>Sam Parthemer wrote:
>>
>> Matt Kunkel wrote:
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> > I'm sorry but I can't sit hear and listen to this one sided view any
>>longer.
>> > I like Dakotas very much and I think they are great trucks and have the
>> > possiblity to be fast. It is probably the best truck out there. But you
>> > say 'Ford 5-point-slow Pusstangs'. I have to bring you back down to earth.
>> > You shouldn't even compare them, but I will for you. First of all, there is
>> > no way in hell that your dakota can compete with a mustang in speed and
>> > handling. Most stock 5.0L mustang LXs are running mid to low 6-sec range
>> > 0-60. The dakota is left in the dust at about 8-sec, maybe on a good day.
>> > Most of you all are doing lots work to your dakota to get mustang like
>> > times. Second, a mustang handles like a cat and a dakota handles like a
>> > yacht. Enough said on that.
>>
>> Well, yes, and no... The 5-point-... was a cheap shot, but probably
>> was meant in jest. If you were to compare any vehicle to a Dakota, only
>> the
>> mustang is even close. 5.0 vs. 5.2, both V8's of similar HP... What
>> can
>> you compare a mustang to?? A camaro?? Not likely, the camaro (again
>> stock vs. stock)(however you spell it!) beats the mustang hands
>> down...So
>> given that, most Mustangs 'pick' on other cars of dissimilar abilities
>> day in and day out (Grand Nationals need not reply, we know who you are
>> and what you can do..and well, anyway)... If you were to make the
>> tables
>> even with the mustang (lighten the Dakota, evenly distribute the weight
>> front/rear, give it a set of duals like a mustang (stock), and competent
>> rubber wrapped around the rims...not to mention the aerodynamics of the
>> mustang...The dakota would beat it easily). Now, in my case I have
>> merely done modifications to offset my trucks weak points (heavy weight,
>> poor aerodynamics)... Given that, I have raced 5.0's on the street, and
>> won...and on the 1/4 mi and lost (by a mere 1' of a nose)...The
>> car I went up against had a Borla exhaust, underdrive pullies, and
>> a K&N open air kit... And after the run I pulled up along side, and
>> with an ear-ear grin I said "Hey, that was close...That was a great
>> run." The other driver's only remarks were excuses: "I had a lot
>> of trouble off the line, I was really late, and bogged badly." We
>> both had close R/T (.610 [me] vs. .614 [him]) He won!!, but JEEZ...
>> To top off the day a guy in a new '97 Z28 took me on on the drive
>> home... He had me at the 1/4 mile, but was even by 1/2 mile, and
>> I was 3-4 car lengths ahead by 1 mile...Again, I do drive a truck..
>>
>> > Mustangs and Dakotas are in no where near the same class. A mustangs is
>> > built for speed and performance. A dakota is built to be able to carry
>> > cargo and tackle rough terrain. It is kind of like comparing a
>>Ferrari to a
>> > Hummer. The dakota has great possiblities. With work it could be one hell
>> > of a sleeper that would challenge many sports cars, but the same work could
>> > be done on a mustang and it would dust almost everything out there. I like
>> > the dakota very much as a truck, but as a sports car, the dakota will neve
>> > be a Mustang!
>> >
>> > Matt
>>
>> Agreed, but wouldn't you rather have the Lamborgini SUV???
>> (A little bit of Hummer meets Ferrari...) The Dakota is a very unique
>> vehicle... Can tow up to 7000# (7100 on my truck & year), rides like
>> a car (somewhat), yet with a little modification (that doesn't affect
>> mileage or drivebility) can haul some serious butt... Of the cars I
>> went up against on the 1/4 mile...Only 1 vehicle could do 50% or more
>> of the things my dakota can do... It was a 69 El Camino... It ran 110mph
>> @ 13.2 in the 1/4 mile, is fully streetable, and the only things it
>> probably couldn't or should do would be to go off roading and towing
>> a boat/trailer...(Hmm.. sounds like a truck to me) All other vehicles
>> were either non-practical (4wd Eagle talon 2+2), VW bug, or
>> transportation
>> (Mustang, Camaro).
>>
>> So easy up a bit, take a deep breath, and remain calm....You're
>> in Dakota country!!
>>
>> (Sounds kinda corny now, but It's the thought that counts!)
>>
>> ..Sam '95 SLT
>>
>> BTW:
>> Some Dakota owners are 'jerks' out there...ran into one today...
>> The guy cut in front of me, and slowed down... I signalled,
>> got in the next lane, and he did it again...Cut me off, and
>> slowed down in front of me... I couldn't figure it out...
>>
>> Then I realize what was going on.. He wanted to meet up with
>> me at the next street light... It seems we had a guy with a
>> blue V8 dakota that wanted a little fun...
>>
>> Poor guy, I wish I had batteries in my camera, I would have
>> LOVED to post the pictures...
>>
>> *For the AUTO lovers out there, it was a 5 speed vs. 5 speed...
>>
>> I guess the throws from 2nd to 3rd were a bit to much for
>> the other guy :) :) :)...
>>
>> ..Later..
>Well...if you want to start comparing Dakotas to mustangs.
> why don't we bring up the limited edition Shelby Dakotas that Caroll
>Shelby made to make things interesting...as far as handling and 0-60
>times I think my '89 will definatly keep up with the fords...and if that
>isn't enough I'll get my '70 Cuda...
> Remeber FORD stands for:
> Found
> On
> Road
> Dead
>
>Don
>'89 Shelby Dakota owner
>#282
==================================REPLY=====================================
=========
If only would Chrysler had a V-8 RWD Avenger then the real test would be
the answer.
MOPAR#1 FORD #2 CHEVY#3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:37 EDT