Dodge Dakota 4x4 trucks

[JStinson]

I dunno, Gordon. This forum IS the Power Wagon Advertiser. I know it already includes vehicles that aren't Power Wagons, but would adding a Dakota forum water it down too much? I don't want to be the stick in the mud that inhibits progress, but I'd hate to see a great forum branch off into oblivion until the name has to become the Dodge Vehicle Advertiser.

Just my .02

[Gordon Maney]

I dunno, Gordon. This forum IS the Power Wagon Advertiser. I know it already includes vehicles that aren't Power Wagons, but would adding a Dakota forum water it down too much? I don't want to be the stick in the mud that inhibits progress, but I'd hate to see a great forum branch off into oblivion until the name has to become the Dodge Vehicle Advertiser.

Just my .02

I appreciate your perspective, and understand it. I think that perspective is more critical in a context with limited volume, meaning the magazine. It has a fixed amount of space each month. If I add one thing, something else gets displaced. The forums group, on the other hand, is not limited. It is like a suite of rooms. One person might visit one room, or a certain several, and another person might visit a different room or rooms.

If you look at the main forum index you will see which forum is the biggest and fastest growing [since it has existed the shortest time], it is the 72-93 forum. Not many Power Wagons in that group. I don't think the presence of those people in any way hurts interests and activities of the military group or the civilian Power Wagon group.

A different perspective. The stronger and deeper this place can be, the healthier it can be and the more resources it can have. One resource is the body of knowledge; another resource is the depth of content.

Yet another perspective. I have been in this hobby for what will this year be 27 years. I want to do it another 20 years. I recall, decades ago, all the people who were interested in Model A Fords. You used to see quite a few of them at car shows. All those people got older and I don't know where the cars went. I suspect they are still in existence, but perhaps not coming out much now because they are so expensive? I admit to not knowing for sure. Right now, a 1946 truck is 65 years old. In 20 years it will be 85 years old.

A value of broadening is that it causes people to cross the boundaries both ways. People interested in the early stuff get fascinated by the old stuff. People interested in the old stuff find appeal and interest in the newer stuff. The more people we can bring to this hobby, the more possibilities we have to develop parts reproduction.

All this is not me rejecting the devotion central to your remarks. I have that devotion. I am simply suggesting some broader perspectives from which we might all benefit. It may be that truly there is not sufficient interest in a Dakota forum. I don't know. I admit, when I started the 72-93 forum I was unsure if it would go. Looking at the numbers and intensity of activity now, that was a silly concern.

Affordable trucks are a way for people to enter a hobby.

[712edf]

Gordon raises some good points..... while I appreciate the FFPW, it was interest in the 72-93 trucks that brought me here. I was born in 1968. The era of the FFPW, Sweptline & such was closing then. I grew up with a fondness for the lifestyle trucks, just like my dad grew up with a fondness of the FFPW's.

Maybe someone younger than me has a thing for Dakotas & will come here.

Please exclude the 2wds though..... They (all brands) have proven themselves useless these last 3 days on the ice.

Bucky

[MoparFreak69]

I had a 2wd regular cab, short bed 97 Dakota.
Was the first year of the new design that the durango was also based off of. The truck had the AMC 2.5 4 banger under the hood with a 5 speed. WIIIIIIMPY as all get out, but I loved that truck.
I took it places I would only consider in my Wrangler now.
Rode nice and cushy.
I ended up outgrowing it though. Even the larger ones are quite small.
They have quite a following, Google Dakota 408 for some seriously powerful videos.

[KRB64]

What can it hurt? After all, they're not making Dodges anymore so its not like this would open the floodgates of new old Dodge truck models on the forum.

Besides, there's so many different catagories here now and I only frequent a handful, I don't explore the others unless I'm really bored and the sun hasn't come up yet.

Like Bucky said, lets at least keep it 4x4 if we're not going to keep it Power Wagon...

Maybe a "PW Wannabe" section that includes, DAKs, W50s, etc, etc?

And for the record, I owned a '89 DAK 4X4 V-6 until my neighbor nailed me in my driveway (but thats another story...). It served it's purpose at the time, a dependable, decent mileaged 4x4 commuter that could haul a thing or two. But I always wanted a Big Boy Toy. And thats how I got my M880 - I traded a junkyard my totaled DAK for my M880. Rebuilt the carb and swapped the ECU and never looked back...

[TommyDodge]

I personally like Dodge made trucks no matter what the model is whether Ram, Dakota, Power Wagon, or Rower Ram
I had the chance after I wrecked the Caliber last March to pick up an almost new Dakota rather cheap but passed, however if I ever find a first generation Dakota with the 2.5 and a stick, I would buy it. I like the term fetch truck, I need one!
If there was a Dakota forum here I would enjoy checking it out
Tom

[Gordon Maney]

I have started a Dakota forum to see what happens.

[Gordon Maney]

I personally like Dodge made trucks no matter what the model is whether Ram, Dakota, Power Wagon, or Rower Ram
I had the chance after I wrecked the Caliber last March to pick up an almost new Dakota rather cheap but passed, however if I ever find a first generation Dakota with the 2.5 and a stick, I would buy it. I like the term fetch truck, I need one!
If there was a Dakota forum here I would enjoy checking it out
Tom

What is the 2.5; a four cylinder?

[712edf]

What is the 2.5; a four cylinder?

Yes, I think Mopar had a 2.5 FI motor & I wanna say a 2.2 with Turbo.... in their little cars. But I may be confusing with Ford.

I'm clueless about Dakota's. I worked on one, then told the owner to sell it.

Bucky

[Chewie]

What is the 2.5; a four cylinder?

Yes it's a four cylinder. It's an AMC related OHV, rated to, I think about 100 horses? It's a lot different than the 2.2L I had in my first Dakota. That thing was a pooch.

[MoparFreak69]

Depending on the year of the truck the 2.5 could either be the old K-car 2.5 4 cylinder motor or the AMC 2.5 which is basically a 4.0 straight 6 with 2 pistons chopped off. The Chrysler designed 2.5 was always a car engine, never designed to move that much weight however the AMC 2.5 was built and designed as a Jeep/truck motor from the get go and therefore has enough bottom end to handle power increases and give the motor a very long life.

[jakenok]

Depending on the year of the truck the 2.5 could either be the old K-car 2.5 4 cylinder motor or the AMC 2.5 which is basically a 4.0 straight 6 with 2 pistons chopped off. The Chrysler designed 2.5 was always a car engine, never designed to move that much weight however the AMC 2.5 was built and designed as a Jeep/truck motor from the get go and therefore has enough bottom end to handle power increases and give the motor a very long life.

I had a K engined 4 or 5 speed single cab Dakota for a shop truck (fetch truck?) back in the 90s. Great mileage and it was an honest little no frills truck that did what you asked it to.

[n1265]

Maybe a "PW Wannabe" section that includes, DAKs, W50s, etc, etc?

I like this idea, Then all the Ford and Chevy owners would feel welcome here...

[KRB64]

Ha ha, I see what you mean!

[TommyDodge]

I am unsure of whether the 2.5 in the early Dakota's was the K car engine that I had in my 91 Spirit and have in my 91 Acclaim, since I have never had a Dakota. However that 2.5 in both the Dakota and the Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron were all known for being good on gas and were
know for their durability as long as you changed timing belts. I am guessing that the AA body cars were peppier than the dakota's were
I knew of a guy who drove his 87 Dakota with a 2.5 and a 5 speed for 20 years till his wife made him get rid of it, had 200,000+ miles and no problems except she thought it looked too tacky to park in front of their house.
I didn't know he was getting rid of it till after it was gone, could have had it for $400.00, I didn't care what it looked like and it ran good. Oh well I guess I can't save them all, but it's fun trying
Tom