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