yea, I bet people would if it was also cheap
Mitch Haley wrote:
Curt Raymond wrote:
By amazing I really mean a helluva lot more than anybody really needs. All that
power in the Dakota is good for is ruining tires.
In 1987, my dad bought a '85 Chevy with manny tranny and 4.3L V6. It was as
powerful as the '76 with 350 4bbl it replaced, and got noticeably better mpg.
That was an advance, we gained 4wd and 4mpg without giving anything up.
What I miss are the small cars and small pickups with small prices and small
fuel consumption. Park a 1981 Escort on the scales, and then follow it up
with a 2007 Focus. Remember mini pickups in the 1970's? They gave way to
vehicles like the Ranger and S-10, which got upstaged by the larger Dakota,
and then all three proceeded to grow incrementally until the Ranger and
Colorado weigh as much as a 1985 full size pickup, and generally have more
power. The Dakota would have been considered portly for a full size truck
twenty years ago. But I don't think we could go back. If somebody made a
2100lb pickup with no back seat option and a 50 hp diesel would anybody
want it today, even if it got 50 mpg?
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
--
Kaleb C. Striplin/Claremore, OK
91 300D 2.5 Turbo, 90 420SEL, 89 560SEL, 87 420SEL, 87 300SDL,
85 380SE, 85 300D, 84 190D 2.2, 83 300TD, 81 300TD, 81 240D,
76 240D, 76 300D, 74 240D, 73 280SEL 4.5, 72 250C, 69 250
http://www.striplin.net
