Re: Dakota R/T vs. GMC Syclone

From: Bruce Bridges (
Date: Wed Jun 17 1998 - 10:54:21 EDT

Well done! Well done! I could not agree more.
At 12:49 AM 6/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: <>
>To: <>
>Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 1:39 PM
>Subject: Re: DML: Dakota R/T vs. GMC Syclone
>>In a message dated 98-06-16 14:08:25 EDT, you write:
>><< It may just be me , but how can you talk about comparing a rear-wheel
>> vehicle to an all-wheel drive vehicle in the same sentence and then try
>> make it better by suggesting that we work on traction ? >>
>>Hmm good point, but it may just my northern upbringing that tells me that
>>you cant beat them with just two wheels and a few pony's, then get bigger
>>horses and a set of better reigns!! There has to be a way! My dad always
>>said if you cant beat them with what you got then get a bigger gun!! (he's
>>from the south!!)
>>p.s: Haven't you beaten a Talon AWD lately??
>If you take two vehicals with the same hp/# ratio gearing etc. One with AWD
>and one without it
>and one with. The AWD will produce the quickest 0-60 everytime. The RWD will
>the quickest 1/4 mile ets everytime. The increased traction at the takeoff
>is outweighed
>by the energy expended in turning the front drivetrain long after it is
>needed for hook up. In
>adittion there is a loss of hp in turning the hydralic transfer case.
>Reason why the 360 in the
>RT only produces 250hp. It's a newer vehical and emisions on trucks have
>since been tightened.
>They had to comprimise to meet C.A.F.E (corporate average fuel consumption)
>as the increase
>in the SUV market means they are making more non fuel efficient cars as
>compaired to the four
>banger FWD line.
>I have gone for a ride or two in a Typhoon (the clones suv sibling) and they
>are fast and responsive
>but not unbeatable. He got beat bad once by a classic choped, lowered,
>suicide doored shaved
>handles (insert Tim Allen grunt here), DODGE pickup complete with
>stepsides. Due to the bed cover he never saw the wheel tubs. Never saw the
>fat tires from inside his truck. But that wheelstand near the light followed
>by looking at nothing but the DODGE letters painted in flames on the
>tailgate was unmistakeable. I knew who it was and told the driver of the
>"phoon" I was in that it was a friend of mine and you have just been
>introduced to the 426 hemi. Responce..... "damn" about once every block for
>the next 5 miles. Oh yeah the Dodge's plate frame say's built not bought.
>You can build a RT to beat a GM Turbo Truck. You will actualy be required
>to know how to drive a real performance vehical unlike the pssyclone guys.
>It takes a little practice to know how hard to hit the gas or clutch but
>there is a reason that all the NHRA drivers all have RWD it IS faster once
>properly set up and driven. When you accelerate the weight of the vehical
>does the same thing as you do in the seat, It gets
>pushed back and more of it goes onto the rear tires. In order to hook up
>there are many things you can do.
>Maximizing weight transfer is a biggie and keeping the springs from twisting
>under load. Get a hold of some Hot Rod Magazine back issues. I have one
>around here somewhere. In it less than $1000 in suspension tricks made the
>difference between a camaro lighting em up for 60 ft or hooking up and
>lifting the front tires off the ground on 10" street leagal MT slots!
>Look for a lot of little gains in the motor to give you an almost painless
>50-100hp. Example if the 360 in the RT does not have a windage tray you
>could gain 20hp or so just by putting one in and keeping the crank from
>churning oil. a pan baffle and crank scraper will do a similar effect to a
>lesser degree 5-10hp each. Now the major mods. Put on headers, cat back,
>emisions legal cam chip etc. Eventualy you could end up with 400 hp and a
>hell of a lot more torque than the V6. But don't overlook wider better
>tires adjustable shocks and other suspension components. You don't just bolt
>them on but must tune them to get it to hook.
>A 360 is almost indestructable. I put over 180,000 miles on the one in my
>ramcharger. All it ever needed besides timing plugs and oil changes was
>valve cover gaskets and a carb rebuild at around 100,000. Not to mention
>that this was a 4wd that did everthing from tow to claw through hood deep
>mud and snow. This motor still runs fine today and so does the 3.9 (133,000)
>in my 87 dakota but the 360 will be rebuilt and the emissions controIs
>updated before it gets put in the dakota. The person helping me in building
>the motor has built one that puts out 350hp and still has all the low end
>torque needed for wheeling and it gets near stock milage (with light foot)
>and passes the sniffer to boot. .
>I for one don't care if they think that all dodges are slower. If they knew
>the potential for power and dependability they would'nt want to race.
>Built not bought should be the Mopar credo

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:57 EDT