Re: Re: Re: stickin' up for R/T was: licence plate flames

From: mrdancer (mrdancer@camalott.com)
Date: Wed Feb 17 1999 - 23:17:05 EST


My '92 is rated at 230hp - I think the following year they dropped it to
220hp & boosted torque by about 10lb-ft. - think they changed the cam a
little.......

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris lang <langcj@clarkson.edu>
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 10:28 PM
Subject: DML: Re: Re: stickin' up for R/T was: licence plate flames

>Wasnt it 220 HP on the older magnums?
>
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mrdancer <mrdancer@camalott.com>
>To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
>Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 9:39 PM
>Subject: DML: Re: stickin' up for R/T was: licence plate flames
>
>
>>Well, given the tolerances of factory motors, I'd say that 230hp as
claimed
>>by Chrysler could vary + or - 10%.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Michael Z-Sykes <msykes@su.edu>
>>To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
>>Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 9:09 PM
>>Subject: DML: stickin' up for R/T was: licence plate flames
>>
>>
>>>>>C- Did I state my hp at 250? I wouldn't be suprised if it was pretty
>>>close
>>>to that, or over. Talk to you after I make it to the Dyno<<<
>>>
>>>lets take a look at this....
>>>stock motor 230 hp (as claimed by CC)
>>>add headers... 15 hp
>>>FABM... 5 hp..
>>>
>>>now get out your calculators boys and girls.. that equals 250! and that's
>>>not all of R/T's mods, so I would say he has OVER 250... gee Robert, I
>>>guess you were wrong =)
>>>
>>>-mike d.
>>
>>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:12:37 EDT