Re: They skipped Mopar!

From: Sam Parthemer (samp@cts.com)
Date: Fri Apr 18 1997 - 01:15:04 EDT


John Walker wrote:
>
> I can't believe the narrow mindedness of my fellow Dakota owners. I have
> always been a die hard Chrylser enthusiast, but I am willing to recognize
> other manufacturers achievements. Give credit where credit is due. All
> this talk about just a little modifications and my Dakota will run like a
*snip*
> Mustang is a bunch of shit. #1-The dakota sits 5" farther off of the ground
  ---------------------------

        (Sorry I couldn't resist..!)

> than a Mustang and it has a high center of gravity. #2-It doesn't have 16"
> or 17" Wheels nor does it have V or Z rated tread, at best a Dakota has
> Invicta's or Eagle LS's (What's the speed rating on those?). #3-It is a
> TRUCK, its gear ratios are spread apart for optimized towing, fuel
> efficiency, and general truck use, not for "slammin' in second". #4, it has
> aerodynamics of a brick wall. #5, What is its skidpad rating (.65 g?). It
> is a TRUCK and s Mustang is a High Performance Passenger Car (this should
> please the "sports car" debate) Yes, with a little work the Dakota can be
> made to handle extremely well and run extremely quick, but with an equal
> amount of work a Mustang can be made to FLY. Just remember guys, there is

        A mustang GT with JBA headers, vs. a Dakota with DT's and a free
flowing exhaust (which the GT already has) is a very EVEN match, and
quite frankly, a dakota can/will out power it.

> more to life than driving in a straight line. I don't know what roads you
> all are driving on, the ones I drive on have curves. I consider a Dakota a
> performance icon, but remember it is not marketed as a one.
>
> Matt specifically reffered to a 5.0L Mustang LX (1991-93). Out of the
> showroom at this time, there is NO stock Dakota that would take a stock
> Mustang LX (5.0). A base Mustang in this time period could be bought for
> around $13,000, so don't use cost as an argument guys!
>

        A '92 Shortbed, V8, automatic, 3.90 SG dakota could have been had
for a mere $12500 (plus tax/license/etc.)

> I love my Dakota and I plan to own a V8 Dak in the future. I consider it a
> performance vehicle with some practicallity involved. I plan on many
> modifications, but I will always know that it is not a passenger car,
> instead it is a new breed of modern muscle vehicles! They shouldn't be
> compared (I only did it to illustrate my point) at all. We shouldn't think
> that are vehicles are all-mighty, if we do, we will be brought down. Hell,

        It's more of 'root for the home team' atmosphere here, and a lot of
bench racing...

> if the Dakota had chrome-plated muffler bearings, it would be close to
> Mustang speeds, Add chrome valve covers, a chrome exhaust tip, and warm-air
> induction and the Mustang is in your rear-view mirror.
>
> John
        
        Huh? OH, I get it... sorry I thought that a glue sniffing joke...
Elmer's glue (Mustang- Horse- Glue...)

        GIVE IT A BREAK... Drive a V8 Dakota, you'll be suprised...

        I'm not knocking mustangs, my friend had a 91 LX, roll cage,
SCCA setup, etc.. It was a 5 speed, it flew, and handled like a slot
car (large slot car 1:1 scale). The car was impractical...he sold it,
bought another impractical car, and still is in that phase... He drove
my dakota last week... He wants one... (This from a guy that has the
following: '31 Model A Roadster w/427 (exactly like American Grafitti),
'76 Masarati Bora, 1955 TF1500 MGB (for sale), a '92 RX7 (in the shop
for body repairs! OOPS)... And a daily driver for now-> A '72 Pantera
w/Air Research Turbo!-Seriously fast) For him the Dakota is a vehicle
that has many purposes, plus a kick in the butt to drive (speed wise)...
If he wanted a slot car, he'd drive the one(s) he has...

        So, enough with this brand, that brand.... The idea is to
enjoy your truck, share experiences, and MORE HP..I mean MPG!

        ..Sam '95 SLT

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:37 EDT