Allpar Forums banner
81 - 100 of 155 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,143 Posts
MoparNorm said:
Traditional, as opposed to Soccermons. Traditional owners towed, hauled and camped in their SUV's, just as traditional small pickup owners hauled, carried and camped in theirs. Throwing a couple of dirt bikes into the back, a bail of hay, or whatever, these owners are less likely to embrace a less capable SUV platform converted to a pickup and your Ford SUV buyers are not the targeted buyer.
Change less capable to more complicated, less suspension movement and likely much more expensive to repair if damaged and I think others here would understand what you are saying. What some people will accept in an SUV (IRS) is different than what the majority of people will accept in a pickup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,861 Posts
tomtex said:
This Dakota needs to beat Toyota and Chev small trk's , what will it take to do that?
Chrysker has everything it needs with the incredibly successful Ram. All they have to do is shrink it down and build it.

The problem is that such a vehicle would be on its own platform (not shared by anything else). It would need to sell 100,000 units (minimum) to break even.

Sergio is a big fan of shared platforms.

If there will be a vehicle that is the size of the Dakota coming, it will share a platform with something else. What that will be is unknown.

We can probably guess that it will not be another truck platform, but a minivan/CUV platform.

srtviperam said:
That grille looks awfully like a RAM grille!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Chrysker has everything it needs with the incredibly successful Ram. All they have to do is shrink it down and build it.

The problem is that such a vehicle would be on its own platform (not shared by anything else). It would need to sell 100,000 units (minimum) to break even.

Sergio is a big fan of shared platforms.

If there will be a vehicle that is the size of the Dakota coming, it will share a platform with something else. What that will be is unknown.

We can probably guess that it will not be another truck platform, but a minivan/CUV platform.



That grille looks awfully like a RAM grille!!!!!
Why not build the Dakota on the new jeep trk platform, that is due for model year 017?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,828 Posts
Dakota lost its direction. By the end, it was another Ram. Fuel economy, capability (for the 1500 Rams), and price were little different from the full sized trucks. So, why would people want to spend the exact same amount of money for a smaller framed truck?
Dakota vs. Ram 150/1500 was never a big jump in fuel economy. Even back to 1988, comparing the Dakota to the Ram the MPG difference with the same engine in both trucks was 1 MPG. The only way the Dakota excelled in fuel economy was if you could get by with a smaller engine in the Dakota han the Ram like a 4 cyl. Dak vs. a V6 Ram or a 318 Dak vs a 360 Ram.

I never minded the size of the Ram when I had the 1996 Ram 1500 other than the width (as I lived in town then). I went back to Dakotas after the 1500 because the Dakota was narrower and easier to park in tighter parking lots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
AutoTechnician said:
The Durango can haul, tow and be camped in. It's towing capacity is comparable (if not exceeding that) of many half-ton pick-ups from the late 90s - early 2000s. Up to 7400 Pounds.

Let's look at what "traditional SUV buyer" SUVs could do:
XJ Cherokee: 5000 Pounds
1st Gen Pathfinder: 3500 Pounds
2nd Gen 4Runner: 3500 Pounds
'96 Tahoe: 6500 Pounds
1st Gen Explorer: 5000 Pounds
89' Landcruiser: 3500 Pounds
'95 Suburban: 6000 Pounds
Wagoneer: 5000 Pounds
Scout II: 5000 Pounds

The Durango is more capable towing than ALL of those "traditional SUV buyer" vehicles. The Durango's problem is not its IRS. Its problem is lack of good marketing and a shrinking full-sized SUV market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Chrysker has everything it needs with the incredibly successful Ram. All they have to do is shrink it down and build it.

The problem is that such a vehicle would be on its own platform (not shared by anything else). It would need to sell 100,000 units (minimum) to break even.

Sergio is a big fan of shared platforms.

If there will be a vehicle that is the size of the Dakota coming, it will share a platform with something else. What that will be is unknown.

We can probably guess that it will not be another truck platform, but a minivan/CUV platform.



That grille looks awfully like a RAM grille!!!!!
RAM-ish indeed...at least under the cover it does
 

·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Doug D said:
Why would I want a small truck that if it's lucky will get 25-30 mpg, when in less than a year a Ram 1500 diesel that will get nearly the same fuel mileage will be available?
Depends where you live and drive - here in CT diesel fuel is taxed so high that it is tough to justify a diesel for fuel economy. And a smaller truck would be a plus driving on some of the tight New England City streets if you don't need a Dodge Ram 1500's capacity.
But I am sure that most of North America would find a diesel 1500 well worth it.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
Diesel in SoCal is about 15 cents a gallon less than regular right now.
A new small truck, would have the same problem that Dakota did, fuel economy and price point. If it cannot get real separation from the 1500, it wont do well.
The other problem is small truck buyers themselves. As we have seen here at Allpar, as soon as the wish list is opened up, the factions start splitting the demand; standard cab vs. quad, vs. crew, long bed vs. short, the more you add, the closer you get to the Ram.
It's just like the hypothetical Jeep truck that Bob and I built a few years ago, you offer it one way, with few options and it pencils out.
Start making it something for everyone and you overburden the ability to produce it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,828 Posts
i always thought that was one of the reasons the 2005+ dakotas did not sell as well because they never offer a reg cab.
Except that when there were regular cabs (and a choice of larger cabs) in the earlier years, people overwhelmingly chose the larger cabs.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
The 'edgy' styling on the 2005+ Dakota did it no favors at all, combined with the cheap looking interior.
Agreed. When it was a "mini-Ram", it had a bigger following.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drew54

·
The Poster Formerly Known As "Bethlumboy"
Joined
·
2,644 Posts
The new midsize pickup is supposedly due in 2016, around the same time as the next-gen Grand Cherokee and a year after the Grand Wagoneer (2015). Perhaps the Dakota will be based on the new platform?

Another possibility is the new minivan platform, due in 2015.

A third option is CUSW. The CUSW Journey could be the starting point.

Due to trade agreements, Mexico might be the most likely production location. Toluca could have the capacity to build it once 500 production is integrated in Poland. If the next Journey moves to TNAP (or less likely, SHAP), that would open even more capacity at Toluca. Maybe a new Dakota (along with a FIAT variant) and a new Durango at Toluca, and Grand Cherokee and Grand Wagoneer at JNAP?
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
bethlumboy said:
The new midsize pickup is supposedly due in 2016, around the same time as the next-gen Grand Cherokee and a year after the Grand Wagoneer (2015). Perhaps the Dakota will be based on the new platform?
Another possibility is the new minivan platform, due in 2015.
A third option is CUSW. The CUSW Journey could be the starting point.
Due to trade agreements, Mexico might be the most likely production location. Toluca could have the capacity to build it once 500 production is integrated in Poland. If the next Journey moves to TNAP (or less likely, SHAP), that would open even more capacity at Toluca. Maybe a new Dakota (along with a FIAT variant) and a new Durango at Toluca, and Grand Cherokee and Grand Wagoneer at JNAP?
Marchionne wants common platforms, for cost reasons, regardless of performance disadvantage, so it's hard to guess, but you should also consider the Strada mini-truck, in your mix of platforms above. There is no guarantee that they will use a US platform or plant.
More likely Mexico, so that Brazil is in the mix, where the Strada is already produced and sold.
 
81 - 100 of 155 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