Andre Mauboussin wrote:
>
> JT McBride wrote:
>
> > > OK, now a very quick venting. It PISSES ME OFF that CC would
> > first
> > >announce the truck in the various configurations to be available at a
> >
> > >given date, then they push the date back for what ever reason. Now
> > they
> >
>
> I understand your frustration, but let me ask you a question. Isn't the
> Dakota currently available with the 360 and 4x4 without the R/T
> package?? If so, I say piss on the R/T anyway, it'll cost a bunch more
> and all it has is a cat back exhaust and fancy, add on nonsense. You
> could easily make you're non-R/T handle as well and make the necessary
> engine mods to make an R/T see nothing but you distant tail lights.
> Think of the evil grin you'll have when you pounce on unsuspecting
> mustangs. Think of how you'll have a faster truck for less money. If the
> R/T were truly worthy of its name and heritage, I would buy one. It is
> nothing but flash and no ba**s to back it up with.
>
> Andre Mauboussin
> 95 Sport
> 14.70@93.5mph
Andre,
I have driven a 94 Dakota 5.9 liter bone stock. My 5.2L has run a best of 15.05 in
83 degree heat. If he (5.9l dakota) would have had better traction...he could have
easily kicked my 5.2L ass. There is no substitute for Cubic Inches! I would have seen
nothing but the 5.9"s tailights. Thats a fact.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:52 EDT