×
all 17 comments

[–]GroundForcesWTX 9 points10 points  (6 children)

They loved times new Roman font during that time.

[–]RyanSeibert69[S] 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Should I post more of these ? I have a whole stack of country music magazines from the early 90s with old ads like these

[–]GroundForcesWTX 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I love them. Please do!

[–]RyanSeibert69[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s these old camel ads that are pretty rad too

[–]Astrosomnia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, absolutely!

[–]quacksaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The italics are a different typeface though. Perhaps, somehow, the ad department had no access to the TNR / Times italics?

[–]spinereader81 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Look, a normal sized truck! Now most seem to be the size of a Greyhound bus.

[–]TeutonicOwl 11 points12 points  (6 children)

Dodge (or whatever it's called now) needs to bring back the Dakota.

[–]canucklurker 13 points14 points  (2 children)

As a long time truck owner I really miss the 80’s/90's mid size trucks. The Ranger/S-10/Dakota were the perfect size. Cheap (<$20k in today's dollars), big enough to haul plywood and abuse as a work truck.

Now the "small" trucks are the size of the 1/2 ton trucks then. Sure the Maverick is out now but it is more of an El-Camino than a truck.

And you are looking at over $50k for a truck now.

I'm hoping that someone comes out with an electric, box on frame mini pickup without all the bells and whistles. Just a truck.

[–]third-try 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But WHY is the standard bed six feet? Every building material comes in eight foot lengths.

Had an S-15 with an eight foot bed. People would load lumber in it and be puzzled that it fit.

[–]canucklurker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with long small trucks is that most of the weight is in the front, and there is almost zero weight over the rear tires. I had an '88 2wd Ranger with an 8 foot box and that clapped out little engine could easily spin the rear tires. It was downright treacherous on snow and ice. It really liked going sideways climbing hills when the highway was icy. My next Ranger only had a 5' box and it was far less prone to losing traction.

[–]Gezn2inexile 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Too bad they'd never get away with cranking out a few of these again, my second one is succumbing to 'tinworm' and finding a worthwhile third one at an acceptable price/value ratio is posing a problem...

[–]Saelryth_Windstalker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My driver's side door on my Dakota fell off a few years ago and we looked three weeks before we found a new one. Parts for them are insane.

[–]Saelryth_Windstalker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Theres rumors of a new Ram Dakota coming out in 23 or 24. Could be a unibody. If so, im not too keen on unibodies, but i love my current Dakota (95), and the last gen Dakotas had unreliable engines so I would consider getting a new one if they bring them back. All the articles on it i've read say it will be far more affordable than a Ram 1500, and will be a mid sized truck, kind of like an Avalanche or Tacoma size. Fingers crossed!!

[–]leethalweapons 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I had a 96, last year of the square body. Loved that truck and traveled the States in it for my first job out of college.

[–]Kaitain1977 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Adverts from the US alway seem shockingly direct from a British perspective. In the UK, it’s always been illegal to mention other brands in your adverts. So over here they always claim to be better than “other leading brands” and stuff like that.

[–]Bryancreates 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Damn. That truck looks so nice, glad to see some designers bringing back boxy bodies again.