acasey@io.com wrote:
>
> A friend of mine bought a Ram with the 5.9 litre engine, he thought
> he was going to one up me since my dak only had a 5.2.
Hey, same here! Except I've only got the 'lil ol' V6 with nuthin' but a
K & N filter on it.
> Well he
> should have done his homework because the Stock 5.9 Ram gets beat
> badly by a stock 5.2 dak.
Shoot far, it get's beat badly by a 3.9 as he found out the hard way the
other night.
> > 2. IF I CANT GAT A DAK WITH 5.9, WOULD I BE BETTER TO GET A RAM WITH 5.9L OR
> > WOULD THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE LARGER TRUCK OFFSET TNE GREATER HP AND TORQUE OF
> > THE 5.9 L ENGINE. ... I
> > ALSO WONDER ABOUT TIRE/WHEEL SIZES. TOO LARGE DIA. TIRES ARE LIKE HAVING TOO
> > TALL DIF GEARS.
OK, OK, here's where the qualifiers come in. His is a 2500 4x4 CC with
big tires. Yes, he has a free-flow exhaust and a K & N and the short
gears and a couple other things for his engine, but all that weight and
the gearing disadvantage of the big tires just sucks it all away. My
'93 a 2WD Reg Cab Sport with no A/C or A/T - just about the lightest Dak
you can get (yes, even lighter than the 4 cyl I'm pretty sure) at almost
exactly 3000lb empty. I think it's one of the reasons the '97ups have a
hard time keeping up with the '92-'96s: that beefy new frame and a lot
of built-in features are also more weight to lug around.
- Paul
P.S. Oh, yeah - I had a passenger and was wearing snow tires too.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:06 EDT