73Coupe
Senior Member
The precursor to the Hilux / Toyota Tacoma: The Hino Briska....
Why you can't buy a new small truck.
- Thread starter Big_John
- Start date
barnfind
Old Man with a Hat
similar to the Datsun 320
barnfind
Old Man with a Hat
Philippines as well
Toyota to produce new Tamaraw in the Philippines - Just Auto
Toyota will produce new Tamaraw utility vehicle in the Philippines.
www.just-auto.com
3175375
Senior Member
Those UTVs are all over here in the Midwest. Some of them are over 30k!
LocuMob
Fluid Technician with a hat
My friend in Oregon bought another UTV before the same model went up 10k for the next model year. Same everything, just 10k more expensive!
Unfortunately they'll never be sold in NA, that won't meet safety standards, and if they did, the price point, would likely increase quite a bit.
Engine ran fine once it warmed up but valves were sticking due to gas turning to varnish on the stems . So out came the engine and off to the machine shop .
New Tires and paint … decided
to color key the flares,grill and bumper .
New Tires and paint … decided
barnfind
Old Man with a Hat
Ran across the handywagen
Encyclopedia of Arkansas
The Handywagon, built in 1964 for the Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company (Arkla), was intended as an economical vehicle for use by the company’s Gaslite and ...
encyclopediaofarkansas.net
barnfind
Old Man with a Hat
Modern 1/2ton pickups have gotten too big for their own good. They have to share the capabilities of OHC V-8s and turbo inline engines with their HD2500 variants. This sets the high cowl and other related front end sheetmetal configurations. One does not really notice these things until these pickups park next to a car of the 2000s or newer. Even the 1/2ton RAM dwarfs then. Headlights are usually at a similar level as the inside rear view mirrors of such normal full-size cars. IF the owner chooses a lift kit, then sitting in traffic, the level of the pickup truck's outer door handles will be pretty much at the roof level of your car!
Yet, they look stylish and proportional. Then you realize that the side door can be over 6' tall by itself!
When the "small" pickups of the earlier 1980s, from USA OEMs appeared, they were a good addition to the product lineups. ONLY thing was that they were not that much cheaper, by proportion. Get a high-trinm small pickup and for about $1500.00 more, get a full-size pickup! So they only sold to people who really needed them, rather than a typical consumer. Not much more fuel efficient, either.
Eventually, the compact pickups grew in size, slowly, until what Ford and GM sell in the USA. Vehicles which are very similar to the 1967-72 Chevy pickups. Heavier in weight to meet all of the new safety standards. Massive off-road capabilities, which means they can be pretty tall, too. End result, a "smaller" pickup that costs close to what a normal pickup costs. Especially as everybody seems to want all of the "bells and whistles" and leather, too.
The Ford Maverick was a breath of fresh air! A smaller pickup with good mpg and hybrid capabilities, at a very attractive price point. No wonder they sold as many as they did! There's a message there!!
It's amazing how the middle-gen Dakotas have held their value! Even with over 300K miles on them. More messages which are missed by the OEMs!
Oh well . . .
CBODY67
Yet, they look stylish and proportional. Then you realize that the side door can be over 6' tall by itself!
When the "small" pickups of the earlier 1980s, from USA OEMs appeared, they were a good addition to the product lineups. ONLY thing was that they were not that much cheaper, by proportion. Get a high-trinm small pickup and for about $1500.00 more, get a full-size pickup! So they only sold to people who really needed them, rather than a typical consumer. Not much more fuel efficient, either.
Eventually, the compact pickups grew in size, slowly, until what Ford and GM sell in the USA. Vehicles which are very similar to the 1967-72 Chevy pickups. Heavier in weight to meet all of the new safety standards. Massive off-road capabilities, which means they can be pretty tall, too. End result, a "smaller" pickup that costs close to what a normal pickup costs. Especially as everybody seems to want all of the "bells and whistles" and leather, too.
The Ford Maverick was a breath of fresh air! A smaller pickup with good mpg and hybrid capabilities, at a very attractive price point. No wonder they sold as many as they did! There's a message there!!
It's amazing how the middle-gen Dakotas have held their value! Even with over 300K miles on them. More messages which are missed by the OEMs!
Oh well . . .
CBODY67
Just Carbs
Well-Known Member
My 93 Dakota cost about a grand less than a full size in 93. It's a handy size.
They put it together rather well. It's been easy to service over the years and 300k miles.
I don't think Dodge designed it. They paid another American design house.
They put it together rather well. It's been easy to service over the years and 300k miles.
I don't think Dodge designed it. They paid another American design house.
73Coupe
Senior Member
1984, 1985?
Compared to the new S-10s we sold, the Dakotas were far better built and quieter. The fancy Rangers were more like a small Ford car, in many respects.
When I saw the first Dakotas at our Mopar club's sponsoring dealership, under the hood, the frame was as wide as the S-10's frame, but the cab was wider, which meant the steering "intermediate shaft" was jointed on each end to make the angle to the steering gear. I laughed.
Those Dak convertibles did draw a lot of attention.
Interesting thing was the Gen II Dak R/T (with 17" wheels and handling package) were said to be competitive with the Camaro Z/28s on a road course. Heck of a deal for a pickup truck to have a Z/28 chasing it! Those were the days! Probably would be a heck of a deal to see a Corvette running from a Gen II Dak on a road course, which was being chased by an IROC-Z Camaro. LOL
From what I understand, the last gen Dak was more 1/2 ton and Durango than not, which is why it was only a 4dr, to save money by using the same frame as the Durango.
CBODY67
When I saw the first Dakotas at our Mopar club's sponsoring dealership, under the hood, the frame was as wide as the S-10's frame, but the cab was wider, which meant the steering "intermediate shaft" was jointed on each end to make the angle to the steering gear. I laughed.
Those Dak convertibles did draw a lot of attention.
Interesting thing was the Gen II Dak R/T (with 17" wheels and handling package) were said to be competitive with the Camaro Z/28s on a road course. Heck of a deal for a pickup truck to have a Z/28 chasing it! Those were the days! Probably would be a heck of a deal to see a Corvette running from a Gen II Dak on a road course, which was being chased by an IROC-Z Camaro. LOL
From what I understand, the last gen Dak was more 1/2 ton and Durango than not, which is why it was only a 4dr, to save money by using the same frame as the Durango.
CBODY67
1987 IIRC…
sixpkrt
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,274
- Reaction score
- 6,905
This Dakota is a regular at the local cruise nights....
Have a part time gig a a local parts store as a delivery driver. The trucks they used were Ford Rangers (2009). They were bare bones but did have COLD A/C.
I was impressed with how well they held up as they were usually driven like they were stolen.
I liked them so well that I bought one (2011). I did want the extended cab (with the small rear doors) as the standard cabs were just to small. After looking at several with well over 100K and priced far more than I thought they were worth, found one at a dealer a few counties away. It had more equipment than I was looking for, but with only 23K on the clock (this was in 2018) and a fair price (17.5K) I bought it and have not been disappointed. with a 4.0 and 4WD in averages between 17.5 and 18 mpg. It now has 95K and I have no plans on making it go away any time soon.
I was impressed with how well they held up as they were usually driven like they were stolen.
I liked them so well that I bought one (2011). I did want the extended cab (with the small rear doors) as the standard cabs were just to small. After looking at several with well over 100K and priced far more than I thought they were worth, found one at a dealer a few counties away. It had more equipment than I was looking for, but with only 23K on the clock (this was in 2018) and a fair price (17.5K) I bought it and have not been disappointed. with a 4.0 and 4WD in averages between 17.5 and 18 mpg. It now has 95K and I have no plans on making it go away any time soon.
barnfind
Old Man with a Hat
More in the side by side market, these look fun!
Similar threads
