Thanks for the backup Shawn. I kinda have a feeling that 20MPH would make a
difference. LOL. I doubt I get 21MPG regurlarly, because I tend to do a
lotta jack rabbit starts and such locally, my 21MPG was on a short trip. I
need to get an average from normal driving locally sometime, see how it
differs.
-Ryan
99 DA RC R/T
21MPG is cool.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET]On Behalf Of Shane Moseley
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 5:51 AM
To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
Subject: Re: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
I beg to differ there. Try a head-on collision at 65 and 85 and then
re-issue
your opinion (if you are still with us). I personally have survived a 55mph
(my
car) + 65mph (oncoming car). Thats like doing 120mph into a brick wall.
I'm
not sure I would have survived if me or the other driver were doing even a
few
mph more. Both of us crippled for life is a testament to that.
On the other point - I just logged 16.7 and 17.4mpg on a 600mi round trip
w/my
118K mile, modded 360 in a heavier Ram (averaging about 72mph) so I think
Ryan's
assertion could be true.
Latr,
Shane
Kevin wrote:
> Crash test are done at 35 M.p.h. and you see what that does to a vehicle.
65
> or 85 will not make that much of a difference. If you are driving safely
at
> 65 or 85 it does not make a difference.Your arguments are invalid, and if
> you are getting 21 mpg then surely you are driving like an old
grandmother.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Stewart" <firebird@kymtnnet.org>
> To: <dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 06:55
> Subject: RE: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
>
> > Well, thansk for saying I'm lying'have no math skills. :/ I got 21MPG
the
> > only time I bothered to check. The one difference I have is I normally
> drive
> > between 60-65. I see you guys running on AVERAGE at ridiculous speeds
like
> > 85MPH! THAT'S WHY YOUR GAS MILEAGE SUCKS! Get a clue! I may make a WOT
> romp
> > up to 85-110 fairly often, but I would never think of jsut driving down
> > theroad and keeping a totally uncalled for speed like that. And just
> because
> > that's the speed everyone else is going doesn't do it for me either,
> you'll
> > think that when ya have an accident at 85MPH....
> >
> > -Ryan
> > 99 DA RC R/T
> > Craziness.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET]On Behalf Of Shawn Bowen
> > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 9:05 PM
> > To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > Subject: RE: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> >
> >
> > Man, I'm glad to see someone else who has good math skills;-)... I get
> > frustrated with all the high mileage claims, I DO believe the 4.7 is a
> more
> > efficient engine but the 5.2's and 5.9's flat out suck the gas out of
the
> > tank. Who needs a fuel pump when you have a 5 liter!;-)
> >
> > Shawn
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET]On Behalf Of Richard A Pyburn
> > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 2:17 PM
> > To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > Subject: Re: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> >
> > Hey, Shawn ~
> >
> > I agree with you. Some people just can't accept reality. I was getting
15
> > mpg in city driving with my 318 before the S/C. Since the S/C I get 12
> > -13 with no difference in driving habits ( when I get on it for pesky
> > BMW's and shit, I don't count the mileage). I've gotten 17 on the
> > highway. My CC weighed in at 3805 lbs at HRP last fall (pre S/C).
> >
> > I see you got the larger K&N cone, too. The one that came with the S/C
> > collapsed for me. Glad to see that you have determined that the bypass
> > valve is working for you.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Richard in San Antonio
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:53:55 -0700 "Shawn Bowen" <Shawn@bowen.com>
> > writes:
> > > I got to say this, either my truck is just a gas PIG or people are
> > > blowing
> > > smoke out of there ass. I get at most 14MPG from mine on the HWY on
> > > cruise.
> > > Now I do have a good bit of stuff done to it, and it is running rich
> > > at WOT,
> > > but I can't see how a 5.9 can get better mileage than my 5.2... I
> > > usually
> > > run 80 - 85 on the HWY. 93 Octane.
> > >
> > > Shawn
> > > 98 5.2L 4x4 CC
> > > PowerDyne at 9PSI with a real intake (K&N 6x9 Cone)
> > > Bernd's magic blow off valve (works well!)
> > > DynoMax Catback
> > > JBA Ceramic Headers
> > > F&B 52MM TB
> > > Leach custom flash
> > > MSD Ignition & Wires
> > > Crower 1.7 RR's, HP pushrods, HP springs, valve covers
> > > Autolite 3922's
> > > Black Magic Fan (ditched the clutch fan)
> > > Currently 3.55 Gears
> > > A bunch of other stuff but I'm tired of typing;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET]On Behalf Of Ronald Wong
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 7:38 AM
> > > To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> > > Subject: RE: DML: 4.7 vs 5.9
> > >
> > > <<There are several people on the list who get 20-22 MPG on the
> > > highway with
> > > their
> > > R/Ts.>>
> > >
> > > That's sitting in their driveway with the ignition off! ;-D
> > >
> > >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
> >
> >
-- '96 IndyRam-HisIndy-MPI TB Pulleys RTcam MPComp HVoilpump DynaGearDoubleRoller WindageTray CompTAs '96 IndyRam-HerIndy-numbered(#142)"Track Truck" '74 Triple-Black Dodge Challenger Rallye 360 EFI R&D vehicle '93 Dakota CC 318 - soon to be mine 8)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:12 EDT