Allpar Forums banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
2003 pt cruiser, 1969 D200, 1966 Coronet 500, 1990 LeBaron Coupe
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
jerseyjoe said:
Made up my mind, If I have to replace my V6 Challenger it needs to be something that can haul a large desk and average 32 miles per-gallon. Also needs to occasionally seat 4. You won;t get that MPG from a full sized pickup, yet. I don;t drive a lot of miles so I don't want the expense of a diesel,
Maybe for the large desk you can get a u haul. Even a Subaru Baja got only 24mpg hwy.
Toyota 2wd tacoma gets 25mpg same as the ram 1500.
Maybe if they make the Dart 2.0L or 2.4L a pickup it perhaps might get 32mpg. A Journey 2.4L if made into a pickup still is only 26mpg. Might change with the better transmission.
 

·
Registered
2003 pt cruiser, 1969 D200, 1966 Coronet 500, 1990 LeBaron Coupe
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
I think one of the main problems with the Dakota was the fuel mileage wasn't that different than the Ram 1500 with the same motor.
I still wonder what a Dakota 1997-2004 fuel mileage would be with the new 8sp transmission & 2.4L & 3.6L.
The 2006 on newer fat fender edgy look just destroyed a cool truck.

I still wonder what if they rounded the fenders even more on the 2004 to share the PT cruiser headlights and some of the grill at the time. PT pickup. Plus small enough to have the 2.4L but big enough to offer the 4.7L.
It would have been cool too if they offered the VM 2.5L for the 2wd & 2.8L for the 4dr & 4x4. If the 2.5L crd wasn't clean enough for diesel use, what about CNG use?
But that never happened so it's their loss that they killed it.
Would have been nice chassis cab small truck. Replacing Toyota Dolphin motor homes. 1 ton Dakota with VM2.8Lcrd chassis cab.
 

·
Registered
2003 pt cruiser, 1969 D200, 1966 Coronet 500, 1990 LeBaron Coupe
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
MoparNorm said:
Because the independent rear suspension is a non-starter for many truck buyers.
Wouldn't that be true for 2500 and bigger?
I say give it a try for something like the Dakota which is kind of like a Ram 1000 or Ram 50 or maybe a Ram 75 since it's a little bigger than the Ram 50 Mitsubishi.
What's going to happen with the Chassis cab promaster FWD? Fiat Ducato shows it sells ok in Europe. How is the american public going to take a Sprinter sized vans and chassis cab being FWD?
The way Sprinter is going with the 1.8L supercharged gas motor & 2.1L crd with option 3.0L diesel, it's going to corner the market for fleet use (that do not need to tow anything). Fleets can buy a chassis cab 2.1L crd 7sp auto Sprinter and have someone make a custom bed for it and now you have a pickup that gets 37+mpg.
The only advantage I see with FWD promaster/Ducato is the opportunity to have a lower cargo floor between the tires than the RWD Sprinter. If it's the same height, so far what I've seen, the sprinter has the advantage. If they start making standard pickup boxes on the Sprinter, you'll start seeing more fleets buying them instead of GM, Ford , Ram.
 

·
Registered
2003 pt cruiser, 1969 D200, 1966 Coronet 500, 1990 LeBaron Coupe
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
MoparNorm said:
There has never been a sucessful FWD truck in the US, we are about to find out if the idea will work, or if commercial buyers take a wait and see attitude.
Look at the Caravan cargo van, less than 800 sales per month, but an argument could be made against it for several reasons, not just the FWD.
It's taken a long time for traditional Dodge SUV buyers to warm to Durango, possibky because of the suspension and lack of a rear straight axle, it remains to be seen if buyers would warm to a pickup based upon the same architecture.
Ram C/V is a half done cargo van with the side molded cup holders in the cargo area. At least Nissan did a good job on the cargo side.
I think the main reason the Ram C/V sells is people don't need a huge tall van but need something bigger than a Ford Transit Connect.
What if they added a 2.3L multijet II diesel (Maybe make it a natural gas option. Have it start on Diesel then switch to natural gas for in town use then diesel for highway.) to the Ram C/V or a 2.4L & 2mode hybrid or hydraulic hybrid or compressed air hybrid or gas FWD and electric RWD.
With the MB Sprinter having a 2.1L crd Chassis cab, one could put any kind of manufactured custom bed on that and get 37mpg.
So in my mind, forget Toyota Tacoma & Chevy /GM, if the Dakota comes back it will need to compete with a Chassis cab Sprinter. But the Sprinter is big and harder to park if you have tight places. But no worse than a full size pickup.
I hope the Ram 1500 Diesel gets in the mid 30's fuel mileage average.
 

·
Registered
2003 pt cruiser, 1969 D200, 1966 Coronet 500, 1990 LeBaron Coupe
Joined
·
2,041 Posts
gezco said:
They should forget about the Dakota and bring back the Rampage! Base it on the Dart. Then they'd have something really different. The problem with the Dakota is it’s only going to get 1 or 2 MPG more than a Ram 1500. A Dart based Rampage would be a great fuel saver.
I don't see why they couldn't do both. Two different categories. But they wouldn't do that to the dart. They wouldn't even make a dart wagon.
But if the Fiat 500 is having an explosion of models, I can maybe see a Fiat 500 truck off the XL 7 seater.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top