Dodge's smaller pickup came out and was an instant hit with people who wanted something a little bigger than a "compact". With V6 and V8 engines, it straddled the market and found its niche. An MCE of the first-gen built the momentum, and with the second-gen truck, Dodge really hit its stride. I still see so many of the second-gen trucks around, especially the right-sized regular cab 4X4 with big tires. Then by the time the current-gen truck came around, they completely lost their mojo... amazing after the sweet second-gen. Boxy, thirsty and with a monolithically cheap interior and no regular cab, buyers dried up almost immediately, and with good reason.

And next up is a "Lifestyle Vehicle" to replace the workhorse, RWD/4WD ladder frame Dakota... skepticism rises, again with good reason.

They should have stuck with it. They've shown what they can do with deft MCEs that have turned some of their remaining sow's ears into silk purses, so to speak. With the reintroduction of a regular cab, some clearly delineated trim packages, a completely new interior and new exterior sheetmetal, not to mention the great new Pentastar V6 and new transmissions, the Dakota may have had a new lease on life.

Now it's too late. Next we get a "Lifestyle Vehicle" to replace it. Sounds like a Ridgeline clone to me... or a Caravan with a bed. Either way, it is a nail in the coffin of the quintessential American vehicle... the pickup truck.

I would agree WRT the regular cab truck in general; they should always be a plentiful mix available... but the 'charts' point to less & less getting built.

A lack of decent cars made more people buy trucks... hence less of a percentage of trucks sold are used as work vehicles... hence, more multi-door cabs for hauling people, less room in the bed for hauling things to build this country.

Yep- agreed.

A lack of decent cars made more people buy trucks... hence less of a percentage of trucks sold are used as work vehicles... hence, more multi-door cabs for hauling people, less room in the bed for hauling things to build this country.

Maybe thanks to better cars, the need for compact pickups can finally shrink after 20 years. Of course $4 or so for gas does its part too.

but blu didn't you say the Dakota was larger truck than people need? that an S-10 sized truck was a better size?

i think the F-100 will probably cover the Dakota's size. I have my doubts that Chrysler could build a Dakota that would match the fuel economy of the new F-150 v6......

For '11 the sales of the Dakota were only 13k. The demand wasn't there..so they are going to try something else.

But they sold 10 times as many a decade ago, when the truck was a standout in design and execution. They stopped trying.

I don't think they could afford to!

I liked the second gen Dakotas, nice looking and nice to drive, but still a little gas thirsty as 5.2 or 5.9 versions.

When the "new" Dakotas came out I lost interest. They were boring looking. They weren't much different mechanically from the years before, but the boxy look just didn't appeal to me.

We rented a truck in 2008 or 2009. We went to pick it up... a nice shiny red new style Dakota CrewCab. Boxy, boring styling, we were renting and didn't care.

We had the truck for one week. We LOVED it. We didn't want to take it back!!! It drove nice, was very comfortable, decent on gas, very useful, I almost thought of buying one.

Until I got out and looked at it. lol It was just boring looking.

They are actually nice trucks, but in a wrapper that makes many lose interest, IMO.

If I could find one dirt cheap I would buy it and toss my utility trailer!