I gotta' side with Bruce on this one. I think the reason the 360 in the
R/T is rated low on HP is cuz' of the tree huggers. The R/T has to meet
certain Gas Mileage standards in order to be EPA approved, so they
probably choked off about 50 ponies just makin' it tree huggin' friendly.
That is the reason for the demise of the 454SS.... couldn't meet EPA
standards so they had to halt production. I would rather have something I
could make into a beast, than have no beast at all. Besides, in the long
run CID always wins. It's just a matter of time untill the 360 catched up
and drives off while the pppssssssssyclone revs itself into oblivion.
88, V6, LE, 3.55, SlushBox
email@example.com >or< firstname.lastname@example.org
"Call me Special, stick-man stencil, thin like a pencil!"
- 2 Skinnee J's
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:00:22 -0700 Bruce Bridges <email@example.com>
>Dakota vs. pssssssyclone, (pssss, the sound your intercooler and
>hoses make when they leak, also the exhaust note while the hoses leak)
>pressurized 6 against a normally aspirated 8? lets see how they
>about 80K miles. Actually, I wonder how many more ponies you can get
>that little bowtie? Im sure theres about 100 low hanging ponies on
>ready to "pick" from Dodges catalogues. 280HP for a 4.3L seems
>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
>360 cuin crate motors dynoing @ 300 and 380 HP it seems a few more
>were available than installed in the 2000 R/Ts for 98. Then again,
>had a factory maxxed out motor in the truck what kind of fun would we
>"upgrading" the performance?
>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
>>confidence in the Dakota vs. the Syclone. I you look at the Syclone
>>list they're always talking about races against slow R/Ts. Here are
>>GMC Syclone Specs: Power to weight- 12.5 lb/HP
>>- 4.3L V6 Turbo Charged 280HP
>>- 0-60MPH 5sec
>>Dodge Dakota R/T Regular Cab: Power to weight- 14 lb/HP
>>- 5.9L V8 250HP
>>- Rear wheel drive
>>- 0-60MPH 6.9sec
>>So guys it looks like the only thing the Dakota lacks is traction.
>>we do to improve this substantially? What is everyone's thoughts?
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:56 EDT