No doubt turbos are contenders in almost every aspect of vehicle use. I
think my tangent Is reliable HP at a budget, sort of like the 68-69 road
runner/coronets. I was a little young to buy a new road runner, so I
finally got my chance with the 98 R/T. I guess I could have bought a super
car/exotic like the Mitsubishi or a vtec honda or something but ITS NOT THE
SAME... Lets see... 3 liters @ 100 HP/liter = 1.5hp/cu in. not bad. I
sure hated replacing the clutch on my friends 3000GT. Charged him a lot.
Another friends 4wd turbo toyota (by Yamaha) seems to suffer regulary from
cooked plastic and massive intercooler leaks. Hes looking at a DAK to
replace it...Its got lots of HP too. I didnt mean to sound so
opinionated...UH Yes I did dammit, I like it bombproof, powerful and easy
to work on. Economy is for the daily driver. Im also not into 10K for
significant HP upgrades. For those bucks you can almost buy a crate Hemi
to put in your Omni or something... Try keeping up with that in your Cylon.
As an aside, My station wagon motored Jensen Interceptor keeps up with my
buddies 3000gt all the way to 130mph. My 440 is stock 1974 choked
technology. I was impressed he could keep up, he was pissed he lost.
At 08:51 PM 6/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 11:00 AM 6/16/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>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
> Nope, not by a long shot! :-)
> My '91 VR-4 was only 3.0L, and it pumped out 300HP. '92 and up got
>320HP on the same 3.0L. Hennessey sold a 7 stage upgrade ($10,000) for the
>VR-4's and R/T Turbos which included stuff like bigger injectors, more
>boost for the turbos, etc. At stage 7, those 3.0 liters were producing
>460HP with 16lbs of boost. 4.3L still has a lot of room to grow. :-)
> Course, that's a Mitsubishi motor which was purpose-built for
>this application. I don't know anything about the Chebby motor. Maybe
>its HP potential wasn't as great.
>> Anyone like turbocharged power bands? Not me...
> Yup!!! You're bound to get a little turbo lag in 1st; take 'er up
>to 6 or 7K RPM on each shift, and you're back to about 3,000 RPM at the
>beginning of the next shift... As the tach goes higher, the power
>just keeps on coming! Like riding a tidal wave. :-) Plus, you can
>drive around town and cruise on the highway under almost no boost at
>all if you want to, and get almost 30MPG. Turbos do have their advantages!
>>does chebby provide more HP for the cyclops?
>>Would you want to tow a trailer with a turboV6? Im not sure...
> I'm not sure either. However, lots of big haulers, dump trucks, etc.
>are TurboDiesel's, so turbos have obviously shown that they can be
>used to haul. Probably a very different setup though. Towing was
>definitely a no-no in my VR-4; said so right in the owner's manual.
>>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?
> True enough! :-) Maybe if Ma Mopar ever makes a contender for the
>seemingly defunct ponycar market, we'll see a stock 360 with horsepower
>figures a little closer to those of the crate motors.
> .--- email@example.com ------------------------------------.
> | Affiliations: DoD, EAA, MP Race Team, NMA, SPA, USUA. RP-SEL |
> | '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT CC (firstname.lastname@example.org), '96 Kolb FireFly 447 |
> `----------------------- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:57 EDT