Dakota vs. pssssssyclone, (pssss, the sound your intercooler and vacuum
hoses make when they leak, also the exhaust note while the hoses leak) a
pressurized 6 against a normally aspirated 8? lets see how they compare in
about 80K miles. Actually, I wonder how many more ponies you can get out of
that little bowtie? Im sure theres about 100 low hanging ponies on the 360
ready to "pick" from Dodges catalogues. 280HP for a 4.3L seems pretty
maxxed already. Anyone like turbocharged power bands? Not me...
does chebby provide more HP for the cyclops?
Would you want to tow a trailer with a turboV6? Im not sure...
Actually, I am disappointed in Dodge's HP rating for the 360. With their
360 cuin crate motors dynoing @ 300 and 380 HP it seems a few more ponies
were available than installed in the 2000 R/Ts for 98. Then again, If we
had a factory maxxed out motor in the truck what kind of fun would we have
"upgrading" the performance?
BKBridges
98CC R/T 250 now, 350 later...
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
>specs.
>
>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?
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:56 EDT