| From | Message |
bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/03/2002
14:26:15
|
 Subject: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
i know that dodge makes the r/t 5.9 dakota and it has 4.10s and wide tires and a great suspension packageand is touted as a "fast " truck.....i does alright in the speed department.. it does great in the handling.... but the 92 - 93 5.2 the new magnum motors then were the fastest you know the one with the regular air cleaner that said magnum but had the new punch...... well i can remember article of the truck running low to mid fourteens racing on radials through the exhaust with stick short beads with some weight in back 3.91 gear... yet the rt 5.9 couldnt hold a candle to that... i am a mopar diehard and have had many of the coolest ones ever made its unfortunate to not see a supercharcher on the r/t or something..... the dakota has followed suit as many cars have the companies claim the cars are better quicker faster yet the numbers dont lie.... just like the ford rustang or 5. slow as i like to call them.... as much as i hate common as hell stangs the 5.0 was a much quicker car than the 4.6 cars much more simplistic and much more reliable and same with the older dakota...
|
CThomp
Dodge Dakota
1/03/2002
15:07:23
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Thats the longest run-on sentence I have ever seen in my entire life.
|
bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/03/2002
15:23:26
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes it was one of my longer run-on sentences, but one that is true. If you can only comment on the fashion to which i typed my entry then you must have little knowledge of the subject at hand. Furthermore there has got to be another thought wandering around your skull than;"This guy makes large run-on sentences". Thankyou
|
Bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/03/2002
15:24:43
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes it was one of my longer run-on sentences, but one that is true. If you can only comment on the fashion to which I typed my entry then you must have little knowledge of the subject at hand. Furthermore there has got to be another thought wandering around your skull than;"This guy makes large run-on sentences". Thankyou
|
CThomp
Dodge Dakota
1/03/2002
15:34:15
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Don't get all angry and excited. Other posters have fits when they can't read a post correctly. I was merely being constructive
If you rewrite your first post like your second it will be much easier to understand.
"racing on radials through the exhaust with stick short beads"
You've got to do better than that. Though it does sound like a cool truck.
|
Chris W
Dodge Dakota
1/03/2002
16:25:11
|  RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Are you saying the stock Ford 5.0-225hp, is faster than the stock Ford 4.6-260hp ?
I dont think so.
|
Bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/03/2002
16:30:47
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Chris the 5.0 was an underated motor first off the modular motors like the 4.7 in the dakota and the 4.6 in a stang are quite peaky on horsepower and torque... the 5.0 wasnt... and the overall car setup was faster..... a stock gt now can not run with a stock 87- 93 in the quarter it
|
92dakotahd
GenI
1/03/2002
16:32:16
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
I believe he was referring to the fact that the late 80s early 90s Stangs are faster than the newer 4.7s and that is a fact. Those cars are a feat of mechanical magic.
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
09:34:26
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, '92 and '93 5.2 engines had some differences as compared to the '94 and later otor and seemed to be faster but they weren't that fast. The best I have seen in a stock '92-'93 was very low 15s. I can't disagree with the first entry point by point because of the run on sentence. Sorry about being critical but I can't understand it. Anyway, you are wrong about the 5.0 Mustangs. Back on a warm and humid day we ran high 13s with a completely stock '02 Mustang. This was very close to what my '98 Trans Am runs and no stock 5.0 has been in that territory. No completely stock Mustang from the late 80s or early 90s had done that. I hate to flame you Bruce but I think you might be the one with a "little knowledge of the subject at hand". There are several more thoughts running around in my skull but I don't think they would be appreciated at this point.
P.S. FYI, 5.0s were actually OVER rated. They were rerated in the early 90s and dropped down. They had over rated them for years. They were dropped from 225 to 215 or 220 with no changes to the engine. This rating is done by pulling 5 engines off of the construction line and testing them. The h.p. rating comes from an average of the 5.
|
CThomp
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
10:22:12
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAH!
Told ya
I'm a jerk I know...but I do entertain myself
|
CThomp
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
10:25:59
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAH!
Told ya
I'm a jerk I know...but I do entertain myself
|
bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
11:05:30
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
underated motor as far as performance ... not in the numbers.... if you got a stock 4.6 stang to run in the thrirteens then i'll attend your driving school in lala land and i would love to hear the 60' time and 100' time and the mph for this run... and dragstrips only count not some blast down the road with your brother counting his fingers... and as far as a 92-93 dakota running fifteens thats bull cause my best freind has a 93 extended cab with an auto and 3.55's and he pulls fifteens .... the funny thing is the dakota i have because it is the perfect size my ram was too big to get down tight trails and the shelby is just plain cool even though it is slow as hell...im not a dakota fanatic but i am a vintage mopar fanatic the one thing i know about is time slips and fast cars i have had plenty of them and i have driven a stock dakota much faster than what you claim and my buddy even drove his 92 shortbed automatic 14.50 ever heard of a neutral drop thats what they did before people used different torque converters... please... lets hear the numbers on the timeslip and i will give in then
|
Snakebyte
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
12:24:13
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
bruce, I hate to say it, but you're a moron. I just got rid of my 99 Cobra with the 4.6. Only mods were K&N, and no-cat h-pipe. I ran the 1/4 mile in 13.614 @ 104.17mph with a 2.214 60ft, bald stock tires too. By no means am I a professional driver, this was my first rear wheel drive car even. This is the norm for stock Cobras (13.5s to 13.9s), and GTs run 13.8-14.2s. A stock 5.0 will never beet a stock 4.6!!! Fact. I raced a very clean stock '92 5.0 at SIR and beat the holy crap out of him by almost 2 seconds(he ran a 15.4, and consistent mid 15's all day.)A stock 5.0 would have to have a damn good driver just to get into the 14s. Oh yeah, you want the number to my driving school now? 1-800-dumb-a$$.
'02 Dakota
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
12:24:28
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Bruce, please, first of all take a writing course. You are killing me. I don't care how you punctuate or other such drivel. Just use some periods so my head will quit swimming while I try to decipher your writing. To address your mumble jumble about Dakotas/Rams/Mustangs, I don't carry a bunch of numbers around in my head and my friends Mustang has the time slips in it. I, too, am from an earlier and much simpler time. My first time slip for my '65 Belvedere is in a picture book and only has a car#, e.t., & m.p.h. No 60 ft.,1/8 info, nothing. So what? Any one can make up numbers. I am telling you facts. Your comparisons simply aren't feasible. I don't have a driving school. I don't even know where lala land is. Also, I have a hunch that I or no one else could teach you anything. Fact#1- 2002 Mustang/standard/? gears and less than 250 miles on the clock ran 14.2 first time down the track. 4th run was eliminations and he broke out at a 13.8?. Fact#2- Have never seen a stock RC/5.2/5 sp./3.92 run below 15.00. I have seen a number of them run and they just ani't that fast. Fact#3- Dakota R/Ts do not come with 4.10s. They come with 3.92s. My son just traded his '99 in because it was just too slow in stock trim. He puts his race money into his Firebird and Suzuki Bandit. Fact#4- We have a '95 5.0 sitting at my house. I am very aware of what Mustangs will run. Fact#5- Only brain damaged people would use "neutral drop". That was a dumb idea that some enterprising mechanic came up with to make money off of the teenagers.
So Bruce, when you rebut my statements I ask you to please make use of the dot(also known as a "period") to assist me in understanding your points.
Incidentally, you asked me to back up my info with 60 ft., 1/8, etc. but you haven't supported your point with anything but comparisons. Driving a Ram down a fire trail and being old doesn't make you knowledgeable about Mustangs/Dakotas/R/Ts/etc.
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
12:29:44
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Thanks Snakebyte for the numbers. They all appear to be in line with what I have witnessed.
Wayne Van Metre
'99 5.2 Dakota & '02 Trans Am
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
13:12:08
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Getting back to Dakotas... I have owned both a 93 V-8 2wd RC Dakota as well as a 2000 RC R/T and the R/T just plain smokes the 93 Stock to Stock. You couldn't get the 5-speed with the V-8 until 94 so you are really able to compare apples to apples with the 93 to the 2000. The 93 ran pure-stock, not completely broken in, with a 200 pund passenger a 15.9 1/4 mile. I did a few mods and got that down to quite a few 14.9 runs in reasonable weather at a sea level track (Sears Point). It was a great Dakota and I was really happy with it but we had to get rid of one of the cars when we bought our house and a 2 seat truck doesn't cut it in a family of 3. Now I can afford a 'hotrod' again so I got a 2000 R/T. While there are not any 1/4 mile tracks around where I live now I'm certain this R/T is quicker stock then the 93 was modified. To run the 14.9's with the 93 I really didn't have over $500 in mods, but mods are mods and with the same tricks on the 2000 I'm sure it would be low to mid 14's. Now if you were talking a 94 or 95 RC/5.2/5-speed/3.92 setup you might have an argument, just like the current 4.7/5-speed guys do. But that's just more an argument about how the transmission is better not the motor. I've read all the test I could find on Dakota's ever since I bought my 93 and the best stock number I have ever seen have come on a 98 CC R/T witch the testers got a 15.1 with. I've seen plenty of modded trucks tested. Mopar muscle did a series on a 94 RC 2wd Dakota automatic that went 15.87 stock, 15.04 with PCM and exhaust work 14.4 with a Vortech, 14.01 with MSD boost controller, 13.65 with cam and valve springs, and finally 13.25 with converter, valve body, and Micky Thompson drag radials. I think it's fair to estimate a R/T runs about a second quicker pure stock then a similar 5.2 gen II Dakota.
|
bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
16:37:12
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok you guys are wayyyyyyy off. Read the initial thread. I only spoke for two years of Dakota, a specific truck. Just read Wayne I know you must be able to deciphire through my idiocy. Snakebyte you need to read what you wrote you're speaking about a cobra, a cobra and a gt are night and day 2 cams, 4 cams ..etc. .... guys i dont get my jollies making things up and posting them on the internet trust me a have a couple nice rides right out in the driveway to prove any point i may have. Stop getting all flustered and read if you were to take two mustangs ... a 2001 gt with 3.55 gear and a 93 gt or lx 5.0 the 93 w/ the same gears the 93 would beat it by a few tenths, if you know what you are doing. The new gt's have no low end and no traction if you guy's have seen different great I have yet to....
p.s. Wayne neutral dropping came out when the torqueflite did in 1962 and they did it because the only alternative to a stock converter then was to cut open your stock converter and tinker or open a slant six converter and reweld it and stick that in its place....thats a shame that you had a 65 belvedere hopefully someone got it who knew what to do with it ... by the way I specialize in those speific year cars 63 - 65. plymouth and dodge I have Street and Max Wedge cars all over and even more 426 and 426 hemi and 413 parts and Hilborn injection setups from about ten different nastalgia racers .My very first car was a 63 Savoy. Wayne you should have definitely known about neutral dropping.
|
bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
16:37:44
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok you guys are wayyyyyyy off. Read the initial thread. I only spoke for two years of Dakota, a specific truck. Just read Wayne I know you must be able to deciphire through my idiocy. Snakebyte you need to read what you wrote you're speaking about a cobra, a cobra and a gt are night and day 2 cams, 4 cams ..etc. .... guys i dont get my jollies making things up and posting them on the internet trust me a have a couple nice rides right out in the driveway to prove any point i may have. Stop getting all flustered and read if you were to take two mustangs ... a 2001 gt with 3.55 gear and a 93 gt or lx 5.0 the 93 w/ the same gears the 93 would beat it by a few tenths, if you know what you are doing. The new gt's have no low end and no traction if you guy's have seen different great I have yet to....
p.s. Wayne neutral dropping came out when the torqueflite did in 1962 and they did it because the only alternative to a stock converter then was to cut open your stock converter and tinker or open a slant six converter and reweld it and stick that in its place....thats a shame that you had a 65 belvedere hopefully someone got it who knew what to do with it ... by the way I specialize in those speific year cars 63 - 65. plymouth and dodge I have Street and Max Wedge cars all over and even more 426 and 426 hemi and 413 parts and Hilborn injection setups from about ten different nastalgia racers .My very first car was a 63 Savoy. Wayne you should have definitely known about neutral dropping.
|
bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
16:41:43
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Hersbird you could get it in 92 - 93 with stick you had to order it with the v-8 itself not as the whole package they gave you that was like 800 dollars over the v-6 i have seen many of those trucks in stick stock.
|
bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
16:42:14
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Hersbird you could get it in 92 - 93 with stick you had to order it with the v-8 itself not as the whole package they gave you that was like 800 dollars over the v-6 i have seen many of those trucks in stick stock.
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
17:09:16
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
No use beating a dead horse. You've seen what you have and I've seen what I have. No stock '93 LX 5.0 has beat a 2001, all things being equal, at the track that I go to. The 2002 that my friend runs had no trouble with low end power or traction. Since he put the blower on it he does though.
As far as my '65 goes, yes, someone got it that "knew what to do with it". An ex friend borrowed it, got drunk, and totaled it out. I wish I could see your fleet of cars. Those were some of my favorites. Do you still run them?
We are more into newer stuff since my sons are putting most of the money out. Both of them drive Lightnings for daily use. The oldest is using his '95 rustang as a donor for a Cobra kit car. He also has a 6-71 blown 327 on a '23 Tee bucket that he built. Youngest son races a street legal '89 firebird. Only a low 11 sec. car but still has AC, elect. windows, criuse, etc. He, also, races a street bike. Guess we all got our toys.
Have a nice weekend everyone. I will be away from my computer for 3 whole days.:-)
P.S. You really should use more periods to break up the sentences for us, Bruce. (Sorry! Couldn't resist one more shot:-))
|
Mar
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
17:20:09
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Stock for stock a 4.6 will beat a 5.0. But once you start playing around with the the 5.0 is a lot faster. Then when you start adding superchargers and stuff its anyones game.
|
litlpunisher
GenIII
1/04/2002
17:42:59
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
there is no way a stock 89 5.0 will lose to a 95 4.6.Impossible
98 Dakota
Bottle fed 340ci
|
Snakebyte
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
17:44:29
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
brucey brucey brucey,
Were you not talking about 4.6L motors in mustangs? I don't care what kind it is, it's still a 4.6L. You were bashing the 4.6, I simply proved you stupid. Anyways, a '99-'02 GT can run 13.8 - 13.9s all night long. Didn't you say they couldn't hit 13s? A new GT has no torque down low? Pass me the bong dude. It has more than the Cobra down low(up high is a whole different story though). Please explain why a new GT would have less traction than a '93? BTW, Put a solid rear end in a Cobra, like a GT has, and you're talkin' low to mid 13s. How's that for a weenie 4.6?
A '93 vs. '01 GT? The '01 would still beat the '93 even if it was an automatic and convertible. You CANNOT compare them stock to stock. If I had a hammer, I'd hammer that into your brain. Some people...
|
Snakebyte
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
17:54:24
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
litlpoopy, are you serious? Another bruce huh? Oh btw, since Ford never made a '95 4.6, your comparison is over to begin with.
I think you meant '96, and even those will beat a 5.0 of any year. It's not even debatable. Think what you want though...
|
Mar
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
18:05:33
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Snakebite Im sorry but 4.6 5 speed is luckey to get in the 14.
|
Snakebyte
Dodge Dakota
1/04/2002
18:34:31
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
There is definitely more knowledge about trucks on this site than cars, that is obvious. (I'm trying to find something good out of all of this)
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
1/05/2002
02:03:29
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
I am absolutely positive Dodge did not make factory V-8 Magnum 5-speed Dakotas in 92 and 93. I went through a lot of work ordering one, and it was hard enough to convince the dealer a 2wd RC v-8 was good without having to put a huge non-refundable deposit. They thought the v-6 was plenty for the 2wd and only the 4x4 needed the v-8. At first a few dealers said the v-8 was only avaliable on the 4x4. I checked up and down and called the customer service lines and a 5-speed was not possible on 92-93 V-8 2wd. It was something of a big deal when they offered the 5-speed on the 94 model v-8's as it was new. I'm not trying to dog on you about this, I just happen to have owned the two Dakotas you are talking about personally. If you know Mopars you should know that a comparing a 318 to a 360 is like comparing a 383 to a 440. Both are great motors but with similar designs, there's no replacing that displacement. The 93 318 had two things I'd like on my R/T, the bigger exhaust manifolds and return style feul system. But those two things don't make up for 43 cubic inches.
|
bruce
Dodge Dakota
1/05/2002
11:00:51
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Hersbird if you know drag - racing then you know that one of the biggest things affecting a cars time is the weight of the car.... 100 lbs is a tenth .... and anything on the rolling stock is 10 times more critical.Then you have the placement of the weight. It does take the whole vehicle to run the 1/4 not just the motor.
The 273 from the sixties would smoke todays 360 it isnt all in the cubes. Also the rod ratio on a 318 is better suited to get its rpm faster than a 360 is.. The other big deal was the intake on the 92 - 93 magnum.... and i have the truck i am speaking of 1992 shortbed, regular cab, 5 speed, 3.91, 318 ordered from dodge ... not ordered as the package the truck was ordered as the 3.9 until we got to the very end and then i said i want to substitue the 5.2 for the 3.9 .... dealers never want to sell an ordered vehichle they want to move there inventory maybe thats why they hassled you... they wanted to give me a package that came with the woodgrain and seating and the air.... i said nope just the engine it cost me more to order just the engine than it would have to buy the whole group
|
JohnnhyJaguar
Dodge Dakota
1/05/2002
11:14:24
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
I currently have both a 93 RC Auto 390 LS, and a RC 02 RT. Both bone stock. I have never raced them against each other. although I feel the RT with its traction advantage and better shifting trans. would have the win in the 1/4 by at least a few tenths. The RTs more powerful engine is ofset by the 93s lighter weight. So it is probobly a great race if the 93 has the stick, which was definately available at the time. Anyone at it long enough knows that a stick is a great advantage in slower vehicles (I will say 11.99 and up). The bottom line is a few tenths either way is to close to matter . anyone that has enough miles on both will chose the RT hands down everytime.
|
billybob
Dodge Dakota
1/06/2002
10:36:05
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
what a bunch of self-ritious drivel by the self appointed, self annointed, forum gods
|
JohnnyJaguar
Dodge Dakota
1/06/2002
10:41:14
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Yup thatd be us.
|
Hersbird
Dodge Dakota
1/06/2002
22:00:11
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
My 93 was not a package truck, and it was not taken from dealer stock. It had the options individually picked and it was very clear the automatic was a required 'option' with the v-8, exactly the same as the 360 and automatic are required 'options' with the current R/T package. It is possibe that the early 92's were still able to receive the 5-speed from the 91 less powerful v-8 before Dodge realized it wouldn't stand up well behind the much more powerful magnum motor. Then it was available again with some changes that reduced the power in the 94 year. I also don't think anything that ever came with the 273 has ever run in the 14's pure stock where lots of 360 stuff has. I'd say a Baracuda Formula S would be the fastest stock 273 and it would have sold a lot better had it been able to run in the 14's. High 15's to 16's is more like it. It's often deceiving on why a smaller motor runs better then a bigger motor of the same design. Usually the smaller motor was a purpose built performance motor with top of the line parts. If those same tricks were applied to the bigger motor the bigger motor will always win out. The best example was the when the 340 duster was changed to the 360 duster in 74. There were really no other changes to the car but the 340 was replaced with the 360 fitted with all the 340's old performance parts. The 360 had 5 more HP and 25 more ft-lbs of torque then the 340 with less compression. Even the 318 lost 40 ft-lbs of torque over the same year. That 245 hp the 74 360 had was highest small block mopar rated under the 'net' (not 'gross') standards until it was unseated by the 98 R/T Dakota. I'd admit that the 92-93 318 was the best 318 ever produced. The problem is I think the 360 is hands down the best small block mopar ever with the 98-2000 R/T motor being the best 360 ever. The only wrench in the gears may be the 70 340 sixpack motor, which in a perfect tune, is the small block king.
|
Jake
Dodge Dakota
1/06/2002
22:29:40
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
92-93 is the high water mark for horsepower for the Magnum 5.2.The reason for the higher rating (230 vs. 220hp in 1994 and newer) is due to a larger exhaust and slightly bigger camshat.
Early 92 autos came with a 1600 rpm stall, while later 92's and 93's have a looser 2000rpm torque converter.
The 5 speed in my truck is living fine behind my 5.2(not stock) that is putting 252rwhp using the stock clutch, CalTracs and Nitto drag radials.
|
Wayne
Dodge Dakota
1/07/2002
19:40:41
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, I can see this thread went nowhere while I was gone. See you in another thread that makes more sense. L8er
|
Chris W
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/08/2002
23:06:31
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
This comes straight out of Motor/Trend:
Stock Ford 4.6 runs 0-60 in 5.4 sec.
1/4 mile in 14.o @ 100.2 mph.
These numbers seem to run right with the other major auto mags. Car@Driver puts the 4.6 0-60 time at 5.9 seconds.
Regardless of how you look at it the new STOCK 4.6 has better performance than the old STOCK 5.0 pushrod motor.
A lot of folks refuse to believe in the specs that magazine tests come up with, but I for one will never have the time or money to conduct tests even close to the acuuracy that they do.
remember their credibility is on the line, and they need to stay somewhat non-biased in their reporting.
I for one refuse to discuss or debate cars or trucks that have been "modded out" due to the gross exagerations, lack of readilly availlable, credible stats, and just plain old B.S. that some people dish out.
|
Mopar Cowboy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/12/2002
18:34:24
|  RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Now come on guys. The 92 to mid 93 also had larger exhaust manifolds and complete larger systems. I have a 93 C.C 4x4 318, auto, 3.55 and at the time was stock, open rearend, and crossed the scale at almost 5000 Lbs. It knocked down many mid 15sec passes and even more stock 5.0 mustangs.... Oh sorry it wasn't stock, had K&N drop in filtr but the A/C was on if that makes a differance.
|
sandman
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/12/2002
22:01:21
|  RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Guys the 80's mustangs needed Geritol to get off the line!!!!!!!! It had realy bad handeling!!! You might recall that when the Ford Taurus SHO came out it was spanking 5.0 Mustangs easily. One of my friends dads owned one of both. He would normaly make us take the 5.0 Mustang. We only got to take the SHO when we knew the cops would be out in large numbers because it did not scream sports car. I will say this though. The 5.0 mustang had alot of potential and could be modified for alot more power on the cheap!
|
bernd
*GenIII*
1/13/2002
00:36:58
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
Didn't anyone notice the wrong gears on the original post? They NEVER came with 4.10's. 3.92:1 is the only option for them. (Unless you really begged and pleaded at the dealer.) ;)
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT - V6
Supercharged/Intercooled @ 10# w/Nitrous
14.55 @ 96.01mph
|
CW
GenIII
1/13/2002
00:40:40
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
I noticed that is the reason i didn't argure with him. If he can't get his facts right what is the point.
2001 RC 4.7 5sp 9.25" 3.92 LSD
Ported throttle body, IAT adjuster, 3" flowmaster cat back, TPS @ .76V, 4" cold air, roadmaster active suspention
|
Kyle M.
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
1/13/2002
02:21:18
| RE: 92- 93 dakota the fasted produced!!!
IP: Logged
Message:
A very intersting thing happened tonight!!!! I own a 1993 Dak 3.9 V-6 Magnum and I pulled up next to a newer 5.9 R/T Regular Cab. We raced off the line and he couldn't even get half his truck past me and barely won. Then we raced again from about 25mph and I stayed a little past him for about 2 blocks and then we had to stop!!! As far as I know my 3.9 is all stock. This is no joke either.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
