Yeah,.......................I remberer..................... seeing those
Daytonas in my rear view mirrors, except during winter time.
Mark Kuzia
flyboy01@mediaone.net
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/flyboy01/home.html
1995 Dakota 13.79 @ 102.45 mph
360ci, 5-spd, 4.11 LS(8 3/4 coming soon), Cowl-induction
(A new E-body 8 3/4 [3.90 SG] has been built by Reider Racing)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam South" <sawcut64@mediaone.net>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 9:34 AM
Subject: DML: Re: Shelby outrunning a Dak
> Hey I had an 89 Daytona Shelby too but mine was quite a bit faster then
16.1
> all I did was a straight pipe from cat out (no muffler)which gave more
> boost, a home made ram air, a drop in K@N and split fire plugs. It was
> running high 14's, the trick with a front driver is rev the engine up to
> 3500-3800 and slip the clutch just enough to get the tires spinning
slightly
> then power shift the other gears. I used to love doing burnouts and
watching
> the smoke pour over the hood. FUN!!!
> Sam South
> 95 Dak, V-8,3.90 LSD,5-speed
> 14.10@98.05
> http://people.mw.mediaone.net/sawcut64/home.html
> sawcut64@mediaone.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick and Kelly Engram" <patrickandkelly@erols.com>
> To: "DML" <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 8:29 AM
> Subject: DML: Shelby outrunning a Dak
>
>
> > I've had a little experience with FWD Shelby's. The first Shelby I had
> > was an '89 Daytona, with the Turbo II motor and 5 spd. This had a
> > little over 175 hp and only came with a stick. The Turbo I motor could
> > be had with the automatic in the ES Turbo model, and barely cracked 150
> > hp. The fastest that I ran with my '89 was 16.1 seconds in the quarter,
> > and that was with spooling the turbo up to speed, and dumping the clutch
> > at 4500 rpms. It just wouldnt go faster...It felt fast though, and the
> > problem was waiting for the boost to kick in. That wait added precious
> > time to the ET, but when the boost came on, it came on hard.
> > In 1990, they revised the turbo system to become the VNT Turbo,
> > (variable nozzle) this was done to try to reduce the boost lag, and
> > supposedly the cars picked up ET down to 15.7's. Then, the IROC R/T was
> > released with a 4 valve per cylinder Lotus cylinder head and
> > turbocharged, which dropped it into the 14's. Then, the V6 3.0L became
> > the engine for the last year of IROC R/T, I believe.
> > Now, the Shelby Charger was a different model altogether, and started
> > in '83 with a H.O. 2.2L engine, no turbo. Fairly quick car. The turbo
> > was put in either late '84 or in '85. The fastest one was the '87, with
> > changes in cams, computer stuff, and turbo equipment. There was a
> > limited release of an additional Shelby Charger that was made in black
> > only, had the new Turbo II engine, and ran 14's stock. There were about
> > 1000 made, and it was a GLHS model, or something of the like. All of
> > these models were 5 speeds. The last year for the Charger was '87 or
> > '88
> > The Daytona in it's last body style never had skunk stripes on it, but
> > did have flip up headlights. The charger models never had flip ups, but
> > did have 1 stripe on it, went from deck lid, onto roof, and then onto
> > hood.
> > I owned a few Shelby Chargers, and with the Turbo II, it felt fast and
> > went fast. There was turbo lag, but less than the Daytona (I'd expect
> > that it felt different because of the weight difference) and when it
> > took off, it was everything you could do to hold the wheel straight
> > because of the torque steer and power it put down. I never raced any of
> > them, but they felt easily in the 14's. My biggest problem was with the
> > handling. I put the mopar perfomance suspension under my '87, and could
> > get the car to hug the road so well with V-rated tires that the left
> > front tire would rub the side of the transaxle case, and I'd have to
> > back off and slow down. Real pisser, cause that car felt like it was on
> > rails.
> > These cars are easily modified for additional power and speed, and if
> > it was a Charger that got someone on the list that started this thread,
> > I wouldnt feel so bad. Now, if it was a Daytona, it really had to
> > depend on what motor was in the thing, or what the guy had done to it.
> > Patrick
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:58:07 EDT