I have the 2.2L in my Shadow, and while I miss my Dak terribly and the
other truck is not drivable the way I have it pulled apart ;o) - if I
had to go to a car, the Shadow was a great one. Though I will say, for
someone used to driving the 3.9L Dakota, to head down to a non turbo
2.2L sucks unless you have the stick shift. My car's an auto, the one
my friend has which is being converted to an autocrossing car is
manual... I much prefer the manual.
~ lora
*****************************
"Between Daks"
'94 Dodge Shadow - 2.2L/A-413
'69 Ford F-100 - FE360/3 on the tree - Currently Under Restoration
'98 Dodge Dakota Sport - R.I.P.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of steve
preston
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 10:46 PM
To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
Subject: DML: Was:dodge owns mitsubishi? Now,ode to 2.2/K-car
Yeah,a lot of people put down the 2.2 because of
(wrist pin-induced?) knock,and some head and head
gasket failure. But the 2.2 is an extremely strong
engine capable of over 300 hp easily with a good turbo
setup. Furthermore,the Chrysler "K" car is the MOST
RUGGED car in automotive history,considering
drivetrain and body/chassis integrity after 20+ years.
They make rattle a little,and ride kinda rough,but
they still run great,most of them. Toyota and Honda
cars may be known for engine dependability,but they do
not even approach the K-car,for vehicle longevity. I
am always amazed at the number of these cars still
driving around,with no visible rust,just some faded
paint. This in a state where rust thrives. Hondas and
Toyotas are not faring as well around here,with
complete body and frame rust-through in ten years
COMMON. Not common on a K-car. Steve P.
--- Tom Byrne <kerib@ptd.net> wrote:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:46:21 EST