The vinyl decal dummy :))))
hehehehe
""Bernd D. Ratsch"" <bernd@texas.net> wrote in message
news:000201c18442$92bad3f0$040aa8c0@homenet.com...
> Now if you want to get technical...the 5.9L in the "R/T" is the same as
> the Ram, Durango, and Vans. (Cam, Heads, Intake, TB, Exh.
> Manifolds...they're identical.)
>
> So what "really" makes it an R/T??
>
> - Bernd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET] On Behalf Of Andy Levy
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 7:21 PM
> To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
> Subject: Re: DML: Quad cab 3.9 R/T..It sure fools....
>
>
> Don't know what car shows you're going to, but every one I've been to a
> lot
> of people label their cars with "matching numbers" to prove to people
> that
> they *haven't* done what you're saying here.
>
> I have to say I agree with TonyC here. Slapping R/T badges on a truck
> that
> couldn't possibly be one is no better than slapping Type-R on a base
> Civic
> that has some ricer bodywork stuck on with 3M tape. I don't care what
> work
> has been done to it, it's still not the genuine article. Swap your
> 4-cyl
> for a 360, fine, put 360 or 5.9 badges on the sucker - that's legit,
> I've
> got no problem there. But don't go calling it an R/T, because it's not.
>
> Chad Evans wrote:
>
> > your viewpoint sucks. if you have gone to shows like you say then you
> > should now that their are plenty of clone cars out there, that don't
> > advertise its a clone. say like a convertible hemi car, but the car
> > only came with a 318 to be in with. you going to go peel off stickers
> > every time you see something out of place just because it didn't come
> > that way. i've made my 99 5.2L to look like an r/t for alot less than
> > what it would have cost me to buy one.
> >
> > hemidak@msn.com
> >
> >>From: "TonyC" <acellan1@tampabay.rr.com>
> >>Reply-To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
> >>To: <dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET>
> >>Subject: Re: DML: Quad cab 3.9 R/T..It sure fools....
> >>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:23:33 -0500
> >>
> >>Err, Umm...
> >>
> >>As the owner of both a 98 Sport 5.2 V8 and 2K R/T, may I add my .02
> >>here??
> >>I can see 97-98 5.2s sporting an R/T decal. Since R/Ts had not been
> >>introduced to the market yet, and MP had the
> cam/computer/intake/exhaust
> >>package available and was calling it the 'R/T' kit, if you've made
> these
> >>mods, sported it up a bit, by ALL means, go ahead and call it an 'R/T'
> >>(you're probalby quicker than my nearly stock R/T PB 14.58@92+).
> >>
> >>BUT if you're gonna call a 4 cyl,6cyl, or a 99 5.2, 2K&up 4.7 an R/T,
> >>you are NO BETTER than the ricers with badging from different makes,
> >>or engine packages that are not available for their vehicles.
> >>
> >>If you have gone through all of the trouble to make a full on clone,
> >>360, flares, painted the bumpers, etc, then it is still a clone. Call
>
> >>it what you may, but just remember to let the next owner know the
> >>truth when you're selling it to them.
> >>
> >>I'm not trying to be an arrogant R/T owner here. My viewpoint has
> >>been honed after many years of owning older Mopar musclecars (67
> >>Plymouth Satellite Conv 383 4bbl,4spd, 3.23SG - recently sold), and
> >>attending and judging shows.
> >>
> >>TonyC
>
> --
> -andy
> andylevy@yahoo.com
> Maintainer, DML FAQ - http://www.dakota-truck.net/faq/
> http://home.twcny.rr.com/andylevy/dakota/
> '99 CC 4x4 318 auto
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:03:41 EDT