A unibody vehicle has a stressed body (engine bay, door supports, a,b,c pillars etc.) as opposed to a body on frame such as our current Dakotas (hence it is possible to do a body lift on our trucks). The advantages are a stronger, stiffer chassis compared to even a fully boxed ladder frame with a trade off in modularity meaning no cab/box options. Just like the Ridgeline.

Boxing the whole Dakota line will make no difference in the aftermarket/parts support for our trucks. It is essentially the same as dropping the 2nd gen for the 3rd. They share no parts so by that logic they should have no replacement parts. That isn't the case, so when the Dakota is axed for good it will have no more impact than a major redesign.

Most vehicles follow a 5 year production cycle, it is expected that tooling, R&D money and marketing will be paid for by this mark and if it is not the vehicle is a flop and will never prove profitable. The only regular exceptions to this rule are high-performance cars that have been designed to be at the cutting edge of current tech at the time of introduction. They are usually planned around an 8 or 10 year cycle as their recup times are much longer and they will likely still sell 10 years down the road essentially unchanged.

For example;

Honda S2000 (10 years)
Mazda RX-8 (10 years)
350z (8 years)
Dodge Viper (8 years) * the 2008 redesign was a refresh, new engine and tranny.
Lamborghini Murciélago (10 years)


To this end I would be absolutely blown away if we saw a 2011 model year Dakota without either a MAJOR redesign or a successor model.

 

Hate me or not, I would STRONGLY consider buying something like this if they make it. One of the biggest determining factor for me though would be the cargo capacity of the bed. It's gotta be big enough to carry my quad or it's a no go.

http://www.autoblog.com/gallery/2006...ge-concept/#11

 

Graythang loathes his truck. Maybe he got a bad one.

There's nothing wrong with unibody construction. People swear up and down by their tough-as-nails Jeep Cherokees. You can still have solid axles and truck-like capability. You can still lift it.

The only problem, as it relates to trucks, is that body damage can sometimes equal structural damage. That's why police forces don't really like Impalas compared to Crown Vics. Bash up the front of a Vic and it's probably cosmetic. Slam into someone in an Impala, and all sorts of bad things can happen.

But admit it, almost every vehicle available today is unibody except trucks and ancient platforms like the Ford Panther, which is signing off soon.

This doesn't really break my heart. There will still be body on frame trucks for sale, and besides, I'm buying used from now on.

 

I've been creaming over that concept since the first time I saw it. I don't like how all new truck concepts have that rounded look everywhere, especially at the back of the cab leading to the box. But that thing is fire. I thought it was more in the heavy duty class of trucks and not so much a Dakota successor.

 

I like that concept car but wonder. I always thought the towing capacity was greater for a box frame vehicle over a unibody. Is this not true?

 

I am with you on this one. I really only use my truck for dirtbikes and sleds with some work duty thrown in occasionally.

Unibody does make for a much stronger vehicle but like cramerica said there are drawbacks such as easier structural damage, the difficulty of straightening the vehicle after a collision and all that. I never said you couldn't LIFT a unibody truck, you just can't do a BODY lift.

And I can't wait for the day that long travel independent suspension is strong enough for use on a real 4x4 truck. The Ridgeline is a joke, took one for a test drive and couldn't believe how gutless it was.

 

It's not that I'm against unibody for crossovers and cars etc. but don’t pin the truck word to one. The Fiat Dak replacement is one of those fun thing vehicles that may end up looking real nice and trendy and all of that but I would never call it a truck as a Dak is currently. The Dak had the design to be a serious mid size truck but always fell short in so many areas along the way. A diesel package and standard factory lift would have made the Dak respected as none other. Chrysler just never went the distance and now can’t afford too.

 

Just finished reading an article in the USA Today newspaper. In a nutshell it says that our Dakota's might just not be dead yet!!

 

I also agree that they should let the Dakota name retire as a true body on frame truck.

I also agree that the 3rd generation was a couple notches short of being a really great truck.

Dodge had a great winning formula with the 2nd gen trucks, and didn't exactly stick to it with the 3rd gen.

But oh well. Keeping a model name and a product fairly true to its original concept for 23 years is a pretty good run. I'm sure there will be real Dakotas kicking around for a long time after their unibody replacements have had time to get rusty and lose their 'modern' look.

 

If they make an SRT or performance R/T model I might take a serious look. Dodge has already stopped making my favorite Dakota models, i.e. Sport, R/T, SLT etc.