RE: Hemi Dakota? Not Likely.

From: Chad Evans (hemidak@msn.com)
Date: Wed Oct 06 2004 - 04:35:04 EDT


another reason that DC doesnt get the market

>From: "Stlaurent CIV Steven" <steven.stlaurent@usmc.mil>
>Reply-To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
>To: <dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net>
>Subject: RE: DML: Hemi Dakota? Not Likely.
>Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:54:35 -0700
>
>
>My thoughts exactly.
>
>If the 4.7 fits in the GEN IV, so can the Hemi 5.7 and 6.1 fit in the GEN
>IV.
>
>--------------------------------------
>Steven St.Laurent
>Test Engineer
>Ground Systems, GCE Team
>System Test Branch
>SE&I Support Division, MCTSSA
>MARCORSYSCOM, U.S. Marine Corps
>
>Office (760) 725-2506 (DSN: 365)
>Cell: (760) 622-9105
>"If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith."
>- Albert Einstein .
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Chad Evans [mailto:hemidak@msn.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:28
>To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
>Subject: RE: DML: Hemi Dakota? Not Likely.
>
>
>there reasoning for it not fitting is BS. the new "hemi" has already been
>put in a gen3 dakota. that is suppose to be a smaller truck now!! you woudl
>think that if it is a bigger truck than the previous one it would have a
>bigger engine bay.
>
>
> >From: "Stlaurent CIV Steven" <steven.stlaurent@usmc.mil>
> >Reply-To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> >To: <dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net>
> >Subject: DML: Hemi Dakota? Not Likely.
> >Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:44:34 -0700
> >
> >
> >Not going to happen anytime soon.
> >
> >It was reported early this year, even some spy pics were captured, that a
> >few test mules were made with a 5.7-Hemi and even soon a 6.1 for TEST
> >PURPOSES ONLY and NOT FOR PRODUCTION.
> >
> >It was already told in auto magazine by the Program Manager, to add a 5.7
> >hemi into the engine bay would require some extensive wheel well, frame
>and
> >front end changes. In another words: $$$$$$$$$
> >
> >However, insider at Allpar mentioned 'WOULD YOU SETTLE FOR FORCE
> >INDUCTION?' Maybe this was a hint towards the SRT version.
> >
> >--------------------------------------
> >Steven St.Laurent
> >Test Engineer
> >Ground Systems, GCE Team
> >System Test Branch
> >SE&I Support Division, MCTSSA
> >MARCORSYSCOM, U.S. Marine Corps
> >
> >Office (760) 725-2506 (DSN: 365)
> >Cell: (760) 622-9105
> >"If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith."
> >- Albert Einstein .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >From: Rick Barnes [mailto:barnesrv@comcast.net]
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 4:55
> >To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> >Subject: RE: DML: DCX News: Dakota engine choices and performance grows
> >
> >
> >I wish they did monitor this site, maybe then they would have thought
>more
> >about putting a HEMI in the DAKOTA!!!! Ahem....mah name is Rascal W.
> >Bushbrains and I approved this here message...
> >
> >Rascal
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> >[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Bernd D.
> >Ratsch
> >Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 10:06 PM
> >To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> >Subject: RE: DML: DCX News: Dakota engine choices and performance grows
> >
> >
> >
> >Yup...totally correct. I would also hope that NDA's weren't broken (as
> >they
> >are with internal information being posted to the public without proper
> >consent). Even as a tech, there are a lot of things that I can't post as
> >some of the internal info that I see isn't for public viewing (until
> >released).
> >
> >Be careful with what you post - DC does monitor the larger websites that
> >are
> >Dodge/Chrysler related.
> >
> >- Bernd
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> >[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of andy levy
> >Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 7:36 PM
> >To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
> >Subject: Re: DML: DCX News: Dakota engine choices and performance grows
> >
> >If you need a "special account" or have be a DCX employee to access the
> >information, doesn't that imply that the information is not for
> >dissemination to the general public? Otherwise, wouldn't it be on
> >http://media.daimlerchrysler.com or in an actual press release? I have
> >access to lots of "news" at work which, if my employer found I had been
> >posting online, would land me in a heap of trouble. Some things aren't
> >supposed to be broadcast.
> >
> >- --
> >- -andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 01 2004 - 10:47:42 EST