1987 Dodge Dakota (Reaction) Motorweek Retro Review

This weeks Motorweek Retro Review Reaction is the 1987 Dodge Dakota!
This was a great one! While I talk a lot on the channel about smaller trucks and where they've gone, it turns out much of what I want is in the first generation Dodge Dakota!
Be sure to subscribe to our channel and show the love!
This channel is supported by viewers like you! Please consider supporting our histories and news-pinions: / allcarswithjon
Got a Car you'd like to see me review? Just fill in this easy form to reach out to me!
forms.office.c...
OMG! We're on Instagram now!
/ allcarswithjon

[@mrgurulittle7000]

Dodge needs a new Dakota. Nice truck.

[@matttravers5764]

I agree with you Jon regarding the Dakota styling in these early models. Squarish and clean like a truck should be.👍

[@davinp]

In the 1980s, Chrysler/Dodge created the minivan market. The stacked lights on the Dodge Caravan are the same design as their full size Dodge Ram van. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the minivan

[@tywebb355]

They were also first with the crossover SUV with the 1st gen Pacifica.

[@williamg2552]

Dodge also invented the MID-SIZED TRUCK MARKET with The DAKOTA. LARGER than the Compacts….SMALLER than the FULL-SIZED Pickups. Look at the so-called “Small Pickups” of TODAY. The TOYOTAS , NISSANS, CHEVYS and FORD RANGERS of TODAY. NONE of them are COMPACTS anymore !! They have ALL GROWN to MID-SIZED TRUCKS. WHERE did this ALL START ? With the DODGE DAKOTA !!

[@randywatkins2359]

Regarding the 4 cylinder. 2.2s were buzzy but they were uncomplicated and relatively easy to service. What Chrysler/ Dodge should have done was put the 2.5 L 4 in this instead. It was docile due to a counter-balance shaft and torquey. I had one in an 89 Shadow and it was a very solid performer with a much quieter interior than its 2.2 siblings.

[@johnnymason2460]

Jon, you mentioned that we could get the return of the Dakota pickup at some point. It needs to be now. A Dakota with a 2.0 liter turbo four or a 3.6 liter V6 would be great right now. Put Dodge and Ram back together and give us the Dakota again.

[@AllCarswithJon]

I'm sure they'll leave it as Ram, but they've got two obvious holes in their lineup and that's the smaller (Maverick sized) and midsized. Jeep having the Gladiator doesn't count. :)

[@johnnymason2460]

@@AllCarswithJon I agree with you. The Gladiator is more of a niche vehicle. If you are going to keep Dodge and Ram separate(which I don't agree with), then a Dodge Rampage(compact unibody pickup) and a Ram Dakota(body on frame midsize pickup) make perfect sense.

[@AllCarswithJon]

@@johnnymason2460 100% agree here.

[@aaronhollingsworth6808]

I own a 87 Dakota 3.9 single cab short bed with the 4x4 and I absolutely love that truck, it will climb a mountain, I couldn’t ask of a better truck, I’m gonna try and get a couple more winters out of it and I’m gonna tear it down and restore it, that ol truck has been good to me

[@danielsweeney6742]

Jon, I worked at Chrysler. One of the plants I had under my control was Mound Road Engine. At this plant they built the Viper V10 along with the steel V10, the 360, 318 and the 3.9. The 3.9 was the 318 with 2 cylinders looped off. All engines were work horses.

[@AllCarswithJon]

Thanks for sharing!

[@autopar3000]

The LA and later Magnum small blocks (including the v10) are some of the best engines ever made. Certainly some of the best Chrysler engines. When the engineers designed those engines in the early 60s I'm sure they never dreamed Chrysler would continue to use the basic design for 39 years (1964 - 2003).

[@325xitgrocgetter]

Regarding the paint. Eventually, the paint would start to oxidize and delaminate. At least that happened to the horizontal surfaces of my 87 Dakota. Mine has been in the family since new. Dad bought it in late July of 1987. He needed 4x4 for winter driving and the Dakota was ideal for a second family car. Our Dakota is a 4x4 with the 3.9 V6. For the first year, they were equipped a Holley 6280 carb. In 1988, they switched to throttle body fuel injection and added automatic overdrive transmission. I can't speak for the four cylinder but the V6 wasn't a powerhouse until 91 or 92 when they switched to the "Magnum" versions. Sometimes we thought the Dakota had the power of a small truck and the gas mileage of a big truck...though ours would reliably get 21 mpg on the highway. As far as the interior, it still looks fairly contemporary and is very comfortable to sit in. It is nimble for its size but the steering does have a bit of slack compared to a modern car.

[@seththomas9105]

Late to this party, Jon but a great review. I had a 87 4X4 standard cab long box like the silver/grey one shown on MW. Mine was black wth the SLE trim and 3.9 and automatic. It was my daily driver and farm truck all in one. At about 190K the frame started rusting away and that was the end of the old girl. (Iowa DOT salt brine go to hell) This truck NEEDS to come back to the American market NOW. So many people don't need a 1/2 ton and the Dakota can be used commercially or in farm use along with a weekend truck for city people.

[@hotelworker812]

I love the simplicity of it

[@tywebb355]

I had a 3.9 in my 97 Dakota. I loved the looks of it. It was the perfect size. The 2nd gen was my favorite body style. Very comfortable to drive. In the 15 years I owned it it had a pretty healthy appetite for gas. They had to gear it a little different to keep the engine from revving too high. (Due to 2 less cyls.) They did a good job with that. I replaced 1 battery and 4 IACS and the doors started to leak near the end. But it really was a good truck. If I could transplant my 4.0 drivetrain from my 2010 Ranger into it would be almost perfect. My friend had a 99 Durango with the V-8. It was a beefier motor. His gas mileage was not much worse than mine.

[@middleclassretiree]

I had the same experience and attributed it the fact that the v-8 didn’t have to work as hard, I drove semi’s for years and the company I worked for actually found out that are tractors equipped with the 500 horsepower engines actually got about a 10th of a mpg better than the same size engine specd out at 430 horsepower and those got close to a 1/2 mpg better than those set at 350 horsepower just because you didn’t have to work the engines so hard and could actually pull the same hills in a higher gear with less throttle and fewer rpm’s resulting in better mpg and longer lasting engines

[@tywebb355]

That makes sense. The official listed difference the 3.9 V6 and the 318 was 1 mpg. I liked my V6, but it didn't have the sound or the pull of my buddy's V8. My 2010 Ranger has the Cologne 4.0 V6. It's a really steady and reliable motor. It gets better mpg's than my 3.9. @@middleclassretiree

[@jroush]

My first vehicle at 17 years old in 2008 was a 1991 Dodge Dakota. Mine was white, the extended cab, and Chrysler's 5.2L V8 (their 318 v8). Watching this brings back memories. That truck was reliable and with the 318 v8 it could get up and go.

[@clydeprather941]

MY 1988 RANGER EXTENDED CAB(2.3L. L-4) had 88 hp.& got 32 hwy!3,200 Lb, curb weight! 2.2 L.was Mitsubishi & was a fuelie!!

[@jamesahoffman]

John, had the 239ci / 3.9L V6 in a 1992 Dakota, and to answer your engine Question, Yes! the V6 was designed like a 318ci V8 with 2 cylinders chopped off, Which to fix timing chain issues it was good because you could but the 318 timing set "aftermarket gear set" in to fix alot of issues, but the V6 was a torquey engine but it had vibration issues because the engine balance was off!, and could break it's own engine mounts!

[@twinforce_fusion6560]

Ahhh, when simplicity was the norm for normal trucks. Own my 2010 Dakota 3.7L since 2011, and can't get rid of it because it does exactly what I need it to do. Currently at 235K, just got a new set of Winter tires and hope to reach 300K.

[@colegreeson]

I have the cleanest 1987 dodge dakota in the country its red had the v6 and automatic trans. 225k miles original everything. 20 mpg is a joke. 10 mpgs on a good day

[@jeffatturbofish]

When I was in college in OK, my roommate from Texas would have pictures of this on his wall while I would have posters of the Ford RS200 on my wall. First thing he did after graduating and getting a job in 1989, was to get one of these. Every weekend, we would drive to the dealership so he could ogle it in person [came out in 1986]. Flash forward a few decades, my stepson bought a used one after he got out of the Marines. He had to buy two of them because one was usually broken at any given time. Then when both of those would be broken at the same time, he would take our Japanese vehicles.

[@royperry2859]

I wanted the extended cab with a camper shell. Who knows how my life would have turned out. Chicks dig trucks!

[@weegeemike]

The 3.9 V6 was a 318 LA V8 with 2 cylinders chopped off. Due to this fact it was a very reliable engine much like it's V8 brother. However it was never particularly powerful but had good torque, and was better suited for powering the midsized Dakota. The 2.2 "K" I4 is a great engine in my opinion. It was built to be simple and easy to maintain and it achieves its goal. If you do 3k mi oil changes, fresh coolant every 35k mi and change the timing belt every 80-90k mi and you'll get years and years if reliable service from this and its larger 2.5 K variant.

[@tunnelvision2day]

Man I've seen a few of ur videos over the years.. But I watched the studanaker pacard episode this morning.. And wow.. I've probably consumed 8 hours of ur videos today. I been hooked.. A day off work wasted.. Lol.. Man I absolutely love ur videos..

[@AllCarswithJon]

Wow, thanks!

[@johnnymason2460]

The two versions of the first generation Dodge Dakota that I would like to have are the Shelby Dakota and the Dakota convertible. Those would be great trucks to own.

[@howardwilley7923]

I’ve owned a ‘93 4x4 5-speed 3.9 V-6 for 30 years now, it was my first new vehicle. In fact I just drove it from Sacramento to Boise with no problems. It’s been bulletproof. The V-6 has excellent low end torque. The engine is actually pretty smooth but quite a bit noisier than the V-8. My son has a ‘94 4x4 V-8 5-speed that is real fun to drive.

[@shadowcreeper77]

Jon, I'm 22 and had a Dakota from 2021 to 2023. It was an 1989 4x4 sport and let me tell you, that v6 was a dog. Although, I did tow a 00 Audi A4 about 100 miles with it, slow as hell but it had torque. Top speed with the short gears was 90mph dowbhill for me at 5k in 3rd

[@12yearssober]

I like this body style Dakota. I have a 95 extended cab with the 318. Truck is still really nice. I had the transmission rebuilt. That is the weak link on these trucks.

[@jeffr0]

Jon, you know better than most, that cafe standards mean bigger footprints help them cheat the system

[@daninva6458]

My wife and I used to have a 3.9 Dakota. No complaints on power. It felt pretty torquey, but by no means was it quick. Also, it was pretty thirsty, even in a regular cab. IIRC, it got about 15mpg

[@AllCarswithJon]

My opinion of the Dakota was that it was heavy and inefficient. It's a bit bigger than the small trucks, but needed the 6 or an 8 to get out of it's own way, and never as fuel efficient as I would have expected. I think, looking back, it's because it was never optimized as a midsized truck. They cobbled together parts from the 1500 series into a new truck (even built on the same line) so I think it was using oversized/overweight bits throughout to keep costs down?

[@12yearssober]

In my experience the V8 version got around the same milage as the V6. Of course with the V8 you barely had to give it throttle to get up to speed. Personally I prefer the V8. Something about a small truck with a V8 rumble through dual exhaust makes the experience much better.

[@AllCarswithJon]

@@12yearssober for the same MPG that's a no-brainer decision!

[@darinrodriguez8551]

I have a 98 Dakota w 2.5l I've had it for 12 years and has been very dependable I love my truck not fast but adequate

[@johnnymason2460]

The four cylinder engine often was offered with a manual transmission only. Not for me. By the way, the BMW L7 was a special version of the 7-series sedan.

[@sgrant9814]

My dad bought one of those brand new back when, 4cyl, 5 speed am radio...pretty bare bones but looked nice and was appointed well for what it was.....classier than its price indicated. Looked much like the blue n silver one in ur video. Def NOT a speed demon but got good mileage,,,,solid mid 20s.... and ran for 100k miles with nothing other than reg maintenance,, he paid about 12k for it i think (unlike the absurd 40-60k for pickups now) He used it for runs to the dump and big box stores mostly. Pickups have gotten far too big now....even the so called mid size pickups from ford n chevy are bigger than FULL sized pickups from the 80s and 90s.

[@randywatkins2359]

Hi Jon. Research the 1986-1992 Jeep Comanche. IMO the best of small trucks with the 4.0L straight 6 . Also check out the used car prices for a good one, that really says something . Thanks for your videos !

[@AllCarswithJon]

Thanks for the comment. Crazy, I was thinking about the Comanche this morning and working it into my next video (possibly). I have little experience with them from back in the day, and that experience was miserably horrible reliability.

[@randywatkins2359]

Sorry about your bad experience. If you do a video with a Comanche I would love to know what happened. I am aware they had overheating issues and suspect automatic transmissions. However of all the light trucks in the eighties I always thought the Comanche and the Nissan Hardbody looked the best.

[@johnnymason2460]

​@@AllCarswithJon There is a Motorweek Retro Review on the 1986 Jeep Comanche. It deserves a good look. I would prefer a 1991-1992 version with a long bed, 4.0 liter inline six(190hp), and full-time 4WD.

[@davinp]

Chrysler had quality control problem and Lee Iacocca had demanded to improve quality.

[@12yearssober]

Yeah the late 70's early 80's were bad times for them.

[@Black-Villain]

I always preferred the 2nd Gen Dakota. I always liked the way it looked, I liked the way it felt to drive, you could get it with all the same engine options as its larger half-ton brother, they had sport models, etc. Overall a great truck and I wouldn't mind having a 5.9 RT in my driveway. Pricing is... strangely close to the Maverick when you factor inflation. The base price of $7,338 is just a hair under $20k, and the top end price is ~$32k... that's basically exactly what a Maverick was before Ford raised the price a few months ago

[@AllCarswithJon]

Thats really interesting about the price similarity, thanks!

[@g-mang-man7924]

Father in law had an extended cab, 61/2 foot bed. I had an 86 B2000 LX at the time. I really like liked the truck a lot. It definitely filled a niche. It had a few issues, Oil leaks is what I remember from the 3.9 magnum engine. It did have a decent amount of vibration at times. But in the end was a good truck. He replaced it with a Chevy Full size conversion van. He did miss his Dakota after he traded it in!

[@middleclassretiree]

The v6 was the 318 with 2 cylinders lopped off just like they said and it was just as dependable as the 318 was just not as smooth at idle

[@GLHS592]

Well, I'm one of few that would take the 2.2 liter over the V6. The 2.2 Chrysler is amongst the most durable and reliable engines ever built. The only problem with them is the weak headgasket on the turbo models. Chrysler should have used the Mopar Performance headgasket and bolts instead. I've never had a Mopar Performance head gasket fail. I'd love to swap a 2.2/2.5 turbo engine into a shortbed regular cab (make mine a convertible) 1st gen. Dakota. On another note, you should have talked about the 1989 Shelby Dakota. It spawned the refreshed 1991- 1996 Dakotas. The original nose didn't have room for the LA V8 (which was the basis for the 3.9 V6) with the clutch fan, so they lengthened the nose in 1991. The Shelby Dakota used an electric fan instead. I disagree with you about the V8 Dakotas. That was an exceptional idea which sold tons of Dakotas for Chrysler Corp. I knew guys with V8 Dakotas who won many races against 5.0 Mustangs and IROC Camaros. They could also have been bought for the same money the other guys were getting for V6 mini trucks. I'll never understand why GM didn't put a 30 in the S-10 and Ford didn't stick a 5.0 in the Ranger. I love all 3 Dakota generations. The 2nd gens looked like baby 1994-2001 Rams. They are arguably better than the first gens. I'd love to have a 5.9 R/T. The 3rd gens were ugly as sin, but they were great trucks too. I own the one my dad bought new in 2005. It has no options, but it has a good size bed for a 4 door pickup. I hate to look at i from the ftont, but I like to drive it. The main thing about Dakota was you always felt like you were getting a little more for about the same money as the little trucks.

[@chrismarzoli2170]

Jon, the original Dakota was a great product. I agree all subsequent generations, particularly the second generation (1997-2004) were a disappointment. The 3.9 V6 was developed for use in the Dakota and was based on the venerable 318/5.2 liter V8 which had been in use since the early 1960’s, by essentially lopping two cylinders off. As a result, it was a good, reliable, durable engine, but not particularly impressive in the performance department. Put plainly the early ones were dogs. The later “Magnumized” models from 1992 onward were significantly upgraded in power. Even so, the early ones would take a beating and get the job done. I spent considerable seat time in two different 1990 models (one 2wd, one 4x4) and a 1996. All provided good service and were dependable workhorses. I never knew the K based 2.2 and 2.5 were offered in the Dakota. They were good engines as well but would not be good for any kind of hauling or towing. IMO the original 1987-1990 models were the most appealing style wise. Later of course, the actual 318/5.2 V8 was itself offered in the Dakota. I have never driven one so powered but I imagine it is the best powerplant to have in one.

[@clydeprather941]

2.2L. Powered Horizon/Omni of 1986 had 110 hp!!!

[@colinschmitz8297]

The K 4 cylinder was average in reliability from our family's experience. You would usually get at least 100k before needing a head gasket. The only other weakness could be oil pumps. The people I knew with k engines had better results than the 2.6 Mitsubishi. I don't understand why they went with the 2.2 over the 2.5. the 2.5 was more appropriate for a heavy application. The 3.9 was a 5.2 with 2 cylinders chopped off. The 5.2 (318) was legendary for being reliable. Everyone I knew never had reliability complaints about the 3.9 or 5.2, just that they were gas hogs and not the fastest. The component engineering as you put it was something Chrysler did a lot. They did the same thing using I think it was the wheel hubs from the Dakota for the Viper as an example. Many times they made it work. This is where great economies of scale can come from and often those models were reliable because the components were reliable. The main thing that got Chrysler in trouble was their transmission issues and a couple bad apples from their engine lines That wouldn't have been so bad if they would have not chosen to use the bad engines and everything and barely use their great engines in comparison.

[@Scottj2011]

Good video. You said you wanted to own one. I don't know how you feel about EBay but they have plenty of Dakotas from that generation 1987, 1989, 1990 with low miles and higher miles

[@314jeepsnmopars3]

I would ove to see Jon do the ZJ or XJ next. The great thing is they did off a xtended cab and smaller bed on rhe later years of this body style. I would still take the 5.2 Magnum ones but thats just me. 😂

[@jasoncarpp7742]

Hey Jon. Another awesome video review. I remember when the 1987 Dodge Dakota was first intro'd to the public. I remember other small sized trucks being intro'd at the time, such as the Chevy S-10, the Nissan Hardbody and Pathfinder, the Toyota 4Runner, etc. I was still in Jr. High school at the time of its intro, so I couldn't drive a car or even a truck, but I thought it was an awesome truck. I was disappointed when the Cummins Diesel engine was offered in the Dodge full-sized truck that a smaller displacement version wasn't offered for the Dakota or even later the Durango SUV.

[@robertwilliams9740]

I had an 87 standard cab with the five speed manual 4 cylinder. I don't really think the four cylinder was that underpowered the problem I had with it was if it went slightly off-road and bounced around a little bit something happened with the carburetors to where it ran like s*** for a little while and then it would straighten back out and run correctly. That was very frustrating

[@johnh2514]

Thanks for another great retro review Jon. I always liked these trucks. I had a friend that drove a similar ‘88 model V6 for several years and 180k miles with very few issues. And having owned a K-car with the 2.2L 4 cylinder and remembering how painfully sluggish it was, I can’t imagine how glacial the acceleration would be in the Dakota, especially under load.

[@thatcarguy1UZ]

The 2.2L 4 cylinder wasn't a terrible engine, but it was prone to head gasket failure, although it was very easy to work on, and replacing the head gasket was very easy on these. With that all said, it was way too small for this truck. The 3.9L V6 was basically a 318 (5.2L) V8 with 2 cylinders removed. It was a good engine, but it did have a bit of a rough idle. It sometimes felt like it was misfiring at idle and low speed. It was comparable in smoothness to early GM 3.8L and 4.3L V6 engines (pre-EFI models).

[@glennvernes8305]

Chrysler was wise to create their own niche- the midsize, rather than try to compete with the many excellent small trucks available at the time. This was an honest truck from an era of honest trucks. No 1,000-pound feet of torque or whorehouse interior, just an unpretentious, hardworking truck you won't be afraid to climb into with muddy boots. You'd want the V6, though. And bring back two-tone paint!

[@jonbrowning6839]

Like the truck, 8 ft bed with good payload is a must for me. The 2500lbs quoted for this is excellent. A 3.8 reg cab long bed 4x4 with a stick sounds great. My current vehicle is a an 8ft regular cab 4x4, so this up my alley.

[@matttravers5764]

It is tragic how you can no longer buy a simple clean handsomely styled not overly large pickup anymore.😔

[@tkskagen]

Great truck as long as you didn't have the V-8 model in the later years... The front brakes were insufficient (overheat and fail) for the Weight and Horsepower from the assembly line!

[@12yearssober]

I have a 95 and the 318 is great. It has 150K miles and is trouble free. The oil is still clean when I drain it for changes. The transmissions on the other hand is a different story. I had mine rebuilt a few months ago. I had them upgrade it to make it last longer and it cost me dearly. I still love it though!!!

[@christhomason1524]

I currently own a 1993 Dakota. V6, extended cab & 6.5ft bed. Have loved it but will be selling soon. It has been replaced by a Ford Maverick Hybrid.

[@leonardgordon1748]

I liked the Dodge 4 cylinder engine. I had one on my 1991 Caravan and it was adequate and dependable. The cheap transmissions were the weak link and had mine replaced at around 70K thanks to the extended warranty. I had a 4 cylinder in my Ranger and I would have done the same if I had bought a Dakota. Thanks again for an interesting video 👍🏻

[@12yearssober]

The 4 cylinder was only useful with the manual transmission. If mated to an automatic it was an absolute dog. With the AC on it was as slow as a diesel chevette.

[@johnnymason2460]

The four cylinder in the Dakota was only offered with a manual transmission. I may be wrong but I have never heard of one with the four cylinder and an automatic transmission.

[@12yearssober]

@@johnnymason2460 I think you are right. If there was an automatic I've never saw one either.

[@maxhenry1977]

My first new vehicle was a 1988 dakota. It was a mega pos.

[@johnstapler5956]

Sounds like my 87😂

[@davetidd7411]

@@johnstapler5956 I had a 87 , v-6 auto, had to replace the rack & pinion, put a new cam in, then replace the motor a year later and the real prize-it had a brake proportioning valve attached to the leaf springs that wore out. once my first child came along and there was not much room for a car seat on that cramped bench seat we got rid of it

[@clydeprather941]

'93-'97(?) 3.9L. V-6 had 175 hp.,& 245 ft.- Lb. Of torque. A British online car magazine tested a new '93 1/2 ton Ram equipment with the 5.2 L. V-8, which they say averaged 25 hwy. Would it get 26 or 27 in the 1st Gen. Dakota ?

[@jamieshields9521]

I like Dodge Dakota especially early square version but I reckon you need Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore ute? I have both in my early life but now drive Nissan D40 King cab with 4TD engine which suits me for farm work but every now then I take my my VR 5.0lt V8 SS Commodore ute out for run or road trip, I still love cruising with hp.

[@sponk2112]

The tailgate "buttons up securely." Umm...I hope so? Love these trucks, but that line left me a bit baffled...like why wouldn't it?

[@AllCarswithJon]

Imagine a world where you need to mention that the tailgate on a Dodge product actually latches securely..

[@sponk2112]

@@AllCarswithJon Heh, maybe "those two people" trying to load the 4X8 sheet were Chrysler line employees. :-D Yeah, fit and finish weren't exactly American car/truck highpoints in the 70s and 80s but not so bad that one should be impressed by a tailgate latching securely on a brand-new truck, for crying out loud!

[@raybloxham9631]

Ill just wear a helmet HA HA!

[@michaelbogdanowicz5059]

Good video 🎉

[@AllCarswithJon]

Thanks 😁

[@simoneleles5209]

Yeap!👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@michiganman4398]

Thing is you can’t make a truck like this today at a low price point due to government regulations.

[@phillipjoseph8768]

I'll just wear a helmet 😂😂😂😂😂

[@danielulz1640]

Didn't Jeep have a mid-sized pickup before Dodge?

[@johnnymason2460]

Yes, the Comanche. However, once the Dakota arrived, the Comanche became almost nonexistent. Even though the Comanche had better 4wd systems.

[@danielulz1640]

@@johnnymason2460 because Chrysler bought AMC and immediately discontinued the Comanche to avoid competition with the Dakota!

[@johnnymason2460]

@@danielulz1640 True. Plus, the Comanche never offered an extended cab version(which I would prefer). But, I can still use one if it had an inline six, automatic transmission, and the Selec-Trac fulltime 4WD system.

[@danielulz1640]

@@johnnymason2460 they probably would have offered an extended cab if Chrysler had not killed it.

[@johnnymason2460]

@@danielulz1640 They almost offered a Jeep version of the Dodge Dakota around 1992-1993. It would have had an extended cab by default.

[@johnstapler5956]

I've had a lot of trucks of every size from a B2000 to RAM 1500 Hemi. I bought a Dakota SE 4x4 new in 87. It looked great but not a good truck. The V6 ran like shit. The paint was soft. Brakes iffy. I dumped it for a used Bronco as soon as it was paid off. It was so so sad, great looking, great size, horrible execution. My 84 B2000 2wd was a better truck.

[@AllCarswithJon]

Thanks for the input! Appreciate it!

[@sebdupree1]

11:07

[@rdillon517]

Sorry ford invented the small truck with the Courie

[@tonychasey7990]

Sorry. The Courier was not even a Ford design. It was a badge-engineered Mazda. Then the rolls flipped and after a couple years of the Ranger, the Mazda B 2300 and 3000, were nothing more than a Ranger with different grill and tail lights.

[@johnnymason2460]

​@@tonychasey7990 You forgot about the Mazda B4000 pickup. It was also a rebadged Ford Ranger(with different styling).