I almost forgot !!
I was on the interstate the other day for the first trip longer than 15
miles in me R/T CC and what do ya know.......a damn governor at 115MPH !!!!!!!
The truck was not laboring at all and I had plenty of pedal left . Hell ,
it felt like I was doing about 55 , but that damn thing started cuttin'
back at 115 !
Couldn't believe they did that to this truck !
At 11:30 AM 6/16/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Pytho212@aol.com 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?
>
>I sold a Typhoon a few months back to buy my new DAK. Went for 6 weeks
>sharing a vehicle with the wife trying to hold out for arrival of the CC
>R/T on my local lot. Finally broke down and went with Plan B which is
>the '98 CC 5.2L SLT with pwr moonroof(Calif. mentality). I just couldn't
>hold out for the R/T any longer and now it looks like I missed it by
>only a week or two. Not much HP difference in what I got, but I try not
>to think about all tire-fryin' torque I'm missing.
>
>On the Typhoon I had installed an A.I.R. chip, Kenne Bell air filter,
>A.I.R. intercooler, aux cooler, electric fan, fuel pressure regulator
>and 3" exhaust. Even with the extra weight over the Syclone, that was
>one fast ride. But after 100K, 10 starters, a tranny R&R and the
>replacement getting noisy, it was time for it to go.
>
>Not having driven the R/T I can't directly compare, but the all-wheel
>drive was something. You could be doing 40 mph, roll into the throttle
>and be to 100 mph before you knew it. And it was smooooooth at 135
>mph<g>. One fun truck. I would think the R/T would have it's hands full
>keeping up, but GAUUUUD, that's an impressive torque number to start
>from on that 5.9L
>
>Bob
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:56 EDT