Another Bad Merger for Chrysler?

More reason to buy the best 72-93 Dodge truck or van (not "mini" either) you can find and make it better, then drive the wheels off of it. If I had a couple of acres I'd be looking to buy up a fleet of them.but unfortunately I don't.

I don't care what brand you bring up. Each new generation is worse than what it replaced. I'd rather have a 94-02 Dodge than anything newer but I'd more rather have a 72-93 as a daily driver in today's world.
It is even more evident in the Dakota and Durango lines, the "evolution" that took place. I have had several 87-96 Dakota's, all have been great. But I hate the 99 that I have. Wouldn't give you a plum nickel for the generation after that.
Just as it is in the Fords and Chevy's. The last decent ford was a 97 and you had to get the heavy duty F250 at that. The last decent chevy was a 91, the last time you could by a new square body. 88-98 weren't terrible but not as good. 99 up? Forget it. Total junk. Common thing is the worse they are the higher the price goes. Seems backwards to me. In the 80s and 90s when base/clear paint came about the clear peeled but those trucks didn't rust near as bad as the newer versions. I mean what they aren't now making out of plastic that is. For what a new one costs they ought to guarantee without exception that they will not bubble and rust at all for at least 12-15 years, unless said truck works 24-7 in someplace like a salt mine or acid plant.
Which would be less than 1% of trucks on the road

all plumbing (brake, fuel, coolant lines) oughtta be pure stainless as well as the inner and outer rockers. Not talking just an overlay either (that actually traps moisture) for what a new truck costs all of this should be completely expected.