--------------0D9F4390D7FF92E398621315
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mori 4 wrote:
> In a message dated 98-03-15 18:01:05 EST, DDT writes:
>
> << 0-60 - 6.9 seconds
> 1/4 mile - 15.4 @ 89 mph >>
>
> Yeah, that sounds a little more realistic than did Sport Truck
> magazines
> test. After all, the Dak R/T has a better power to weight ratio than
> the Furd
> Lightning did. I believe on a sea level track with decent traction the
> R/T
> will run in the 14's all day long. Shane B
I saw the show also. The truck looked and sounded awesome. Not quite as
awe inspiring as the Hennessey Venom 600 but downright nasty for a
truck. The performance numbers sound right in-line with what we all
expected. We can now disregard that Sport Truck issue. I'm pretty happy
that I've attained those performance figures with my little 318 and
12345-speed. Can't wait to see one on the open road 8).
Terry
--------------0D9F4390D7FF92E398621315
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Mori 4 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In a message dated 98-03-15 18:01:05 EST, DDT writes:
<< 0-60 - 6.9 seconds
1/4 mile - 15.4 @ 89 mph >>
Yeah, that sounds a little more realistic than did Sport Truck
magazines
test. After all, the Dak R/T has a better power to weight ratio
than the Furd
Lightning did. I believe on a sea level track with decent traction
the R/T
will run in the 14's all day long.
Shane B</BLOCKQUOTE>
I saw the show also. The truck looked and sounded awesome. Not quite as
awe inspiring as the Hennessey Venom 600 but downright nasty for a truck.
The performance numbers sound right in-line with what we all expected.
We can now disregard that Sport Truck issue. I'm pretty happy that I've
attained those performance figures with my <FONT SIZE=-2>little </FONT>318
and 12345-speed. Can't wait to see one on the open road 8).
Terry
</HTML>
--------------0D9F4390D7FF92E398621315--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:24 EDT