00 GT are rated at 285HP and the V6 Sport is rated at 195HP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven St.Laurent
Test Engineer
Test Branch, GSD,MCTSSA
MARCORSYSCOM, US Marine Corps
mailto:stlaurents@mctssa.usmc.mil (work)
mailto:Saint1958@home.com (home)
Office: (760) 725-2296
-----Original Message-----
From: George Hernandez [mailto:georgeh@tocquigny.com]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 6:28 AM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: R/T versus 5.0 Stang
'96 was the first year of the 4.6L motor. I personally think most years of
Stangs w/ that engine are slugs. They're heavy and rated at about 225HP with
much less torque than the Dakota. On the dyno, most I have seen only pulled
about 150-170HP Granted there is a weight difference I think superior torque
will pull you ahead from the line. Hot Rod got a Dakota R/T regular cab to
pull
a 14.68 by manually shifting back in 98 I think. On the other hand the Hot
Rod
test Mustang only pulled a "blazin" 14.4 (corrected) after headers, cam,
heads
and a variety of bolt on's. It was an auto, but even in my personal
experience,
the best I have seen a 4.6 stang pull is a low 15 when bone stock.
I would say go for it! You'll never know until you try...
Bob Tom wrote:
> At 12:38 AM 2/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >I'm sure this has been discussed a million times before but I'm curious
> >since my friend has a '96 5.0 Mustang GT. I guess I'm wondering how
things
> >would turn out with a Stock CC R/T against a Stock 5 Litre before I make
a
> >fool out of myself and get my doors blown off??
>
> The best that I've seen a stock (absolutely nothing added) CC R/T up here
was
> 15.0x. I do believe that the last 5 words in your message is a real
> possibility and most likely end result.
>
> Bob. Southern Ontario, Canada.
> '97 Dakota CC Sport, FR, 5.2L, 3.55 SG, auto.
-- George Hernandez Tocquigny Advertising + Design 512.329.8065 ext.135 Fax: 512.328.5645
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:47:53 EDT