If I were to collect the “End of An Age” grouping of late model trucks and SUVs, the only Chryslers on my list are a Cummins Mega Cab and the SRT-10.

Thirty years from now, Tahoes might be the new “six fo” Impala. And I’d be okay with it.

And hurrah for straight-six power plants! I had a little (very little) hope that GM would hold onto the straight-six when they had it in their SUVs a year or two back. Too bad they seem to have let that one go. Inline five? Am I the only one who says, “Huh?” every time I read that?

Understandable as to why you stick with American trucks, but you can’t sneeze without hitting a base Ram at any dealer here in Houston. Not to mention the local ads are always enticing (advertised at 50% off a while back) so they can’t be selling very well at all.

But, going on a tangent, Ford killed the 4.2L minivan motor for the new F150. Now it’s got the Crown Vic’s 4.6L V8 as a base engine. These trucks are so big that having a standard V8 might sense, as it increased the power (needed) and didn’t change fuel economy at all. Would be interesting to see how the base V8 Ford stacks up to the V6 Chevy and Dodge trucks…

——————————————
Banger : If your concern is, as davey49’s, “who buys a V6 full-size truck?”Myself, I know plenty of people who do. They need the bigger cargo box (complete with ridiculously high bed sides which nobody save Yao Ming can reach over from the ground). They also want the beefier suspension for better load handling when they, like many pickup owners, haul the occasional bed full of Quickcrete or trailer full of ATVs. Yes, “bang for the buck” sums it up nicely. This is why you’re the writer here, Sajeev.

I’m also here to say stupid things like, “if you fuse a B-series with a Ranger do you get a Banger?” (rim shot) Thank you, thank you, I’m here all week…

Seriously though, we are on the same page. Economies of scale in big truck production make mid size trucks less desirable, because you get so much more for the money! I just wish Detroit reincarnated the Chrysler Slant Six or 4.9L Ford for these base trucks.

——————————————
willbodine : You mentioned the seats as “firm” but were they comfortable?

No, it wasn’t the good type of firm. They’re a little better than the Caliber I rented two months ago.

Not thinking about these trucks from a business perspective as a car journo would be pretty stupid on my part. And buying a V6 full size truck is a BIG step up (product wise) from the V6 Dakota I sampled: forget about price and fuel economy, which will be very, very similar. Bang for the buck.

Your last sentence said everything I was trying to get across: Bang for the buck! And even the 4.7 V8 can’t be that big of an option, if your concern is, as davey49’s, “who buys a V6 full-size truck?”

Myself, I know plenty of people who do. They need the bigger cargo box (complete with ridiculously high bed sides which nobody save Yao Ming can reach over from the ground). They also want the beefier suspension for better load handling when they, like many pickup owners, haul the occasional bed full of Quickcrete or trailer full of ATVs. They do not desire the Quad Cab SLT trim package, because to them, that’s just frilly drawers and they realize the perceived “value” the dealership places on these items (ridiculous prices) isn’t worth the minimal increase in practicality.

As JMII’s verbiage states, there are certain limits (brakes, suspension) you will reach with the Dakota much earlier than you will with a comparably priced Ram. And when the Dakota doesn’t get better fuel economy, the only real “selling point” it has with many people is that it is easier to park.

Yes, “bang for the buck” sums it up nicely. This is why you’re the writer here, Sajeev.

Glad to hear your real world durability experience…but I gotta know (with your fleet experience) how is the Dak better than the Colorado?

The first time I looked at a Colorado the salesman was sitting beside me when I started it. I turned on the air conditioner and acrid smoke started pouring out of the defroster vents. He sat there with a straight face and said no problem, it would be fixed before the ink was dry on the paperwork.

Colorado #2 made it about three blocks from the dealership when everything electrical shut off. No lights, no start, no radio, no nothing, same salesman. This time he said the prep guy must not have hooked up the battery.

Me, being a complete moron, looked at a third one. This truck’s left taillight was full of water with the added bonus of inoperative windshield wipers and radio.

I guess I was being slightly unfair to the Colorado since I left the lot laughing at the salesman without purchasing said vehicle. I extrapolated my Colorado experience from using the less than stellar (massive understatement) S-10 pickup, an electrical and mechanical disaster and my initial perception of the Colorado’s quality. It was a misleading and poor editorial response. I won’t commit this error again.

I guess you never saw my Ford GT review. Or just about anything Bill Montgomery wrote. You’ll have to take our word.

I wasn’t thinking in a business sense when commenting on the Dakota’s size/price. Who would buy a V6 Ram? I’m a bigger guy and the Ranger and Colorado are very cramped for me.

Not thinking about these trucks from a business perspective as a car journo would be pretty stupid on my part. And buying a V6 full size truck is a BIG step up (product wise) from the V6 Dakota I sampled: forget about price and fuel economy, which will be very, very similar. Bang for the buck.

But back to you, do you find the new mid-sizish Tacoma cramped? Its not much smaller inside than the Dakota, especially in the front two seats.

My older truck was RIGHT-SIZED that’s why I bought one, I needed a V8 for towing my boat, plus extra seats for guests. So I test drove the F-150 and thing was a BEAST… simply huge & un-park-able to me. The Dak was truely the perfect size, I had a Ranger and it was too small. The short wheel base of the Ranger makes it jump all over the place while towing, the Dak stays puts no matter what the trailer load does. I’ve had trailer tires blow out at 75mph and it was non-event.

The handling when not towing is nothing to write home about, but the steering feel is way more direct then most trucks/SUVs I’ve tested. Sure it understeers like the heavy pig it is then transitions into tank slapping oversteer in the rain or on broken pavement, so clearly its not a good autocross choice, but as far as trucks go its better then average.

The 4.7 is strong engine with a good powerband, the “multi-speed” automatic has an alternate 2nd gear for getting you up to speed while towing. Shifts are smooth with only a slight throttle response delay due to the “fly-by-wire” computer controller. The tranny would have been perfect if it had been a 5 speed with closer ratios especially in overdrive. The major problem (no shock here) is the horrible gas mileage – my truck gets 12-13MPG while highway towing or city driving, the highest I’ve ever seen is 16-17 on the highway unloaded (and wind at my back)… talk about pathetic, especially when the Nissan Frontier with its V6 offers similar HP and TQ numbers and is quicker. With mileage this bad a 24 gallon tank goes fast, the range is ONLY 260 to 280 miles depending on how much the low fuel light scares you.

Agree with MarkAtkinson: I fear the day I’m in accident in this truck and my skull is CRUSHED by the shoulder seatbelt mount. In an effort to get four doors in such a small package they made the front too small thus placing the seat belt anchor in a horrible place. With the seat pushed all the back for my 6 foot frame the “growth” on the B pillar is perfectly aligned with my left ear!

The interior of my truck, while a boring wash of black-ish grey plastic, has held up BETTER then my wife’s garage kept VW Passat. The center console is HUGE, has TWO power outlets (one switched by the key) and 3 Big Gulp sized cup holders that swallow anything you throw at them. My steering wheel tilts and all controls are clearly marked and easy to operate, no complaints here. However the seats are not supportive at all, its like sitting on a park bench (complete with the wood splitters and biting ants). The head rests do not adjust and only come up to about my collar. Bottom line: these seats might be most uncomfortable I’ve ever experienced. Also in the grand tradition of American made vehicles the headliner is sagging. Guess I shouldn’t complain as its stayed up for EIGHT years in Florida’s hot, muggy climate.

Mechanical the truck has been near bullet proof. I repeat NO majors issues at all! The only times its been in the shop is for two recalls: one related to a low idle/stumbling at idle problem and one for a wiper motor issue. Keep in mind I’ve put 65K miles on this vehicle 90% of which was towing about 200 miles a week. The rear-end has slight “shimmy” to it around 30MPH when cold no sure what’s all about but the diff is fine as I can tell. The only real problem (and its big one) is the brakes – they suck and suck BAD! I’ve gone thru THREE sets of front rotors… and yes I’ve switched to high quality aftermarket performance ones, I think the rotors are just too small for a vehicle of this heft with a boat in tow.

From the outside my truck has a nice chrome touches and the paint is holding up however the panel gaps are scary bad. Prime example: the hood alignment is so bad the wipers actually HIT it in places. Door sill gaps are big enough to lose a #2 pencil in. The infamous Dodge interior that everyone loves to hate is fine… its nearly perfect with only one ill fitting trim piece around the rear side window, nothing has fallen off or wore out in the seven years I’ve own it.

The new Dak is ugly, it looks like a lego kit version of my baby Ram. Since my truck is paid off and no alternatives are in sight (the F-100/Ranger replacement was canceled) I plan on keeping my Dakota for many years to come.

I don’t know why anyone would buy either a Dakota or Raider (my pet peeves are those incredibly dorky rear-seat head restraints and the location of the steering wheel when it’s the fixed, non-tilting version) but the Mitsubishi probably sells worse and, therefore, might be even cheaper.

To be fair, they depict the back seats of an Extended Cab, not a crew cab. Toyota offers the same types of ugly useless backseats in the Tacoma Access Cab. The actual Crew’s back seats are much better.

I went to the Dodge site earlier today, and unless I missed something, Dodge has pulled something of a Nissan. That is, they can’t be arsed to come up with a truck that isn’t at least an extended cab. This leaves the Taco, Coloranyon, and B-Ranger as the only option for those of us who have no need for a truck with “grocery space” behind the seats. As long as I’ve got enough space for a set of wrenches and other necessaries behind the seat, I’m good. Which is why my Ranger is a true regular cab.

And thank you for noting my comment. I’m with you and all the others who have suggested it: We need a small-truck smackdown on here, and soon. I mostly look forward to the ancient Ranger eating the much newer Colorado’s lunch, personally.

Something along those lines would be great. Although the commentary would be rather predictable, I’ve always felt that this site needs more truck talk, stat.

Just watch those page views go up and up after that.

Wow! Absolutely! I didn’t like my $28,000 Taco poseur press truck, but I think the $17,000 version deserves some recognition. I’ll talk to RF about doing a comparo like Montgomery did with Japanese family sedans.

Frontier vs. Taco vs. Ranger vs. Colorado…what do you guys think?

————————————————–
MarkAtkinson : I had checked my blind spot and inadvertently conked the horribly placed front seatbelt anchor point. It looks like a cancerous growth oozing out of the ceiling.

Interesting. FYI: I didn’t have that problem, mostly because I push my side mirrors far out to virtually eliminate the blind spot between the rearview mirror and the side mirrors. Learned that trick at a BMW performance driving school event. And if its good enough for them, its good enough for the Dak.

————————————————–
Michael Karesh : …maybe one of those will seem exciting after a pair of pickup reviews?

Pickup reviews are Awesome. Period. You non-Texan and/or urban folk need to get with the program. :)

————————————————–
confused1096 : At least they don’t offer these things with the thirsty and gutless 2.5L engine anymore.

Personally, I don’t see the difference. The new Dak is larger, so the 3.7L six is yesteryear’s 2.5L four. And I just know there’s someone out there with a Shelby-ized 2.5L turbo Dakota. Sweet.

————————————————–
Banger : Somebody tell Sajeev we need a Ranger review redux. Make it a long-term test this time.

LOL, I think you just did. No long term tests, and JL tested a fully loaded Mazda B4000 with all the goofy proactive suspension/cosmetic stuff that’s par for the course with press cars. Maybe a comparo that’s old school Ford vs. Chevy style: I would like to know just how the Ranger really stacks up to the Colorado/Canyon.

————————————————–
Bill Wade : In all honesty I’ve had very good luck with the base Dakota. I purchased over a dozen 05 base model Dakotas with the 6 cylinder and auto for service vehicles. These trucks are VASTLY better than the utter POS Colorado that they can’t be described in the same sentence.

Glad to hear your real world durability experience…but I gotta know (with your fleet experience) how is the Dak better than the Colorado?

————————————————–
davey49 : How come we don’t see photos of the actual cars you test drive?

My camera sucks, even the B&B made fun of my pics when blogging from the NAIAS. I’ll get something better soon(er or later).

————————————————–
86er : How do these compare to the previous gen, Sajeev? I have a 2000 and have never gotten around to testing these new-fangled ugly ones.

Can’t say, I’ve only rode shotgun in a 5.9 R/T: which was ALL kinds of sweet, dude. Though its probably a safe bet that the new one rides and feels more confident in corners with that beefy chassis and extra girth. I’d 100% box the frame on an old R/T and just laugh at every new Dakota you see on the road.

————————————————–
davey49 : It seems that the same amount of people who would chastise someone for buying/making a huge truck for casual use would also chastise people for buying/making the Dakota because it’s a waste and “you could get a full size for the same price” Price isn’t everything.

Yes, there’s also fuel economy and usability for the dollar. But neither of which make any business (CEO or fleet manager) sense when you pare the Dakota with full sizers and other small trucks. See Nicholas Weaver’s comments.

Rarely did I use less than ½ throttle in the V6 Dakota, I can’t imagine the fuel economy being any better than a 4.6/5.3/4.7 Ford/Chevy/Dodge full size. And I doubt the smaller trucks work so hard to keep up with traffic.

————————————————–
psarhjinian : What, exactly, is the point of this, the Tacoma or the Frontier? When you have Rams and Tundras and Titans in striking distance (or below) in price and economy, these trucks really look pointless. Heck, even the base Colorayon is pushing it’s luck, and, unless you’re hankering for a five-speed, four-cylinder Ranger, the F150 is a better deal.

Granted the line is getting much too blurred these days with plus-sized Nissan and Toyota compacts, but there’s still a good reason to buy these. And I don’t think you have to be a small business owner with a fleet of Tacos, Rangers, etc to see why their lifetime cost of ownership and bulletproof durability is immensely desirable.

Small trucks are fun. Driving a last-gen Taco (or any vintage of 5-speed Ranger) should be high on every pistonhead’s bucket list. Maybe that’s the Texan in me coming out.

Seriously. Dodge could then justify the Dakota’s existence in a RAM-sized world as a sport truck, 2WD only. If they’re going after the poseur “my penis is bigger than yours” set, then the base engine should be the 5.7L HEMI in this thing, and they should add an SRT-10 option.

But since it isn’t, and they won’t, it should be canceled immediately and forgotten.

These trucks need to have something that differentiates them from their larger brethren: a lot cheaper, a lot smaller, probably powered differently.

Or maybe a few just need to go away altogether. Like minivans, there’s only room for a two or three best of breeds (or two bests and one bottom-feeder), not six or seven why-bother specimens.

That “consumer” magazine noted that a Dakota with the 4.9 liter V-8 was slower than a Nissan Frontier with a 3.5 liter V-6.

Ever since it first came out the Dakota has offered the lousy gas mileage of full-sized pickup with reduced cargo capacity of a mid-sized pickup, although it is arguably smaller, more convenient and easier-to-use.