Got another standard shift

[Stelcom66]

Since there was room in the driveway again for a truck a month and a half ago I purchased a '98 Chevy Silverado. It was a good vehicle for the price, but used gas much more than I anticipated and had to settle for an automatic. Then it started intermittently getting stuck in 4WD. I didn't want to deal with that and start putting money into the truck. I really wanted a V6 and manual transmission, quite rare in a full size pickup. Some would think I'm crazy - I traded the Chevy in for a '97 Dakota 2WD with the 3.9 V6 and 5 speed. I'm surprised the dealership did an 'upside down' deal - the Chevy was worth more than the Dodge even with the defect. I would have preferred full size 4WD, but this is fine. I have the option of just not driving the Dodge when it snows. It is a pleasure to drive - the V6 and the manual transmission seem like a great powertrain for the truck. It sounds and feels good. I was also pleased to see mine has the 3.21 axle ratio. If I tow anything it'll be a small utility trailer. The rpms at 65 mph are good around 2150 rpm. The Dakota has an upshift light which I've never had before. After buying the Dakota I wondered why sales weren't good enough to keep it in production, I think 2011 was the last year. And again, as before especially wonder why standard shifts are unpopular.

[ClutchFork]

Glad to hear you got another standard shift. Sounds like a nice truck. Yeah, why did they kill the Dakota, ther Ranger, the S10, and I think even the Colorado? The masses in america want big blobish hulking vehicles with every convenience and automatic and computerized feature. It's a different world.

[theholycow]

There is a user on here who has a rare GMT800 (1999-2007 GM full size) with V6 and manual transmission. I don't remember who but he was happy with it.

You can drive without 4WD in the winter. Snow tires and ballast help, but what you need most is practice.

Yeah, that's a bummer about the market not supporting compact pickups.

[potownrob]

well, the colorado i can understand - every review bags that I5 engine (amongst other things). as for the RWD dilemma, i've heard of people driving them in the snow with good tires, though i doubt it's half as safe as the 4WD.

edit: where does OP live??

[tankinbeans]

From what I understand, and I've never been in the market really for a truck, the mileage is pretty much the same and the hauling capabilities are reduced. Granted for every truck that is being used for trucky things there are twelve posers using them as the man sedan.

Wasn't the Colorado/Canyon supposed to take over for the S10/Sonoma (or whatever GMC's version was called)?

[IMBoring25]

Don't think 4WD is safer. Easier to get where you're going, yes, but if you can halfway drive and plan ahead RWD will do anything you need it to and if you can't drive or plan ahead, 4WD won't save you.

Yes, Colorado and Canyon replaced S-10 and Sonoma.

[tankinbeans]

Don't think 4WD is safer. Easier to get where you're going, yes, but if you can halfway drive and plan ahead RWD will do anything you need it to and if you can't drive or plan ahead, 4WD won't save you.

In the frozen Tundra I see far more 4x4 trucks and SUVlets in the ditch than I see cars. Everybody who has them seems to think that they will make up for a loss of traction...ON ICE. Meanwhile 4 times 0 traction is no better than 2 times 0 traction.

[theholycow]

From what I understand, and I've never been in the market really for a truck, the mileage is pretty much the same and the hauling capabilities are reduced. Granted for every truck that is being used for trucky things there are twelve posers using them as the man sedan.

Wasn't the Colorado/Canyon supposed to take over for the S10/Sonoma (or whatever GMC's version was called)?

Tow rating may be reduced, but not how much you can haul in the bed...the I5 may be no speed demon but base model compact pickups traditionally were not, and the Colorado/Canyon needn't be any better. It's still going to be plenty to haul more than the rated load at the same speed as everybody else on the road is going. The lowered towing capacity would likely be for the sake of the automatic transmission which would struggle and do a lot of heavily-loaded shifting with an underpowered engine. The trend for manual transmissions seems to be that they don't bother to build them strong enough to be rated for as heavy towing as the way they're rating automatics. Anyway, a decent driver with a manual transmission would merely have to be patient and could tow the same stuff just as safely.

Don't think 4WD is safer. Easier to get where you're going, yes, but if you can halfway drive and plan ahead RWD will do anything you need it to and if you can't drive or plan ahead, 4WD won't save you.

Yes, Colorado and Canyon replaced S-10 and Sonoma.

4WD isn't completely bereft of safety advantages, but it is nowhere near the panacea that people like to think it is. Its safety advantages are minor. It discourages thrust at one end of the vehicle from breaking traction causing that end of the vehicle to slide sideways. It connects front and rear axles, slightly reducing brake skidding. In a sideways skid, both axles get to thrust for a powerslide, if the driver is very good at that.

In the frozen Tundra I see far more 4x4 trucks and SUVlets in the ditch than I see cars. Everybody who has them seems to think that they will make up for a loss of traction...ON ICE. Meanwhile 4 times 0 traction is no better than 2 times 0 traction.

This. Not only does it make people think they can do more just because of the idea that they have 4WD, but it messes with their perception of available traction. When acceleration works well and doesn't cause sliding all over the place, a driver might not realize that there's very little traction available for steering and braking. It also encourages people to drive unnecessarily when it would be a better idea to stay in.

I gotta say though, I left my 4WD truck at home all winter with chains and plow mounted and drove my RWD Buick even in the snow, and that actually worked out great. I'm pretty damn good at it, apparently; credit also goes to the car's good weight distribution and my studded snow tires.

[Stelcom66]

In the 70s I only had RWD cars. My driveway now is at a slight angle, if I was to park the Dakota head in before clearing the driveway of snow I'd probably be stuck, my son was with his 4WD Ram in 2WD. As mentioned, snow tires, chains, and weight in the back would be a big help. For years town police cars were Ford Crown Victorias, most state police cars in Conn. still are. I don't get overconfident when driving my Subaru Forester, I've also seen 4WD vehicles (ironically more so than 2WD) in ditches or spun around the other way.

The Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon did offer a manual transmission, don't know if the Dakota did in it's final years. I'll admit the CVT in the company Jeep is nice, keeps the rpms low on the highway and responds well - but I wonder about durability. I've seen that discussion about the latest Subarus, the CVT models are rated for better fuel economy but they haven't been out there long enough to see how they'll hold out. Subaru had one in their 3 cylinder Justy years ago, I don't know about their durability. And some automatics are now 6 or 8 speeds??

[theholycow]

CVTs have been around long enough and don't seem to be horribly weak. I wouldn't want one anyway.

My driveway is quite steep and is made of rutted mud that used to be thoroughly covered in stone. Getting up it with 2wd is my biggest problem, though now that I have a plow it gets scraped clean enough that it works. I do park in the flat back yard once the driveway is slick. Speaking of which, 4wd gives you 3 wheels of parking brake...

[ClutchFork]

CVT is very interesting, but totally obscures the joys of "motoring" as it was understood in the days of yore. Other automatic transmission likewise.

[ClutchDisc]

I traded the Chevy in for a '97 Dakota 2WD with the 3.9 V6 and 5 speed.

Nice. Do you have any pictures of the truck?

[Squint]

CVT is very interesting, but totally obscures the joys of "motoring" as it was understood in the days of yore. Other automatic transmission likewise.

I don't know that many people care about the "days of yore motoring". I think many of us here do, but not many of your average drivers. They just care about point A to point B, not how they get there.

[ClutchFork]

CVT is very interesting, but totally obscures the joys of "motoring" as it was understood in the days of yore. Other automatic transmission likewise.

I don't know that many people care about the "days of yore motoring". I think many of us here do, but not many of your average drivers. They just care about point A to point B, not how they get there.

Most would prefer a Star Treck transporter to get from A to B. I would not mind for those long tedious trips, especially if the alternative is to fly. But for routine trips, I would hate to give up drivin my stick. Then I would have to go out driving for the fun of it, instead of having fun while getting where I need to go.

[Squint]

Then I would have to go out driving for the fun of it, instead of having fun while getting where I need to go.

That is exactly the feeling that I think most of us have, that your average person doesn't care about. I enjoy the getting from A to B sometimes more than the arrival at B.