Yeah, a 440 in a Charger SE/500 and Charger R/T are probably the same or
close too. But what made the Charger R/T an R/T?
BECAUSE DODGE MADE IT, BADGED IT, AND SHIPPED IT THAT WAY!
It's that simple, not sure what is so hard to understand here.....
-Ryan
99 DA RC R/T
Yeah, it's a real R/T.......
-------Original Message-------
From: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
Date: Thursday, December 13, 2001 09:09:00 PM
To: dakota-truck@BUFFNET.NET
Subject: RE: DML: Quad cab 3.9 R/T..It sure fools....
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