1987 Dodge Dakota Base Standard Cab Pickup 2-door 3.9l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chrysler Recalling 870,000 SUVs For Brake Defect

Chrysler is recalling nearly 870,000 SUVs because corrosion may make the vehicles' brakes harder to use. Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SUVs from the 2011 through 2014 model years are involved. Chrysler says crimp joints in the brake boosters can corrode if they're exposed to water. If the water freezes, the boosters won't aid braking as they usually do. Chrysler began investigating after some customers said their brakes felt too firm when pressed down. The company knows of one accident, but no injuries, due to the defect. Dealers will install a shield to protect the boosters for free and replace boosters that aren't working properly. Chrysler has since changed the design to make the boosters more corrosion resistant. Chrysler will notify owners of the recall, which involves 867,795 vehicles. Related Gallery Safest Crossovers For The Budget-Conscious Family View 10 Photos Recalls Chrysler Dodge

Chrysler recalling 67k trucks with manual transmissions

Earlier this month, Chrysler announced the recall of some 280,000 pickup trucks over concerns that their axles could seize up. Now the automaker has announced an entirely separate recall of another 66,819 trucks over the springs that could break in the clutch ignition interlock switch. The recall affects Dodge Ram 1500, 2500 and 3500 pickups, as well as the Dodge Dakota and Mitsubishi Raider. The issue is relevant only to those trucks fitted with manual transmissions, from the 2006 and 2007 model years and manufactured between July 1, 2005, and July 31, 2006. Since a broken spring could, according to statements issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and FCA US LLC (previously known as the Chrysler Group) prevent the vehicle from starting, or cause it to move unintentionally once the ignition kicks over, the automaker will begin notifying owners of the affected vehicles just before Valentine's Day to bring their trucks into their local dealers to have the clutch ignition interlock switch replaced. FCA emphasizes, however, that the unintended movement would only occur "in rare cases" and only "if recommended starting procedures are not followed." Only one such case is known to have occurred, but it did regrettably result in a fatality. Statement: Clutch Ignition Interlock Switch December 29, 2014 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - FCA US LLC is launching a voluntary global recall of an estimated 66,819 older-model pickup trucks equipped with manual transmissions. The Company will replace their clutch ignition interlock switches at no charge to customers. An investigation by FCA US engineers discovered switches in certain model-year 2006 and 2007 pickups may be equipped with spring wire that differs from wire used in previous switches. The alternate wire may break and, as a result, the vehicles may not start. In rare cases, a vehicle may – if recommended starting procedures are not followed – exhibit unintended movement when its ignition key is turned. The Company is aware of one fatality related to this campaign. It stemmed from the single known accident involving this population of vehicles. The recall covers certain Dodge Dakota, Dodge Ram 1500, 2500, 3500 and Mitsubishi Raider pickups. Switches with the alternate wire were not used in any vehicles produced before July of 2005, or after June of 2006. The Dakota and Raider are no longer in production.

Dodge vs. Chevy tug-of-war taken to the extreme

They say "idle hands are the devil's playground," but said playgrounds grow to Disney-sized proportions when a pair of jacked-up trucks, two egos, a chain and an empty mall parking lot are involved. Proof of this is the video below, which shows a Cummins-powered Dodge Ram circa 2006 to 2008 chained tail-to-tail with what looks to be a gasoline-powered Chevrolet Silverado from the late 1990s or early 2000s.
We don't necessarily have to tell you who wins this battle, but we'll let you see for yourself the lengths the "winning" driver goes to prove his point. There's plenty of foul language in the video below, so beware that this might be Not Safe For Work, and not that we should have to tell you, but please, do not try this at home.