"Droo" <03dakotaCC4.7_4x4@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3EB822D8.8090203@comcast.net...
> 130 hp? That sounds low to me. I took my 96 3.9 out to the track one
> night. Did 17.2 in the 1/4 and scaled it at 3980 lbs. Run that through
> some equations and I get about 154 hp at the wheels.
>
> --
> -Droo
> Email: 03dakotaCC4.7_4x4@comcast.net
I was hoping more towards 140-150 myself, but I think my craptacular
slushbox of a trans is eating more than it's should to be. If you do the
math, 20% of 175 (at the crank advertised, right?) is 35hp. Subtract that
and you end up with 140hp at the rear wheels. There's gotta be something
else going on there b/c sometimes it pulls WAY harder than others. I
checked the fluid level and it's golden, and does not smell funny at all.
Leads me to believe that this trans (that was put in 10/2002 and has only
seen about 18K miles) is just about toast. I've adjusted the TV cable a few
times and that makes a difference for a little while and then it's back to
the same old tricks. If (when) it blows up, I'm either putting an auto from
APS Precision in there (built to take a 100 shot - at least) or just doing
the switchover to a manual. If I go that route I'll probably put an NV2500
in there and swap the rear end to a 4:10 posi unit. It all depends on my
financial status when it goes.
How durable are the APS transmissions? Will it take the SEVERE beating that
I'll be handing it? The first trans managed to last about 34K miles and it
seems that the rebuild (which is signed/dated by the tech that built it)
just isn't up to snuff performance wise. The truck gets used pretty heavily
for autoX racing, drag racing, and just crusing around town.
-- - Josh Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:46:18 EST