Interesting Dakota sales graph
Data is from Wikipedia so who knows if its right.
Here are the Ram sales figures to compare.
1999 - 428,930
2000 - 380,874
2001 - 344,538
2002 - 396,934
2003 - 449,371
2004 - 426,289
2005 - 400,543
2006 - 364,177
2007 - 358,295
2008 - 245,840
2009 - 177,268
2010 - 199,652
Dakota Sales Figures
1999 - 144,148
2000 - 177,395
2001 - 154,479
2002 - 130,712
2003 - 111,273
2004 - 105,614
2005 - 104,051
2006 - 76,098
2007 - 50,702
2008 - 26,044
2009 - 10,690 - ouch
2010 - 13,047 - ouch
Here are the Ram sales figures to compare.
1999 - 428,930
2000 - 380,874
2001 - 344,538
2002 - 396,934
2003 - 449,371
2004 - 426,289
2005 - 400,543
2006 - 364,177
2007 - 358,295
2008 - 245,840
2009 - 177,268
2010 - 199,652
Dakota Sales Figures
1999 - 144,148
2000 - 177,395
2001 - 154,479
2002 - 130,712
2003 - 111,273
2004 - 105,614
2005 - 104,051
2006 - 76,098
2007 - 50,702
2008 - 26,044
2009 - 10,690 - ouch
2010 - 13,047 - ouch
Last edited by Eimer123; Jan 12, 2011 at 09:29 PM.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was at the NAIAS with Badstrat on media day monday and tuesday... Fred Diaz himself attributed dakota's drop in sales to the price being so close to the ram, and the forcing of the rams styling.
He did say that "there is something in the works" for a small truck. It may or may not be called a dakota, and it may or may not have a redesigned FIAT small diesel as an optional motor.
The dakota will stop production later this year...
He did say that "there is something in the works" for a small truck. It may or may not be called a dakota, and it may or may not have a redesigned FIAT small diesel as an optional motor.
The dakota will stop production later this year...
Makes me sad but it's okay. We can just keep building up these trucks andc see how much they can take and keep putting power down
A turbo diesel would be awesome though.
A turbo diesel would be awesome though.
It's a sad thing really. I'm not partial to any one brand. I've owned an '92 Ranger, '02 Mazda B4000 (ford ranger), '03 S10, and now my '05 Dak. I love smaller pickups.
The fact of the matter is that the Small Pickup market is plummeting. Ford Ranger is practically dead with mostly fleet sales, their options have decreased to only couple models.. It hasn't really changed since Fully IFS in 97... I guess the Colorado is selling.. but it's tiny.. but is has the 5.3 v8 option now..
Toyota has always made a good smaller pickup, that's what they are known for really. Their midsize trumps their fullsize in sales because the Tacoma is a namesake that carries on. They also market their stuff.. SOO much aftermarket for them. They just need a 4.6 tacoma..
I hear Dodge and Ford both have ideas for a Unibody pickup... I guess the body on frame days for anything small is dead. Ford's is supposed to be lighter and stronger... right. The Honda Ridgeline is a whale.. lighter my *****.
Anyways. The next 5-10 years will probably only spell disaster for us small pickup fans. Too much change going on.
The fact of the matter is that the Small Pickup market is plummeting. Ford Ranger is practically dead with mostly fleet sales, their options have decreased to only couple models.. It hasn't really changed since Fully IFS in 97... I guess the Colorado is selling.. but it's tiny.. but is has the 5.3 v8 option now..
Toyota has always made a good smaller pickup, that's what they are known for really. Their midsize trumps their fullsize in sales because the Tacoma is a namesake that carries on. They also market their stuff.. SOO much aftermarket for them. They just need a 4.6 tacoma..
I hear Dodge and Ford both have ideas for a Unibody pickup... I guess the body on frame days for anything small is dead. Ford's is supposed to be lighter and stronger... right. The Honda Ridgeline is a whale.. lighter my *****.
Anyways. The next 5-10 years will probably only spell disaster for us small pickup fans. Too much change going on.
Last edited by FrenicX; Jan 23, 2011 at 05:37 PM.
rofl rofl.. same thing happened to me!






