Uh, yeah, I know that. Sorry I wasn't clear on that...
-- Remove .your.underwear to reply -- ""Ryan Beverlin"" <streetdak@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OE28tVz9olN5SBY0WSh0000f5d6@hotmail.com... > There is no Turbo 4 Dakota , its a natural aspirated 2.5 4 cyl TBI , you'd > have to create that yourself > Ryan Beverlin > (1992 Dak Carbed V8 Conversion) > http://home.houston.rr.com/burnout/ryan.html > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mrdancer" <mrdancer2@home.your.underwear.com> > To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net> > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 7:55 AM > Subject: Re: DML: 4cyl dakotas Was Which Dakota > > > > ""kwreimer"" <kwreimer@email.msn.com> wrote in message > > news:004301c15437$bf716a20$d572103f@pavilion... > > > I am not trying to be an Ass, but why even bother owning or wanting a > > truck > > > like the Dak with a 4-cylinder motor, I just feel it is a waste of money > > and > > > the truck must be a SLUG? > > > > If I lived in the mountains, I would seriously consider setting up a > > 4-cylinder vehicle with a turbo (or supercharger). Why? Because I like a > > vehicle that handles well (esp. on those mountain curves)[1], the turbo is > > necessary to maintain positive (or high!) pressure in that thin mountain > > air, and a turbo-four truck would probably stomp a normally-aspirated V8 > at > > that altitude (especially in the curves)[2]. > > > > [1] the four-cylinder's weight savings (even with turbo or supercharger) > > would provide beneficial handling over the V8 > > > > [2] see 1 (above) > > -- > > Remove .your.underwear to reply > > -- > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:03:17 EDT