Best of Breed, But Still Uninspiring...

Every car or truck on the market can be viewed as either a leader or a follower. It either blazes its own trail, or it boldly goes where everyone and his granddad has gone before. In pickups, you usually divide up the market by the time-honored size based categories. In the old days (which I define as anything older than 2000), trucks were viewed as compact or full sized, and full-size trucks were further divided by its rough cargo capacity (e.g., 3/4 ton).

When the Dodge Dakota was first introduced, it muddied the waters, making clear-cut divisions harder. It wasn't any of the convenient kinds of trucks that people where used to driving. It was too big to be a compact, but too small to be full-size. It was a truck that blazed its own trail into a bold new category called the "mid-size".

In 2006, the pickup truck market has changed considerably from just 5 years ago. Dakota used to be the only mid-size. Today, every compact truck has gotten fattened up and bloated so much that they're all mid-size trucks (except for Ford Ranger --- the only real compact left standing --- not counting Ranger's identical twin, the Mazda B-series, because we all know these are really just one truck).

Where there were once no comparable vehicles to Dakota, there are now at least 10. So, how does Dodge Dakota stack up to the competition in 2006, and is a mid-size truck right for you in the first place?

Let's take a look at the Dakota...


Exterior: Curb Appeal
Perhaps one of the reasons I like the Dakota better than any other mid-size truck is its styling. It looks like its big brother, the Dodge Ram, right down to the same protruding nose and the same kind of flaring body lines and overall proportions. Dakota looks like a full-size truck that got slimmed down, not a compact truck that got fattened up.

While I do like the overall proportions of the vehicle, I don't like that the bed length gets shortened along with the whole truck. In my opinion, a 6-1/2 foot bed is inadequate and the 5-foot and change bed on the Quad cab is just a glorified trunk.

It's not a bad looking truck though...


Interior: Comfort and Usability
The almost spartan look of the interior and dashboard of the Dakota speak volumes about its focus on straightforward work. The no-nonsense angular look of the dash is hard on the eyes at first look, but it belies a fundamental ease of use that's more elegant than it looks on a first impression.

The ugly dash grows on you. It becomes more beautiful as you actually drive the vehicle for a couple days and see how easy it is to use. Every control is pretty much where you really want it and operates like you would expect it. There's no creative placement of controls in bizarre places and no kludgey digital displays with bizarre feature abbreviations that require a PhD in manual decoding to figure out.

This is going to come as a shock to folks who think I bash every product for poor usability, but the Dakota is actually pretty good as far as intuitive, easy to use controls. (Except that having a tachometer on a vehicle with an automatic transmission is an utter waste of dash space, in my opinion.)

Can I find fault? Oh, sure. After driving the Dakota for the past 3 days, I found that the cruise control operation was somewhat confusing. I like that it was controlled only from the steering wheel, but I didn't like having to activate and set the initial speed from the left side of the steering wheel while adjusting the speed or turning it off from the right side. Ideally, I'd like one simple control that did it all (perhaps dispensing altogether with the enabling and initializing step and integrating functions with the Accel/Decel operation).

I thought it was weird having a recessed panel under the radio and climate controls, but I like that the airbag switch is a bit hidden (though I wish there was a more obvious indicator somewhere as to whether or not it was actually turned on). At first, I thought it was stupid having a power outlet inside the armrest console, but eventually it dawned on me that it was actually a pretty practical gimmick since it let me leave my cell phone charging without having to leave the phone in plain sight of larcenous souls who might be strolling about looking into vehicles to see what's worth stealing.

That center console is deep too. I used it to ditch my cell phone, but there's plenty of room for bigger devices, like portable DVD players. I guess it's to make up for the inadequate space of the glove box.

I liked the straightforward round gauges on the dash and they do look very cool in their luminscent blue glow at night, although the fake wood trim on the front of the radio/climate control panel doesn't seem in harmony with the futuristic dash display nor with the spartan, angular look of the dash as a whole. But I suppose making it all harmonious would fall into the Fancy Pants school of feministic auto design, and we certainly don't want to go there! (Not with one of the few masculine trucks left in the world.)

The seats looked spartan, without frills or adornment, but they were fairly comfortable, even after almost 3 hours of driving. The fabric felt thin and a bit slick/satiny to me, but it was better than fluffy velour or corduroy.

I don't like the standard club cab. It's kind of nice to have the option of a couple jump seats in the back, but they're really too small and inadequate for anything more than a kid on a short trip (I pity the poor adult who ever tries to do a long ride back there). The seats are thin and uncomfortable anyway. Most folks will probably just leave 'em folded up and use the room to store junk, though it's not a lot of space and anything more taxing than a duffle bag and a few six packs of beer will be beyond its limitations.


Drivability: Power and Performance
The truck I drove had the 4.7L Magnum V8. It's an optional engine, and it's pretty powerful in small truck terms, though the gas mileage on it sucks and the power isn't all that great compared to what you could do for the same money spent on a full-size truck. The Dakota handles very well though, and it's a generally enjoyable drive in a competent pickup.

The ad mavens at Chrysler likes to boast about Dakota having the only V8 in the mid-size market, but to be honest, it's not that impressive a feat.

While the Dakota's 4.7L Magnum V8 is a capable engine, it's not the mind-blower of a power plant that you might expect from a V8 since it only kicks out 230 horses. You really can't count on it to outpower competitors because high-end V6s from other manufacturers can match or beat what Dodge can do with a V8. For example, Dakota's V8 does 230 hp with 290 foot pounds of torque while Toyota Tacoma's V6 can do 236 hp with 266 foot pounds of torque; so while Dakota will outpower the Toyota in pulling muscle, Toyota would probably outrun Dakota on an open highway. And indeed, if we just look at the manufacturer specs, we see that the Dakota can pull about a half-ton more than a Tacoma. Now that might not matter to most folks, but if you are one of the two or three people in the U.S. who actually buy pickups to do real work, the Dakota will out-muscle the trendier Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, or Isuzu "fattened baby" pickups.

As far as day-to-day performance goes for real-world drivers, Dakota is more than adequate and will be up to just about any light duty job you'll lay out for it. It will haul a boat or a camper, no problem. And it's plenty zippy enough for daily empty driving.

Like all trucks, you can't expect to do a fast start on wet or icy pavement though. Friday was raining like a hog dog in the Houston area, and I was rudely reminded of truck handling quirks when I tromped on the gas just like I do with my little dinky Scion. With an unloaded rear-wheel drive vehicle coupled to a good-sized V8, the back end slides like Bush's popularity ratings.

I though the handling was excellent. I was actually able to turn considerably tighter than I expected when doing a U-turn and I noticed no sway or shifting when doing curves at normal speeds. My only complaint was that backing up was a bit of a pain because the pillar for the club cab blocked my sight line --- with a real standard cab, backing a trailer into a loading dock would be an easy exercise. With the extended cab, it's a chore.


Utility: Cargo Handling
With the extended club (Club Cab in Dodge-speak), the truck comes with a 6-1/2 foot bed. Short, in my opinion, but it's better than the inadequately dinky 5-foot bed that you get stuck with if you spring for the Quad Cab (which makes absolutely no sense, in my opinion, on a small truck).

I was hauling some stuff with this truck, and I found that it was great for just loading up a bunch of furniture, but lousy when it came to handling lumber. The truck bed could physically handle a 4-foot wide sheet of plywood, but it needed to lean up on one of the wheel wells --- this is an area where a genuine full-size bed would be handy --- I prefer sheets to lie flat, especially with more fragile material, like sheetrock, that could easily crack if hauled with a vehicle like the Dakota. Likewise, 2-by-4s hung off the tail gate, which I had to leave open anyway because of the odd angle of the plywood. I didn't have an extender, but with dinky truck beds, you'd really needs one.

I'd like to see the Dakota with the option of a a true 8-foot bed. That would be a great work truck...either that, or I'll continue to recommend genuine full-size trucks to anyone who really does use a pickup as a pickup and not as a bloated alternative to the more sensible family sedan.

By the numbers, the Dakota is supposed to handle a payload of 1,730 pounds, which should be almost enough to let me take my mother-in-law for a ride. (By the way, Dakota might be smaller than the new full-size Nissan Titan, but Titan has no bigger bed plus Dakota has the bigger payload capacity!)


Mid-Size Pickup Market: Competitive Comments
Sigh. So many too fat compact pickups to compete against Dakota, so few that really do anything better.

Of the close competitors to Dakota, I prefer the Dakota in most aspects. It's better looking, in my opinion, than any small/mid-size truck on the market. It's got better cargo and hauling capabilities for its size and power, though Dakota has always been overpriced.

In my opinion, pricing is too high on every mid-size truck on the market today, and the Dodge Dakota, at the upper end, is a poor value overall. You can't get one for under $20K. At those prices, you might as well look for a deal on a true full-size. I've seen dealer promo pricing on full-size Ram 1500s that's sometimes cheaper than their prices on Dakotas. That's insane. Why would anyone buy a Dakota? Yeah, it's better than a Chevy Colorado or a Toyota Tacoma, but big friggin' deal, you can still do soooo much better.

Fuel economy is poor on virtually all pickups, big or small, foriegn or domestic. The Dakota gets poor mileage at 15 mpg. In my opinion, this is one reason not to buy a smaller pickup: you can get almost as "good" gas mileage in a full-size, and can even beat it on some, substantially larger models.


Bottom Line
Sigh.

As much as I generally like driving the Dakota, and as much as I'd like to recommend some vehicle in the mid-size pickup class, I'm afraid that I really just don't recommend any mid-size truck for the 2006 model year. They are all overpriced and none offer power, features, or even economy advantages over what you can do with a good full-size. Look at the Dodge Dakota --- by all means --- but while you're at the dealer, take a look at the Ram 1500, and then compare it to full-size trucks from other companies. If I were buying a truck, I'd go full-size or I'd buy a different class vehicle altogether. That's my opinion anyway.

Dakota is a nice truck to rent, but I'm glad I'll be giving it back...