be wicked sharp. The lots around here still have a limited selection. They seem to have either the base ST club cab or loaded quad Laramies. I'm waiting for something in the middle.
  • saabgirlsaabgirl Member Posts: 184
    Wonder if the Dakota assembly line is having problems? I've seen Dakota #s 2 and 3 here in central CT, but there still isn't much of a selection at the dealerships, and I notice that over on the "new cars" section of Edmunds there are only 8 2005 reviews, the most recent from 12/30, though the owners seem happy with their purchases. In fact, the Edmunds editors and Dakota owners are in fairly close agreement about the high Dakota rating, which isn't always the case with other vehicles.
  • tcsmpsitcsmpsi Member Posts: 31
    From what I have gathered, it seems to be an accumulation of multiple factors. I would say that most of the 'impulse' buyers do not know the changes in the 2005 Dakota (which are significant) and the initial looks are a bit bold, as compared to previous models.
    Overall sales are down (except for 'gas savers') for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is that fewer buyers qualify for financing.
    Another factor is most likely that current Dakota owners have no real reason to change.
    In this area, I have yet to see another '05 Dakota on the road. And, of course, having an '05 I am always looking for another and would recognize it from afar.
    There are some who did not know that my '05 was not my '01. Same black quad cab to them.
    To me, they are barely similar.
  • ron35ron35 Member Posts: 134
    Has anyone heard anything about the 6 speed Gertag manual transmission which was supposed to be available in Jan of this year.

    Ron
  • iowabigguyiowabigguy Member Posts: 552
    I think the reason you are not seeing many new Dakotas (OTHER THAN THEY ARE UGLY) is the price. Price a Dakota and then price a Ram. Then look at the rebates and discounts being offered on the Ram. In some cases a comparably equipped Ram can be cheaper. Then you come back to the Dakotas looks. Rick
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    Haven't seen too many in the Rochester, New York area either. I see many more Durangos. The point about price is good, but at the same time I'm not aware of any rebates on Dakota at this time. I'm pretty sure there's no problem with the manufacturing site. As far as looks the only angle that bothers most people is the front. From all other perspectives it looks good. On the other hand I can name three people who said that they thought the last generation of Dakota was the best looking truck on the market, bar none. If this opinion is found on a larger scale then I can see why many Dakota owners are pleased to keep their current issue and not be interested in trading.

    Still, the Dakota is new. I remember it took me awhile to appreciate the '94 RAM look, as well as the new RAM look. RAM sales around here are robust.

    After '99 Dakota reliability and customer satisfaction began to rise and I think owners of the most recent builds are quite happy to keep their current ride when the new Dakota's looks are less than appealing to many.

    Bests,
    Dusty
This discussion has been closed.