Re: Dakota R/T vs. GMC Syclone

From: W . Jack Hilton III (
Date: Tue Jun 16 1998 - 13:57:32 EDT

It may just be me , but how can you talk about comparing a rear-wheel drive
vehicle to an all-wheel drive vehicle in the same sentence and then try and
make it better by suggesting that we work on traction ?

Call me stupid (cuz I'm from the South) , but no matter how ya look at it ,
it's pretty damn hard to compare apples to oranges here .

Just my two stupid Southern cents .


At 12:51 PM 6/16/98 EDT, you wrote:
>I have posted a message similar to this before and several people had little
>confidence in the Dakota vs. the Syclone. I you look at the Syclone mailing
>list they're always talking about races against slow R/Ts. Here are the
>GMC Syclone Specs: Power to weight- 12.5 lb/HP
>- 4.3L V6 Turbo Charged 280HP
>- AWD
>- 3500lbs
>- 0-60MPH 5sec
>Dodge Dakota R/T Regular Cab: Power to weight- 14 lb/HP
>- 5.9L V8 250HP
>- Rear wheel drive
>- 3508lbs
>- 0-60MPH 6.9sec
>So guys it looks like the only thing the Dakota lacks is traction. What can
>we do to improve this substantially? What is everyone's thoughts?
W . Jack Hilton III

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:56 EDT