I remember a comparo of the Quad Cab with the
> 4.7/auto and the GMC Sierra (or Chevy) with I forget which engine.
Anyways, the
> GM had less weight, more HP, and more Torque, but still the Quad Cab beat
it in
> the quarter. The magazine asserted that the only logical explanation was
that
> either the new dual-ration tranny designed just for the 4.7 was really 'Da
> Shit', and/or the GM was rated at a higher HP and Torque number than was
> realistic. I would tend to believe more that the tranny is where the
credit
> should go, but of course I would like to think that the GM is just full of
it
> too.
You know, that reminds of one time I was reading a 4x4 mag at the library
(walmart) and it was comparing the new 4x4 full size trucks, Ford, Dodge
and chebby. well, this was with the new 99 chebs. As I "recall" the ram
with 360 was rated at 240 and dynoed at like 190or so at the rear wheels.
and the "almighty" cheby rated at 280 dynoed at 195! I might be a little
off on the numbers, but just wanted to say... why does GM over rate their
trucks.. and then claim to be the "most powerful...." etc? Then you get
those guys out there with their new sileverados saying "my 5.whatever will
smoke your little 230hp dodge" well, I love bursting their bubble! I
believe the full size cheby xcab with the 5.3 runs like mid to low 16's?
hahahahahaha In another article, the Ford triton actually outran the the
new chabby. Sheeeesh.. talk about GM doing anything it can to sell trucks!
=) (as you can tell, I don't like chebby trucks, saw waaaaaay too many in
Monroe)
DAK content: I can't wait to get my new QC
X---------------------CrawdaddY------------------------X
black98dak@home.com
http://www.geocities.com/LilBlakv8Dak
ICQ UIN# 2325710
AKA: Geoffrey Gaskin
New Orleans, La.
98 RC 5.2 3.55 nonLSD auto Stockland bedcover Carpet kit
K&N genII clone Flowmaster 8%tint Kenwood sound 255/60's
Best 1/4 GTech 15.49
X------------------------------------------------------X
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:54:26 EDT