Ugly ugly ugly ugly front end. I was thinking of waiting to buy a dakota and bought a ram instead. I am so happy i did the dakota is terrible in the front end. They should have put something similar to the ram on it. The duhrango is way ugly. Looks like a pig sleeping!!!

 

Interesting.

The big deal about Dakota when it debuted was it was truly 'midsize.' Then Shelby came out with a V8 convertible version and there was nothing around to compete with it.

Now Nissan and Toyota have totally abandoned compacts. I think it's dumb. Why buy the Tundra, when the Tacoma is 7/8 the size and has the same horsepower?

I consider it a mistake that they got rid of the regular cab too. When I was in Texas last year, I noticed people really go for the short bed/reg cab 4x2 (of any brand - especially Ford) - I'd never seen so many before (Dallas area). Where I'm from originally (WYO) everybody has to have the 4x4 and they like the long bed.

Also, the Dakota is a heft 4300lbs - only 300lbs less than the Ram, and it doesn't get particularly good gas mileage or anything. Maybe people figure if they are going to get a V8 pickup, why not just go the whole way?

Compact truck sales have been in decline for like 15 years. I think they peaked maybe in 1990, so this isn't a complete shock.

My advice for boosting the Dakota is to get rid of the SRT 10 Ram and base the performance truck on a Hemi Dakota - Sell it for $30G, instead of the SRT 50G.

Lastly - I really don't think the styling is what ails the Dakota sales. Increased competition - especially no longer having the so called "midsize" segement to itself is the cause for the decline.

 

they dont need to get rid of the srt ram they just need to do an r/t with the hemi or something

 

Im really not impressed with the new Kota's either. I mean I like the overall design, but they don't look as stocky or beefy (4x4 wise) as the '97-04 design. Sure they are the same size, but the 4x4 looks like a whoosey 2 wheel drive. You can barely tell a 4x4 from a 2 wheel drive until you see the badging. Like was said why couldn't they have stayed with the same design and just do a few lil updates here and there for a few years longer. I mean come on; look at the Ford Ranger. Granted the Ranger is a P.O.S, but its basically been the same design for over 10-12 years with minor changes through the years. That's why Ford has been such a success because if people like it; they're gonna like it for years to come, just make lil changes until it really starts getting tiresome, then when you start to see the sales really drop...Make a change!

 

I must agree the new Dakota's aren't good looking. I had a 01 Dakota and loooved it. Of course it doen't hold a candle to the love for my 04 HEMI Ram

 

The 2005 Dodge Dakota, is a very sharp truck in person, in my opinion... as far as the exterior I should say. However, Chrysler Group has failed to show the real capiability of this new Dakota lineup. First off, there is NO Dakota REGULAR CAB models! Why the hell not, I see just as many Regular Cab models as I do Quad Cab model Dakotas out there. Second of all is the interior... which is a very poor design. My 2000 model year interior on my Durango (same as the Dakota), was very truck like, simple but bold. The 2001-2004 model year went to a more sharp, more expensive looking dash which was very appealing and more fuctional than any Dodge truck dash I have seen yet in a pickup, minus the 2004+ Dodge Durango interior! The new one is so basic, ugly, and looks like it was made of lower cost materials than my old 1990 Ford Ranger's dash was. Lack of volt and oil gauges, are a real bummer for me! The rear seat headrest, meet new 2007 or 2008 U.S. standard, but look ugly as heck, which is the worst thing about the interior. Third biggest mistake is the not introducing the 5.7L HEMI "MAGNUM" V-8 engine in its lineup! However I have been told they are saving it for a later model year release date. BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM W/ THE 2005 DODGE DAKOTA IS... PRICE. Who in their right mind would want a $32,000 mid-size truck, when you can get a pretty loaded full-size Ram 1500 Quad Cab for the same price. Mid-size pickups are becoming too expensive, and are competing w/ the half ton full-sizers now! If the problems were sloved that I mentioned, I would have nothing less to think the Dakota would be a HUGE HIT like its prodcessor was.

redriderbob

 

i think the new dakota is pretty good looking. it took a while to get used to it and i didn't really like it at first.but then i saw a couple driving on the road and i thought they were awesome. i just wish they wouldn't do that to the Ram. i think the Ram is pretty much perfect right now.i love it.....but i guess i'll just have to get used to the new look as well.

 

yeah i fear the refreshed ram, i dont want them to screw it up. as for the interior of the new dakota- i think it looks a lot nicer than the previous ones, and it was dumb not to do a regular cab.

 

why no regular cabs? DCX loves its doors. kinda like the 4-door Charger. its pretty much that simple in my opinion.

 

The reason we don't build reg cabs is simple, the market was extremely poor. For example an average month we built 12000 quad cabs, 7000 ext cabs, 1100 reg cabs. And to get most of the reg cabs to sell they had extra incentives. Now while that sucks for you reg cab lovers, thats why the company did it. Personally I thought the reg cab was so small it was useless, but that is just my opinion. To those few of you who can stomach the 05, great, go out and buy one. Because there are so few of you out there we need all of you in order to survive! I really hope Chrysler gets their heads out of their butts before its too late!

Joe