What you hate about your Dakota.
#21
#24
Hmm. Let's see...
Everything about my 91 pisses me off.
a) It's unreliable
b) the turning radius is pure crap
c) abysmal gas mileage
d) It's an absolute pig. 125 hp? Really?
I could go on and on, but my 91 Ranger sees a lot more use, and yes, while it is a bit smaller, it's also MUCH more reliable, has more power, and overall just feels more polished.
Everything about my 91 pisses me off.
a) It's unreliable
b) the turning radius is pure crap
c) abysmal gas mileage
d) It's an absolute pig. 125 hp? Really?
I could go on and on, but my 91 Ranger sees a lot more use, and yes, while it is a bit smaller, it's also MUCH more reliable, has more power, and overall just feels more polished.
#25
#26
Hmm. Let's see...
Everything about my 91 pisses me off.
a) It's unreliable
b) the turning radius is pure crap
c) abysmal gas mileage
d) It's an absolute pig. 125 hp? Really?
I could go on and on, but my 91 Ranger sees a lot more use, and yes, while it is a bit smaller, it's also MUCH more reliable, has more power, and overall just feels more polished.
Everything about my 91 pisses me off.
a) It's unreliable
b) the turning radius is pure crap
c) abysmal gas mileage
d) It's an absolute pig. 125 hp? Really?
I could go on and on, but my 91 Ranger sees a lot more use, and yes, while it is a bit smaller, it's also MUCH more reliable, has more power, and overall just feels more polished.
b) eh, I will give you that one
c) it's a truck, you dont buy them for gas mileage
d) early 90s four banger. yep, 125bhp is about right.
#27
Nope, that's for the LA V6. My old Dakota had that engine. It was a great engine, but I still scratch my head as to how Chrysler had 3.9 Liters to work with and only managed to pull an abysmal 125hp out. The Magnum V6 in the one I drive now is WAY better.
#28
#30