2007 2wd Tahoe gets 16/22
2007 4x4 Silverado Crew gets 15/20

I'm not sure what a 2WD regular cab short bed Silverado would get (17/23 maybe?)

 

So, maybe 19/25 with a T56 and the smaller, considerably lighter truck?

 

I agree with that. And not a replacement for a new Camaro either. But invariably, on boards like this one and others, there is always a segment that wants three things and three things only. RWD+V8+cheap.

Anyone know if there is much of an enthusiast community for the new Dakota? Seems to me, getting one with a base V8 for around $20K would be a good deal.

 

FOUR Things: RWD+V8+cheap+Two doors.

 

I know the old R/T had a good size following, but one of the short falls of the new truck is no R/T package and the V8 doesn't stack up well compared to other engines of today like the 5.9L did compared to engines in the late 90's. People expect 300HP+ out of a V8 today, not 260HP. The 5.9L put out good #'s when compared to LT1s, 5.0, and SOHC 4.6L Fords. Now a 330HP+ Hemi it that $20K truck would be something.

 

Yes. I drive a Grand Vitara today, in addition to my Camaro. Two things I don't like about the Suzuki: it's slow, and the handling is rather poor. I do like its small size and easy maneuverability as well as the RWD.

The H3 weighs 4700 pounds, and even a street-oriented model with just RWD would probably weigh more than I'd want. The Xterra, et al, are over 4000. What are the chances that something like you're speaking of could come in under 4000 pounds?

 

Two problems with the Dakota V8.

1. It's slow, because it only has 230hp. There is a 250hp version, but I've not seen any tests of it. How much will 20hp really help?

2. It's slow, because it weighs around 4700 pounds. Maybe a total stripper would come in at 4400. But still.

The V6 Tacoma and Nissan will run rings around it. Maybe the new 3.7l Colorado too.

 

Yeah, good point. It's weight is pretty shocking, when you consider it's smaller than a fullsized truck. It also probably serves as a good way to use up Mopar's excess 4.7 capacity. Oh well, the current Dakota appears to be a performance/value blind alley.

Here's a fun fact - the Hemi costs DCX less to manufacture than the 4.7.

 

For a short time you could get the 6.0 in the Silverado 2500 with a manual. Horsepower was indeed 300. The thing was that it's the same engine as in the 345 horse 6.0 Escalade & Silverado SS, so the extra 45 horses was not much more than a reprograming (or a different factory ECM part number) away.

I priced out a stripper version once to prove how you could bypass a Silverado SS and end up with a quicker truck for alot less money. If I recall, it ran about $27K (about 10 grand less than an SS).

The engine in the Silverado put out 300 horses & 360 torque to SS & Escalade's 345 & 380

Base Silverado 2wd regular cab base weight started around 4400 pounds against Escalade's 5850 and the SS' 5298.

While the Escalade had a 3.73 axle, the SS had a 4.10, the 6.0 5 speed manual also had a 4.10.

I concluded that even with a 45 horse and a 20 lbs/ft disadvantage, the base model Silverado 2500 with 6.0 and 5 speed manual would out accelerate the Silverado SS.

I think GM came to the same conclusion as well. They shortly thereafter made automatics (with a less agressive program than the SS' tranny) standard in the 2500.

 

Like Teal98 indicates, there is nothing like the excitement for the new Dakota as there was for Dakota in the late 90s. I honestly don't know if the market has changed that much, or if Chrysler squandered the following Dakota had. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

There's no more regular cab Dakotas. Only extended & crew.
There's no more R/T version. Just ST, SLT, and Laramie
There's no more 5.9 V8.
There's no real performance parts for the new Dakota.

Although the 4.7HO has 15 more horses than the old 5.9 R/T Dakota, it has:
1. 35 lbs/ft less torque.
2. just over 400 more pounds to drag around.

Colorado is a featherweight as far as small trucks go, weighing just 3300 pounds with the base I-4. A 5.3 regular cab 2wd with only modest options would weigh less than the 3800 pounds the 5.3 Impala SS weighs, so no doubt it would be pretty frigging quick.

 

Too bad the Dakota wasn't made available with a Hemi, that could have kept the 5.9 R/T enthusiasm going. I think one of the issues were that Hemi capacity was being stretched just to keep up with LX, Ram and Durango production.

 

They recently cut production of the Hemi. They should have just stuck them in some Dakotas. Hemi Dakotas would have took a lot of hype away from 5.3L Colorados

 

To hear Chrysler tell it, the Dakotas weren't engineered to accept the Hemi and with small truck sales "down", it's not worth it to adapt the truck for it.

Personally, my unsubstantuated opinion is that Chrysler makes bigger profit margins on the Ram, and they are trying to steer people there. The Dakota seems like an afterthought.... or no thought.

Consider that the Ram has a Daytona version, a Rumble Bee version, a Hemi Sport version, an SXT version, not to mention the SRT-10. Yet, Dakota no longer has even a single sports version.

Even the Caliber has an SRT version.

 

"The Dakota seems like an afterthought.... or no thought."

It does seem to be more of a "chore" for marketing and engineers than a "passionate product."

GM's lil trucks seem extremely more deliberate and unique although they carry the same basic "theme" up front.

Ford on the other hand...

 

I saw a really nice one once, with a hood, wheels, dk. rd. met., sweet. I wouldn't get it over the Camaro, but IMO there is definately a market for it.