I thought they was working on a baby ram??
I don't know why they just don't stick a bed on the new durango and call it a dakota offer reg cab ..3.6 /8 speed!66coronet said: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.