Cant wait to get my 2010 Dodge GT-R

 

Maybe if they wouldnt have ruined the Dakota with the last modifications to the body, then it might not happen. And Im talking about the 3.5 gen, not the original 3rd gen.

 

i like the 3.5 gen better than the 3 gen, but thats just me, and i think that dodge would be stupid to get rid of the dakota, but thats just my opinion

 

The 3rd Gen Dakota has sold poorly since it was brought into production, and that had nothing to do with gas prices.

1.) The design was meant to mimic the new Ram, but it failed and buyers were not as willing to purchase it. In fact, most 2nd Gen owners would not buy a 3rd gen...

2.) The performance of the new Dakota was a joke compared to the 2nd Gen model. The increase in HP was minimal, and worse yet, there are competitors whose V6's produce more HP.

3.) The mid gen refresh made the ugly design even worse for most people, and the lack of any real performance made it even worse..


Some of thats my personal opinion, but alot of it is how several Dakota owners feel. I owned 2 of the 2nd Gen models, and there's no way in HELL I'd own a 3rd Gen. I'd be better off buying a Ram instead...

Think about it and see if my reasons dont make sense......because they really do...

 

The main reason why is the cost. The Dodge Dakota cost pretty much the same as a Ram 1500.

Think about it, (unless your buying a base stripped 4x2 model, for like $17,000.) your going to pay like mid 20's. Thats pretty crazy. The Dodge ram can be had with decent options, 4x4, 4 door, 5.7l for around 26k.

Why buy the dakota?

Some will say because its better mpg, "i wanted a smaller truck" blah blah.

Fact is the majority of truck buyers will want the full size if its the same price.

 

The Dak was always a 'Red-Headed Stepchild'. It's concept sounds good on paper but I agree that the price is whatalways prevented it from having a good market. I've had one Gen-1, two Gen-2s and one Gen-3 and my 2002 was by far a better truck except for the towing rating compared to my 2005.
If a Ram 1500 would have fit into my garage, I'd probably have bought that instead of the 2005 Dak. The priceswere within $200 of each other.
For now, my 2005 is paid for so I'll keep it till I win the Lotto.

 

i also like the 3.5 gen better than the gen 3...but i've been pretty happy with this truck. i think the ram would've just been a bit overkill for what i need a truck for...a day-to-day driver with weekend hauling and towing. plus, i ordered mine at employee pricing and only paid $21K for a decently loaded SLT.

but ya'll are right...most people are going to buy the ram b/c they can get it for a similar price and have much more truck...and now they're feeling the pinch because they have a full size truck to put gas in.

 

The Hemi's really don't do much worse than us though. Of course you're not going to get a Hemi Ram at the same price...

 

I believe something else that hurt Dakota sales after 2004 was Toyota and Nissan both midsizing their small trucks.
Before then Dakota had no competition.
The Ranger was always the best selling compact truck (mostly because of fleet/rental sales). The Tacoma's sales
took off when they made it larger; outselling Dakota the first year.

 

First 6 months of 2007 dakota sales 29,155 first 6 months of 2008 sales 17,379. It is doubtful that they will sell 30,000 for the whole year. Frontier sales first 6 months of 2008 23,572. Toyota Tacoma 84,068 first 6 months of 2008. Looks like Nissan and Dodge will have to combine the midsize sales to make it economically viable. Dodge now has $9000 off on the ram and nothing close to that on Dakotas.