Please make it a RWD framed truck that is more inline with the size of the 96 and older ones instead of the not selling honda rigeline type oh yeah a 5.7 and 6 speed would be icing on the cake.

Yes please RWD and 4wd, full frame no wimpy pretend trucks.

And hey dummy from FCA, figure out a way!!! It's a hot money making market!!

The problems they had with the Dakotas are, they got big, too heavy, and too ugly. Then they saddled them with the poor excuse of an engine called a 4.7.

Bring back a standard cab, or extended cab, no crew cabs, mid sized truck with a 6 1/2' or an 8' box, a V6 or a good small v8. If people want more truck then that sell them a full size Ram. Gene

Should a new Dakota be built of aluminum if it would cost less than $700 over steel?

Should a new Dakota have an all electric battery powered option?
Seems I remember Jay Leno liked his all electric lead acid battery Ford Ranger under rental years ago and was mad when Ford took it back and crushed it.

NO!

"The problems they had with the Dakotas are, they got big, too heavy, and too ugly. Then they saddled them with the poor excuse of an engine called a 4.7. " My feelings exactly.
I just hope if they bring them back they won't be some european piece of dog poo like the Mercedes Bends Dodge Van replacement was.

I`ve always liked the Dakotas and had two Durangos, a 2000 and a 2002, i like how the second generations look and if I didn't have my 92 D150 for so long I would build one for street/strip. I like the new Colorados and I saw three new Ford Rangers on a car carrier on the N.J. Turnpike the other day so they are coming, its a good time for FCA to get back in the mid size truck market. A 5.7 Hemi in a short bed/regular cab/2WD would be interesting!

I agree Gene. Why do I feel like FCA will do exactly opposite of what we all want?

Heck no on the aluminum! Well maybe the hood, 5.7 hemi engine block or something but not something that gets used and abused like a bed.

FCA already sells a rebranded Mitsubishi. . Fiat Fullback :


Would they rebadge that ??? . . . I like the 1998- 2002 version - I had a 98 RT - fun truck, but thirsty and no carrying capacity.

Oh please god no.

Ditto

Hey now! My Ridgeline works just fine!

There seems to be a market for buyers who want an occasional truck. Car most of the time and haul/tow something occasionally. I don't think there's a necessity to build a 7/8 scale pickup and charge just as much or more for it i.e., v-8 Canyon, V-8 Dakota, V-8 Mountineer. All of which I've saw/driven.

I have a 92 and 97 Dakota. The 97 has 246000 miles,I'd like to have a new version of either one. I hope enough people feel the same to get FCA to pay attention.Hopefully at a lower price point than a full size pickup.

A new "Dakota" or whatever hopefully would not and should not compete with a Ridgeline. It would compete with the other trucks you mentioned, and possibly reach other buyers by offering a small, light, efficient V8 (not the old 4.7)

Then why not just buy a base model ram? That's why dodge discontinued the dakota in the first place. The dakota never got any better mpg than the ram and wasn't that much cheaper or much smaller so it makes no sense financially. There's still lots of ford rangers out there so there may be a market for a smaller 4/6cyl truck but I don't think people can get past the crew cab minivan pickup mentality. A basic v6 ram is very affordable as far as new vehicles go and gets decent mpg for a truck. Is a new dakota entry on a full frame going to be better at anything?

It might not be any better but hopefully smaller,not ever person wants a large truck. I'm sure there wouldn't be much difference in price.

Because it wouldn't be the old Dakota. It would be quite a bit smaller and more efficient than a base Ram. Plus, it's a very hot market now. That's why he's trying to figure out a way to build one. I'm probably not being realistic when I wish for a V8, admittedly.

P.S. I'd love to see them bring back the "Job Rated" slogan. But ONLY on real work trucks!

Because it wouldn't be the old Dakota. It would be quite a bit smaller and more efficient than a base Ram. I'm probably not being realistic when I wish for a V8, admittedly.
[/quote]

Definitely won't be the old Dakota. I miss this truck some days but my Ridge is more capable and gets better mileage than the ole 3.9.

I look at the new Gladiator and say if it had a 5.7 Hemi, I'm all in. Again, it's occasional pickup too.

I was looking at some fuel economy ratings just for comparison:

2019 Ram 1500 3.6 v6 2wd 25mpg highway.
2019 Toyota Tacoma 2.7 4cyl 2wd 23mpg highway.
2019 Honda Ridgeline 3.5 v6 fwd 26mpg highway.
2019 Ford Ranger 2.3 4cyl 2wd 26mpg highway.
2019 Chevy Colorado 2.5 4cyl 2wd 26mpg highway.

So seeing where the Ram is compared to all the other small-mid size trucks currently on the market there seems to be a mpg ceiling they have hit. I really don't see FCA coming in there and doing any better if everyone else can't. Sure FCA could come in and spend a bunch of $ in R&D and build a smaller truck but at this point I don't see it being any more efficient than a Ram and I can't see it being any cheaper. Base rams are a pretty good deal for a new truck these days.

3/4 of a ram would be more like it. I had an 11 ram and loved and hated it all at the same time. Backing up my 16' flatbed trailer I could barely see the thing and sometimes couldn't see it at all. I never ever had a problem towing it wit my older smaller dakotas. Also when reaching in the bed to pick up something like a cylinder head I had to climb up and stand on the tire, lean over and hurt my back or let the tailgate down and climb up and hurt my back, move the head to the edge jump down and carry said head into the machine shop, my old dakotas I could simply reach over pick it up and walk into the machine shop with no climbing around like a monkey. The new style 19 is ANOTHER 1.5 inches taller because the ole 11 couldn't quite keep me out of the bed. I did like having more room for the kiddos but we manage just fine now in an ex cab 97 dakota. With the ram I had to help all but my biggest kids in every time and while it was a 4wd it was not lifted at all.


Also parking the ginormous monstrocity was always fun when I go to seattle as it seems every single parking spot in the city is marked "compact cars only" and no way to put a huge truck in there if you wanted too.

As for the rigeline, I did serve 5 years hard time at a honda dealer and while the quality was quite good they were useless to anyone who actually "needed" vs "just wanted" a small truck, all the doors in the bed would get trashed fast with any real use, you had no choice but get a 4wd pulling a trailer as they had no traction in grass even when you put some weight on the hitch. And the sides were still too tall for reaching over and grabbing something slightly heavy. If your just hauling intertubes down to the river they were great and I would recomend them for that but I carry heads and blocks and cranks to the machine shop all the time and that kind of thing destroys the crappy beds in those things.

Sure the ram has a place but it is not for the guy who drives it to work every day or uses it for light truck work like I do, it has become a beasty for hauling medium sized mountains from one place to another. Having a truck like that and never using it like that it is best left for people who need to compensate for having a small member.

I'm on the Ridgeline forum and when Honda recalled all those vehicles and gave out rentals, some of them got Rams. More than 1 posted it was a bigger, more capable truck, and got better mileage. What am I missing?

Dependability is my response which is what drove some to buy a Honda. But.. they all got issues. ALL the brands.

As I stated earlier, it's an occasional truck for me. I test drove earlier models and they got no power. I suspect from the AWD system as my wife's 2wd '06 Pilot would tromp any Ridege from the same era.

My '13 will tow a car and handles good doing it for a unibody. It has the weight and length. FCA could do this easily.

They could, but to what end? To not get any better mpg, capability or price than an existing vehicle in their product lineup?

No reason it needs to get "only" the same MPG and even still like I stated earlier it is not just about MPG they are just too dang big for a lot of people. Even if it got the same MPG and was a little cheaper and a little more practical for me I would be happy.

The earlier Dakotas didn't get much better MPG for a few reasons, the one big one is they still had the same final drive ratios as the big truck but with shorter tires so they were spinning more RPM, they should have adjusted acordingly, they also were very hard to roll around, I don't know where it comes from but after having pushed a ton of them around the shop I can tell you they are some of the hardest cars to roll around. They also were not exactly a small truck, just slightly smaller especially by the time the 05 barf basket looking one came out. If they would have stuck with the original size, made em roll easier and fixed the final drive ratios they would have got significantly better MPG than a ram. Butt as I have tried to re-itterate many times, IT IS NOT MPG THAT KILLS IT FOR ME! I hate the huge size of the giant behemoths they have become period, I don't need it and it is aggravating and hurts my back, I have a real job and actually use my truck for truck things.

Yea, there's no magic bullet. Physics still applies. To be safe, all the vehicles are heavy now compared to their namesake counterparts from years ago and it takes so much fuel to get that weight going in a certain time. Turbo diesels and hybrids help with mileage, but, you absolutely pay for that up front.

I'm with HotRodDave and just want something that works for me at this time of my life but wish it was a Dodge/Ram.

Any new Dakota will have to be lighter.
To really be lighter it cannot have 4 doors.
It will probably have the Pentastar V6.
It will probably have 8 or 9 speed auto so rear diff could be 2.76 ratio.
FCA would sell at least 30,000 more per year if a 5.7 is optional.

There will need to be a 4 door option. Most people didn't buy pickup trucks for their main vehicle because there isn't any room in the cab. All these guys here would have you believe otherwise but the fact is if it wasn't for the 4 door trucks they wouldn't sell half of what they sell now.

I'd be in on a Dakota Crew Cab 4wd with a Hemi and an 8 spd if it was significantly lighter that a fullsize with the same configuration.

I hope they built a new Dakota. I've had 2 1999s, 1 2002, and I'm building a street/strip 2004.

My daily driver is a 2002 Dakota with 224,000 miles. I wish I'd bought two of them when I got this one.

HALF!? When was the last time you saw a new 2 door truck on the road? They seem to sell one 2-dr for every 100 4-dr trucks these days. I don't like the 4-dr trucks myself, but the fact of the matter is most people want a minivan with a small truck box. Now you make a smaller pickup in a 4-dr because you have to because that's what sells, then those same people complain there's not enough back seat room in the small truck so they might as well get the 1/2 ton size truck and then you end up right back where we started with a basic ram 1500.

I should have said "...they wouldn't even sell half of what they sell now."

I am finnaly getting to a point in my life where I could buy my first new vehicle and there is NONE that suit what I need right now. I will absolutly not spend my hard earned money on a colorado, ranger, rigeline... that won't suit my needs, it seems I am going to have to spend my money building what I want since the factory refuses, 4 door dakota, 6 speed manual, 5.7 (or maybe a 6.4 I have sitting around), I would prefer a longer bed but no factory ever offered one and I am not that good of a fabricator that I can stretch a stock frame and bed.

Also the total garbage the industry has pushed on us about "bigger is safer" is just that, pure garbage, a friend of mine got whiplash the other day when an oncoming car drifted over into his lane on a narrow bridge and ripped the side open and the rear diff out of his daily driver 98 cummins, ex cab 4x4, he said if he had been in his geo metro he would have had plenty of room to avoid the collision all together, with the monstrosity he was driving there was no where to go. There is plenty of truth to being able to avoid the wreck in the first place if you have a smaller better handling vehicle.

Why all highway ratings?

I've rode in a 2000ish Dakota Crew Cab and thought it had decent room. Something that size with a 5.7/9 speed would be sweet. Looking online and their curb weight comes in around the 4500 mark

I think it's closer to SUV with an open back but I get your point. And some/all of that is a niche market.

Subaru Baja

Explorer Sportrac

Chevy Avalanche

Gen I Ridgeline

I believe the Rampage concept falls into this.

Car and Driver spec’s a simple 4 cyl 4wd Ford Ranger

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a26520047/2019-ford-ranger-build-price-spec/