Fiat/ chrysler o'boy here we go

-
We also LOVE our 2003 manual trans PT.

Extremely practical for carying passengers (OK, 2 of them) and "stuff".

Fun to drive with 5 speed, and decent maileage for a car with "older" technology (26.5 average).

Ours has been relatively dependable, although we did have the "poor ground electrically eats the wheel bearings" issue, and just put a fairly expensive timing belt on (a bit early, but better than bent valves). It has never left us stranded at any time.

I think it helped "turn" my wife, who was a previous Hyundai and Toyota owner.

If they had simply kept up and been competitive with the HHR, instead of surrendering the market....

When the Toyota "full size" truck entered the market (badged as "T-100"), it was actually much closer to Dakota dimensions than traditional full size American trucks.

The S-10 grew to be closer to Dakota size, and so did the Frontier.


I would also seriously consider a new(er) Challenger vert.

If mustang and camaro converibles sell, why can't a Challenger?
(and don't give me "too much cost" as an answer)

Maybe we could start a petition to bring back T tops!
I would LOVE a T top Callenger.
 
why buy a mid truck, I dont see any advantage over a full size. I've owned rangers and 4.3 s10's and dakotas. I bought a full size GMC 4.3 vortec that was a 97 and got 27/28 mpg (canadian gal.) which was better tha the s10 plus a bigger cab and full size box. The dakota was a 4X4 '18 which only got 18 mpg, so why not choose a ram. The ranger was a 4 banger and that thing barely sqeezed out 25 mpg.

This is why the mid size truck market is in the crapper, you get same milage with a full size

Also, like Jaimus my daily driver is a Z71 chebby(I like em fancy with leather and crap)..the new big horn rams and such with 20 inch tires look like lowriders rather than 4x4's.
 
YY1 said:
We also LOVE our 2003 manual trans PT.

Extremely practical for carying passengers (OK, 2 of them) and "stuff".

Fun to drive with 5 speed, and decent maileage for a car with "older" technology (26.5 average).

Ours has been relatively dependable, although we did have the "poor ground electrically eats the wheel bearings" issue, and just put a fairly expensive timing belt on (a bit early, but better than bent valves). It has never left us stranded at any time.

I think it helped "turn" my wife, who was a previous Hyundai and Toyota owner.

If they had simply kept up and been competitive with the HHR, instead of surrendering the market....

When the Toyota "full size" truck entered the market (badged as "T-100"), it was actually much closer to Dakota dimensions than traditional full size American trucks.

The S-10 grew to be closer to Dakota size, and so did the Frontier.


I would also seriously consider a new(er) Challenger vert.

If mustang and camaro converibles sell, why can't a Challenger?
(and don't give me "too much cost" as an answer)

Maybe we could start a petition to bring back T tops!
I would LOVE a T top Callenger.
Click to expand...

I AGREE COMPLETELY, the misses and me are looking for a nice newer technology cruiser for the two of us this summer (se says my express is too "loud") and the main must for us is a ragtop or t-tops

why the challenger doesn't offer this is beyond me....hate to do it but we'll probably buy a mid 2000's vette

really hate to - I love my old dodges and the new challenger was a perfect fit for a summer cruiser
 
YY1 said:
...
If mustang and camaro converibles sell, why can't a Challenger?
(and don't give me "too much cost" as an answer)
....
Click to expand...

Seeing as how most convertibles have a 10%+ weight penalty over the fixed roof version (and dear, God the Challenger is heavy already), I think the problem might be that they have yet to invent passenger car tires that will handle that kind of weight.

:D
 
MRGTX said:
Seeing as how most convertibles have a 10%+ weight penalty over the fixed roof version (and dear, God the Challenger is heavy already), I think the problem might be that they have yet to invent passenger car tires that will handle that kind of weight.

:D
Click to expand...

Odd. I would have thought that a convertible would be lighter.
 
lil red said:
why buy a mid truck, I dont see any advantage over a full size. I've owned rangers and 4.3 s10's and dakotas. I bought a full size GMC 4.3 vortec that was a 97 and got 27/28 mpg (canadian gal.) which was better tha the s10 plus a bigger cab and full size box. The dakota was a 4X4 '18 which only got 18 mpg, so why not choose a ram. The ranger was a 4 banger and that thing barely sqeezed out 25 mpg.

This is why the mid size truck market is in the crapper, you get same milage with a full size

Also, like Jaimus my daily driver is a Z71 chebby(I like em fancy with leather and crap)..the new big horn rams and such with 20 inch tires look like lowriders rather than 4x4's.
Click to expand...

For me personally it's the size (refer to my picture on page one. notice all of the room to pass?) If you get too close to the edge then you would roll a long way. I hunt here in the mountains and many of the state roads are not wide enough for two full size trucks to pass in many sections. It's not fun backing up for a quarter mile to let someone by. Trust me, I have owned a full size ram before trading it for my Dakota. I call pull my wheeler trailer and all of my camping/hunting gear no problem.
 
I suppose Badart, your situation is a little unique....couldn't imagine a new Ram big horn with 20's on it runnin those chains

around here our hunting roads involve bogs and swamps ( and 35 mud terrains)
 
lil red said:
I suppose Badart, your situation is a little unique....couldn't imagine a new Ram big horn with 20's on it runnin those chains

around here our hunting roads involve bogs and swamps ( and 35 mud terrains)
Click to expand...

Like this? I sold this one last year, it was too nice to take muddin'.
 

Attachments

  • Done small.jpg
    15.6 KB · Views: 72
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top