We take a moment to remember:

https://dodgeforum.com/articles/2011...dfoct11-1.html

We know it's the end of an era, but does the statement by Chrysler give you hope?

 

I'd like to see another 4 cyl pickup from Dodge/Ram or Jeep maybe bring back the Ram 50 or even the Rampage to compete with the S10 and Ranger. Maybe even Nix the Durango and bring back the Ramcharger, or make it the off road capable Durango cousin.

Edit: I would love to see another soft top as well. Like the SSR but Mopar and less retro looking.

 

The S10 ended production in 2004 and the chevy Colorado replaced it in 2005. Ford ended U.S. production of the Ranger just this year also along with the Dakota, but will continue production for a short period in a few foreign countries. This leaves the chevy colorado as the only U.S. contender for mid-sized trucks. And since they recently came out with a new generation design to hit the U.S. market in a year or two. not to mention added an option for the 325 5.3L vortech engine. (Although I certainly dont think it would ever compete with the R/T ) I would say the colorado is here to stay for quite sometime. I guess what i'm trying to say is, i think dodge/ram should re-enter the market with a new mid-sized pickup within the next 5 years or so.

 

didnt know about ford. and forgot about the s10/colorado/canyon. i guess theyll have to compete with the tacoma and frontier possibly the ridgeline. IIRC Rams are being produced in Toyota factories, so maybe a tacoma based MiniRam would be in the cards. arent the tundras basically detuned rams anyway

 

i wouldnt say toyota is so much the "foreign counterpart" of chrysler (although its weird to think that the two v8 engines that toyota has are a 4.7 and a 5.7) and the brands under it as much as it is mitsubishi ie: their eclipse to our stealth and their raider to our dakota. the raider was discontinued back in 2008 after sales dropped to less than 3,000 their final year. (but they were built in the u.s. in chrysler factories with many on the same mechanical parts as the dakotas, such as the 4.7 and 3.7 engines along with their transmissions.)

personally i would love to see jeep add a mid sized "dakota" or other pickup to their lineup. but i would think dodge may be more likely. expect a unibody design with 4 and 6 cylinder engines and awd (not 4x4) option. the ram brand was created for "the working man" and ram pickups were made more the need of that and not the "20 year old buying it just for the looks", which was what the dakota was slowly turning into.

whatever the guys at dodge/ram decide... im confident it will be great.

 

My very first Dodge was a Dakota pick-up and I loved every bit of it. It was very reliable and very well built. I hunted with it and the chicks digged it as well...lol. I also owned a GMC Canyon and didn't even compare. After that I have owned full size Rams and currently own 2011 Power Wagon. I will always be a Dodge fan and owner!!!!!

 

I still think the tundra looks a little too much like the 3rd gen rams. but I agree with you on the Jeep stuff. I learned to drive on a 89 comanchee pickup, the unibody on a frame truck. I miss it but my grandfather gave it up when the timing chain snapped and bent everything in the 4.0L's top end. it was cheaper for him to buy a brand new base ranger than to get it fixed, and by base i mean no A/C, manual everything, reg cab stepside bed, and a cd player. I would love to see a wrangler based truck. maybe a little bigger/better patriot based one would be good as well.

 

I've always liked compact pickups, and have owned a ranger edge 4.0 for years. Hopefully we'll see "small" pickups again instead of these midsized monsters out now. I would like to see compact sport trucks again also. I've run into some pretty nasty R/T dakotas in my Lightning. I've also ran a gmc sylone that did a number on me. Hopefully the new colorado will show that smaller trucks are still viable.

 

I owned a first Gen Dakota, a 90 4X4 with the 3.9, for 11 years. I put only 75K on her in that time but she served me well. I replaced her with an '01 4X4 extended cab with the 3.9 again. As of today the '01 only has just over 50K on the clock, a full 11 years after purchase. I bought the trucks because I needed a vehicle for business and the 4X4 gave me the load carrying ability without the clunky monster 4X4 size. I've never been a fan of canoes on the road and although I did own an '84 Ram, the Dakota fit my needs far better than any full sized truck ever would. I will probably never be in the market for another truck since mine is barely broken in and being on the other side of 60 I can't imagine replacing her, but I'm sorry to see the Dakota go, or more accurately being let go by Chrylser/Dodge/Ram or whatever you want to call it. In the quest for longer lower wider, the Dakota was sacrificed. When it first came out it was measurably larger than the Ford/Chevy/Toyota/Nissan it targeted. Who can recall the original TV commercials of the three men in the cab riding along (albeit a bit tight) while the represented "compact" trucks could only fit 2. I remember getting into a friends S10 with my son for a short drive being amazed that we needed to fit 6 cheeks on to a 4 cheek bench seat!

RIP Dakota~

 

I still have my 93 Dakota with the 5.2L engine and it's been great. Only replaced the alternator and the window switches all went bad. Been a great truck and it currently has 171,000 miles and running strong! Hate they got rid of them... ONE of the best trucks I've ever owned. Oh... and mine is a heavy duty half ton with the big springs... sure will haul a lot of stuff and not even squat!