Who cares if it's an RT or not an RT with RT badging. These are all Personally Owned Vehicles and if someone wants to put badging on their truck, so be it. It really bugs me that some people get really pi$$ed off at other people because they had decided to personalize their trucks. I personally think it makes no sense to slam a truck and skateboard it, but if the owner is happy with it, good for him.
Besides I think with minor mods the 4.7 would beat an RT anyway. (LOL)
>>> kevinhoegen@email.com 12/13/01 22:06 PM >>>
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