Dakota Production Could Pick Up and Move To Argentina

Dakota Production May Pickup and Move To Argentina

Earlier this month, we told you that Ram Dakota production is scheduled to end by 2011. The Dakota first went on sale in 1987, creating the midsize pickup segment as an alternative to compact and full-size trucks.

But this might not be the end of the road for Dakota.

Ram Brand CEO Fred Diaz told PickupTrucks.com that the Dakota could still live on in markets outside the U.S. Now, we have a bit more information from Cristiano Rattazzi, president of Fiat Argentina. Rattazzi says that the Dakota could be produced at Fiat's plant in Cordoba, Argentina.

"There's room at the plant," said Rattazzi, in an interview with the TV show Autotecnica. "It won't happen tomorrow, but the possibility [of building the Dakota in Cordoba] exists."

Chrysler and Fiat are already working together to test manufacturing approaches for the Dakota as part of the new Chrysler-Fiat global alliance, Rattazzi said.

Why would Fiat continue manufacturing this timeworn truck? Building the Dakota in Argentina could give Fiat a quick and relatively low cost solution to compete directly against a brand new midsize entrant in South America - the Volkswagen Amarok. Volkswagen has already started Amarok production at its plant in Pacheco, Argentina, for sale in South America, Australia, Europe and Africa starting early next year.

Fiat wouldn't necessarily be starting from ground zero with the Dakota, either. Chrysler produced the second-generation Dakota at a factory in Brazil from 1998 to 2002.

[Source: Puntobiz]


Maybe FIAT could build a Chrysler Cordoba.....in CORDOBA!

Ram Dakota wtf !! Seriously,that sounds stupid....

I still cant get over the Ram brand...wierd,wierd,wierd !!!!

I want a Charger Challenger now !!! Charger Caravan !!!

Why not just call all of Dodge, Jeep,Chrysler vehicles Chrysler's 1 brand makes more sense than making a model a brand...Wierd !!!!!!! Ram Dakota lol !!!!

Ram- Perhaps because they can keep or sell off or keep the Ram brand if Chrysler tanks. Honestly it doesn't sound all that bad really. Ford doesn't name their trucks and neither did GM for a long time. There might not be any Dakota name plate soon anyhow. Who's to say they don't make the unibody Dakota a Dodge or give it a number designation? The Durango has been tip toeing on the edge of being discontinued as well.

I just dont get it,whats going on with this company?.Killing a very good truck,all they have to do is give this truck a better ground clearence,update the interior,maybe a little touch up for the front end,like chrome bumper option.Oh.. better price too.I think price is very close to ram and this is hurting sales.Killing dakota is wrong, when Ford is considering F-100 or bigger Ranger.Oh... thats right i forgot..they wanna compete with Honda ridgeline...ok....good luck with that...

This Company is Run by People that have never sold cars in the United States and they think, any plan that works in Italy can and will work in the United States. They listen to nobody.
Its either Surgeo"s way or the Highway.

"The Pride is Back Born in America Again!!!! HA HA HA HA

Ram brand issue aside...let's not get our hopes up of getting the next Dakota yet...If they do decide to produce this vehicle in Argentina - just like it's apparently difficult to get the global Ranger in the US - the same could be for the Dakota. Maybe get VW to make a Dodge or Ram Dakota - maybe a bad idea...Look at the Dodge Caravan/Chrysler Townandcountry/VW Routan minivan setup. The Routan isn't selling that well. Just don't make the same mistake with Ram that GMC made. Crossovers and uni-bodies dont have a place in a predominantly truck/BOF brand.

The biggest problems with the current Dakota, as I see it, are the poor fuel economy and price. Here in Canada, a new Dakota is basically the same price as a Ram. Second, there is no fuel economy savings between the Dakota and the Ram. So why would someone choose to buy the Dakota? This, I think, is the flaw in Chysler's market strategy.

Key points:
1) no longer Dodge
2) Fiat (Italian) owned
3) Made in Argentina
4) No longer a truck but a unibody SUV

Yuck, that dakota has a minivan looking front!

I never understook why the relatively low front profile dakota couldn't have better fuel economy. I hate to see it go. It's a nice sized pickup and perfect for a small diesel engine.

If they made the Dakota in Argentina they would not be able to import it back into the US as the "chicken Tax" would apply. I wonder how Dodge avoids the tax with the trucks made in Mexico? Must be okay under NAFTA? If they are planning to compete against the VW Amarok it would explain the rumor of a unibody Dakota. The current Dakota would just be a transition vehicle.

Oh well,I bought a 2010 Dodge Ram 1500 Laramie HEMI quadcab today...love it !!!!My old man is getting first dibs on the new 2010 Heavy Duty dually 3500 coming sooooon!!! Awesome trucks !!!

The Dakota in Argentina ,Chrysler is used to selling its older designs/factories to other companies (I know it is still Chrysler Fiat)The 2006-older style Sebring is being built in Russia as the old Omni was being built there as well until recently..And if you ever noticed the vehicles they have there the Dakota should do well ..

The problem with the dakota is that its priced around the ram and gets the same gas mileage....whats the point of it?

I'm amazed that nobody saw the obvious here.

The company that gave us the Chrysler Cordoba will now have a Cordoba Chrysler product!

I think some of you missed something. I read it as the plan was to build the current Dakota in Argentina for sale outside the US and for the US to get a unibody design or get rid of the Dakota altogether.

FYI the reason for no success here in the US is due to a few reasons. One is Dakota was plagued with problems. I know no fewer than 8 people who owned them and all of them got plenty of shop time for various reasons. Ball joints being one big one. None of these trucks were kept past their warranty period because of it. Another is fuel economy. As was mentioned before why would anyone want a mid sized truck that gets fullsized truck mileage. It defeats the purpose and unless I need to fit it in a small parking space, I'll take the room of the fullsize over the Dakota every time. Ford may be upscaling the Ranger but I will assure you it will get better mpg than the F150, just like the Tacoma betters the Tundra and the Frontier betters the Titan. Dodge out smarted themselves cramming a V8 in it to give it the most capability. This was long before Fiat came along.

The Argentinean built Dakota will suck big time, as does the Argentinean built Ford Ranger and Toyota Hilux, both of which have serious reliability issues. Ford and Toy dealers in Central America prefer to import from Thailand instead.

Here lies the problem with the 05-10 Dodge Dakota's. 1st its grossly overweight. 2nd It cost just as much as a Dodge Ram. 3rd Its plain fugly. 4th Its no longer the fun tossable truck it once was. This comes from mulitple Dodge Dakota owner 88,92,95,99 All of which I still own and still love because of their reliability and awesome looks. I went and test drove the remodel in 05 was totally discouraged from the Dakota because its enimic 4.7l and its drab styling. Its resent makeover has helped a little bit in the performance side but its still ugly as ever. If Dodge would ever listen to their previous Dakota owners they would have still have a hit on their side and wouldn't have to think about giving it a early retirement. Give the Dakota a Chance FIAT just give it back its roots and unDiamler it and it will be a hit once again.

This is for the record. I owned a 1994 Dakota Club Cab 4x2, 3.9L V6 Magnum, AX-15 Transaxle for 12 years. I traded it in with 270,563 miles on the odometer back it 2006 for a 2001 Dakota Quad Cab 4x4, 4.7L V8, Automatic that currently has 153,211 miles on it. Reliability problems? Look what I just wrote and see for yourself. The problem with the current Dakota is that it is not much smaller than a full size Ram and priced about the same. There has been so much speculation as to what Fiat will do. We still don't really know. It wasn't until after WW II that Dodge Trucks came around, before that they were called Graham. Ford trucks outside of the US were called Mercury before the mid 70's. GMC for non-US. Personally, my current Dakota may become my last US Brand vehicle that I'll ever buy again. Unless I buy a Jeep.

". It wasn't until after WW II that Dodge Trucks came around, before that they were called Graham. Ford trucks outside of the US were called Mercury before the mid 70's. GMC for non-US" Personally, my current Dakota may become my last US Brand vehicle that I'll ever buy again. Unless I buy a Jeep."

You have a bit right: GMC was used for some non- US products outside of that : Graham Trucks were a separate company that had nothing to with Dodge or Chrysler; Mercury was used in Canada as well as Ford; England had Fordson and Thames

I have owned a 4cyl ranger ad v6 dakota 02 and i currently own a v8 dakota quad cab ive had zero problems with either dakota i had the v6 for 50 k miles and the v8 dakta has been either mine or my dads for 130k miles and nothing outside of oilchagnes etc. have been needed and i had the ranger for 50k miles and same thing w/ the v6 dakota i averaged around 18-20 mpg(much better than any ram) and around 13-15 w/ the dakota only slightly better than a ram of the same year w/ the v8 the dakota becomes and almost full size truck so you get almost full size mpg it only makes sense

Chyrsler is gettin screwed up. What happened to the awesome second generation lineup from 94-01 that was the best lineup of pickup trucks I have ever seen. The new dakota not only looks ugly but has terrible milage for a truck of its size plus it cant tow/hual near as much as its big brother (the ram 1500) I still wouldnt move it argentina i would give it a face lift, and squeeze some more MPG out of it and beef up the suspension a bit and you have a nice little truck

The comments to this entry are closed.